I LOVE comments. Please leave some even if they are brief half-formed ideas
that you aren't even sure you really believe. I just love comments.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Not Sure What to Think


This is a little piece of a mailer about to be sent out by the AFL-CIO in support of Obama. There are a couple of other parts, like pointing out he sometimes wears a flag pin and puts his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegiance.

First, I think it's a great flyer. I think it addresses stuff that needs to be addressed. Second, it makes me frustrated to considered the kind of garbage Democrats have to put up with. He's not a patriot? What kind of B.S. is that about. But there is something else mildly creepy about a union putting out a flyer to prove a candidate is sufficiently Christian.

Anyone else share my feelings?

3 comments:

Matt Dick said...

Yes and no. First of all, Obama having to declare himself Christian over and over again is frustrating because A) he clearly is one, and B) it is just as clearly a requirement of high political office in this country. We absolutely establish and endorse a specific religion in the United States, and that's creepy and will ultimately serve us poorly.

Second, the Democrats do not have a monopoly on suffering fools, as much as you think they do. McCain has been accused of being a traitor, amazingly the argument is about his incarceration as a POW and not despite it. There is a tiny crackpot lefty narrative about his being a Manchurian candidate. His 100 years comment has been knowingly, and purposefully misunderstood--even on this blog.

So yes it's absurd, and it's absurd for all of our candidates.

JimII said...

"We absolutely establish and endorse a specific religion in the United States, and that's creepy and will ultimately serve us poorly."

I find that the de facto religious test bothers me as a Christian as much as it bothers me as an American. It is so contrary to the values on which the country was established, and it really reduced religion to a . . . well to a lapel pin.

"McCain has been accused of being a traitor, amazingly the argument is about his incarceration as a POW and not despite it."

You can't believe this. Obama has been asked on national news programs to defend his patriotism, and the AFL-CIO feels need to advertise that he's not a muslim. Yes, there are nut jobs on the super left who make this claim, but no one even among standard leftwing extremist do. It has certainly never be dignified with a question from a network broadcaster.

"His 100 years comment has been knowingly, and purposefully misunderstood--even on this blog."

I will maintain that knowing and purposefully is harsh, but I do have to concede that the comment has been used out of context. It happens that the way it was used also reflected his policy on Iraq, but the actual comment was that deaths are the problem not the length of the occupation. I was wrong to maintain otherwise.

One more note on coverage: McCain gets plenty of bad press, too. There is a media narative about him that is much less flatering than it was in years past. My only point is that on outlandish stories, Obama has to deal with more of that. Your example about McCain being a traitor while a POW is a perfect example. Its as juicy as Obama being a Muslim, but somehow, I've received several Obama's a Muslim emails and zero McCain's a traitor emails.

Matt Dick said...

"McCain has been accused of being a traitor, amazingly the argument is about his incarceration as a POW and not despite it."

You can't believe this. Obama has been asked on national news programs to defend his patriotism, and the AFL-CIO feels need to advertise that he's not a muslim. Yes, there are nut jobs on the super left who make this claim, but no one even among standard leftwing extremist do. It has certainly never be dignified with a question from a network broadcaster.


Okay, I think I'm ready to concede this point--that while McCain has had crazy stories about him, that they are way less in the mainstream. I'll give it some more thought, but I think you're right.

It happens that the way [McCain's 100 years comment] was used also reflected his policy on Iraq, but the actual comment was that deaths are the problem not the length of the occupation.

I guess this is part of the craziness I maintain McCain has had to deal with. No one thought he meant 100 years of 12 deaths/month was okay with him, and those who perpetrated the fraud also always cut off the part of the quote that mentioned 1,000 years and 1,000,000 years, and if you think closely about what cropping that quote was meant to do, it's pretty outrageous. When someone says, "100 years, 1,000 years, 1,000,000 years..." they are clearly making a point about duration vs. violence. When they say, "we could be in Iraq 100 years" they could easily mean that a 100 year occupation is a reasonable goal. It's irresponsible in exactly the same way as showing Obama in Muslim clothing. Maybe it's not the same degree, but it's the same intent--it's a close cropping of an image with the intent to leave an impression that isn't even close to true.

But again, I think I agree that Obama has a more consistent stream of outrageous stories than McCain. What's interesting is that Obama's voting record in the Senate is amazingly ripe to use against him with moderates in the States. That they are going for easily-refuted stories is funny when he really *does* have a very leftist record.

Incidentally, I actually am increasingly bothered by the company he kept in order to be elected to the US Senate. It's a little creepy.