Yes, John McCain is clearly capable of being a pinhead (in the spirit of O'Reilly's "pinheads and patriots" section) on the same day he is a "patriot" (see earlier entry today).
As I have said before, the main reason I could never vote for McCain for any office is that he reserves his most enthusiastic, heartfelt, vicious criticism for CONSERVATIVES. He has done this for the 20 years or more I have been familiar with him (becoming pretty darn familiar with his modus operandi and way of thinking during is many years as a virtual regular on the "Imus in the Morning" program--during those years when McCain PANDERED shamelessly to the mainstream media, which is a habit he still falls into). There are many particular bones I have to pick with McCain (such as his position on illegal immigration, McCain/Feingold, and "global warming"), but this is the overriding reason Hell will freeze over before I ever vote for the man (even against the equally dangerous Barack Obama).
Thus, we come to today's example of John McCain being a pinhead: the ad the North Carolina Republican Party is running calling Barack Obama "too extreme for North Carolina". The ad is directed at the GOVERNOR'S race in North Carolina, and is intended to suggest that the Democrats running for governor are out of touch with North Carolina because they have endorsed Barack Obama. The ad pictures Barack Obama with Reverend Wright, and suggests that Obama's association with Reverend Wright over those 20 years constituted an implied endorsement by Obama of Wright's extreme anti-American views (which it did). The ad quotes Wright's statement: "God d--n America". I have now heard this ad several times, and see nothing wrong with it (although I would have chosen Wright's statement that the U.S. government "invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color", which is not only anti-American and false, but racist hate speech (NO context can ssave it).
Now the North Carolina ad could have pictured Obama with domestic terrorist, William Ayers, who is white. But, as this blog has said, Obama's association with Ayers is not nearly as close as his association with Wright, and it might actually be unfair to associate Obama with Ayers (who is WHITE, which is the point of this paragraph). Reverend Wright happens to be black, as does Obama. So what. Does that mean that they are immune from criticism? Certainly, Hillary Clinton has not thought so. Nor do I think so. This idea that you can't criticize an African-American because he is black is RACIST. (I have told you that the primary racists in the country today are leftists, and it is absolutely true).
There is nothing racist about the North Carolina ad. The ad is saying that Obama was wrong to impliedly endorse this radical, anti-American pastor for 20 years--thereby associating Obama with that pastor's views (see the entry describing MSNBC and the North Carolina ad earlier this week). If Wright and Obama were both white, no one would think twice about the ad. It is a NORMAL, "negative" ad. WHY is a black candidate immune from NORMAL (not racist) "negative" ads? Now you can oppose "negative ads" in general, but to say that black candidates should be especially immune from them is RACIST. MSNBC is, in fact, a very racist organization (which can be said, again, of most leftists). As I said in that erlier entry, the IMMEDIATE reaction of MSNBC to the North Carolina ad was the RACIST reaction that Obama should be immune from such ads.
What is a "negative ad"? It has absolutely nothing to do with race. A negative ad is an ad that asks voters to vote AGAINST your opponent because of bad things about your opponent (his positons, some scandal, or alleged bad associations--such as the attempt by Democrats to associate McCain with President Bush. Negative ad usually do not give a positive reason to vote FOR someone (sometimes they may contrast a postivie with the negatives). They give reasons to vote AGAINST someone. Is McCain "above" negative ads? Not so you would notice. He ran them AGAINST REPUBLICANS in the Republican nomination race (primarily against Romney).
Is the North Carolina "negative ad" any different than the negative ads you can expect from Democrats associating McCain with President Bush? Of course it isn't. Your own bias may suggest to you that it is "fairer" to associate McCain with Bush, and to suggest that McCain will mean no more than four more years of Bush, but the fact is that both appraoches ("guilt by association" with either Bush or Wright) are basically the same. There is NO element of racism in the approach, or in the North Carolina ad.
Do not a lot of people vote AGAINST a candidate, more than they vote FOR a candidate? Sure. McCain had better HOPE they do, because that is the ONLY thing that may get him most conservative votes (not mine). There is nothing really wrong with negative ads per se. They call attention to the negatives of a candidate. Should not the voters know about those? Of course, they tend to engende the cyncial idea that there are no "good" candidates out there, but only candidates less bad than other candidates. However, that cynical idea may well be ACCURATE. For me, if I could stomach voting for McCain, it would certainly be accurate.
Yet, McCain has been all over television today and yesterday CRITICIZING the North Caolina Republicans in the most vicious manner possible--directly pandering to the LEFTIST idea that ANY "negative" ad against Obama is RACIST (a RACIST concept in itself, to which McCain is pandering). McCain is NOT saying that he opposes "negative ads", and therefore would prefer that the North Carolina people not run them (just like he would prefer all candidates and groups not run such ads). While that would be astonishinglyl hypocritical, it would be a somewhat rational position (not entirely rational, because ALL candidates say at some point--directly or through the media or through surrogates--why voters should NOT vote for their opponents, even if they stick to a prtty positive overall message). After all, "negative" is merely the other side of "positive". If McCain says: "I have the experience." He is impliedly saying: "My opponent does NOT have the experience." In any event, McCain did NOT take on "negative" ads in general. Rather, in typical McCain fashion (which has reduced me almost to foaming at the mouth over 20 years), McCain went off on the MSNBC, knee jerk reaction, that criticixm of an African-American is racist. When McCain talks about the Republican Party being the "party of Lincoln", and that the North Carolina ad is demeaning and below the standards of the Republican Party, McCain can be saying nothing else. Think of the INSULT that is to the North Carolina Republicans. In fact, I regard it as an insult to ME, but I am so used to that from McCain that it no longer even hardly registers as an insult. It jsut causes vomit to rise in my throat in disgust.
In summary. The North Carolina Repubican ad is NOT racist. To even suggest that it is repressents a RACIST attitude that an African-American politician cannot be criticized like other politicians. The worst that can be said of the ad is that it is "negative".
John McCain's over-the-top, insulting reaction to the North Carolina ad makes him a PINHEAD.
P.S. More inferential evidence that Rush Limbaugh reads this blog. Today, Rush suggested that McCain's self-indulgent "maverick" attitude is an invitation to conservatives and Republicans to ALL be "mavericks". Why should the North Carolina Republicans show any loyalty to John McCain? McCain has never shown any loyalty to THEM, or to conservatives or Republicans in general. You will note how far ahead of the curve this blog has again shown itself to be. That is EXACTLY the reasoning behind the name of this blog. My idea is that "independent" conservative thinking is what we need in this country. The Republican ESTABLISHMENT is hopelessly out of touch, and has shown no loyalty to conservatives. McCain is even worse: he caters to the MEDIA establishment, when he is not trying to use the Repblican, Washington establishment for his own benefit. Nope. I agree with Limbaugh (although I may have given HIM the idea). Conservatives owe McCain NO loyalty. Many may vote for him (not me) because of the alternative, but they shoud take the same attitude toward McCain that he takes toward them. That attitude is to USE each other when we can, but to think totally independently, and be willing to criticize McCain in the most vicious terms. As you can see, I practice what I preach on that one (although still willng to give McCain credit on those occasions when he happens to be right, as illustrated by the earlier entry today).
No comments:
Post a Comment