Soccer Mom: Unplugged

raves, rants, reviews and recounts of life in middle America

2008/4/25

McCain: Out of touch with the reality of the GOP

Tags:
@ 06:52 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

The NC GOP has produced an ad highlighting the extremism of Jeremiah Wright, pastor and friend of presidential hopeful Barack Obama.  This ad references the endorsements of Obama by some of the state's gubernatorial candidates and the implication is that the candidates, local and national, have questionable judgement and perhaps less than stalwart patriotism.  Fair enough. 

We all recognize that a candidate's personal life gives just as much insight, if not more, into his character as his official actions and statements.  Remember the frenzy over Hillary Clinton's channeling the spirits of past first ladies or the front page fear-mongering when newsmen found out that President Buch read Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series?  The fascination with stories like these reveal a truth most of us unconsciously know but that democratic operatives spent most of the 90s trying to deny:  a man's private character and morality are inseparably connected to the execution of his professional duties.  Patriotism, integrity, and decency aren't like a suit coat you can put on when you walk out the door in the morning.

Nevertheless, John McCain has called for the NC GOP to abandon the as-yet unreleased ad and has denounced the state party as 'out of touch'.  Judging from other recent statements, McCain believes he is trying to take the "high road" by avoiding personal attacks on his opponents.  Unfortunately, McCain's denunciation reveals as much about himself as the ad does about the democrats vying for the NC governorship.

It is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect based on his associations.  it is also perfectly reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he or she endorses a presidential hopeful whose associates are unpatriotic, conspiracy theory spewing pastors and unrepentant domestic terrorists.

Further, it is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he denouces state party leaders for political correctness and expediency.  John McCain cares about winning the Presidency - the NC GOP wants to win the governor's seat.  It would seem that Linda Daves knows what I know.  No matter whose inaugaration we see in January, we've already lost the White House.

Comment(s) »

  1. That don't call him McInsane for nothin.
    Just remember refuglicans - you could have had Thomas Jefferson Jr. in Ron Paul but instead opted for faux hero and warmongering CFR traitor Insane Juan McNutjob.
    When the shite hits the fan - You better hope it was vote fraud - cos if it wasn't - IT'S YOUR FAULT!

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/25 @ 07:01 AM — (Reply)



  2. Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/25 @ 07:11 AM — (Reply)

  3. Are you kidding me?


    "It is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect based on his associations. it is also perfectly reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he or she endorses a presidential hopeful whose associates are unpatriotic, conspiracy theory spewing pastors and unrepentant domestic terrorists."


    What kind of Joe McCarthyism are you spewing here? Are you yourself to be judged by what someone who knew someone who knew you said?

    Hillary has a 30 year body of work as a bold faced liar most recently becoming a Bosnia survivor. One's own character is relevant. The McCarthyism is not.

    BG

    Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/25 @ 07:57 PM — (Reply)

  4. You know how many jail cells hold guys who were merely sitting in the car when another gang banger pulled the trigger, Barry?

    Associations matter when you are considering one's judgement, wisdom, and ability to lead the free world.

    Obama kicked off his local campaign in the home of a man who blew up government buildings and still considers that a reasonable act of civil disobedience. If a republican opened his campaign in Eric Rudolph's living room, you don't think I'd question his judgement and ability to be president?

    Give me a break.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/26 @ 09:04 AM — (Reply)

  5. Barry and I are on the same side here, Cate.

    Rather than go through an enumerate many questionable associations amongst current Republicans, or historical figures, I'll just make a personal analogy.

    You see, I frequently visit this blog posted by a stark conservative. I respect some of her opinions, even if I disagree with most of them. I respect her intentions, even if she is often absurdly homophobic and resorts to absurd extremism to justify her fears of "social erosion."

    On this blog there are lots of other regulars, most who are also conservative in their thinking, some of whom espouse marginally crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11 or Ron Paul or the moon landings.

    Maybe I'm crazy for associating with folks who I disagree with, and where specifically, I find some of their opinions to be utterly wrong, or even loathsome. Maybe that would make me a horrible candidate for office.

    Kudos to McCain, though, for avoiding the dumbass oversimplification of politics through demonization by association. And shame on you, Cate, for falling for the sort of baloney you would easily refute if the pastor were Falwell, Dobson, Graham or Robertson, and the politician were someone you otherwise supported.

    Comment by Michael— 2008/04/28 @ 07:52 AM — (Reply)

  6. And shame on you Michael for trying to equate conversation on a blog with bombing the capitol building or preaching conspiracy theories on a national platform.

    And nope - I don't support Falwell and others when they make ludicrous statements.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/28 @ 08:48 AM — (Reply)

  7. Are you forgetting I spoke against Dobson when he starting deciding unilaterally who could be called a Christian?

    I speak against the Phelps loons when they make homophobic assertions. So it's not likely you'll find me backing any other ludicrous statements by pastors who just happen to line up with me politically.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/28 @ 09:20 AM — (Reply)

  8. I didn't say that you'd support the pastors, or rather their extremist statements. Nor am I defending Wright (that is a different discussion entirely). The question has been put on Obama, though.

    I won't even go through the list of politicians who have associated with these pastors and ask which you would disavow, or question their judgement in such association. I don't know you, or the politicians I might conjure up, to provide such a list.

    I'm just left with a strong doubt that you would reject a politician you otherwise approved of, simply because he associated with Dobson; despite Dobson's comments about who was a Christian.

    Comment by Michael— 2008/04/30 @ 02:36 PM — (Reply)

  9. Michael,
    It would depend on the association. Frankly, I was not bothered by Obama sitting on a foundation board with Bill Ayers. So what? Starting his campaign in Ayer's living room, however, implies a much closer relationship.

    Same with Wright. Getting an endorsement from a pastor when you've only attended the same formal dinners is wholly different then seeking him out to baptize your children and meeting with him privately over a 20 year relationship.

    When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends. Japanese Proverb

    Comment by Cate— 2008/05/01 @ 05:12 AM — (Reply)

  10. You have got to be kidding. Please list all of the "ludicrous statements" that you can dredge up that Obama has made in 2007 and 2008.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/28 @ 05:00 PM — (Reply)

  11. Too busy to help you out right now, Ed. I'm preparing to invade Pakistan.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/29 @ 06:19 AM — (Reply)

  12. This isn't "helping me out". You were requested to list the "ludricous statements" that YOU inferred Obama has made.

    The point that you can't proved the point that your original inference was specious.

    No big deal.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/30 @ 03:15 PM — (Reply)

  13. Don't belittle Dugg! If anyone's preaching conspiracy on a national level, it's that fine gentleman.

    Comment by Michael— 2008/04/29 @ 08:31 AM — (Reply)

  14. The new McCarthyism is calling someone a terrorist because they question 911.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/26 @ 10:25 AM — (Reply)

  15. Nah that doesn't make you a terrorist... but it does qualify you to sit in Jeremiah Wright's church. Remember, he believes our government introduced AIDS into Africa.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/26 @ 12:16 PM — (Reply)

  16. Probably did.:wink:

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/26 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)

  17. Gawd ... and there is a "CRAPPER" named "LUDICRIS' !!!!!!!! To go along with that claim. I "HEAR' he is well liked and many pay 'TRIBUTE' to him by buying his "PRODUCT" ......

    Comment by aza spade— 2008/04/28 @ 05:08 PM — (Reply)




  18. Do YOU know how many jail cells hold guys who were merely sitting in the car when another gang banger pulled the trigger Cate?


    Of course you don't. If you side with Hillary you deserve Hillary as President.

    BG




    Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/26 @ 11:22 AM — (Reply)

  19. You got me, Barry, I don't have an exact number but it happens. And not just to gang bangers.

    Further, it is against departmental regs in many government institutions (police depts, for example) to associate with known criminals. But you go ahead and make excuses for the man you want as president....

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/26 @ 12:14 PM — (Reply)

  20. Cate, please list the convicted criminals with whom Obama associates.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/26 @ 02:43 PM — (Reply)

  21. How Clintonian of you, Ed, to play semantics. Tell me, is an action wrong because one gets convicted or is it wrong regardless of the legal outcome?

    (Didn't mean to confuse you with the use of that tricky two letter word "is".)

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/27 @ 02:29 PM — (Reply)

  22. Give it time, Ed. But let's remember that Clinton isn't the only one whose long career of crisscrossing ethical and legal lines began with shady real estate deals. Just ask Tony Rezko.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/29 @ 06:12 AM — (Reply)

  23. Actually Cate, what is Clintonian is this particularly Hillaryish is this particular post and your attempted but unsuccessful defenses of it.

    You put an inaccuracy out there and can't admit. THAT is Hillary speak.

    Usually your commentary is logical whether or not one agrees with it. Not this time. :)

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/27 @ 03:15 PM — (Reply)

  24. What is the inaccuracy, Ed? That I believe a man can be judged by the people he chooses to associate with? There is no fact in dispute - merely opinion. And we're both entitled to ours.

    If you are talking about the specific implication I made that people are often held responsible for their associations - I already admitted I didn't have numbers for that but linked to a specific case. Admitting a lack of knowledge can't be considered Clintonian unless I use the exact phrase "I do not recall." :lol:

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/28 @ 09:07 AM — (Reply)

  25. Ed is a democrat now - he's entitled to be Clintonian.:lol:

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/27 @ 03:39 PM — (Reply)

  26. Au contraire Dugg. Ed is NOT a democrat. Ed is simply opposed to Hillary. McCain can't beat Hillary. Therefore Ed supports Obama. In the long run, the truth is that McCain is more liberal than Obama. Ed is a true conservative and has always despised Hillary.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/27 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)

  27. Oppose all demon-rats - regardless of wether or not they are Hillary.
    We need a viable 3rd party.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/27 @ 06:01 PM — (Reply)

  28. Amen, brother.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/28 @ 08:49 AM — (Reply)

  29. Perhaps you are right Dugg. However doing ANYTHING that might allow Hillary to sleaze into the White House is insanity.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/27 @ 06:50 PM — (Reply)

  30. The whole guilt by association thing is a bit of a sticky issue......Pappy always used to say..."If you lay down with dogs you get fleas"....at what point does it become guilt by association, or wrong place wrong time....*dude let me outta here your crazy"....pow pow..........I dont know a good answer for this one......I can see a little on both sides....I geuss each one should be decided on a case by case.....but Im also biased, I dont like thugs, hoods, and lawless scumbags in general...and dont want them around me or mine...just flat out dont trust them....yall continue though I like learning different perspectives....riff

    Comment by riffran— 2008/04/29 @ 12:07 AM — (Reply)

  31. I see Cate. You can INFER that Obama has made "ludicrous statements" but you are incapable of producing not even one.

    You appear more Hillary-like on a daily basis.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/29 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)

  32. I like how you keep jumping around, Ed, and repeating the same comment to confuse people into thinking I didn't respond... talk about political strategy! Wow!

    When I get back from invading Pakistan and I've moved beyond clinging to my God and my guns, we'll have to enjoy some arugala (if the price at Whole Foods comes down). In the mean time, enjoy John Fund's analysis at the WSJ.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/30 @ 11:31 AM — (Reply)

  33. Sorry that is not quite accurate. The above is the one and ONLY time I asked you to list the "ludicrous" statements by Obama that you inferred he made.

    If there is any "jumping around" going on, it's you NOT answering a question and then making another unsupportable assertation.

    It's probably time for another topic, I'm done getting nowhere with this one.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/30 @ 12:47 PM — (Reply)

  34. Ed, I'll leave it to other readers to determine if you've asked twice for the same info, though the second time was with the baited comment "you are incapable of producing even one" rather than a proper question.

    Regardless, there is another man who shares my opinion on the questionable judgement of Barack Hussein Obama and I think his determination trumps both of ours.

    Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/30 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)

  35. Now you feel my pain, Cate.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/04/30 @ 05:47 PM — (Reply)

  36. The two of you deserve Hillary.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    BG

    Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/30 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)

  37. You're already counting out McCain?

    Comment by Cate— 2008/05/01 @ 05:15 AM — (Reply)

  38. Gee - I thought only serial killers, chain letter mailers, Slick Willie and idiots who actually vote for her were the only ones who deserved her.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/05/01 @ 05:25 AM — (Reply)

  39. http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/obama-wright-which-one-will-rat-the-other-out-first-over-the-donald-young-murder/

    Comment by Woody— 2008/04/29 @ 04:04 PM — (Reply)

  40. Good grief - that was WaaaaaaaY TMI :-(

    Comment by Cate— 2008/04/30 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)

  41. That's enough nonsense out of you Woody.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/29 @ 07:49 PM — (Reply)

  42. Obomba/Huggy Bear 08




    :mad:

    Comment by Woody— 2008/04/30 @ 01:51 PM — (Reply)

  43. You're back where your started Cate. "Guilt by association." You already lost that argument once so I'm not interested in going through that particular exercise again. My review indicates that Michael and Barry already took you to school on that subject.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/04/30 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)

  44. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Ed.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/05/01 @ 05:14 AM — (Reply)

  45. Seriously - what real difference between Oboma, McCain or Hillary besides their names?
    That's a choice? All CFR? If you can't see this whole thing is staged BS you're probably a big WWF fan.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/05/01 @ 06:04 AM — (Reply)

  46. anybody else catch this? Ed?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/22 @ 03:10 PM — (Reply)

  47. This Court agrees with Cate. I guess will see what the next Court does. Yes as a matter of fact I DID see it and was planning a post on it and even planning to eat some Cate crow. Obviously, Cate has a point. It will be interesting to see where the case goes next.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/05/22 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)

  48. Aww, man, Ed! You went all humble on me just when I was going to do my "toldja so" dance.

    Shoot! :wink:

    Comment by Cate— 2008/05/22 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)

  49. Don't be dancing too soon. My prediction is that this case is far from over. Maybe even US Supreme Court material. Like your sister and I said, reasonable minds certainly differ on this.



    Comment by Ed— 2008/05/22 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment


:mrgreen: :neutral: :twisted: :arrow: :shock: :smile: :???: :cool: :evil: :grin: :idea: :oops: :razz: :roll: :wink: :cry: :eek: :lol: :mad: :sad: :!: :?:

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image: CAPTCHA
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

  • Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
  • Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
  • The line and paragraph breaks automatically