ericcoleman: (Default)
ericcoleman ([personal profile] ericcoleman) wrote2008-10-15 10:51 am
Entry tags:

I've been staying out of this

At least in my own journal. But some things need comment

This was on the Sacramento county GOP website.



There is an article here

The important quote is from chairman of the Sacramento County Republican party, Craig MacGlashan. “Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things.”
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 04:57 pm (UTC)(link)
The local GOP leader quoted in the article is an idiot. The fact that he's a local GOP leader is the only thing that makes it more troublesome than this.

Of course, I'm used to that sort of thing by now.
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, if you Google "abort Sarah Palin", you'll find a lot of references back to Malkin's article, but also people saying it favorably in their blogs. And the link on the bumper sticker does click through to a CafePress page that's selling it.

Not a hypothetical threat of violence, but here's an ABC News blog on the topic of some rather unsavory t-shirts.
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 06:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes. Did I not say that the only thing that makes it more troublesome is that a local GOP leader was involved? If I need to be more explicit, I think he was an idiot and it had no business on an official GOP website, as well as having no business anywhere.

Nor does the crap targeting Republicans, which -- as nearly as I can tell -- no one really gives a damn about.
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 07:39 pm (UTC)(link)
You need different news sources.

If you read down in the article, apparently McCain did say that Obama isn't an Arab. It seems someone did try to spin what McCain said.

As far as cutting off booing of McCain at a rally, I bet I can find plenty of older clips of Obama egging folks on to boo McCain. But I need to get back to work now.
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 08:26 pm (UTC)(link)
You don't see the Democrats attacking McCain in the same way that Obama is attacked by Republicans, because the mirror image attacks would lack all credibility if applied to McCain. Instead, the Democrats -- including Obama -- go after the McCain is dangerously old theme without using the words "old" or "senile".

That's why you get Obama saying things like McCain is "losing his bearings" or the campaign ad that pointed out that McCain doesn't know how to use e-mail. Of course, in that case, it's because his injuries from his Vietnam captivity make it painful to type for any period of time, so his staff and family handle e-mail for him.

Here's Harry Reid saying McCain is "dangerous". Or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland saying McCain is "not as stable mentally" as GWB. (Strickland said he didn't mean what he actually said.)

See, the Democrats don't have to stir up hate. They can go with pity for this poor old senile Senator...
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 09:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Let me try:

Obama - radical
McCain - racist

Which one has a basis in truth?

(no subject)

[personal profile] billroper - 2008-10-15 21:21 (UTC) - Expand
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 08:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, here we go. This refers back to Obama's they're going to try to scare you rhetoric.

I'm of the opinion that accusing someone of being racist nowadays is right there with accusing them of being a terrorist, certainly in terms of trying to get a segment of the population to hate them. No, Obama didn't say it directly. Yes, he did send that message in the eyes of a mainstream reporter.
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 09:15 pm (UTC)(link)
There may be people trying to make you afraid of Obama's Muslim name and black skin, but -- as nearly as I can tell -- it isn't the McCain campaign or the Republican party. They are trying to make people understand that what Obama is saying doesn't have a lot of congruence with his substantially more liberal voting record and history which I do believe is fair game.

When WGN Radio's Milt Rosenberg had people on the air who were critical of Obama, Obama's campaign organization twice sent out e-mails to supporters to have the station call-bombed to try to shut down the discussion. And the talking points they were armed with had very little to do with Obama and a lot to do with trying to kill the messenger -- in the normal metaphorical way, not involving actual bullets.

That, too, is the cold, hard truth. If you can't rebut them, shout them down.
Edited 2008-10-15 21:23 (UTC)

(no subject)

[personal profile] billroper - 2008-10-15 21:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] billroper - 2008-10-15 22:16 (UTC) - Expand
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2008-10-15 09:18 pm (UTC)(link)
By the way, understand that I want the people who are trying to make you afraid of Obama's Muslim name and black skin to go the hell away for two reasons:

  • It's wrong.
  • Putting out false information allows people to disregard true information as "more lies".

    Morally wrong and politically wrong at the same time. The Daily Double. *sigh*
  • billroper: (Default)

    [personal profile] billroper 2008-10-17 07:26 pm (UTC)(link)
    Found it. (By accident, as it happens.)

    Here's Obama referring specifically to Bush and McCain:

    Obama began his day Wednesday in Springfield, Mo., charging: "Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky."

    No, Bush and McCain haven't. And there's no other "they" lurking in the sentence to be referenced.

    Here's the original article.

    (no subject)

    [personal profile] billroper - 2008-10-17 20:01 (UTC) - Expand

    (no subject)

    [personal profile] billroper - 2008-10-17 20:35 (UTC) - Expand
    billroper: (Default)

    [personal profile] billroper 2008-10-16 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
    By the way, here's an article that says the Secret Service can't find anyone who heard someone yell "Kill him" at that Palin rally except the reporter who reported it and has concluded that the report was unfounded.

    The reporter stands by his story.

    Perhaps he misheard, because "Kill him" was what he wanted to report. Or maybe he just honestly misheard. Or maybe he made the whole thing up. Or maybe everyone else that the Secret Service talked to is lying or wrong.

    But this is the face of the media that you trust.
    billroper: (Default)

    [personal profile] billroper 2008-10-16 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
    First, note that your first line is subsumed in my last possibility listed. I covered it.

    Now, look at the post that I'm responding to, Eric.

    You've taken an unsubstantiated report by one reporter at one rally and used it to represent the "face of [my] party". You've said that no one called the person who said "Kill him" out on it when it happened.

    It would have been difficult for the person speaking at the rally at the time to do so for one simple reason.

    No one else heard it.

    And the quotes from Slavoski that you pulled simply illustrate a well-known truth -- it's very difficult to prove a negative in a case like this.

    You -- with some justification -- wouldn't accept a Michelle Malkin post about "Abort Sarah Palin". But this was a big deal, based on one apparently inaccurate report that got echoed everywhere.

    As I said in a post on my own LJ, I no longer trust any media source at face value, because they are all biased in one way or another.

    I encourage you to use a healthy skepticism before trusting them yourself.
    Edited 2008-10-16 16:41 (UTC)
    billroper: (Default)

    Re: My other examples, which you seem to have missed.

    [personal profile] billroper 2008-10-16 05:48 pm (UTC)(link)
    Since I wasn't at the meeting and couldn't hear the tone of voice or observe his general demeanor, I can't tell you whether he was joking or not. If he was, it was a bad joke. If he wasn't, he was being an idiot.

    I understand that "Kill him" was reported in multiple places, but -- much like the original Michelle Malkin "Abort Sarah Palin" image on the sidewalks -- all of the reporting converged back to a single source. This is what I mean about being careful about your sources. I appreciate that you have tried to be plain about stating the slant of sources.

    I also understand that various Republican Party officials have done things that were wrong. They should not have done that.

    Nor, in my opinion, should Obama have suggested -- in advance of evidence -- that "they" (which to me would imply "The Republicans"; you may differ on this) are going to embark on racist attacks. But apparently, Bill Clinton was also a racist, if you remember back to the primaries. So was Geraldine Ferraro.

    Nor should Democratic Congressman John Lewis have managed to link the McCain campaign with George Wallace.

    There is plenty of dirt being spread by both sides in this campaign, which is a sad thing. The dirt being spread by the Democrats is "my opponents are racist".

    That is not substantively different in America than saying "my opponent is a terrorist".

    Given, of course, that there are minorities in America that approve of both racists and terrorists...
    billroper: (Default)

    [personal profile] billroper 2008-10-16 06:00 pm (UTC)(link)
    By the way, would it be possible for us both to agree that there are folks on both sides who are gleefully fomenting hate and that it would be preferable if they would all shut the hell up?

    Then we might end this interminable thread. :)

    (Yes, I know that I reopened it today, but I found the rebuttal on the "Kill him" thing which I needed to pass along, because I had a problem with that going on, had it been true. Or provable. Or something like that...)