Squick!

Sep. 10th, 2008 10:52 am
elfs: (Default)
[personal profile] 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...

Date: 2008-09-10 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Date: 2008-09-10 07:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2008-09-10 07:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2008-09-11 01:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jordan179.livejournal.com
What sleaze? A question was asked, and I directly answered it.

Date: 2008-09-11 01:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com
You answered it the same way you answer every other question. With a mouthful of shit.

Date: 2008-09-11 01:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Date: 2008-09-11 02:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2008-09-11 09:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2008-09-11 05:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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!

Date: 2008-09-12 02:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Date: 2008-09-11 05:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Date: 2008-09-12 02:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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."

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 30th, 2025 04:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios