Full yet?
I certainly hope not…we're only getting started and tonight's the big night that starts it all! And what a night it has been. Woohoo.
Not Very Bright shared info on a fake Xmas card sent out by Mitt Romney's opponents in SC recently that made me think back on a post I did in early '07 about how the SC GOP eats their own to win an election.
Why do they do this? Who knows?
I know, I know. The Republicans will say…"well, Democrats do it too." They do? When was that exactly? When have Dems eaten their own in this way? Hell, Dems rarely use these tactics on Republicans much less each other. Geez…we've known for years Larry Craig was gay. We could have easily outted him years ago if we really wanted to defeat him. Did we? No. Democrats don't care that he's gay…we do care he's a lying hypocrite though. So, we just stood by and watched a closeted gay republican work his butt off to oppress gays only to end up getting busted picking up men in a bathroom in the airport and weaken the entire Party in the process. What fun. And so much more effective than outting him. (Like my Mama always said…what comes around goes around. Amen Sister.) Regardless, if he were a liberal, Hollywood PETA spokesperson and I busted him eating a steak behind closed doors…I'd still say the public still deserves the right to know the truth.
But, do Democrats 'eat their own' in the same way the anti-Romney operatives did with this fake Xmas card? Of course not. While I admit Clinton and Obama have gotten a little nastier than I prefer to see my Democrats get do you think I ever believed when the 'Obama is a Muslim' email surfaced that I thought it came from Hillary's camp? OH, yeah…because that went over REALLY GOOD, didn't it? It really hit him hard with the Democrats. Please…what in the world would be her motive there? He's not a Muslim, but who cares if he is? Not Democrats.
These negative tactics fail with Democrats because the overwhelming majority of Dems don't hate blacks because they're black. We also don't believe that "all Muslims are terrorists." And I don't care that Mitt Romney is a Mormon nor do I mind women in power, people who have committed adultery, smoked weed or snorted coke in the past, are gay, aren't religious at all much less involved in a minority religion, and so on. The things that are negatives to the far right are the things I like about people because it shows they are human beings with the ability to overcome societal obstacles, to think and obviously grow from their life experiences. That's the kind of leader most Democrats are looking for…so why would a Democrat use these kinds of politics?? Larry Craig doesn't suck because he is gay…he sucks because of the way he worked to oppress gays when all the time…he was gay. Not cool. So…as I said…of course Dems don't use these tactics because we aren't out to destroy a person's character in order for them to be a public servant. Quite the opposite actually…we thank those that are crazy enough to have the brass ones to agree to serve.
Republicans in SC have seen documented success with their racist attacks on McCain in 2000 as well as with their religious intolerance attacks as far back as 1979 when they attacked Gville Mayor Max Heller's Jewish heritage to help Carroll Campbell out to today with their treatment of Mormon Mitt Romney in '08…oh, I can't wait to see what they'll pull out of their butts if Clinton or Obama get the Democratic nod. JUST WAIT…
Now, what is sad here? That some politico thinks it's a good idea to plant these thoughts in the minds of SC voters in an effort to keep SC voters from voting for John McCain/Romney or the fact that the sheer mention that McCain had a black child/Heller was Jewish/Romney is Mormon DID and will keep SC voters for voting for John McCain/Heller/Romney?
I guess it's all pretty sad…ain't it? This dream of a "Ken" doll candidate that some R's have just isn't going to happen. Ken is NOT real. Didn't y'all get the memo? Democrats don't need Atwater tactics because WE GOT THE MEMO. We clued into the fact that political candidates are human beings YEARS ago and it's high time y'all got with the program. Ken…not real. Neither is Barbie…just in case you were wondering. Politicians are REAL people. And the majority of them…not lookers. Just people running for public office. Stop expecting perfect, demand smart, thoughtful, committed to community and get on with your business. And in the meantime, think for yourself.
Arghhhhhhhhh. It's very frustrating when people don't think for themsevles.
ALL that said, I can't recall a specific time when Lee Atwater tactics have worked for the Dems. I'm not saying Dems are 100% innocent. Of course we aren't but they're NOT an everyday tactic of the Democrats and I doubt it ever will be.
Do I think we'll see a bit of it this time? Oh, hell yeah. Every once in awhile and I think the time is now, the opposition needs a taste of their own medicine. Just because the Democratic party CHOOSES not partake in Atwater politics the majority of time, it certainly isn't because we can't play the game.
2008 will definitely be interesting. Probably not in SC but in those lucky states where the presidential candidates move once the competition gets going…where it's moderate enough to have independents…it will defintely be interesting. Cheers to the 2008 season.
t
p.s. go edwards and huckabee and less money. Spend less…affect change. It can be done.
SeedingSpartanburg.com
on 04 Jan 2008 at 9:58 am # Mike B.
I think for myself, and here is what I think about your favorite candidate, John Edwards …
Edwards is one of the angriest, phoniest, most devisive, and most self-absorbed candidates I’ve seen in 30 plus years of observing the political landscape. And Hillary is right there with him.
There … you asked me to think for myself. I just did.
Grin.
on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:09 pm # BillM
“This campaign is not just about people who have religious fervor,” Huckabee said as he made the rounds of morning talk shows this morning (Friday). Unfortunately, it is largely about people who have religious fervor. A country governed by religious zealots is disastrous.
If theocracy in Iran and the dominance of religion in the governments of other states is to be abhorred, American voters should also guard against the dangerous corruption of democracy by religion. America’s seeming insistence on Christian leadership not only threatens the constitutional separation of church and state but smacks of theocracy.
The current field of Republican party presidential candidates woos voters in primary contests based largely on who is the most Christian, rather than who will best get the U.S. out of Iraq with honor, who will best repair damage to the country’s broken economy and domestic infrastructure and who will best restore its foreign relationships. One of the candidates has to assure voters that his religion, Mormonism, is Christian.
On the Democratic side, the presidential candidates actively present their Christian bona fides to voters. One of the candidates, whose name sounds Middle Eastern and who spent part of his childhood in an Islamic country, has to convince voters that he is not a Muslim but is a Christian.
The U.S. is straying from the wise counsel of its founding fathers. Too many voters demand that politicians be, or at least profess to be, Christians. Would a majority of voters not also elect men and women to office who are, or who profess to be, atheists, agnostics or deists? Would the U.S. not elect Thomas Jefferson to office today?
Americans seem to believe that the more Christian their president, senators and representatives, the more divinely inspired their governance will be. When the policy directions and the missteps of the current Christian-based administration are considered, even the most ardent Christian would not admit to seeing the hand of Jesus or inspiration by the Holy Trinity.
Presidents and politicians may pray for divine inspiration, intervention and special blessing, but voters shouldn’t insist that they do so. Too much time spent in prayer might take time away from the rational consideration of the issues that confront the nation.
When voting for a change in course of the ship of state, the electorate should minimize, if not eliminate from its calculations, the importance of a politician’s religion.