"Waterboard Obama"

[Bravo]

to all those people who want to pretend as if it's just a few wackos on both sides.

to all those people who want to play the blame by association game:

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9405/499websitegrabrepublicagz9.jpg

Sacramento County Republican leaders Tuesday took down offensive material on their official party Web site that sought to link Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden and encouraged people to "Waterboard Barack Obama" – material that offended even state GOP leaders.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/waterboard-him.html

craziness.

[tiny]

Oh no, there's wackos on both sides, plenty to go around unfortunately. And that ad is just sick. What makes people think that sort of thing is acceptable or entertaining I'll never know.

[Bravo]

this is actually from the sacramanto party website itself.

[Bravo]

i would like for republicans to finally start doing what they claim muslims never do: start protesting against this fringe element in the party. start demanding resignations, and ousters.

[tiny]

Yes, I saw that it was on the party website.

[whistlelock]

And, as I recall, the owner of the content's response was: "I can't help how other people react to content".


'Cause, yeah, calling for the torture of anyone is totally not an asshole move.

[Takvah]

When is Barack going to develop the thick skin necessary for this office? Or maybe the better question is when will his followers? We had a "Waterboard McCain" t-shirt in a post. ABC showed people wearing "Palin is a c**t" shirts. This is the state of our discourse. People will believe for all eternity that Barack Obama is a manchurian candidate, a muslim and whatever else... it's just the way it is. I think Obama is dangerous, immature (although he plays at mature well on TV) and unfit to lead this country. I frankly don't trust the man. He'll just have to deal with that, the same as I'm going to likely have to deal with the fact that he's the president. This is AMERICA and like it or not, people will say what they'll say and we all just have to be thankful that we have the right to rebuke them in terms that are equally severe. Face it, Obama is Osama to some... and the fact that one of his political patrons and the person that really set him up in the big time of community organizing bombed the Pentagon doesn't help his cause. It's just the way it is. Time to deal with it.

[Takvah]

i would like for republicans to finally start doing what they claim muslims never do: start protesting against this fringe element in the party. start demanding resignations, and ousters.

We need that fringe element to counter yours :D

[Bravo]

so i take it you wont be protesting what your party is doing, takvah?

[TerzaRima]

Takvah, ever think of changing your username to Exhibit A?

[Sweetlebee]

This is the second case of county Republican party leaders spreading Obama rumors. A few weeks ago the Dutchess County, NY, Republican Party head was terminated for passing on an email claiming Obama is Muslim. I believe she said "She didn't read it first."

Correction--it said Obama is the AntiChrist.

[Takvah]

I voted for Kerry in 2004. I wanted the neocons out. McCain is not Bush. The neocons are basically done on the right. You can say what you like about me not going out there and bitching about people marketing bullshit bumper stickers and t-shirts. Similarly, I don't see anybody demanding that Murtha, Mahoney, Lewis, or any of the other left leaning people that have said utterly stupid things (or been engaged in corruption) in the last week to resign. I guess that makes Bravo Exhibit B and you Exhibit C Terza.

[rugcat]

When is Barack going to develop the thick skin necessary for this office? Or maybe the better question is when will his followers? I think the point here is that this was on the official website of the Sacramento County Republican Party. The linking of Obama with Osama Bin Laden goes beyond simple political hyperbole, and it not a fringe element like a far right or far left political blog would be.

And it's fanning the flames of divisiveness in a way that will pay some nasty dividends in the years to come. Obama will have to contend with irrational anger if he becomes president, which won't help the country get back on its feet. If McCain were to win, which now looks unlikely, but not impossible, these tactics will be remembered and lead to a different segment of the country filled with hatred. So this isn't just about elections and a thick skin -- it's really a destructive road to go down.

As for "both sides," There has been some mocking from the left, but there hasn't been anything like the concerted effort to induce fear and hatred that has come from the right.

[Bravo]

christopher hitchens, who if you remember was a fan of waterboarding until he got waterboarded himself, has actually spoken out against this:

It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

…

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.

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

[Takvah]

How about you speak out about something that really matters? How about all of you holier than thou types demand that Jennifer Bruner and Ohio stop making politics of the election process and that they do the right thing? Why does she have to be ordered by a court to do the right thing? There is plenty to be disgusted about when it comes to this election. John Lewis equating McCain/Palin with GEORGE WALLACE? Last time I checked he was a member of the democratic party. Meanwhile the election is being tampered with and no disgust from the people that have bitched about the process being stolen in 2000 and 2004. I don't think the bumper stickers are fair, I think they're tacky. I also thought that John Lewis' comments were just as reprehensible. I didn't come here and bitch about it to make a political point though. I didn't paint with a big, heavy brush. Some might take that into consideration as they meander down their partisan road.

[astonwest]

i would like for republicans to finally start doing what they claim muslims never do: start protesting against this fringe element in the party. start demanding resignations, and ousters.
If I found out my county's party website had done this, I would...anyone around here live in Sacramento County?

[Bravo]

thank you

[astonwest]

If McCain were to win, which now looks unlikely, but not impossible, these tactics will be remembered and lead to a different segment of the country filled with hatred.
Regardless of who wins, the country will be filled with hatred. Unfortunately, those seem to be the times we live in.

[Bravo]

http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/10/exclusive_leak_mccains_latest.html

[benbradley]

Oh no, there's wackos on both sides, plenty to go around unfortunately. And that ad is just sick. What makes people think that sort of thing is acceptable or entertaining I'll never know.
Well, there's this concept of "free speech."

There's the site http://fark.com where people who have fun with Photoshop come up with over-the-top sendups like this. But perhaps it takes a certain taste to tolerate it.

Regardless of who wins, the country will be filled with hatred. Unfortunately, those seem to be the times we live in.
And this will be different from the last two elections in what way?

[astonwest]

And this will be different from the last two elections in what way?
Never said it would be...

[Takvah]

The table was set a long time ago. When you're willing to paint Bill Clinton as a racist, there is nowhere you won't go.

[AncientEagle]

Takvah, you said in post #7,

"the fact that one of his political patrons and the person that really set him up in the big time of community organizing bombed the Pentagon doesn't help his cause."

I'm curious to know who this "political patron" is, how you know he's a political patron, and how you know he set Obama "up in the big time of community organizing."

[Bravo]

The table was set a long time ago. When you're willing to paint Bill Clinton as a racist, there is nowhere you won't go.

bill clinton made racially loaded statements, there's no way around that.

[Death Wizard]

I think the point here is that this was on the official website of the Sacramento County Republican Party. The linking of Obama with Osama Bin Laden goes beyond simple political hyperbole, and it not a fringe element like a far right or far left political blog would be.

And it's fanning the flames of divisiveness in a way that will pay some nasty dividends in the years to come. Obama will have to contend with irrational anger if he becomes president, which won't help the country get back on its feet. If McCain were to win, which now looks unlikely, but not impossible, these tactics will be remembered and lead to a different segment of the country filled with hatred. So this isn't just about elections and a thick skin -- it's really a destructive road to go down.

As for "both sides," There has been some mocking from the left, but there hasn't been anything like the concerted effort to induce fear and hatred that has come from the right.

Well said.

[odocoileus]

The table was set a long time ago. When you're willing to paint Bill Clinton as a racist, there is nowhere you won't go.

Because that's comparable to calling for the death of the future president.

[Bravo]

and remember, no one should complain when people call for the death of a candidate.

doing so is playing the race card.

[Dawno]

This one's going to hardcore - if you've posted here and don't have access please PM me.

[Bartholomew]

This election is really bringing out the worst in people, and I wish I could say why.

[LaceWing]

This election is really bringing out the worst in people, and I wish I could say why.

I think it's also bringing out the best in the sense that it's bringing out the vital. It's just that, depending on what's vital in one's hierarchy of values, it brings out passion of different, conflicting stripes.

I haven't had such hope for resurrecting the passion of the whole, conflicted world in a long, long time.

[rugcat]

This election is really bringing out the worst in people, and I wish I could say why.I think it's because usually, an election is contested by painting one's opponent a big spender, or stupid and incompetent, or "out of touch."

This is the first time I've seen an election where one candidate is painted as treasonous, dangerous, and unamerican.

The idea of such a person ascending to the presidency causes a great deal of anger in some. But if that candidate's values reflect your own, you tend to get just as angry at the opposition.

[Joe270]

This election is really bringing out the worst in people, and I wish I could say why.

I think some of it has been a long time coming. I'm not blaming all democrats, to the contrary.

But the 'blame Bush' stuff has shackled his presidency, nothing he says has any time to sink in before the 'MoveOn' folks slam the hell out of him.

Many of the GOP party liners I know are angry about that. They didn't approve of Clinton, or his policies, but they supported him as president. They don't see the same from the democrats and Bush.

The way they talk, they want the same treatment for Obama. They plan to not support him as president, and hope to undercut everything he says. They're talking about taking it to the streets in protest.

Frankly, I'd like to see a conservative street protest. Seems like that market's been cornered by the liberals for far too long.

Now that they are no longer the 'silent majority', the conservatives don't plan on laying down, they're gonna get loud.

About time. They've let the 'religious right' do the talking for far too long.

Personally, I hope it happens. Maybe folks will stop the partisanship once they get a taste of their own medicine.

[dmytryp]

I think it's because usually, an election is contested by painting one's opponent a big spender, or stupid and incompetent, or "out of touch."

This is the first time I've seen an election where one candidate is painted as treasonous, dangerous, and unamerican.

The idea of such a person ascending to the presidency causes a great deal of anger in some. But if that candidate's values reflect your own, you tend to get just as angry at the opposition.
Yes, beacuse all the sexist attacks on Palin, accusations of racism against the CLintons etc followed McCain's attacks. What a load of bull. And, of course, Obama is in no way to blame for trying to tie McCain to an unfavorable president who suffered much more vicious attacks than Obama ever did.

[dmytryp]

and remember, no one should complain when people call for the death of a candidate.

doing so is playing the race card.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2852149&postcount=199

I saw somewhere that the shirts from the first link appeared on Obama site (probably in the comments) as well.
And the quote from the second link is just precious.

P.S. Your first post in this thread is pure moral equivalence. Here is a quote (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/libs-threaten-to-beat-kill-sarah-palin.html) for you:
Here's a clue for the media.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SPItYdOFgGI/AAAAAAAAWWY/1PzgJEwTUfw/s400/bush+terrorist (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SPItYdOFgGI/AAAAAAAAWWY/1PzgJEwTUfw/s1600-h/bush+terrorist)
When the conservatives start mass producing "Obama is terrorist" signs, working "F*** Obama" (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-supporter-threatens-sarah-palin.html) into their comedy routines, pushing "abort Obama" (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/abort-sarah-palin/)stickers, then get concerned.

[Monkey]

Face it, Obama is Osama to some... and the fact that one of his political patrons and the person that really set him up in the big time of community organizing bombed the Pentagon doesn't help his cause. It's just the way it is. Time to deal with it.

Yes, it certainly is time to look at things the way they really are.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163396/page/1

FactCheck.org has issue with your several parts of your statement, noteably:

1. That Ayers was one of Obama's "political patrons"
2. That Ayers "really set Obama up in the big time of community organizing"

It also has issue with the claims that "Obama started his career in Ayers's living room" and that Obama and Ayers have been "palling around".

[maestrowork]

Many of the GOP party liners... didn't approve of Clinton, or his policies, but they supported him as president. They don't see the same from the democrats and Bush.

I disagree. They pushed for a multimillion-dollar probe (Whitewater) and also impeached Clinton. They shut down Congress in defiance of Clinton. They hated Clinton with a passion, and wanted to see him fail. They were not behind him as President. As much as the Democrats hate GWB, they didn't impeach him (as Donald Trump said, they should have when they had a chance). They were behind him on Iraq War, even though it's an unpopular war. And it was GWB who kept vetoing bills passed by the Democratic Congress. Besides, GWB's approval rating is now down to 23% (as compared to Clinton's 66% when he left office, even after Lewinski-gate), and I hardly think the 78% are all Democrats.

I think sometimes both parties want to see themselves as the heroes, and not the villains. But the truth is both parties play the same games -- it's just a matter of who plays it better. That's the nature of our two-party political system.

[AncientEagle]

I think some of it has been a long time coming. I'm not blaming all democrats, to the contrary.

But the 'blame Bush' stuff has shackled his presidency, nothing he says has any time to sink in before the 'MoveOn' folks slam the hell out of him.

Many of the GOP party liners I know are angry about that. They didn't approve of Clinton, or his policies, but they supported him as president. They don't see the same from the democrats and Bush.

The way they talk, they want the same treatment for Obama. They plan to not support him as president, and hope to undercut everything he says. They're talking about taking it to the streets in protest.

Frankly, I'd like to see a conservative street protest. Seems like that market's been cornered by the liberals for far too long.

Now that they are no longer the 'silent majority', the conservatives don't plan on laying down, they're gonna get loud.

About time. They've let the 'religious right' do the talking for far too long.

Personally, I hope it happens. Maybe folks will stop the partisanship once they get a taste of their own medicine.

(my bold) This is sure news to me. Since when did Republicans support Clinton? The battering began from the minute he took the oath, and it continued right through to the drive to impeach him for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of screwing around with a 24-year-old woman not his wife. Certainly that was not a morally correct thing to do, but it didn't compare to some other "high crimes and misdemeanors" i could name. And just in case their "support" during his presidency was not sufficient, they have continued to blame him for everything from the economy to the drought we're having in the South.

I am also surprised to learn that the partisanship has all, so far, been from the left. Gee, I feel so sorry for the poor, beleagured right, who've been nothing but honest and non-partisan all this time, and now they're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it any more.

[Jimmyboy1]

AE, That's not nearly why he was impeached. You know better. You have to.

And support him? The GOP?

Ahah! You betcha they did. Where it counted! Judges! (A five letter word for Joe Biden).

[benbradley]

AE, That's not nearly why he was impeached. You know better. You have to.
I really wonder if people really do know better or not. Many seem quite dense on the subject.

And of course it's not just Clinton's impeachment, it's much the same with lots of issues on both sides.

Political polarization is an awful thing.

[Jimmyboy1]

BB, you're wrong. It was intended.

Look back in history. It was worse in the founding years for nasty.

Squabbling is a good thing. Last I checked, husbands and wives do it. Often. Heck, I do it with myself. Done so tonight.

But think if it was against the law to do so....

Even on my most worstest day here I thank God we are able to disagree and not have violence over such.

[Don]

I really wonder if people really do know better or not. Many seem quite dense on the subject.

And of course it's not just Clinton's impeachment, it's much the same with lots of issues on both sides.

Political polarization is an awful thing.
Political polarization is far more important than people realize. If we didn't squabble about our team's crooks being less crooked than the other team's crooks, we the people might get together and realize they're ALL crooks, and decide to do something about it except blame the other team of crooks!

Unfortunately, it's a very successful technique. It keeps the squabbling going here, so instead of discussing the real causes of problems and finding real solutions, we argue about which team gets the blame and which team gets to try to solve the next disaster they cause.

Partisanship is great for the status quo. It's the magician's equivalent of misdirection.

[AncientEagle]

I really wonder if people really do know better or not. Many seem quite dense on the subject.

And of course it's not just Clinton's impeachment, it's much the same with lots of issues on both sides.

Political polarization is an awful thing.

I really hate being called dense. I know exactly the grounds for Clinton's impeachment. I also know those grounds grew out of a witch hunt caused by his stupid carrying-on with the intern.

I agree that political polarization is an awful thing.

[AncientEagle]

I disagree. They pushed for a multimillion-dollar probe (Whitewater) and also impeached Clinton. They shut down Congress in defiance of Clinton. They hated Clinton with a passion, and wanted to see him fail. They were not behind him as President. As much as the Democrats hate GWB, they didn't impeach him (as Donald Trump said, they should have when they had a chance). They were behind him on Iraq War, even though it's an unpopular war. And it was GWB who kept vetoing bills passed by the Democratic Congress. Besides, GWB's approval rating is now down to 23% (as compared to Clinton's 66% when he left office, even after Lewinski-gate), and I hardly think the 78% are all Democrats.

I think sometimes both parties want to see themselves as the heroes, and not the villains. But the truth is both parties play the same games -- it's just a matter of who plays it better. That's the nature of our two-party political system.

I agree with what you're saying, Maestro, but be careful. You may get labeled "dense" if you're not in agreement with the OP.

[Jimmyboy1]

Not to derail, but...

Clinton was/is a sexual predator, molester, rapist.

Juanita B. had zero detractors.

Reading Richard Morris' "Partners in Power" back when he first got the White House, I was appalled.. beyond appalled. WAY before that fateful pizza/thong delivery came into the Oval Office.

The case was NOT about sex. Nor is rape or subordination of an employee (in this case, Paula Jones). It was about lying under oath.

The Monica issue was about character assignment. And we all know now what that "character" was. Two words: Blue Dress.

Reagan would never take his jacket off in that office, no mater how hot or who else did so, for respect. Clinton never pulled his pants up, for respect of said office.

The sink emperor:" Ah... Ah think you bettah put some ice on that....."

Carry on....