Perhaps the best and most timely ad the McCain-Palin campaign has put out:
Just be careful where you go with that McCain bumper sticker, lest you get attacked by a deranged Barack Obama supporter. (Update:This particular incident turns out to have been a cruel hoax. I share Jim Geraghty’s sentiments. Meanwhile, the death threats keep rolling in.)
Good news for everyone in that video! If they actually are like Joe the Plumber, they’ll get a larger tax cut from Obama than from McCain!
Oops. Like most of the charges being thrown about by the McCain campaign and supporters, the tale of an attack by a “deranged Barack Obama supporter” was made up out of whole cloth. At least in this case, the liar will be held accountable.
Fox News Executive VP John Moody on this story when it broke:
“If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.”
Yup. A fitting coda to a disgraceful campaign.
That’s one person’s opinion. The deranged woman deserves the criminal charges coming to her. It’s a bit of a stretch to make the issue about the candidates themselves, n’est-ce pas?
A bit of a stretch? It wasn’t a bit of a stretch when you thought the story was true and might frighten up some votes for McCain. This “deranged woman” was plucked out of a record field of applicants to be one of the 50-60 paid field operatives of the College Republican National Committe – the same organization that gave us Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. These folks are the future backbone of the Republican Party and clearly they either have very poor judgment, or see race-baiting as an acceptable campaign tactic.
Looks like the campaign had no problem pushing this story either:
“John McCain’s Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established — and even told reporters outright that the “B” carved into the victim’s cheek stood for “Barack,” according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.”
“A bit of a stretch? It wasn’t a bit of a stretch when you thought the story was true and might frighten up some votes for McCain.”
That’s called putting words in my mouth. Were the story true, it wouldn’t say anything about either candidate. It would only say something about a “deranged” Obama supporter, just as the story proven false only says something about a “deranged” McCain supporter.
The funny thing is you live in perpetual denial of the actual stories that do give insight into Obama’s philosophy, strategies, and the like. Yet you want to take the obvious sick hoax here and convert it into a national story against McCain.
Both your first and your follow-up comments stretch logic into absurd conclusions – which is fine if you want to believe them. (It’s a free country.) I won’t presume your motive for doing so. Your motive doesn’t necessarily matter.
Seriously, take a deep breath. And stop impugning motives to people. My patience is wearing very thin with this despicable tactic. Upon reflection and re-reading what I wrote late last night, I should have more carefully added a qualifying phrase, such as “if this is true.” But I didn’t. However, you don’t appear interested in finding out if such an omission were made by carelessness — if so, you might have offered a friendly, constructive criticism.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you continue to inhabit this space of someone you presume to have evil motives. Maybe it’s time for everyone – you, me, and all commenters – to lift our standards to better behavior, not push things lower and lower. Those who don’t want to abide can go find new haunting grounds.
Then you can go off and convince your friends that you are a better man than I.
“Upon reflection and re-reading what I wrote late last night, I should have more carefully added a qualifying phrase, such as “if this is true.—
Or perhaps you shouldn’t have posted anything about it at all, especially since, from the start, it seemed pretty fishy – even the Hot Air folks thought so. What was the purpose of mentioning it? Was it relevant to the Joe the Plumber ad? What point were you trying to make with it?
“Both your first and your follow-up comments stretch logic into absurd conclusions ”
I’m not sure which two comments you are referring to – my first comment that Joe the Plumber would get a tax cut is a fact, as admitted to by Joe the Plumber himself. He made up a “gotcha” scenario – buying a business that made just over 250k – that didn’t actually exist. He makes $40k a year and would get a tax cut from Obama.
“Yet you want to take the obvious sick hoax here and convert it into a national story against McCain.”
The McCain campaign and it’s echo chamber converted it to a national story – as you’ll see in my still-moderated comment – one which backfired on them horribly.
“Frankly, I’m not sure why you continue to inhabit this space of someone you presume to have evil motives.”
I don’t think you have “evil” motives. I’m sure you’re a nice enought guy. I think you are a political operative doing your job, but you’re not going to make it far in politics if you take things so personally.
“Maybe it’s time for everyone – you, me, and all commenters – to lift our standards to better behavior, not push things lower and lower.”
Yes, as McCain has pointed out – if only Obama had agreed to those town-hall meetings, McCain wouldn’t have had to run such a sleazy slimy campaign!
I think I’ve figured out our fundamental problem here. You think I’m a “political operative doing [my] job.” Hence your mistaken supposition of motives. A political activist, yes; a carefully-attuned citizen seeking to promote what I believe is right, yes; trying to balance principles and pragmatism according to the best lights of my own experience and understanding, yes. A paid political operative for McCain and/or the Republican Party? No.
I would be keeping this blog whether I worked in the world of public policy or not. Some of the content would be different, because some of the things I write about are informed by my research and a few of the things are directly connected to my paid work (I tend to disclose those items). But most of my posting is my own work done on my own time.
Had we cleared up that misunderstanding months ago, it would have saved us both many hours of fruitless exchanges.
“Or perhaps you shouldn’t have posted anything about it at all, especially since, from the start, it seemed pretty fishy – even the Hot Air folks thought so. What was the purpose of mentioning it? Was it relevant to the Joe the Plumber ad? What point were you trying to make with it?”
Unless you are remotely as concerned every time a site like ColoradoPols posts an unsubstantiated rumor, I can hardly take that assessment seriously. Blogs are part of an ongoing dialogue. I stumbled across the story and found it especially disturbing. I didn’t attach any truth claims or significance to it because I wasn’t sure what to make of it. I’ve already pleaded guilty to declaring insufficient skepticism, but your pressing this point so far raises more questions about your own agenda than anything else.
So yes, I do bristle a bit when someone repeatedly tries to smear my motives. I’m not concerned whether you think I’m a “nice enough guy”, but I do like to keep the record clear.
Enough on this topic: case closed.
While I’m being so frank and candid, perhaps you can tell me why so many of your commenting tactics tend to reflect Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”? I’m willing to concede that it could be a coincidence – maybe you intuited the tactics on your own – but I’d like to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth (as the expression goes).
I have no idea. I’ve never read the book, although it appears you have. What does that tell us about your motives?
In fact, I think I’m pretty sure I can guarantee you, I’ve heard more discussion about Saul Alinsky here and on other right-wing blogs than anywhere else.
If you’re truly interested in what I’m reading, you’re welcome to see for yourself. I try and keep it up to date. I’ll start counting down the seconds until you come back and triumphantly let everyone know I’ve read “A People’s History of the United States”.
Hmm, that link didn’t work. My mostly-up-to-date library is here.