Squick!

[elfs]

I haven't been blogging about politics too much recently. It simply horrifies me that a man so completely without honor and dignity as Candidate McCain has shown himself to be is within striking distance of the White House. And now Chris Matthews, under the guise of "analysis" on Hardball this morning gave us this punchbowl-filler:

When you see the picture together of John McCain [and Sarah Palin] .. it's like they are offering themselves up as a kind of a political couple, almost like President and Senator Clinton. They offering themselves up to run as an alternative to Barack and Michelle Obama to go to the White House. This picture is appealing to traditional Americans. They go, yeah, that's a nice traditional formal, we've seen that picture before.

I'm not sure what's more foul and revolting: Chris Matthews depicting John McCain and Sarah Palin as some kind of May/December romance, or proposing that Barack and Michelle Obama aren't "appealing to traditional Americans."

What's not appealing about the marriage of Barack and Michelle Obama? When we look at them together, you know, first marriage, two delightful children, traditional home life, churchgoing couple-- what do we see that turns off "traditional Americans?" Inquiring minds want to know, Chris Matthews...

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What's not appealing about the marriage of Barack and Michelle Obama? When we look at them together, you know, first marriage, two delightful children, traditional home life, churchgoing couple-- what do we see that turns off "traditional Americans?"

The fact that the "church" in question was incredibly, screamingly racist?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Somehow, I doubt that's what Matthews was thinking at the moment.

What church does John McCain go to, anyway? We're already familiar with Sarah Palin's "The Jews, by not adopting Christianity, have caused God to curse their nation with terrorism" church.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

That was, by the way, some of the sweetest Rovian ju-jitsu. I subtly accused Matthews of racism, and you try to drag the conversation away from the topic by discussing whether or not Obama's pastor was racist. I think you're earned your yellow belt for sleaze.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What sleaze? A question was asked, and I directly answered it.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

You answered it the same way you answer every other question. With a mouthful of shit.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You answered it the same way you answer every other question. With a mouthful of shit.

You're claiming Obama didn't spend 20 years going to, and taking his family to, a racist pastor?

Now which one of us is committing corprophagy?

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

I'm claiming that you're trying to change the topic. Again. Like you always try to do. And it's your problem, not ours.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I didn't "change the topic." The original text asked a question, which was what about Barack and Michelle Obama, churchgoing couple, offended the mainstream of the American people.

I simply answered it. That the church to which they went was a blatantly racist one.

If the question was meant to be rhetorical, to suggest the answer "their race," then he who asked it should have been more wary.

Rhetorical questions need not be taken rhetorically.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

So if I'd left the phrase "churchgoing" out of the equation, you wouldn't have immediately latched onto that as the point with which you could change the subject away from Chris Matthew's accusation that the Obama's don't look "traditional," but somehow Palin/McCain do?

I know, let's talk about Sarah Palin's antisemitism!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

So if I'd left the phrase "churchgoing" out of the equation, you wouldn't have immediately latched onto that as the point with which you could change the subject away from Chris Matthew's accusation that the Obama's don't look "traditional," but somehow Palin/McCain do?

That's right.

If you hadn't left an opening that huge, I wouldn't have commented at all.

I know, let's talk about Sarah Palin's antisemitism!

What anti-Semitic statements has she ever made? Has she, for instance, supported the Palestinians or other Arabs against Israel?

Eh?

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

A few moments of rhetoric from a twenty-year career of one pastor at that church, and you conclude the church, itself, all of it, is racist?

Could I see some corroboration for that, please?

Regardless of whether that church is racist or not, could you substantiate your implication, namely that it is the nature of that church that makes the Obama couple unacceptable, and "not traditional." ?

Re: Eh?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

A few moments of rhetoric from a twenty-year career of one pastor at that church, and you conclude the church, itself, all of it, is racist?

It was my understanding that Reverend Wright repeatedly said that sort of thing, all through his ministry. In fact, I seem to recall him saying that himself, when he was interviewed shortly thereafter.

He doesn't even see it as "racist."

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

OMG, if McCain becomes President and divorces AgingBeautyQueen#2 in favor of Vice President SlightlyLessAgingBeautyQueen#3, I'm so blogging that.

Like, from fucking France.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Oh, just come on up to Canada. The Quebequois aren't even half as annoying as the Fundies, and they don't even have a majority within the voting population.

[edichka2.livejournal.com]

As it was in 2004, Canada is seeming to me just a little too close. I'm thinking New Zealand.

- E

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Oh noes! America's ickiness will waft over the border!

Or are you seriously suggesting that we're going to invade Canada.

[edichka2.livejournal.com]

The former. Frankly, America is seeming pretty damn icky these days.

QED.

- E

[(Anonymous)]

Seems likely the republicans think they have a monopoly on "traditional values"... whatever scandals might arise among their membership, and what this might say about them.

[norincraft.livejournal.com]

Let me posit a somewhat unrelated point: A few years ago we had a fully Republican Govt. It was the royal flush of politics with the majority, of the judiciary, senate, house of representatives, governors positions as Republicans. Oh, and the President. And the lobbyists.

Why is abortion still legal?

Was the feckless Democrats that manage to derail the who deal? I suggest it was to keep the status quo. To do that you have to string along the marks. I really think this is why the whole lipstick on pig thing has such resonance. Any rationale person divorced from the identity of the candidate knows this is a cheap shot. Obama thinks the media just eat it up; I think they are actively complicit.