Good news for Dems: GOP is falling apart

[Pete (Premo)]

Lets hit this point again for emphasis.


REPUBLICANS DO NOT CONTROL THE MEDIA. THE MEDIA MADE WRIGHT A BIG DEAL, NOT REPUBLICANS.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Oy vey! One more time... it doesn't matter what I believe. The point that I am making is that this message will sell with the Democrats and the MSM. I mean of course it doesn't sell with me, but I am neither making or accepting the premise. The Democrats aren't going to try to convince you and I that they are the same, but they will convince others.

My point all along has been that for decades even the Dems did not attack individual religious types. They would go after national figures like Falwell and Robertson just as we would go after Jackson and Sharpton, but the local guys were hands-off. The Republicans lowered the bar this go around to make any religious guy a target, which played great for a while against Wright, but any Republican is going to have connections to a lot more religious types than any Democrat, so that was a foolish line of attack in my judgement. Even worse, our pundits couldn't stop with just attacking what Wright said. No, they had to go further and further off the edge and start attacking how much money he's made, his house, his cars, etc. They made all that an issue too, and all of that is going to come right back around at Republicans.

So when ABC news has a film crew outside of Parsley's million-dollar home, and showing video of the guy's fancy business jet, few are going to hear that McCain just went to a couple of his services, they are going to hear "Parsley, who Mccain once called a spritual leader, lives in this million-dollar home that's next to the million-dollar home he built for his parents, and flies around in this $500,000 luxury jet. Parlsey has repeatedly called for the extinction of all muslims and the eradication of non-Christian religions, and McCain has refused to ..." Once those stories start, trying to say "but he didn't know him for 20 years!" isn;t going to mean a thing to many people.

I wasn't asking what you believe or whether it's important. I was asking why you argue what you don't believe in. You consistently defend Barry, attack McCain, yet above you said you knew what you were saying was not the truth.

Originally Posted by Pete

Lets hit this point again for emphasis.


REPUBLICANS DO NOT CONTROL THE MEDIA. THE MEDIA MADE WRIGHT A BIG DEAL, NOT REPUBLICANS.

But see here's how the game is played:

Sean Hannity gets wind of this guy Wright, and starts harping on him on his radio and TV shows. Few people pay attention.

Everytime Hannity has a Republican leader on his show, he brings up Wright. "Hey... have you seen this guy yet? Have you heard about him yet?"

Other media shows start picking up on Hannity's reporting, and start asking Democrats. "Do you see this guy as a potential issue?"

Now the MSM starts asking Republicans and Democrats all about this "growing Wright issue".

O'Reilly shows up late to the party, but can't resist the spotlight, so now he has to lay his own mark on the story and starts his "in-depth examination of Wright", which pisses off Hannity who thinks he's going to lose credit so he starts upping the ante.

Now Wright is the talk of the country, with Republicans and Clinton using him to attack Obama.

You are correct in saying that Republicans are not the media, but they operate in tandem. I think this all plays well with the Romney debacle last year. Mitt has one, single, guy ask him about his being a Morman. One guy. In the press conferences after that townhall, Romney gets asked by reporters about this guy's comments. This is the time for Romney to say "this isn'tabout my religion, this is about me being President, so I have no comment." Instead he senses a chance to play the victim and starts going into how many people don't like Mormons or know nothing about the religion and are baised yada, yada, yada." This sends the media rushing out to get all sorts of opinions, then people get defensive, and the next thing you know Romney is having to deal with a real anti-Mormon sentiment that he can no longer control.

Originally Posted by This_person

I wasn't asking what you believe or whether it's important. I was asking why you argue what you don't believe in. You consistently defend Barry, attack McCain, yet above you said you knew what you were saying was not the truth.

Just because I don't agree with it, agree being the more correct term, doesn't mean I don't believe it is there. It is there, and me saying I disagree with it isn't going to change much. I disagree with the whole "Bush was behind 9/11" theorists, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.

My point again is that when Republicans, through the media, lowered the bar on the personal religious leaders issue, they lowered the bar for everyone. If Republicans had been smart, when the media folks started breaking the Wright stories, they would have said "we have always held that a person's personal religious beliefs and affairs are not the business of anyone but that person. I don't want anyone telling me what church I should belong to, and I'm not going to do that to anyone else. Thank you." Instead they went right along with the story, and now the loopback is going to start rolling in and we're not going to have a defense for it. A slimy, self-serving, self-engrandizing, pocket-lining, bigoted scumbag of a religious leader is a slimy, self-serving, self-engrandizing, pocket-lining, bigoted scumbag of a religious leader whether you've been associated with him/her for 20 years of 20 minutes, and the only thing that most folks are going to pay attention to is that the guy or gal McCain is associated with is a slimy, self-serving, self-engrandizing, pocket-lining, bigoted scumbag of a religious leader.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Just because I don't agree with it, agree being the more correct term, doesn't mean I don't believe it is there. It is there, and me saying I disagree with it isn't going to change much. I disagree with the whole "Bush was behind 9/11" theorists, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.

My point again is that when Republicans, through the media, lowered the bar on the personal religious leaders issue, they lowered the bar for everyone.

The key word your not understanding (or, rather, you have said you DO understand, but think the average voter is too dumb to understand) is "personal". Hagee is not McCain's "personal" religious leader - he's just a guy out there. Wright was Barry's "personal" spiritual advisor/mentor/like family guy. I have more faith in the average voter to see the difference.

But, you've argued repeatedly that you think Wright wasn't so bad. That you think Barry is an all-right guy, whose views are not that out of the mainstream. Whose leadership you claim to be able to see, because you can see his experience. Yet, when pushed on that, you say now that you agree none of that is true. So, why did you argue the other way?

Originally Posted by This_person

The key word your not understanding (or, rather, you have said you DO understand, but think the average voter is too dumb to understand) is "personal". Hagee is not McCain's "personal" religious leader - he's just a guy out there. Wright was Barry's "personal" spiritual advisor/mentor/like family guy. I have more faith in the average voter to see the difference.

But, you've argued repeatedly that you think Wright wasn't so bad. That you think Barry is an all-right guy, whose views are not that out of the mainstream. Whose leadership you claim to be able to see, because you can see his experience. Yet, when pushed on that, you say now that you agree none of that is true. So, why did you argue the other way?

You see... this is where you miss my point! I have never argued that Wright isn't so bad! I've always said he could have been spewing racist hatred for years... but I haven't seen any proof of that. I've heard all sorts of allegations made by people who have never set foot in that church, but I have never seen or heard of any proof that validates that claim. I've heard that Republicans hate blacks for decades, despite no evidence of that, so I no longer accept baseless allegations as valid. Wright could be the anti-Christ for all I know... I'm just asking for some proof before accepting someone's claims, and after three months and hours and hours of videos available, NO ONE has been able to come up with any proof other than the 2007 videos and the one post 9/11 sermon.

As for Obama, I don't see him as "mainstream". Here... see if this makes you happy... "I think that Obama is an extremely liberal/leftist/socialist guy whi did pretty well in the Illinois State senate and hasn't done much more than average in the U.S. Senate." There... that is my personal assessment of Obama. Of what impact is that personal opinion going to have on anything? Nothing... zip... nada... so why should I bother writing about it? Just to get some feeling of self-worth from reading my own opinion?

The point that I have been making is that while "I" think the guy is a leftist liberal, about half the population of this country see him as mainstream. About half the country see him as being more than experienced enough to run the country. About half the population don't see Wright as a problem for him. So when I hear people saying "Obama can't win because he's a LEFTIST!" I point out that he's a leftist in your opinion, but about half the country disagrees with you. That doesn't mean that I disagree, it means that just because one person has an opinion that the rest of the country agrees. In this situation Obama can win because half the country does not see him as a Leftist and see him as mainstream.

Lastly, as to Hagee and McCain, you are looking at specifics of the case. You think that a Hagee/McCain association can easilly be differentiated from a Wright/Obama association through a wealth of discriminators... length of time, spiritual leader stuff, marrying stuff, baptizing kids stuff, etc. But the core argument is the same... the politican and the religious loon have an association. And what you consider to be important discriminators are likely not going to be seen as important by the other side. All they are going to look at is that an association exists.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

You see... this is where you miss my point! I have never argued that Wright isn't so bad! I've always said he could have been spewing racist hatred for years... but I haven't seen any proof of that. I've heard all sorts of allegations made by people who have never set foot in that church, but I have never seen or heard of any proof that validates that claim. I've heard that Republicans hate blacks for decades, despite no evidence of that, so I no longer accept baseless allegations as valid. Wright could be the anti-Christ for all I know... I'm just asking for some proof before accepting someone's claims, and after three months and hours and hours of videos available, NO ONE has been able to come up with any proof other than the 2007 videos and the one post 9/11 sermon.

Well, that and the church's website, the fact that Wright himself says this has been his view for all that time, the connections with Farakhan, etc., etc., etc.,..... When he was put up in front of the NAACP, and the Press Club, and not only did NOT deny that concept, but went on to justify that concept (in his mind), was that not proof enough?

As for Obama, I don't see him as "mainstream". Here... see if this makes you happy... "I think that Obama is an extremely liberal/leftist/socialist guy whi did pretty well in the Illinois State senate and hasn't done much more than average in the U.S. Senate." There... that is my personal assessment of Obama. Of what impact is that personal opinion going to have on anything? Nothing... zip... nada... so why should I bother writing about it? Just to get some feeling of self-worth from reading my own opinion?

I would tend to disagree that he did well in the Illinois Senate, but yes, that's better. I don't think you would get some self-worth out of your own opinion, I would think you'd get some value out of discussing the beliefs you have instead of trying to justify inaccurate views. Instead of challenging the truth with innuendo and meaningless questioning of things, just be honest about what your point is. The impact your personal opinion has on anything is that you can help someone understand the truth, or cement the wrong ideas in people's heads.

The point that I have been making is that while "I" think the guy is a leftist liberal, about half the population of this country see him as mainstream. About half the country see him as being more than experienced enough to run the country. About half the population don't see Wright as a problem for him. So when I hear people saying "Obama can't win because he's a LEFTIST!" I point out that he's a leftist in your opinion, but about half the country disagrees with you. That doesn't mean that I disagree, it means that just because one person has an opinion that the rest of the country agrees. In this situation Obama can win because half the country does not see him as a Leftist and see him as mainstream.

Half the country, or half the Democratic National (minus two) Party? A very significant number of voters are not voting in the Democratic National (minus two) primaries. When polled, a very significant number of those asked would not vote for Barry should he actually get the nomination.

While it's true that about half of the Democrats are voting for him, about half are voting against him, too.

Lastly, as to Hagee and McCain, you are looking at specifics of the case. You think that a Hagee/McCain association can easilly be differentiated from a Wright/Obama association through a wealth of discriminators... length of time, spiritual leader stuff, marrying stuff, baptizing kids stuff, etc. But the core argument is the same... the politican and the religious loon have an association. And what you consider to be important discriminators are likely not going to be seen as important by the other side. All they are going to look at is that an association exists.

And, see, this is where honest discourse is important. When discussing this issue, when someone (like yourself) who recognizes that there is an obvious difference between "an association", like a person you work with, and "a relationship", like your spouse, argues that they're similar, people who might not originally grasp the difference will continue to not grasp it. BUT, if you stand by the thought you have - that there is a significant difference between (seeking and) accepting an endorsement and going to the church of, paying tens of thousands of dollars to, and putting on your campaign as a spiritual advisor - someone might listen to THAT thought and be swayed by the truth, instead of the lie/misleading information.




That's all I'm saying. Every time you argue with someone for making a valid point against Barry, you hurt the chances of having a mediocre president of McCain. You HELP the chances of having a dismal failure for our country of a president in Barry.