McCain seeks only 8 years from his unholy pact, but the consideration is the same as Johnson's offering. John McCain barters with his soul in this election:
"Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, whose organization bombed the U.S. capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500."
McCain-Palin robocall, 2008 Presidential Election.
"Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain ... if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
Bush-Cheney robocall, 2000 GOP Primary Election
And as reported by Jack Knowledge, McCain's distinction between the two attack methods:
Of course not. These are legitimate and truthful and they are far different than the phone calls that were made about my family and about certain aspects that -- things that this is -- this is dramatically different and either you haven't -- didn't see those things in 2000.
I am disgusted by John McCain. The man I would have supported in 2000? Gone. Devoured by the election cycle's witching hour. Consumed by his party's unapologetic philosophy - that even deceptive means are justified if the ends are the maintenance of power and ongoing control of the federal government.
That's anti-democratic. That's anti-American, Michelle Bachmann, you profligate whore of partisanship, in case you couldn't recognize it.
"Deceptive" is the appropriate word against a campaign that plays it fast and invidiously loose with rhetoric. McCain views the message "Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, whose organization bombed the U.S. capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans" to be "legitimate and truthful."
McCain-Palin robocall, 2008 Presidential Election.
"Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain ... if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
Bush-Cheney robocall, 2000 GOP Primary Election
And as reported by Jack Knowledge, McCain's distinction between the two attack methods:
Of course not. These are legitimate and truthful and they are far different than the phone calls that were made about my family and about certain aspects that -- things that this is -- this is dramatically different and either you haven't -- didn't see those things in 2000.
I am disgusted by John McCain. The man I would have supported in 2000? Gone. Devoured by the election cycle's witching hour. Consumed by his party's unapologetic philosophy - that even deceptive means are justified if the ends are the maintenance of power and ongoing control of the federal government.
That's anti-democratic. That's anti-American, Michelle Bachmann, you profligate whore of partisanship, in case you couldn't recognize it.
"Deceptive" is the appropriate word against a campaign that plays it fast and invidiously loose with rhetoric. McCain views the message "Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, whose organization bombed the U.S. capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans" to be "legitimate and truthful."
The clear impression from this vile propagation of McCain's pliable "truth" is that Obama and Ayers conspired to bomb places in America. Obama worked with Ayers and Ayers's organization. That is not only a permissible connotation of the language selected, but the first meaning that jumps to mind. And that is the facial intent of the tactic - to make Obama terrifying, radical, risky, insidious. His party's "extreme leftist agenda" is idiomatic icing on the sinister cake of trepidation cooked up by these robocalls for unassuming, uninformed voters' consumption.
"Deception" is ethically worse than "lying." Deception is stretching, torturing, coloring a simple truth (eg., Obama is not a terrorist) until it becomes misleading and complex (eg., Obama "worked" with terrorists). Lying is an outright evisceration of the truth and much easier to ferret out.
McCain knows the difference. His limp outrage at the suggestion he has adopted tactics of his opponents in 2000 thinly masks a displeasure with himself and the candidate he has become. My opinion: John McCain is battling for his soul. His party wants it and offers the presidency in exchange.
As a side note, hasn't the Ayers-Obama question been asked and answered? McCain harps that we need to know the extent of the relationship, noting Obama served on a charitable board with Ayers which donated money to ACORN. Well, John, isn't that the extent of the relationship, unless you luridly suggest that our "need to know more" will expose Obama and Ayers soldering fuses and copper leads to bomb detonators in a dank, hidden basement furthering a clandestine agreement to reconstitute the Weather Underground.
Are you going there, John? If not, what else would you like to know? Did Ayers and Obama breath the same proximal oxygen within the confines of the Woods foundation's board room? They did, John. Are you satisfied yet?
Another member of the same civic board Ayers and Obama served on is a big financial supporter of John McCain. Does John McCain accept money from those who pal around with terrorists? A legitimate and truthful question.
Sorry to ask, John. But we need to know the extent of the relationship.
There's still time, John. To save your soul. It's dark out there, but not midnight yet.
McCain knows the difference. His limp outrage at the suggestion he has adopted tactics of his opponents in 2000 thinly masks a displeasure with himself and the candidate he has become. My opinion: John McCain is battling for his soul. His party wants it and offers the presidency in exchange.
As a side note, hasn't the Ayers-Obama question been asked and answered? McCain harps that we need to know the extent of the relationship, noting Obama served on a charitable board with Ayers which donated money to ACORN. Well, John, isn't that the extent of the relationship, unless you luridly suggest that our "need to know more" will expose Obama and Ayers soldering fuses and copper leads to bomb detonators in a dank, hidden basement furthering a clandestine agreement to reconstitute the Weather Underground.
Are you going there, John? If not, what else would you like to know? Did Ayers and Obama breath the same proximal oxygen within the confines of the Woods foundation's board room? They did, John. Are you satisfied yet?
Another member of the same civic board Ayers and Obama served on is a big financial supporter of John McCain. Does John McCain accept money from those who pal around with terrorists? A legitimate and truthful question.
Sorry to ask, John. But we need to know the extent of the relationship.
There's still time, John. To save your soul. It's dark out there, but not midnight yet.
**UPDATE**: A few more "legitimate and truthful" McCain robocalls buzzing the swing states:
"Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats got caught putting Hollywood above America. On the very day our elected leaders gathered in Washington to deal with the financial crisis, Barack Obama spent just 20 minutes with economic advisers, but hours at a celebrity Hollywood fundraiser. Where are the Democrats' priorities?"
You mean like McCain "rushing back" to Washington after suspending his campaign, but forced to detour to CBS studios in New York to chat with Katie Couric or speak at Clinton's Global Initiative? No shame.
"You need to know that Barack Obama ... opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions ... Barack Obama and his liberal Democrats are too extreme for America."
This one is particularly distasteful and another slick deception from McCain. No mention that the state already had strong and unchallenged protections for the surviving child's protection in place and that this bill was a Republican Trojan Horse trying to bully through a bill that primarily robbed women of their right to choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment