I can remember as far back as 2003 hearing Barack Obama called the Antichrist. Republican savior Alan Keyes liked to trot the doomsday prophecy regularly. In 2004, the Sunday before the general election, I was at a church service and I overheard the preacher talking to some people about how Obama very well could be the Antichrist. That same preacher ended his sermon that day by urging people to vote, "I don't care what Republican you vote for, just as long as you vote," he concluded.
For us in Illinois, Obama has been a rock star for quite some time. His newfound national stardom is old news to us. But I suspect Antichrist Obama warnings are only going to grow louder and louder by the right wing as November draws nearer.
Republican scare tactics will stoop as low as possible, especially with their fantasy world crumpling around them.
3.02.2008
Sunday Evening Wackjob Blogging
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"...tactics will stoop as low as possible..."
That's a good description of what the Clinton campaign has been doing to Obama so far.
Mentions of drug use and possible drug dealing by Billy Shaheen in NH, Bob Kerry using the middle name and making his "secular madrasa" comment on CNN. Bill Clinton playing the reverse racism/ backlash card in South Carolina, the Clinton campaign surreptitiously releasing the turban photo to Drudge right before the Texas primary...
It has been the Clinton campaign, a bunch of Democrats, who have been "stooping as low as possible".
But of course they get a pass in your partisan world. Why call out the Clintons when you can blame those evil no good Republicans, I guess.
The post is in reference to the general election in November. Hopefully Hillary won't still be around then. Sure the Clintons have played their typical mudslinging game, but it will be nothing compared to what the Repubs will do once the Dem nominee is selected.
I link to a Republican flat out calling Obama the antichrist. Instances like this will only grow stronger and more coordinated the closer we get to November.
Republicans who would make wacky charges like that are doing their own party a disservice. There are plenty of substantive policy disagreements to be had with Obama. For example, how into abortion is he?
The problem for Repubs is, as far as policy, John McCain agrees with Democrats on so many issues that it won't be easy to draw much of a distinction between the policies he favors and those of Obama.
This is part of the reason I see the election as a referendum on how to proceed in Iraq, since that is the only real area in which the two candidates are diametrically opposed.
Although now that things in Iraq are slightly improving, I see Barack starting to "hedge" on the issue. We'll re-invade so long as AQI is present? That's a little different from an unconditional immediate withdrawal.
He's so into abortion he has at least one a week. I've seen him sit around and jack off to abortion videos. J/K but I agree with the point you're trying to make. There are plenty of policy differences for Republicans/conservatives to disagree with Obama about. Rather than calling him the devil's son, the country would be better served to debate policy and the course each candidate wants to take America. Like you say, and I agree with, Iraq very well could be the deciding factor. Pull out or stay forever. Let us remember, though, AQI has very weak links to bin Laden, and was not formed until after George Bush invaded. If there's been anything to breed terrorism, it's been the Republican policy this country has been undertaking since 2001. A well formulated message that McCain is more of the same is fine with me if Iraq is to be the deciding issue.
Perpetually blaming Bush about spilled milk doesn't strike me as particularly forward looking. It strikes me that the best candidate should be able to articulate what should be done in the future rather than endlessly harping on and dwelling in the mistakes of the past.
Can't fix what's wrong if you don't know what broke it. Knowing how we got in this mess is the only way to get us out and make sure we never do it again.
I see no evidence that electing Obama "make[s] sure [that] we never do it again." Even you would concede that electing Obama is at best like betting it all on black in roulette: You have close to a 50% percent chance that things will turn out OK.
In other words, it's a massive unknown. People may not want to gamble with America's future when they go in the booth in November.
It's not a massive unknown at all. At least no more of one than it has been at electing any president. If Obama does it right, or whoever the Dem candidate may be, it won't be asking people to gamble. It will be asking people if they want change or not. And doing things better than Bush has won't require a whole lot of anything. Bush and the Republicans have set the bar pretty low for the next president.
Post a Comment