It’s important to note that, were Senator Barack Obama running the kind of divisive, hateful campaign Senator John McCain is running, I’d be beating up on him, too. It really annoys me when people assume I am “in the tank” for Obama because I criticize McCain’s tactics. I’m really not. He’s got good ideas, but his positions on the issues are hardly revolutionary: they seem Democratic chic, in line with Hillary’s or Edwards’ or whomever. They don’t stray very far from the Democratic esthete. I like Obama for the reasons many voters are liking him these days: because he’s not John McCain. McCain has really burned me out with the negative attacks. I mean, it’s just overkill. The guy—the nice old guy talking gently about how he hates war—that was a guy to be feared. His argument was so reasonable, his approach so rational, that I thought he’d be a tough guy for Obama to beat. The new Jerry Springer McCain is all brass, over the top. He’s winding up the fringe brigade and, trust me, someone *will* take a pop at Obama before this is over, likely riled up by a McCain ad marathon on YouTube. In tone and rhetoric, McCain rallies do not, at my distance from them, differ measurably from rallies the Klan might throw or, say, the American Nazi party. The frenzy, the alarm and hatred from those rallies—middle-class God-fearing whites talking about how Obama doesn’t see America the way they do, that they are afraid of a an Obama presidency—well, good, pal. Now you know how *I* felt when Dubya got sworn in.
But here’s the thing, the thing that really frightens me about America: if Obama was smearing McCain (well, okay, I mean on the level McCain is playing at), if Obama was stirring up hate and even violence toward McCain and using hateful, deceptive and divisive tactics—I could never support the guy. Black? So what. Democrat? Who cares. If the situation was reversed, I’d be just as vocal about Obama’s sleazy tactics as I am about McCain’s. My ire is not politically or racially motivated. I’m angry because McCain and Palin are *weasels.* And their campaign is a hateful, steaming turd.
It annoys me that white folk tend to assume I’m in the tank for Obama because of some shared ancestry. I’m sure a great many nlacks are, in fact, Obama supporters for no other reason. I mean, *I* can’t discuss Obama’s health care plan intelligently, and most black folk I know couldn’t tell you even a single policy issue the man holds. But I was a huge John McCain fan back in 2000. I mean it, I was thinking of volunteering for the guy. While I am indeed immeasurably pleased by the historic nature of Obama’s success, my vote was hardly automatic. And it wasn’t even so much that Obama earned my vote as it was that McCain lost it. That his nasty, divisive campaign just turned me off. His selection of Winky Palin and her subsequent hateful, empty-headed skullduggery were just nails in the coffin. I question McCain’s judgment. He seems off his game, indecisive, snippy. He has no message other than Don’t Vote For The Black Kid. That’s it. It’s his only message: makes us afraid of the black guy. His entire campaign seems largely improvisational, and he has so many Republicans lying for him, supporting Winky, that he’s doing inestimable damage not only to his own brand name but to these Republicans’ credibility as well. These people know Palin is an onion. They do. Yet they go out there like soldiers, lying and in obvious agony about having to do so. The West Wing’s “Bingo Bob” Russell is a brain trust compared to Palin.
It really frightens me that, were the situation reversed, were this Obama changing his message every day, acting erratically, “suspending his campaign,” selecting Winky, running hate-filled borderline Nazi TV commercials—I could never support him. Ever. The fact these Republicans, and, let’s just say it, these white folk, are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to behavior they clearly know is questionable really frightens me. I mean, come on, my only alternative is to call these people stupid. They’re not stupid. But they are swallowing this nonsense and even defending it. Whereas I tend to believe Democrats would more likely challenge Obama on such tactics and choices, the Republicans seem content to drink the Kool-Aid, parrot the talking points and defend this nonsense, knowing it is, in fact, nonsense, even as I am convinced these same people, in the quiet of their rooms, worry if Gramps isn’t losing it.
Bottom line: I’m starting to think these people are indeed gullible and, yes, stupid. I mean, they elected George Bush twice, which I find completely unfathomable. I’m really struggling to understand this mindset where people see and hear despicable things, see and hear Winky The Twinkie repeatedly make a fool of herself, see all of McCain’s campaign photos are shot from the same side of his face (to take emphasis off the scar on the other side), see and hear people screaming “Bomb Obama” and “Kill him” at rallies—unchallenged by the GOP nominees. They see and hear all of this, and yet close their eyes and their conscience to what is obviously a campaign of hate. They dismiss what is right before them and embrace this nonsense, making excuses for obviously despicable behavior. And many if not most of these people call themselves Christians, say their prayers at night.
I really struggle with this: I can’t fathom good people of good conscience not making a stand against hate. That these people want to win so bad, they’re willing to sell their soul to do it.
9 Comments
The thing of it is, Priest, that quite a few Republicans feel the same way that you do. My parents, who (for reasons I will never truly understand) voted for W twice, have turned on McCain, opting to vote Obama in November. Many of my friends who are Repubs are doing the same. McCain's lost the sane vote; all he's got left are the fringe, the ones who will fall for the hate speech.
scrawled by Richard Howe | October 13, 2008 1:01 AM
My grandmother forwarded me a right-wing screed someone sent to her earlier this year, and I responded with a point-by-point "Imagine if Hillary Clinton were President and did this" comparison. You know, "Imagine Hillary Clinton were President, and the largest terrorist attack on American soil happened while she was on vacation. Imagine that it turned out later that she had received a briefing titled 'bin Laden determined to strike inside the US' that included intelligence that al Qaeda might hijack planes and fly them into landmarks. How would you feel?"
My answer, of course, is that I would feel exactly the same about Clinton as I do about Bush in the same circumstances. But I can guarantee, bless her heart, that my grandmother would not, that she would be appalled at Clinton for the same behavior she defends from Bush.
Lack of logic and perspective are probably the things that terrify me the most about our elected officials and the electorate that puts them in office.
scrawled by Thad | October 13, 2008 1:04 AM
As a republican who voted for McCain in the 2000 primary against Bush, never voted for Bush in either election, and recently came to the conclusion that I will be voting Obama this election, let me give you some insight as to why I stuck with McCain so long this time. I kept hoping that I would see the guy who ran in 2000 come back. Early on, I justified his demeanor and tactics as being the requisite move to the right to shore up the base. I felt that his difficulties on the trail were just him trying to figure out what to say to best position himself, rather than what he BELIEVED. However, this McCain does not resemble the man I voted for in the 2000 primary, a moderate, fiscal conservative with the intelligence to work with both sides to get things done. This choice of Palin, an inexperienced right-wing demographic pick, really killed me. I still hope that this McCain is just an act to get elected, and that if he is elected he will return to the man I voted for in 2000. I just no longer have enough faith that he is to vote for him.
scrawled by Chad | October 13, 2008 9:13 AM
I wish we could have some sort of temporal flux and get the McCain of 2000 to run against the Obama of today. I think that would be an interesting race, and one I think that I would feel more comfortable no matter which way it went.
Unfortunetly it seems Senator McCain has sold some of the honor and dignity that made him such an attractive candidate to me eight years ago. He seems less of the maverick that he was (despite Palin's harping) and more just another Republican groomed for the presidency. I suspect that McCain sold a part of his soul to get the GOP to back him up as their candidate and that's a shame. Because Priest, like you, I haven't always agreed with his policies or opinions, but I liked the 2000 McCain, but this 2008 version doesn't suit me at all.
scrawled by JasonD | October 13, 2008 9:13 AM
So nobody thinks that maybe "2000 McCain" is a big myth? That's he's always been 2008 McCain and that he was just better at covering it up then? I simply don't buy the fall from grace theory of McCain's campaign. The differences in 2000 and 2008 McCain are as superficial as his stand "against" the Bush administration's torture policies.
scrawled by Professor Fury | October 13, 2008 1:40 PM
I agree with Prof. Fury.
The more I learn about the man, the more convinced I am that 2000 McCain was just wearing a better mask.
In 2000, he was still the man who left his crippled wife for a bimbo he met in a bar.
In 2000, he was still the man who was part of the Keating 5.
In 2000, he was still the man who sat on the board of a group connected to Latin American Death Squads and Neo Nazis.
In 2000, he was still the man who has used "I was a POW!" to excuse his every error.
Check the Rolling Stone Article: http://tinyurl.com/3toabc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEcSIzzjO7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbeRuEr9e1g
scrawled by Bill O'Rights | October 14, 2008 5:44 PM
I'm with the last couple commenters 100%. Nothing has truly changed about John McCain except now we have the 24 hour news cycle and better means to research his actual voting history. To be fair, I also think Bill Clinton would have struggled more if coverage back in 2000 was how it is today. Look at how poorly Bill fared during this campaign season. Nothing has changed about McCain except he's more desperate now than he was back in 2000. This time around he's not the one being smeared by the Bush Machine. He IS the Bush Machine.
scrawled by Trav | October 15, 2008 11:20 AM
First, the Rolling stone article is a joke. It was clearly just a hit piece, just as there have been similar hit pieces on Obama. This man IS different than McCain V.2000. I was not a passive viewer in 2000, I did and still do scrutinize all the candidates and their beliefs before making a decision. I am a moderate, conservative leaning person who has voted for Clinton and Kerry in the past as I thought they had better ideas and more moderate beliefs than the republican candidates at the time. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary because he was the moderate candidate at the time. Unfortunately, he has switched his position on many things since then to appease the conservative base and lock up the republican nomination. He has talked the talk, but no longer walks the walk, as was seen in the bailout that was LOADED with pork. 2000 McCain would have fought against the bailout noting that both parties were using this emergency to take advantage and get pet projects funded until the pork was eliminated or people were exposed. 2008 McCain voted for it without hesitation because he thought it would get him votes. 2008 McCain put a neo-con on his ticket to get the base energized, exposing us to the possibility of a hard corp right winger being president and causing our government to be even more gridlocked. This man IS different.
scrawled by Chad | October 16, 2008 11:13 AM
...I want to know who will support heavy investment in improving urban infrastructure, including comprehensive mass transit options; the US auto industry is failing, i've never been interested in hummers or escalades (and since when did these behemoths become 'Mommy cars'?), and Detroit public transportation totally sucks and is abominable.. you "have" to have a car to really get around to work, school, errands, etc., and if you live in the core city you get your throat slit on insurance even if you have a perfect driving record.. I'd be willing to pay more taxes if it meant rail options, modernized buses & street cars, etc.; Priest, country-living is totally cool, but i'd almost give my left leg for subways here..
scrawled by christopher currie | October 17, 2008 1:11 PM