Krauthammer: in my fantasy world, politcians are respectable
Is Charles Krauthammer really so naive as to believe that:
It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama
sporting associations with three more execrable characters [than Rezko, Ayers, and Wright].
WTF, mate?
Does this man really have no memory, or is he just a partisan hack? This statement is so blatantly wrong that it doesn't require a thorough retort. I think of this as more of a game for us (especially the libertarians out there): How many slimy associates can you think of for previous Presidential candidates (and presidents)?
To provide some structure we have:
- An old fashioned bribe-maker (Rezko)
- A divisive, rabble-rousing preacher (Wright)
- An extremist from the 60's (Ayers)
Of course, appalling associates can take many other forms, which may be described below. I'm going to stay away from all of the unsavory alliances that Presidents make as part of their official duties (Edit: I think this distinction is only applicable for foreign alliances, not members of their administration and other domestic allies).
Anyway, here's what I can think of off the top of my head:
- Clintons: Their Whitewater business partners were just as influential as Rezko, and much closer to the politician in question.
- Regan,Bush,Bush: Robertson and the rest of the religious right was a close allies with these guys, and are just as bad as divisive as Wright (to those who bring up the race issue, black resentment is not nearly as damaging as white domination).
- The entire Republican establishment: As racists flocked to this party in the 60, they used their influence to bring up a new generation of party leaders. This is much more pervasive and intimate than the Ayers-Obama connection.
- Kennedy: Supposedly had associations with gangsters. At the least, his family's influence originated in bootlegging.
Any more?
- adam ricketson's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
McCain's associates
I almost forgot about McCain:
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
McCain and Liddy
Oh yeah, McCain praises and supports G. Gordon Liddy
:
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Don't forget...
Our good friend Oliver North, who is rather close
with our friend McCain.
He engaged in something just this side of treason and McCain enjoys his support.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The correct ends justify the means
This endorsement and endorsement of the endorsement reminds me of one of my history classes, where in a certain Republic, the correct right wing actual coup attempts were met with a short jail stint, while "left wing coups" [ie marches] were violently opposed.
If the the wrongdoing has the correct attempts, but the means are messed up, then people more easily forgive.
see Billy Ayers
Then again, Bill's group killed a lot less people than what Oliver North did, a lot less. Its like comparing Stalin to the Unabomber.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The rhetoric is getting
way way way over the top.
McCain himself has started to get his crowds to back off, from the insidious smear e-mails that Obama is so so bad, that he represents everything evil under the sun in Amerika.
What is really creeping me out is realizing that the separatist movement in Alaska that Sarah and Todd have been involved in, has a hard right wing paramilitary flavor to it. Which is sort of Lou Dobbsish, Ron Paulish, John Birchish. These folks hate taxes, government and liberals. And they loves them some firearms. It puts the photos of Mrs. Palin proudly holding a gun in a whole different light.
This Ayers association is so marginal and inconsequential yet Sarah breathed new life into the smear which has taken on a life it's own. With a lot of help from Fox & Friends, and of course el-Rushbo.
I'm only half stupid
Krauthammer
The latter.
The national IQ drops during this season...
election season.
People will say and think anything for the shallow agenda of supporting one candidate over another.
We should never be surprised to see it happen. However, we should be careful to not do it ourselves...lest we be what we find pathetic.
I don't think
a global market meltdown is doing anything to help.
People are just generally on edge and ready to lash out.
I'm only half stupid
hehehe
I don't really care. I expect adults to behave as such.
Besides, crisis or not, people behaving like morons for partisan advocacy is nothing new.
You mean
like those crazy free market partisans =)
I'm only half stupid
partisan?
what party?
It's not a party
that you are partisan to, it's a process.
You seem to be especially inclined to support the "I told you so' theory of the Austrians. =)
Full discloser: I am part Austrian.
I'm only half stupid
then it's not partisanship
And as much as you'd like to draw some similarity, there just isn't one where the rubber meets the road. I would never and will never engage in the kind of crap that Adam is illustrating in this diary to advance a candidate.
The comment
was made in jest. Though I know it's hard to see that in the type. If you could have just heard me speak it you would have been able to infer the humorous tone.
Demonizing candidates as unpatriotic or as agents of death is dispicable, I agree. Yet that is a part of how we got where we are today.
The other part is mantra of the Club for Growth, that claims that the government is bad, and you should never be asked to pay taxes to support it, because all aspect of government are corrupt, the people, the instsitutions, everything. Yet these same folks cling the mantle of patriotism. The irony.
As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action. (you liberate a city by destroying it.) Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests - Gore Vidal
I'm only half stupid
I agree with your overall
I agree with your overall point, but let's be honest. There's a difference between just being "an extremist from the 60's" and participating in the bombing of government buildings. You could have made your point well -- and, IMHO, better -- if you hadn't distorted that part of the picture. By describing Ayers as just "an extremist from the 60's" you (ironically) make yourself look like a partisan hack.
Just a simple question....
Was there a word other than extremist that you would prefer?
Should we apply your preferred adjectives to all who attempt violence against churches, schools and other civic institutions?
I'm only half stupid
How about "60's radical who
How about "60's radical (or extremist) who bombed government buildings and monument(s)" ? Is that too difficult?
And yes, the part about bombing should apply to descriptions of other bombers.
Any other questions with obvious answers today?
Of course
I will pose them to your superior elitist intellect.
Other bombers, the church bombers, the Okalahoma City Bomber etc, were all convicted and sent to prison. Or should we call them terrorists. The Christian terrorist that shot and murdered the innocent students at Columbine HIgh School.
That Ayers is a teacher and sits on a conservative board to promote education tells me that he isn't as radical or extreme as you would like to suggest. Do you even know what the Annenberg Foundation is, or who started. IT is quite conservative leaning, and Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with chosing who sat on the board.
This assertion that the Annenberg Foundation would allow a terrorist to sit on it's board is a slanderous to the foundation itself.
Besides half the people in this country think the Weatherman is a band. The use of the word terrorist is what is troubling. Since I don't see it used to describe other situations, the implication is that Obama is the secret leader of al_Queda.
I'm only half stupid
I usually don't waste time
I usually don't waste time responding to your comments, and on the occasions when I make an exception, I'm usually reminded of why I shouldn't bother. Here we once again have such a case.
All I said was that describing him as a "60's extremist who bombed government buildings" is more appropriate than just describing him as a "60's extremist".
If you are saying he did not bomb government buildings, go ahead and say so explicitly, and please provide a link or two to what you consider a more accurate record.
Otherwise, I'm done with this nonsense. I felt obligated to answer your earlier question in response to my comment, but you're gonna have to waste someone else's time now.
Sorry you had
to bother with such pesky trivialities.
Please don't feel obligated to bless me with a response if you feel that it is somehow beneath and or insults your sense of dignity.
:-)
Have a lovely day!
I'm only half stupid
I don't see the big difference
"Extremist" is generally taken to include some degree of militancy, so I don't see why you consider it meaningful that I used a summary term, rather than spelling out everything that he did.
What it shows (if anything) is that I consider that stuff to be behind us. Our society moved past that era-- Ayers was rehabilitated and accepted into the local power structure where Obama grew up. The fact that Obama dealt with him says nothing more about Obama than the fact that a number of Southern politicians have dealt with members of the previous generation who supported legal segregation (to the point of assaulting those who violated it).
I think it is enough to call someone "extremist", just as it is enough to call someone "racist" without going into the details of lynchings, beatings, unfair convictions, and everything else associated with it.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Excuse me??? Are you saying
Excuse me???
Are you saying that if one is a "racist", that implies that he lynches innocent African-Americans or engages in similar criminal violence? Or that there is no moral difference between a non-violent, law-abiding racist and a guy who ties up a black man to his truck and drags him to death?
Similarly, are you saying that calling someone an "extremist" implies that he necessarily (or even probably) bombs government buildings and monuments??
Are you frickin' serious, or are you just coming up with defensive baloney rather than just admitting a mistake? Seriously, man. We all make mistakes. Better to admit it (heck, you could even go all out and thank me for the correction/improvement of your characterization of Ayers) rather than digging yourself into a deeper hole of absurdity.
that's your point, not mine
We all make mistakes. Better to admit it (heck, you could even go all
out and thank me for the correction/improvement of your
characterization of Ayers) rather than digging yourself into a deeper
hole of absurdity.
I didn't make a mistake. I said what I meant to say. The fact that you think more detail is deserved is your concern. You were totally free to add details and argue that they were relevant to my argument without suggesting that I was trying to distort or hide something about Ayers.
FWIW, I don't think that these details are relevant to my argument because there are people on the right who were just as bad as Ayers (though they defined their unjust violence as "lawful") but were allowed to continue as respectable members of their communities and even associate with political leaders.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
"criminal violence"
Some more details on the previous point. I see two issues:
First, the decade matters. There are different connotations to 60's racist and 90's racist, as there are different connotations to 60's extremists and 90's extremists . The 60's were a messed up time, with a lot of violence. I was trying to draw a parallel between the Weathermen and the racists who they were living among and fighting against.
"Are you saying that if one is a 'racist', that implies that he lynches
innocent African-Americans or engages in similar criminal violence?"
No, I didn't say that all extremists/racists engaged in criminal violence.
On this point, I don't really care about "criminal" violence as much as "unjustified" violence: a tyrant (whether an individual or a group) gets no leniency from the fact that it defined its own violence as "lawful".
Given that, there were plenty of regular law-abiding racists in the south who voted for white supremacy, paid taxes to support white supremacy, and validated violence (by cops and courts) in the name of maintaining white supremacy. I consider all of those people to be as misguided and arrogant as Ayers was when he conspired to kill government officials and destroyed a public monument.
Edit: In case someone wants to quibble over what I mean by "violence", I consider imprisonment to be a violent act.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Just when it looks like a long shot...
Yet for all the gloom, there are several reasons why this race is by no means over.
Read the rest here
...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
its not over until its over
I can't wait for that to happen.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The McCain spat with Rep.
The McCain spat with Rep. John Lewis makes me think of a tactic the McCain campaign could use. I'm not saying if such a tactic would be appropriate or not, good or bad, right or wrong, just that I think it would be a clever tactic, winning more votes than it loses, both in terms of turnout of the base and in terms of winning white swing voters.
McCain could take what he has said already a step further, making the statement even stronger, more explicit, and more likely to hit hot buttons.
As background, here's Lewis' charge, per ABC News
Per ABC News, McCain reacted already as follows:
McCain could go further, hitting that hot-button many people have of resenting what they see (with some validity, IMHO) as the intimidation of the McCarthyist political correctness crowd. He could add the following to the message he has already delivered:
False charges
It could be a vote-getting strategy, I dunno, but it doesn't logically follow from what Lewis said. Lewis did not charge McCain/Palin, or even their supporters, with racism. He charged them with "sowing the seeds of hatred and division." So such a response by McCain would in fact be a false charge of a false charge of racism!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think it is at least
I think it is at least plausible that Lewis was implying racism or at least the attempted exploitation of racism on the part of the McCain campaign. Certainly plausible enough to the target audiences for McCain to use for the tactic I described.
Well sure
But it's also at least plausible that the McCain campaign is attempting to exploit racism. I actually do agree with you that it could be an overall positive vote-getting strategy, in part, in fact, because it does to some extent exploit racism. I don't think it would be a particularly helpful argument to get into, for either campaign, although obviously the McCain campaign has less to lose at this point.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think there may have been
I think there may have been some attempts to exploit racism on the part of the McCain campaign, although it's debatable. Some McCain supporters, including folks involved with campaign events who, speaking to a crowd, refer to "Barack Hussein Obama", are indeed exploiting bigotry.
I think it is fairly clear that the Obama campaign and some of its supporters have cried "wolf" on alleged racism, like the last time Obama said McCain and the Republicans were going to try to scare voters because Obama "doesn't look like the other presidents on the dollar bills", when it was, to say the least, far from sufficiently clear that the McCain campaign was engaging in such tactics to justify Obama making that charge.
Agreed
And the McCain campaign and supporters have been at least as guilty of crying wolf on alleged sexism. I just don't think it does anyone any good to promote that kind of argument, where it is likely that there can be no winners, and it all becomes a petty tit for tat, diminishing both candidates.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Agreed on both counts. The
Agreed on both counts. The McCain campaign has indeed played the sexism card (e.g., the whole ridiculous "lipstick on a pig" faux outrage), and that kind of tactic from either or both sides is a very unfortunate distraction from more substantive and important matters.
McCain ran an ad
prior to Obama making that statement that superposed Obama's face on a $100 bill, as well as on Mount Rushmore.
I think it's safe to say he wasn't suggesting it was a natural fit, no?
Obama's campaign was "crying wolf" on that issue to the exact same degree that the McCain campaign was exploiting racism. If the McCain ad wasn't racist (and that's a perfectly reasonably conclusion to draw) then Obama accurately characterizing it can hardly have been playing the race card.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
.
McCain ran an ad prior to Obama making that statement that superposed Obama's face on a $100 bill, as well as on Mount Rushmore.
I think it's safe to say he wasn't suggesting it was a natural fit, no?
First, one of the problems in discussion of this type of issue is the use of vague language. So let's be clear and explicit. Let's put aside phrases like "wasn't suggesting a natural fit" and say what we're really saying. Assuming what you are saying is indeed relevant to what we're discussing, I assume you are saying that it's "safe to say" that McCain was suggesting that a black man shouldn't be president. And my response is "No, it's not by any means 'safe to say' that" just because a McCain ad showed Obama's picture on a dollar bill (I haven't seen or don't recall the actual ad), just as it was not anywhere near safe to say that McCain was sending some racist message -- via "dog whistle" or otherwise -- via his "Celebrity" ad by showing two blonde white sex symbols, which is what Obama was responding to when he once again trotted out that "dollar bill" line, leading to the push back and controversy over charges of playing the race card vs. charges of playing the racism card.
If the McCain ad wasn't racist (and that's a perfectly reasonably conclusion to draw) then Obama accurately characterizing it can hardly have been playing the race card.
Well, accurately characterizing wouldn't be playing the racism card, but that's almost tautologous. If a McCain ad is NOT racist but the charge IS made that it IS racist (i.e., mischaracterizing the ad), then the latter is indeed playing the racism card.
I meant precisely what I said
I believe the evidence supports a claim that McCain's ad suggests Obama is not a natural fit for president. The ad mocks Obama as presumptuous and superposes his face over famous presidents in a facetious manner. That is not the same thing as "McCain was suggesting that a black man shouldn't be president." Such an interpretation requires a figurative reading of the ad; this is not to say that it is definitely incorrect, but it is clearly not necessary.
In fact Obama's appearance could be used to support at least two (maybe three) plausible attacks: he is "different" in that he is black (with a foreign background), and he is "inexperienced" which matches his youthful appearance. The McCain campaign has combined these themes into a "who is Obama?" message that simply would not be effective against a different type of African-American presidential candidate (say Powell, for example). Obama the day before the release of the "celebrity" ad that you suggest provoked his response had put it
this way: "It's a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama." He explained 
his "dollar bill" comment similarly: "what I said was what I think everybody knows, which is that I don't look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates."
If a McCain ad is NOT racist but the charge IS made that it IS racist
Yes, If, but neither of the following conditionals are established, at least not to the degree that your earlier comment suggested. Obama did NOT say the McCain campaign was airing "racist" ads [the quotes used to designate literal use of that term] or acting in a "racist" fashion. What he said
was almost identical to his remarks the previous day: "You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name." To interpret this as having "cried "wolf" on alleged racism" requires a figurative (and narrow, ie ignoring the age and foreign background aspect) reading of his remarks. It might not be incorrect, but it is clearly not necessary. You seem to be interpreting the McCain ad literally while reading into what the Obama remark implies or suggests or whatever. I believe that holding both to the same standard ought to result in reaching a similar conclusion for both: Obama was objecting to the use of race to the same degree that the McCain campaign had already injected race. (You can of course legitimately criticize Obama for using the term "scare" when the McCain campaign to that point had used humor as its primary delivery vehicle for attacks.)
Finally, I note that your first post was apparently written without knowledge of the McCain ad (Seal
) we are discussing. Since you paraphrased Obama's comment highlighting this aspect in particular ("doesn't look like the other presidents on the dollar bills") but didn't know or recall that there had already been a McCain ad showing Obama's face morphed onto the $100 bill, it sounds like you lacked some context to evaluate Obama's statement with respect to the state of the race when he made it. Certainly you can now consider whether the ad changes your mind about his remark (we all have a tendency to hold on to previous positions even when presented with new information, but I'm sure you're aware of that bias and could correct for it) but maybe the takeaway here is that this particular example of "[crying] wolf on alleged racism" is not all that straight forward upon close inspection, and so your case might be stronger if you chose a different example.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan, with respect, I have
Brendan, with respect, I have to say that you are just way off on this one. Maybe you missed the news back then, but the Obama campaign eventually admitted that Obama's line that McCain and the Republicans were trying to scare people on the basis that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=5495348&page=1
It was fairly obvious (to an objective observer, such as me) even prior to that admission that the "dollar bill" line was a reference to race, and therefore an allegation of racism or at least the attempted exploitation thereof.
So, stripped of all of Obama's tricky euphemism and deliberate, manipulative vagueness, Obama was accusing the McCain campaign of trying to exploit racism, or at the very least trying to get people to think that that's what McCain was doing. Can we agree on that now?
Hopefully we can.
As for your "not a natural fit" message that you said was "safe" to attribute to McCain (as an implication re: Obama), if you did not mean to say that "not a natural fit" is a reference to race, I don't know why you said it in the context of a discussion of whether or not McCain was referring to race. It seems to be a bit of a disconnect if that's not what you meant.
Lastly, you seem to be throwing your normally high level of common sense out the window when you say:
You seem to be interpreting the McCain ad literally while reading into what the Obama remark implies or suggests or whatever. I believe that holding both to the same standard ought to result in reaching a similar conclusion for both: Obama was objecting to the use of race to the same degree that the McCain campaign had already injected race.
You seem, strangely, to be suggesting that if one person makes a statement that is obviously implying something (or at least if it appears highly likely), and another person makes a statement that is far from clearly implying something, then, because neither was explicit, we should assume equal probability of the implication by each. McCain runs an ad showing Obama's face on a dollar bill and another ad that included two blonde white sex symbols, and Obama says McCain is trying to scare people based on Obama not "looking like" our past presidents. McCain's ads didn't explicitly say "Be scared of Obama because he's black", and Obama didn't explicitly say "McCain is trying to scare you because I'm black", so, per your apparent approach, we must assume equal likelihood that each was referring to race, simply by virtue of the absence of an explicit statement and the need for some degree of interpretation (however little is required in the case of Obama's statement). Come on, man. You know that ain't right.
In any case, turns out no interpretation of Obama's statement is necessary, because, as noted above, his campaign eventually admitted the "dollar bill" statement was referring to Obama being black. Given that fact, and just putting two and two together, we have Obama saying that McCain was trying to "scare" people on the basis that Obama is black. Right?
Oh, and regarding that ad, which I probably saw back then, although I can't rule out the possibility of an attempt to exploit racism, it is certainly far from clear, and it's quite possible (and I'd say more likely) that the message was that Obama is presumptuous -- as manifested by that presidential seal-like icon Obama put on his lectern -- and perhaps that such presumptuousness is particularly galling given Obama's youth and relative lack of track record. It may also have been implying that his supporters are caught up in irrational hero worship.
Come now
It was fairly obvious (to an objective observer, such as me) even prior to that admission that the "dollar bill" line was a reference to race
You quote a headline to support your argument? Surely you read your own link: "When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told "GMA" it meant, "He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American."
This is completely consistent with everything I said.
Here's what else
ABC news said: "Obama Camp Admits Playing Race Card." Is that an accurate summation of what was said? Obviously not! Were you aware of that other headline when you quoted the ABC News story to me? Maybe I missed the news back then?! You didn't even realize (or recall) that McCain ran an ad with the dollar bill morphing...
if you did not mean to say that "not a natural fit" is a reference to race, I don't know why you said it in the context of a discussion of whether or not McCain was referring to race.
What a puzzling statement. You brought up Obama's statement and interpreted it as an instance in which he "cried wolf" regarding (alleged) racism. I provided information suggesting that the issue was not exclusively about race, and that to the degree that Obama's remark was about race it was a response (ie, not "crying wolf") to an actual action by McCain, namely an ad that you stated you didn't watch or recall seeing.
You seem, strangely, to be suggesting that if one person makes a statement that is obviously implying something (or at least if it appears highly likely), and another person makes a statement that is far from clearly implying something, then, because neither was explicit, we should assume equal probability of the implication by each.
You seem, strangely, to presume that your subjective (and apparently uninformed) assessment of the merits of each side as to what occurred is both objective and accurate. I don't insist upon any particular interpretation of either the McCain ad or Obama's statement, IMHO they can both be reasonably interpreted in different ways, and I believe the evidence I presented calls into question any outright claim that one is obvious and the other not. All I insist upon is consistency, something I know is extremely important to you.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I find myself getting a bit frustrated
at my apparent inability to connect with you on this issue, and unfortunately I think that's coming out in my comment.
Since I'm not sure what else I can say and I'm not sure I can say it productively or as respectfully as I should, I'm going to drop this for now and might come back to it tomorrow.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Re: I find myself getting a
Re:
I find myself getting a bit frustrated at my apparent inability to connect with you on this issue, and unfortunately I think that's coming out in my comment.
If you're expressing concern about the tone of your comment, no need for concern. We each think the other is not being reasonable or reasonably objective on this matter, and/or confusing stuff and not making sense, and we're saying so, which is ok, particularly since I think you and I have well-established mutual respect (if I may be so bold as to take the liberty of making that presumption re: your end). And I hope you don't consider my tone disrespectful. You know I have high regard for your thoughts and opinions, and generally presume good-faith on your part in exchanges.
So let's just see if we can talk this through, speak the same language and speak it clearly and sufficiently precisely, get on the same page as far as what we're each referring to when we say X or Y, make the necessary distinctions, and apply logic as we both are quite capable of doing. Then perhaps we can end up at least with both of us being reasonable and seeing reasonableness in the other, even if we disagree on some premises and our ultimate assessments and conclusion.
Let's start with this:
1) Do you agree that, when Obama said that McCain was trying to scare people about Obama because Obama, in addition to being new/inexperienced and having a foreign-sounding name, "doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency", Obama was implying that McCain was referring in the "doesn't look like" part to Obama's race?
2) If yes to #1 (and I sure hope we can at least agree on that), just putting two and two together, do you agree that Obama was implying that McCain was trying to get people to fear Obama because, among other reasons to fear Obama (inexperience and foreign-sounding name), Obama is black?
3) If yes to #2 (and again, we really should be able to agree on that much), doesn't that mean that Obama was implying that McCain was trying to exploit (and/or create) racism?
4) If yes to #3, hopefully you can see now that even if Obama was not implying that Obama's race was the only reason McCain was trying to provide for people to fear Obama (the other reasons being inexperience and a foreign-sounding name), that doesn't mean that Obama wasn't implying that Obama's race was one of the reasons McCain was trying to provide for people to fear Obama. In other words, if Obama had said, "McCain's trying to get you to fear me because I'm inexperienced and because I'm black", Obama would still be saying that McCain is trying to get people to fear Obama in part because he's black and thus exploit (and/or create) racism. I think your logic went awry in missing this point. Agree?
As for using headlines rather than judging quotes themselves, I would have thought you would think more of my fact-checking diligence than to think I'd be that lazy or conveniently trustful of the accuracy, thoroughness and precision of a headline. My comment was based on the actual quote, not the headline, and hopefully it's clear to you at this point that the quote supports my point very clearly.
As for the my comment regarding your apparent point regarding how we should treat explicit statements vs. interpretation, while I don't want to spend a lot of time on meta discussion, let's make an important distinction between general principle/practice vs. premises regarding this particular case. It seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) that you were implying that, absent an explicit statement from either candidate (i.e., McCain not saying explicitly "Fear Obama because he's black" and Obama not saying explicitly "McCain is trying to get people to fear me because I'm black") we shouldn't (as a matter of general principle/practice) try to assess, and reach some conclusions regarding, the respective probabilities that each was making the implication in question, and instead we should regard both statements as equally likely to be making the implication, simply on the basis that, absent an explicit statement to that effect, we must engage in some degree of interpretation (as we must with any implication we think someone may be making). Obviously such an approach would not be sensible as a general practice, because some implications are much clearer than others, and it's possible to reasonably conclude that it is very highly likely one candidate was implying X and that it is substantially less likely (even if still possible) that the other candidate was implying Y. Therefore, just as a hypothetical for illustration, if Candidate A says "I don't think Candidate B has good judgment" and Candidate B, a Jewish candidate, responds by saying, with a smile and a chuckle, "He's trying to scare you because on the basis that I was circumcised on my eighth day of life", it is certainly possible (depending on context in both cases, of course) that a reasonable conclusion could be that there is a low probability that Candidate A was trying to get people to fear Candidate B on the basis of Candidate B being Jewish, but a very high probability that Candidate B was implying that Candidate A was indeed doing so. Do you agree with that point regarding the principle here -- that it can be reasonable to conclude that one person's statement was very likely intended to imply something, whereas we cannot attach a similar high probability to the possibility that another person's statement was intended to imply something?
Hopefully your answer is "yes". Which means we are back to the particulars of this case. If you've said "yes" to #1 - 4 above, then we agree that it is very highly likely that Obama was implying that McCain was trying to get people to fear Obama because of Obama's race (exploiting and/or creating racism). So the next question is: Is there a similarly very strong likelihood that McCain was indeed doing that? I say no, not nearly that high probability. I'm not ruling it out, but I see no way to reasonably assign a similarly high probability. Do you agree?
And while reasonable people can disagree on the most appropriate probability to assign to the possibility that McCain was indeed trying to exploit/create racism via the rhetoric/tactics to which Obama was responding, I do not think the probability reaches a level to justify the charge that he was doing so, given that charging someone with racism, or with the exploitation/creation of racism, is a very serious charge -- a strong accusation of immorality of a particularly ugly nature, as well as exploitative in its own right (exploiting fears and suspicions of racism, and creating an environment of intimidation in which people with legitimate criticisms of a black candidate fear being unfairly branded a racist or an exploiter of racism). Do you agree?
I'm working on a diary
about the McCain ad.
I had company over the weekend and am trying to catch up on work, so I don't know when this will be finished.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I hope you'll give direct,
I hope you'll give direct, clear answers to my questions, either here (preferably) or there. I think the questions I've asked are straight-forward and fairly simple and easy to answer.
Some in Congress are far worse than others!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
if a video has to tell me...
...to watch until the end, then it probably isn't worth watching untill the end.
There are a lot of people out there who want others to listen to them. What a schmuck.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Contempt prior to investigation Adam...
...you know what that leads to right?
Who's the schmuck now dude?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
have some respect for your audience
Convince them to give their attention, don't demand it.
I don't even know what that video is about, because in the first 10 seconds I was told nothing of substance and it demanded that I dedicate 11 minutes of my time to it.
For all I know, it is about a subject that I don't even care about, or a subject I have already investigated.
I hate these video-essays specifically because they assume that the viewer's time has no value. It is much easier for the audience to evaluate the value/interest of a written argument than a video-argument.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
LOL...it simply asked you to watch till the end...
I guess you don't watch movies, or any other medium that shows accreditation's before it presents the meat and potato's?
FF or pause buttons are really cool too, try 'em sometime.
Your argument for dismissing the video is ridiculous.
Besides it doesn't coinside with your supposed Left-Libertarian Pedigree
.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman