The Party of ?
November 1, 2008, 9:07 pm
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
From TPM:
Interesting anecdote and probably a testament to ground organization. I have no idea what this means. Friday night (which happens to be the start of our Sabbath) my wife answered the phone to hear a man stating he was from the McCain-Palin campaign. He asked who she was supporting. She replied that we will vote for Obama. He replied with “but he’s a f—–g n—er!”.
That sounds to me like a dirty tactic by the opposition. Whenever there is something so over the top that is obviously not authorized by McCain’s or anyone’s campaign, the cynic in me gets suspicious. It happens more than we care to admit.
As everyone knows I insist that gender problems are greater than race problems. Nonetheless, race is huge enough. It is a tribute to our country than a African American is a candidate for presidency for a major party. British people like to brag about the lack of prejudice in London and so so our other Euro neighbors. But the US has delivered and will elect, an African American next Tuesday by a huge margin I believe.
Yes there is that epithet to be heard in many places. But give credit to the land of the Free that we did it first. This is when one can be truly proud of one’s country.
If this is true, than you should feel an obligation to report it and find out exactly who this caller is as this is more than just misrepresentation of the McCain-Palin campaign.
It’s worth asking if the vitriol of the campaign brings out this nastiness in some; and, are they a “tiny minority” as McCain stated? And how man yare a “tiny minority?’
Tension on all sides.
Some random Obama supporter in a country of 300+ million people did something bad? I guess that represents the entire “party” then.
Elaine:
….pssst….you’re off message.
The democrats have their loonies but there is no question that the party of Karl Rove, Limbaugh, O’Reilly has a corner on viciousness and calumny.
Anyway, look for an Obama landslide. The question is will it be as big as Reagan’s.
Anyway, the story does seem a little fishy. If there were a recording, that would be one thing. But the story is that a black person living in a black area of Baltimore gets a call from the McCain campaign (initially unlikely), and the campaigner doesn’t recognize that the person to whom he’s speaking is black (unlikely as well, as people are very good at recognizing someone’s race), and in any event uses that kind of language over the phone as a representative of the McCain campaign (seems very unlikely)? I’m not saying it’s impossible that this happened, but the unlikelihoods all add up.
Maybe the real headline should be: “Democrats: The Party of Spreading Unproven Vicious Rumors.”
Stuart,
It doesn’t sound like a very credible story to me, either.
But regarding another story that was not very credible, note that in this clip, Brian Williams says that the McCain campaign called to the attention of reporters the story of the McCain volunteer who claimed she was attacked by a black man who carved a B (for Obama) into her face. Of course, it was a hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHnjc0lRpL4
I don’t suppose you heard that in the 2000 election, McCain had false rumors spread about him by the Bush campaign. How could such a think happen among Republicans, who are so pure?
Why would you suggest that I hadn’t heard of what happened in the 2000 campaign? That’s a good example, though, because that story wasn’t really proven either, as Byron York found.
Anyway, I never said that Republicans are “pure”; my point was that it’s not fair to hold all Democrats responsible for the rumor-mongering (or any other misdeeds) of a few people. It’s a big country with many tens of millions of people who identify with either party, and anyone who likes to cherrypick is always going to be able to point to misdeeds on the other side.
Stuart,
I agree with your last paragraph entirely, but I find it difficult to reconcile with this statement of yours: “Maybe the real headline should be: ‘Democrats: The Party of Spreading Unproven Vicious Rumors.’”
The real question is not whether some Obama supporters or some McCain supporters did things they shouldn’t. It is whether the Obama and McCain campaigns incited them in any way.
David,
Good question – How has the McCain campaign incited racism?
That line was a bit sarcastic; I don’t really think the whole Democratic party is responsible for whatever smear Josh Marshall manages to think up.
In what way has McCain “incited” anyone to use the language that has been anonymously attributed to someone who allegedly purported to be a McCain supporter?
How has the McCain campaign incited racism?
Sean,
I don’t have a lot of praise for the McCain campaign, but to his credit I don’t think they have incited racism. I don’t blame the McCain campaign for the racist hoax perpetrated by that young woman. I read somewhere that McCain chose not to use the Reverend Wright against Obama because he didn’t want to use anything that could be considered racial, in part because he felt race was used against him in 2000.
I think if John McCain had run as what I hope is the real John McCain, he would have done much better than he has.
I think Carolyn Disco is on to something there. Pollsters believe that most people who don’t want to vote for Obama on the basis of race give other reasons, Bradley Effect.
McCain has never tried to run a racist campaign, though I’d say Sarah Palin’s attempts to separate Obama from “most Americans” and accuse him of palling around with terrorists “who want to hurt our country” (as if it’s not Obama’s country, too), plays into the hands of racists and xenophobes.
I think this election is still up for grabs. Undecideds are coming out of the woodwork on talk radio today saying they’re voting for McCain because he has more experience. On the other hand, I’ve talked to a lot of Republicans who are voting for Bob Barr, though the pundits say that Barr and Nader will be negligible factors in the race.