I've been staying out of this

[ericcoleman]

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.”

Comments

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

Odd, I can't find a reference to that anywhere but Malkin's website. Can you verify it elsewhere?

I wouldn't present something to you with only, say, crooksandliars.com as the reference, since their bias is obvious.

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

That's vile, awful. But none of those are on an official Democratic Party website.

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

I do, I think it's vile.

The difference is, one is asshole individuals (or in the case you linked to, an asshole quartet), and there are bunches of them on either side. This could, with admittedly a quite a bit of stretching, be called the official party line of the Republican Party in Sacramento county. There is a BIG difference between the loonies on either side, and an official website.

I have yet to see any threat, hypothetical or not, from the left. This is could be construed as an actual threat against a sitting US Senator. Yesterday the cry of "kill him" came up again in a republican rally. I agreed with you yesterday, last week there is a serious question as to who that person was talking about. I thought they were talking about Ayers. Yesterday, there was no doubt. It was for Obama.

This is the face of your party Bill. I know that it doesn't represent you, or the majority of the party but they are the folks running the show.

The responses in the last week show the difference. When the lady said that Obama was an Arab, McCain didn't say "no he isn't an Arab", he said "he's a decent family man". Someone could try to spin what McCain said, but we both have done theater, we know about subtext. When the mention of McCain got boos at an Obama rally, Obama cut them off cold. "We don't need that" he said, "we just need to get out and vote". So what is the message going out from either side? The point is, it is the way that the Republican Party is carrying on it's campaign. Someone yells "kill him" about whoever at a rally, and I don't hear anyone on the right coming out and saying "we don't need that". Someone calls Obama a terrorist and I don't hear anyone on the right coming out and saying "we don't need that". That silence is a very important thing.

And I will bet you dinner that in a week, a month, a year, Craig MacGlashan still has that job.

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

I stand corrected. But it doesn't change the fact that the Republican Party is fomenting the hate. Jeffrey Frederick, GOP state chair in Virginia told his people to make the connection between Bin Laden and Obama this weekend. He now says it was a joke, but do you really think he was joking? There is the bumper sticker in CA. Give me ONE thing like that on any official democratic site or from any Democratic Party official. Anything. They've got to be out there, right?

And ya know, you give good argument. We need to get a chance to hang out and do this in person again sometime.

[billroper]

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...

[ericcoleman]

Read the Reid article again. There is no insinuation about his age at all. He says that he is dangerous because he is just like Bush. There is an insinuation there though, but it's not about McCain's age, it's about his temper. This is, after all, the man who called his wife a trollop and that word that you were so offended at when it was directed at Palin, in front of a fair amount of people. Whatever you may say in private is between you and your spouse, but when you say it in front of three reporters .. yeah that just darn presidential.

As for the "losing bearings" thing. I could see arguments either way. His campaign is all over the place though. And he did refer to a crowd just this last week as "my fellow prisoners".

So, which one has a basis in truth?

Obama- Arab, terrorist, Muslim?
McCain - Bad temper, running a disorganized campaign, old?

[billroper]

Let me try:

Obama - radical
McCain - racist

Which one has a basis in truth?

[ericcoleman]

Neither. You still haven't answered mine.

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

I saw that interview. So a couple of questions. Have they done what he said they would do? Was he right?

Let me answer. Yes they have, yes he was.

How is it a bad thing? I think he stated it plainly. They are going to try to make you afraid of his Muslim name, and his black skin. Was it the truth? The Republican Party has done both, over and over. How is it a bad thing that he called them out on it? It had already started when he gave that interview. This is the real Straight Talk Express. We're so used to politicians spewing carefully written talking points that when one of the actually tells us the cold hard truth, we don't know what to do. He told the cold, hard truth.

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

Then you aren't paying attention. How about the guy who was warming up the audience for Palin as week or so ago ... who kept talking about Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Keep pushing that middle name since it is the same as that guy who we had executed not too long ago. How about the ballots sent out with the name Barack Osama. That was just a coincidence, wasn't it? I'm sure that no one in the Republican Party had anything to do with either of those (I mean, really, the Republican candidate for VP wouldn't have someone from her own party give a speech before her). Or once again, Jeffrey Frederick, state chair for the GOP in Virginia. No, the RP has nothing to do with any of this.

As for the radio thing, yeah that's a bad thing. And I'm sure that no one in the RP has ever done that ... ever. Yeah, it's business as usual. It's a bad thing, but everyone does it. I can't find the article now, my damn swiss cheese memory, but in 2004 there was a concerted effort to call bomb a democratic call center who were trying to get people out to vote.

[billroper]

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]

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.

[ericcoleman]

That is splitting hairs and you know it.

It's like the mob boss who doesn't carry a gun, so he can't be arrested on weapons charges, so he has the guy sitting next to him carry the gun.

I know that Tucker Bounds has said that McCain doesn't speak for the campaign, but do you really think that the campaign and the RNC doesn't speak for Bush and McCain? That the guy warming up the crowd for Palin who made sure that the crowd knew that Obama's middle name was Hussein wasn't speaking for them? Sure ... you betcha.

[billroper]

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.

[ericcoleman]

Or maybe he did hear it.

These quotes are telling I think

"Agent Slavoski would not say the remark was not made, only that agents could not corroborate Mr. Singleton’s statement. “We could not find one person to say they heard the same thing,” he said.

Times-Tribune Managing Editor Lawrence K. Beaupre said the newspaper stands by its story. He said Mr. Singleton, who has been a wire service and newspaper reporter for 30 years, was uniquely placed. “He heard what he heard. He reported what he heard.” "

I'm looking into this guys writing, although I can't seem to find anything with a byline (which is telling unto itself). If it turns out that he writes from a fairly leftist viewpoint, I will certainly agree with you, that this is probably BS ... but

this is the face of the media that you trust.

If that is really the way that you want to reset the tone of this conversation, ok ...

[billroper]

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.

My other examples, which you seem to have missed.

[ericcoleman]

But it doesn't change the fact that the Republican Party is fomenting the hate. Jeffrey Frederick, GOP state chair in Virginia told his people to make the connection between Bin Laden and Obama this weekend. He now says it was a joke, but do you really think he was joking? There is the bumper sticker in CA.

"Kill him" was reported in multiple places. I've been very careful what I cite. You, it would certainly seem, have shown that it is wrong. Just as certainly, yesterday it was a valid point. I'm glad that it's wrong, but, there are multiple examples of officials of the Republican Party doing exactly what you said that the Republican Party has not done. Not just some nutcase in an audience, but RP officials. That was not my only example, it was my first one. Are the others invalid because one was?

I have been pretty plain stating the slant of sources.

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

[billroper]

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]

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...)