Monday, October 13, 2008

Hysteria on the campaign trail.

When you wade into A Matter of Opinion, there is at least one hysterical type who constantly posts there. The fellow who goes on and on and on and on and on and on about Senator Obama. He refers to himself as "Bruce." With that sort of obsession, you really have to wonder what he fears? Then again, with his obvious hatred of all things Dem, had Senator Clinton gotten the nod, then he would have attacked her in much the same manner. And so I shall now turn to the Coeur d'Alene Press letters where Judy Eisses basically alludes to why she would prefer to have McCain in office because he meets her ideals. Fine. But he doesn't meet mine. His campaign doesn't meet mine. Basically a letter that suggests this is a person who will simply vote for the person she says she is in support of. Her letter is mercifully short. But not so, Bryant Bushling. Senator Obama who "thinks exactly like Professor Ayers" or even Jeremiah Wright, and therefore becomes that scary and alien other who can't possibly be "us." That is a serious message of hate. Hatred of a man, not just because he is a Democrat, but more personally, because of his associations. In that case, I would certainly have to argue, as I did to "Bruce" at A Matter of Opinion, about the fellow holding up the sign and refusing to believe that Obama was even American let alone a Christian. He spread hate with his statement, denies he does so, then attacks the CNN reporter. We have gone beyond polarization. We are now looking at thug politics. The sort of politics that ought to give honest to the Gods conservatives as much of a shudder of fear as any delicate liberal out there. This country is better than that.

So why the hysterical hatred anyway? We did not have a man known by his associations as a campaign issue until Senator Clinton and the news media sought to discredit that unknown Senator Obama with them. But now that this door is open, if we can hold a court of public opinion on whether a man is qualified for public office based solely on his associations, then no politician now out there would be qualified to run for office. Certainly to include GW Bush and Senator McCain. When you are a politician after all, the crowd you run with isn't going to be pristine or saintly. Never has been, never will be. That is why Palin's turning to who you pal around with as to whether you are even qualified for the office or not became the purest form of hypocrisy. How about that Alaskan secessionist movement? That wouldn't be relevant? Or as Gary Crooks was to remind even "Bruce," that Senator McCain actually praised a fellow by the name of G. Gordon Liddy who was prepared to do some terrible criminal acts on the behalf of President Nixon. McCain praising a convicted felon? Then I would definitely not want to go there on "guilt by association" as a campaign tactic, not when it can tar brush yourself as well. Since McCain and Palin stirred up that sort of hatred last week with all those "guilt by association" charges, McCain finally, and it was somewhat to his credit, dialled back on any more attacks of that sort. Because it can backfire, and the above describes exactly why. We are here to discuss the issues, and whether we agree with a candidate on his take of where he wants to take the country, or whether we disagree. Not name calling, not "guilt by association," the issues.

Larry King Live had at least one independent on board who said that he "trusted" McCain on the economy, national security, etc. Maybe he did. But, I'll disagree, because I have the sort of facts coming from McCain himself, whereby, I don't. Yeah, we could very well see a sort of "socialism" setting in as to what this country could face in the next four years. But, why would we prefer that "socialism" of Senator Obama over say the supposed "capitalism" of McCain? Among Anderson Cooper's 10 most wanted that helped to create a financial collapse in this nation, 1 Phil Gramm. And while his supply side economic theories had plenty of bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton; it was one of those "pro-business" deregulatory practices that GW saw no reason to overturn. And the banks, the mortgage industry, etc. from 2000 onward, were very happy to exploit it.

Why do new organizations that are obviously in support of McCain such as The American Issues Project prepared to point only to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, what both organizations did for Obama in campaign contributions, what no Democrat was prepared to do with either of them, and then with their collapse, the economy spirals into chaos. The problem with that was, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were near the end of major financial institutions to collapse, before the GW administration rang the alarm bell on the economy, and not the first. A point brought out by "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." The economy was spiralling into chaos long before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and GW as well as Senator McCain were in denial about that for months. Part of the facts, upon which to base an ad, but not all of the facts, and the ad becomes an act of libel. Thug politics. The facts don't matter and hysteria rules.


Dogwalkmusings said...

"This country is better than that." How many times have you said this? And how many times have I said it? There was a time I believed it but the current climate is showing me how I've been living with my head in the sand. We are no longer the country we once were. Woe to us if we don't regain it.

The New Arch Druid's take on the news said...

This country elects its first African American president, then it will be better than that.