Is McCain losing his mind?

[Lurker]

The problem with Drudge isn't that he provides links to the AP and Breitbart. The problem is that Drudge elevates absurd stories from right wing sources to the top of his page. Drudge also regularly pushes "breaking" stories where it's clear he has ommitted key facts or made things up entirely, all aimed at the left.

You aren't seriously suggesting that Drudge is an unbiased conduit for AP feeds, are you?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I just took a look at Drudge before I posted this. His top of the page links are AP, Reuters, Times Online and Washington Post. Which of those are right wing hack sites?

[Ddrak]

My beef with Drudge isn't so much his sources but his selection of stories. He definitely leans right but more than that, he leans to the sensational and marginally verified in the hope of getting the next big scoop.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

For his BIG TAGLINE? Sure. But most of what is on his page (most, but not all), come from relatively mundane sources. Plus, he links to a bunch of columnists and other news organizations in th elower part of his page.

[Ddrak]

Maybe it's just the BIG TAGLINE that makes me avoid him? /shrug. I usually just stick to AP and Reuters feeds, and Google News if I'm really bored.

Dd

[Lurker]

This is like arguing with someone that insists that the Earth is flat and then demands that you go look outside at the flat ground. No, Embar, the Earth is round, and Drudge is right wing hack. Sure, most of his stuff comes from mundane sources, but he's highlighted enough questionable material (all aimed at the left) over the last decade that it's obvious what Drudge's bias and agenda is. To continue to pretend otherwise is absurd.

[Embar Angylwrath]

This is like arguing with someone that insists that the Earth is flat and then demands that you go look outside at the flat ground. No, Embar, the Earth is round, and Drudge is right wing hack. Sure, most of his stuff comes from mundane sources, but he's highlighted enough questionable material (all aimed at the left) over the last decade that it's obvious what Drudge's bias and agenda is. To continue to pretend otherwise is absurd.

You made a statement that he elevates hack sites to the top of his page. I gave you the sites currently on his page. You haven't answered my question in a direct and forthright manner. Can you please identify which of those sites so elevated are hack sites?

[Lurker]

Can you please identify which of those sites so elevated are hack sites?

What's on his site at any given moment is not relevant when we have a decade of work to evaluate. But since you asked, I'd say this link to WorldNetDaily and this link to the Washington Times are good examples of Drudge elevating debunked or misleading right wing attacks from biased sources.

[Harlowe]

Embar you realize you could validate Huffington saying the same exact thing. Huffington and Drudge are two sides of the same hack coin.

[Harlowe]

Going back to my theme of inciting violence...

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/ ... able_1.php

We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.

This was not some notion bandied about by conspiracy theorist, but an accusation proffered by men who were the pillars of the modern Republican Party:

As late as 1964, Falwell was attacking the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "civil wrongs" legislation. He questioned "the sincerity and intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." Falwell charged, "It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed."

Falwell was not alone. These men didn't kill Martin Luther King, but they contributed to an atmosphere of nationalism, white supremacy and cheap unreflective patriotism that ultimately got a lot of people killed. Confronted with Aparthied South Africa, men like Helms and Falwell used the same "communist" defense. While Mandella wasted away in prison, they dismissed the whole thing as a communist plot.

Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists

Am I the only one here that is really nervous (and lets face it - disgusted) by the race-baiting going on?

[Lurker]

I don't think McCain would fear for his life walking through the crowd at an Obama rally. I don't think Obama could say the same about walking around a McCain rally.

McCain and Palin are knowingly spreading lies about Obama in an attempt to demonize him. They are going to lose this election. That's guaranteed. You don't play to a rabid base three weeks out and win the moderate vote. They know that too, and yet they continue to push this really dangerous line of attack. It is disgusting. (note that I disabled smilies there? ;p)

[Ddrak]

(ok - fixed the disgust smiley to use ':'s around it)

[Ddrak]

McCain and Palin are knowingly spreading lies about Obama in an attempt to demonize him. They are going to lose this election. That's guaranteed. You don't play to a rabid base three weeks out and win the moderate vote. They know that too, and yet they continue to push this really dangerous line of attack.

I suspect that they've given up on the moderate vote. They're switching campaign modes to a last ditch effort to energize the base and toss out enough chaff in order to confuse the swing voters enough to make them stay home. That means attacking Obama on random points as often as you can without worrying about how bad you come off yourself for doing it. It means energizing the fringes. It means trying to suck as many whackos into the polling booth as possible because you know you've lost everyone else.

If it was 2000 or 2004 it would work. It's not going to work when the Dow drops 3000 points in 10 days after your candidate says "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" and people are far more worried about the real and immediate threat of no food on the table than they are about the distant threat of terrorists, much less ones they've never heard of before.

Dd

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I find it absolutely disgusting. That someone could shout "kill him" at a presidential rally and not have the entire crowd (not to mention the candidate himself) be completely outraged? While I'm not sure I believe McCain is a racist, these are the fires he's willing to stoke to get elected? That he's willing to be that devisive I think shows anyone who's paying attention just how wrong he is for the job (and yes, even dangerous). I remember at the beginning of the race someone was spouting that "Osama Hussein" we-can't-elect-a-black-man racist shit to me. I tried to do my part as an American and told him "Do you really want to be punched in the face that badly?"

It's bad enough that McCain would put himself before his country to that extent. The outrageous thing to me is that he would potentially set us back 50 years for the sake of landing a job. That to me is worse than racism. Jesus, I hope he doesn't get elected. Progress as a society can't be measured overnight. Just the fact that a black man can win the primary and appear on the ticket is encouraging. I'm not expecting to wake up on Nov. 5th to puppy dogs and rainbows, but I hope we'll be able to move past this shit. Man, we have enough problems with the economy. And if McNasty gets elected, well, will the next Rosa Parks please stand up?

EDIT: Isn't McCain up for re-election as a senator for Arizona? Pardon my political ignorance, but isn't there a possibility he could wake up Nov. 5th without either job? I'm not sure how that works, and I know you peeps are really smart...

[Klast Brell]

I just took a look at Drudge before I posted this. His top of the page links are AP, Reuters, Times Online and Washington Post. Which of those are right wing hack sites?

Druge is a filter. he only lets certain things through. He's just a conservative collector of news links. there are liberal ones also.

[Lurker]

Isn't McCain up for re-election as a senator for Arizona?

McCain was re-elected in 2004 and a Senate term is six years. Arizona is stuck with him until at least 2010.

[Harlowe]

McCain's attacks fuel dangerous hatred
By Frank Schaeffer

October 10, 2008

John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as "not one of us," I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.

At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, "Kill him!" At one of your rallies, someone called out, "Terrorist!" Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.

Shame!

John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.

John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that surround the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post-9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are a bitterly divided country on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there.

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.

John McCain, you're walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out "Terrorist" or "Kill him," history will hold you responsible for all that follows.

John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are playing with fire, and you know it. You are unleashing the monster of American hatred and prejudice, to the peril of all of us. You are doing this in wartime. You are doing this as our economy collapses. You are doing this in a country with a history of assassinations.

Change the atmosphere of your campaign. Talk about the issues at hand. Make your case. But stop stirring up the lunatic fringe of haters, or risk suffering the judgment of history and the loathing of the American people - forever.

We will hold you responsible.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back." His e-mail is frankaschaeffer@

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... 7571.story

Well said. I can't help, but wonder what this race would look like if McCain were the McCain that I supported 8 years ago, if he would have picked a qualified VP (hell Olympia Snowe if he wanted a woman), and wouldn't have turned this into a dirty, hateful, Rovian campaign. As pissed off at his campaign as I am (mostly Palin though) I'm also depressed about the whole thing.

[Partha]

Don't be too depressed, Harlowe, it could not have ended differently. The church wing of the GOP hates McCain, and would not vote for him. He HAD to run to the fundies to have a chance the way the modern GOP is constructed.

[Harlowe]

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

Christopher Hitchens of Slate endorses Obama
Vote for Obama
McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace.

On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, and there is no decent way of avoiding the fact. Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

[Harlowe]

I didn't want a thread just for this, so I'm sticking this here - but I just want to say I think the NYT's recent piece about Cindy McCain was shitty. The candidates and their running mates are fair game, if any of their spouses were involved in something unethical or illegal recently that we should be informed about - fine, but I think being mean-spirited like this one is about Cindy McCain is over the line and imo really has no bearing on this election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/po ... ref=slogin