Tube City Almanac

October 26, 2008

Republicans: Known for Subtlety

Category: Politics, Rants a.k.a. Commentary || By

(Danger: Politics ahead. You have been warned.)



. . .

In many ways, my political views are classically Republican. I believe in personal responsibility, free enterprise, a strong national defense and less government interference.

But the Republican Party over the last 20 years has completely lost me. Why? Because of its insistence on invading my privacy, turning public services over to private industry, legislating morality and injecting religion (specifically Christianity) into government.

Peanut butter and chocolate go great together. Religion and government? Not so much.

The last eight years have pushed me further to the left than I've ever been in my life.

And then I get things like this flier, which I received Friday from the Republican Party of Pennsylvania (an identical brochure was mailed out by the Florida GOP).

The mailer accuses Barack Obama of being "soft on crime." Now, Republicans always accuse Democrats of being "soft on crime" (whatever that means), so the content of the flier is standard campaign horseflop.

But do you want to know what leaped out at me?

The picture of the Democratic candidate next to the words "Crime" and "Not Who You Think He Is":



That's really freaking subtle, Republican Party of Pennsylvania: "He's a Big Scary Black Man who might be a CRIMINAL! Oh noes!1! Run for your lives and protect the white women!"

Combine that with emails sent out by Republicans in Pennsylvania that link Obama to the Holocaust, and the efforts by the state GOP to tie the Democratic campaign last week to the now-discredited mugging story, and it all starts to smell really, really bad.

Congratulations, Republicans. Your efforts did motivate me to take action: I'm going to donate money to some Democratic candidates, starting with Jason Altmire. And he's not even my congressman.

Republicans say that Barack Obama isn't "who you think he is," but they keep trying to prove that they're exactly who the Democrats say they are.






Your Comments are Welcome!

Got the same flyer here in Virginia, courtesy of the Virginia GOP. That’s the Virginia GOP of George “Macaca” and “The real Virginia” Allen. The GOP is beginning to really look like the party of angry old white people. I can’t help but think this spells disaster for them long term if they don’t have a message for African-Americans and Hispanics, two groups which combined will very soon be the majority of the US population. It could be a long time in the wilderness for the GOP and perhaps ironically for the religious right, a trek of biblical proportions.
Dan - October 27, 2008



Geez…why does there have to be such mudslinging? No candidate ever turns out to be who you think they are, so why resort to such tactics?
Thee Dude - October 27, 2008



Thee Dude….because it usually works.
Dan - October 27, 2008



Republican or Democrat, I certainly agree that most of these flyers are all of the most dubious factual content. Ignore them all, I say. That’s why I always rely on the candidate’s own words prior to exercising my hard-won right of electoral franchise. I would invite those interested to vet Mr. Obama through the following interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Formulate your own opinion. I spent enough time on the border during my military service looking over the barbed wire into the old German Democratic Republic to know the type of government this salesman is peddling.
Sergeant Mike (URL) - October 27, 2008



Really, Mike? You really think Obama is a Communist along the lines of the Soviet bloc?

He’s really calling for nationalizing industry, evicting people from their private property, making them work on collective farms, and setting up gulags for enemies of the state?

Really? Seriously?

Andrew Sullivan says:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/drudges-latest.html

“Here’s what it’s based on: the ‘tragedy,’ in Obama’s telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals — which is, last time I checked, the conservative position.”

So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.

With due respect, Sarge, calling Obama a Marxist is way, way over the top.

It’s as bad as the “Bush=Hitler” crap that the left peddles.
Webmaster - October 27, 2008



P.S. The Obama quote in full. He’s not saying that the Warren Court should have argued for the redistribution of wealth.

He’s saying the “redistribution of wealth” is a “radical” position, and he goes on to praise “the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Sorry, Sarge. I need to declare shenanigans.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/statepages/obamas-full-redistribution-quo.php

You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical, it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn’t shifted.

And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Webmaster - October 27, 2008



Dear Andrew:

“Really, Mike? You really think Obama is a Communist along the lines of the Soviet bloc?

He’s really calling for nationalizing industry, evicting people from their private property, making them work on collective farms, and setting up gulags for enemies of the state?

Really? Seriously?”

To answer your question, yes. That is exactly what I think. Yes “Really”, and yes, “Seriously”

I’m still waiting for either Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden to show me and the other 45 percent of the country otherwise.
Sergeant Mike (URL) - October 28, 2008



Dear Andrew:

Again, please don’t take my word for anything. Please review the below publication and review all of the negative articles regarding Senator Barrack Obama and his future plans for the citizens of the United States.

http://www.pww.org/
Sergeant Mike (URL) - October 28, 2008



P.S. Last night I was reading Gov. Palin’s favorite magazine, The Economist — not exactly a hotbed of leftist ideology.

Here’s what they say:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555

For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.

Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Webmaster - October 28, 2008



I like you too. That’s why I can’t understand why we aren’t in complete agreement then if Senator Obama has received both the backing of The Economist as well as The Peoples Weekly World. He’s seemingly the ideal fusion candidate who can unite both Capitalists and Communists.

Question is, what if we’re both wrong?
Sergeant Mike - October 28, 2008



At the end of the day, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think it’s fair to say, however, that Lysle Blvd will be covered in rose petals before either of us get what we want!!!
Sergeant Mike - October 28, 2008



Now that’s what I like to see…a grown up discussion of divergent viewpoints. Geez, is it that hard?
Dan - October 29, 2008



Looks look the new Obama Ministry For Cultural Enlightenment is incredibly tolerate of dissenting opinions.
Sergeant Mike (URL) - October 31, 2008



To comment on any story at Tube City Almanac, email tubecitytiger@gmail.com, send a tweet to www.twitter.com/tubecityonline, visit our Facebook page, or write to Tube City Almanac, P.O. Box 94, McKeesport, PA 15134.