McCain’s Straight Talk Express Takes Every Fork In The Road?
May 31st, 2008 | by Daniel DiRito |It looks like it won’t take a swiftboating to highlight John McCain’s propensity to parse his words for political expediency. As a matter of fact, I suspect that the catch phrase for the 2008 presidential election may turn out to be YouTubing…and there’s little doubt the following video may be the first salvo in a concerted effort to redefine John McCain as a man who is unable to choose which fork in the road best suits his presidential aspirations.
McCain’s short temper and his dogged determination to claim ownership of all that can be construed as honorable and high-minded doesn’t always endear him to the impartial observer. Unfortunately for the Arizona Senator, it can easily be interpreted as arrogance and insolence…especially when the video footage frequently confirms the inconsistencies he’s been forced to adopt in hopes of creating a broader appeal in November.
At its worst, the McCain indignation only enhances the perception that his “grumpy old man” persona is a natural accompaniment to his advancing age. If that impression takes hold, McCain may lose any experience advantage he would have otherwise been able to espouse. If his coming exchanges with the Democratic nominee result in more YouTube moments…moments that appear to show a cranky man with a waning grasp of his prior utterances…he’ll quickly pigeonhole himself as the silver-haired senior with a surly certainty that cannot be sustained.
Should his opponent astutely position himself as someone willing to give respectful deference to age while refusing to relent on those matters of import to the voter, McCain will quickly appear to be a relic worthy of respect who has also eclipsed his capacity to command the issues that concern the citizenry. If this scenario begins to unfold, I would speculate that McCain’s testy temperament will work to his detriment…while also allowing a younger Barack Obama to position himself as the symbol of a changing political climate.
Cross-posted at Thought Theater
17 Responses to “McCain’s Straight Talk Express Takes Every Fork In The Road?”
By Craig R. Harmon on May 31, 2008 | Reply
Obama really is the candidate of change:
First, he could no longer renounce his radical racialist pastor than he could renounce his grandmother and the black community.
Then he renounced his pastor but, because, while he just could not stomach his pastor’s hatefully deranged world-view, that was his pastor, not his Church and his pastor was retiring, so he didn’t leave his Church. No word yet on how he could have been a 20 year member and regular attender at the Church and have no idea how hatefully deranged his pastor’s world-view was…but to even ask such questions is a distraction from what really matters.
Then, along came Rev. Michael Pfleger, preaching a sermon at his Church, wherein the radical Priest, not wanting to be TOO political, mocked Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Democratic opponent, to the hillarious laughter and boisterous approval of the congregation.
Obama, doubly shocked, first that his “not too controversial” Church would invite a radical priest (whose Church, by the way, Obama has several times attended) who would, in manner totally contrary to the tennor of the campaign that Obama wishes to be associated with and a tennor that he totally and completely renounces as backward rhetoric, and second, that his “not too controversial” congregation would not only not be as shocked and dismayed as Obama is but actually think it was the greatest thing they’ve heard since Rev. Wright damned America — well, yes, you can probably guess what Obamessiah has done now. Yes, Obama has renounced the black community…well, that part of the black community to which he so closely tied himself for 20 years. Yes, he’s quit his Church.
After being a regular attender and supporter of his Church and it’s pastor for 20 years, Obama is shocked! SHOCKED! to find that they are so radical and, well, so darn controversial. He no longer feels comfortable being in the Church that he raised his children in since the day they were born.
And so, having renounced his pastor, whom he could not renounce and having renounced the black community that he has most closely tied himself to for nearly half his adult life, one is left to wonder how long before he renounces his “typical white person” grandmother?
What I’d like to know is, how is it that a candidate that has worked so hard to come off as such a centrist could have so many close ties to so many such radical leftists? Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Reverend Pfleger? His Church, once described to him by pastor Wright as maybe too radical for a politician? William Ayers and his lovely wife and co-terrorist, Ms. Dohrn? Reverend Farrikhan, whom his pastor Reverent Wright lionized in the pages of Obama’s Church newsletter? Rashid Khalidi, to whose anti-Israel Palestinian foundation Obama funnelled money to while sitting on a board of something or other with William Ayers and friend from his teaching days at the University of Chicago?
Obama, agent of change…from ties to so many far-leftist radicals one can hardly believe it. Well, it’s actually only hard to believe if you buy Obama as a centrist, middle of the road, uniter. If not, well, it all becomes just a little easier to understand.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 31, 2008 | Reply
As for McCain, he is who he is. I’m not out to defend him. I’m here holding my nose in preparation for voting for him as the least of three evils. Criticize him all you want.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
My mistake. Obama has NOT denounced his Church. His being a member of the radical, racialist Church that lionizes Louis Farrikhan, damns America, and ridicules anyone daring to stand in the way of the coronation of Obamessiah brings his Church under too much scrutiny and undeserved criticism.
Ah…that’s even better. Now all we got to do is get a hold of every sermon ever preached in the Church that Obama was a member of, supported with cash, and refuses to renounce and play them in every state in the union so we know what sort of Church Obama refuses to renounce and would, if he only were not in a presidential race, still be members of.
My God…this scenario can only have been planned by Karl Rove himself. It’s brilliant! Obamessiah self-destructs on the very verge of becoming the Democratic “now that you’ve rejected Hillary, you’re stuck with him” presidential nominee.
The best part is, after hearing all the shit preached and lauded at his church of 20 years, now he can’t even renounce his Church because now he’s affirmed that he cannot renounce this wonderful Church and its wonderful beliefs and its wonderful people.
But then, that’s what he said about Rev. Wright…about a week and a half before renouncing him.
My guess is, after this latest speech, like his previous pre-rejecting-Wright speeches, fails to calm the storm but only throws gasoline upon the flames, in about another week and a half, Obamessiah will renounce TUCC…trusting his disciples to bravely forget how wonderful he said his Church was. Sad thing is, they will.
This is like Christmas in May.
Question: how soon before the Church looses its tax-exempt status for political campaigning?
Or does that only happen to conservative, white, Christian Churches?
We’ll see.
Anyway, how out of touch with reality does one have to be to be a member of and regular attender at a Church and, 20 years later, make a statement like this: ‘”This was one I didn’t see coming,” Obama said Saturday when he asked if he had anticipated the firestorm that would erupt over his relationship with Wright.’
Didn’t see coming???? Sheesh! He could only not see it coming if he truly, deep down in his bones, agrees with every God damn America thing Rev. Wright ever said and somehow has convinced himself that the rest of America believes the same shit. There’s no way he’s gonna sell being a regular attender for 20 years and have no clue. Especially now, with all that we know about the Church, its preachers and its people’s reception of every piece of shit that’s been preached there since Rev. Wright took over…and still refuses to renounce it. It’s like he thinks Americans will buy that a congregation that cheers the shit we’ve heard there, the same shit that Obama DOES renounce, DOESN’T BELIEVE EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT HE SAYS HE RENOUNCES. Uh…yeh. Obama, baby, if 8,000 members didn’t believe the shit you say you renounce, they wouldn’t have cheered every single piece of shit you say that you renounce.
So, Obama, baby…how can you renounce the preachers and the preaching but not the Church that cheers them?
Under such conditions, trying to sell the “I didn’t have a clue” defense, makes him either a liar or a moron. Since I don’t believe morons graduate from Harvard and teach law at U. of C., I can only conclude that he’s a liar. In either case, I’m not enough of a moron to believe the lie.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
And how big a fool does Obama have to be to think that, after belonging to the Church for 20 years and bringing up his children in the Church, his leaving the Church will take the spotlight off of his Church? After all, with or without Rev. Wright, the pastor that built the Church up from 87 members to 8,000 members and preached there to cheering, credulous crowds, Obama’s no longer being members of the Church doesn’t change the fact that it is the same Church that accepted Rev. Wright’s preaching (supposedly abhorred by Obama), the same Church that cheered Rev. Pfleger’s obnoxious (and supposedly rejected by Obama) politicking. It will still be watched, its preaching still attract attention and still be pinned upon Obama…
Because Obama refuses to reject the Church that accepts as its own world-view the world-view that Obama has called hateful and backward and not what he sees across America.
The man’s like caught in a twisted psychosis, psychologically incapable of not torpedoing his own success by doing the simple thing, rejecting and renouncing those things that he says he rejects and renounces…until absolutely forced to do so by political expedience. In that, he really is a change from the old politics. Any old politician would have finished this whole Church thing with a simple rejection 20 years ago and found himself an old-fashioned, totally unobjectionable Church.
I can only shake my head in incomprehension.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
I know, I know: this is all a distraction…not to mention off topic*, but it is a delicious distraction. While Nancy Pelosi is considering forcing Hillary out of the race before the Convention, and thus irrevocably going with Obama, who can’t seem to even understand simple common sense in damage control, as the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.
There is a God, after all! And he is, apparently, a Rovian Republican.
* If we had the BIO! fora back, so we non-official types could post our own stuff, I wouldn’t be taking up space in the comments of the official bloggers…but I’m told reliably that there are no plans for bringing them back before the election. SOOOOOO, unless and until I’m told to cease and desist such actions — at which time I promise to do so — I will occasionally do as I’ve done here.
Calling for a ruling from the administrators!
By christopher Radulich on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
if you really want to kill the stench you would have to cut off your nose.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
A dab of Vick’s Vapo Rub in each nostril helps cut through it some.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
On the free speech in England front:
No wonder conservatives have started to refer to Londonistan.
Calling Paul Watson…Paul Watson, call your office, please!
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
The most disturbing aspect of this is the last part of the article:
Not, mind you, that the officer would be given training in understanding that handing out Christian leaflets in Muslim areas is not a hate crime but, merely, that he would be trained in how to communicate that handing out Christian leaflets in Muslim areas is a hate crime without being such a prick in the process.
No apology? Jeez Louise!
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
Okay, I’m pretty sure I’ve mistaken that last point. He’ll be instructed on hate crime and communication may well mean that the officer will be instructed that handing out Christian leaflets in Muslim areas is NOT a hate crime AND in how not to be a prick.
Still, though…no apologies?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
I earlier asked how soon before Obama’s Church gets official notification from the IRS that they are investigating possible instances of behavior that could be interpreted as electioneering over Rev. Pfleger’s ridiculing of Hillary Clinton during a stint as visiting preacher at TUCC.
Rev. Pfleger is reported to have apologized for his comments at Trinity but Rev. Pfleger is again mentioning presidential candidates by name, this time at his own Church, St. Sabina’s. He mentions both Hillary Clinton and John McCain although, in this case, he is merely ridiculing their ministers as weak and lacking integrity, likening the pastors to cotton candy.
To me, this is a slam at the pastors rather than at the named presidential candidates so while I wouldn’t call this electioneering, the IRS might, since he’s mentioning candidates by name and in a context that may be fairly considered as negative.
I wouldn’t consider this electioneering; merely tacky in the extreme but the IRS? That’s another question. They may well consider an investigation warranted in light of his recent comments at Trinity. A pastor this wont to mentioning Obama’s competition by name in negative light, even after having to apologize for similar comments…my guess is he’s done it before. He’s just not been on anyone’s radar before. Due to his comments at Trinity, his own Church will undoubtedly come under scrutiny, not only (possibly) from the IRS but also from media reporters.
If I were Rev. Pfleger, I’d go through his old sermons and make ashes of them for next year’s Ash Wednesday service and erase any tapes that may have been made capturing similarly politically charged comments about candidates for elected office. Why? Losing its tax exempt status places a Church in a distinct disadvantage when it comes time to make charitable contributions. Why contribute to St. Sabina’s (if it loses its status) and pay taxes on those contributions when those same contributions can be made to a tax exempt organization?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Eh! <a href=”http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/father-pfleger.html”Forgot the link.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Yuck! Trying again.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Democrats Come Together To Tear Their Party in Half
Heh! Man this primary season has been fun!
By Paul Watson on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
It isn’t a hate crime. Yet. Although if some of my colleagues had their way it would be illegal. I got reported after shouting at them about this (not by them, I hasten to admit, but just for making too much noise in the office).
To be honest, it isn’t illegal, nor should it be, but it is being a prick. Under free speech you have the right to be a prick, of course, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Christians in question are being incredibly arrogant, insensitive and insulting. How well would a Muslim who walked through various Texas cities do if he kept telling all the Christians to change their religion because they were wrong do, btw?
By Chris Radulich on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Question: how soon before the Church looses its tax-exempt status for political campaigning?
Or does that only happen to conservative, white, Christian Churches?
Unfortunately it probably wont happen. When a church here in the south kick out half there members for not voting for Bush they were not strip of their tax free status. The only case that has been in the news was a liberal church in california and I do not believe that it went anywhere.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 2, 2008 | Reply
Paul,
Thanks for responding. Here’s the thing. Both Islam and Christianity (at least the traditional orthodox understanding of Christianity — pre-Universalist Unitarian ) consider themselves to be the one, true religion and have strong proselytizing strains in them. Now in Saudi Arabia, Bibles and even crucifixes and crosses are confiscated and evangelizing a Muslim is a crime. There seems to be a fear, even among some in England, that that is the direction that things are going…that Muslim neighborhoods will become closed to Christians wishing to spread the good news. However un-PC and insensitive to Muslims these evangelists may seem, as you say, that’s free speech.
But, I’m less tolerant of governmental agents. Free speech, as a legal doctrine here in the US anyway, is a protection of the people FROM coercion by agents of the government so here, agents of the government, AS agents of the government, don’t have free speech rights. When they are pricks, they carry the full weight of the coercive force of the government of which they are agents. Just by taking away a sign with “Scientology is not a religion; it’s a dangerous cult” from a 15 year old kid effectively quashes freedom of expression. Just telling them that if they return, they are likely to be beat up, sounds very much to me like that policeman, at least, wouldn’t go out of his way to protect those evangelists from what would be an actual hate crime, Muslims beating up Christians for exercising their speech and religious rights.