Fear and Hatred on the Campaign Trail

Yes it’s indeed well worth the full read, but I’ll just shred the parts you bothered to post:

>> John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform.

Sorry Mr. Rich but “Republicans and Democrats” are not running for president on the Republican ticket. John McCain is. Has McCain ever collaborated with Ayers on anything whatsoever? Didn’t think so.

>> But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

Indeed, don’t believe such a ridiculous thing. Attending a meeting held by a corrupt businessman and later being exonerated by an ethics investigation run by Democrats most definitely does not compare to working for and with an unrepentant murderer who targeted police, the wives and girlfriends of U.S. servicemen at a dance, the family of a federal judge, or the safety of our troops in Vietnam. Glad we agree Mr. Rich.

>> What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.”

Are facts now to be equated with “violent escalation in rhetoric”? It is a demonstrable fact Mr. Rich, you do not deny it, Obama does not deny it, nobody denies it. Barrack Obama did indeed launch his career in the living room of William Ayers. William Ayers is an admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist. Any questions Mr. Rich?

>> He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun).

Oh Mr. Rich, you do provide good humor. It is indeed plural because Obama not only hung around with Ayers, but he hung around with Rashid Khalidi, who worked for the PLO at a time when it was classified as a terrorist organization, and still today advocates the use of suicide bombings that intentionally target Jewish toddlers in their cribs. And furthermore there is evidence that Obama not only hung with Ayers, but hung with his wife, who was as dangerous and as guilty as Ayers. That’s at least three people Mr. Rich. Does the use of a plurality now make sense to you? If I can be of further help in explaining the English language to you, do let me know.

>> Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

Any evidence of that Mr. Rich? That Sara Palin slurred Obama as an enemy of our troops? Or did she just point to the incontrovertible fact that Obama broke his promise not to vote to cut funding for our troops? Or was it that she pointed to the incontrovertible fact that Obama used language that smeared our troops in Afghanistan, whether intentionally or through his foreign policy naivete? Are facts now slurs Mr. Rich? Indeed, you amuse, you really do.

>> By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete.

Indeed, clearly McCain has perfectly programmed his audience. That explains the lower enthusiasm even today amongst registered members of his party. Oh if only McCain actually had these magical mind control powers that you have attributed to him. You do have quite the imagination there Mr. Rich. Have you thought about a career in fiction?

>> It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies.

Oh that’s rich Mr. Rich. Get it? Rich? See Mr. Rich, McCain has personally condemned every single person who has ever introduced him and subsequently used the middle name of Barrack Obama, and he’s condemned them publicly. McCain has gone through great length to denounce this rhetorical tactic. What were you just preaching about “guilt by association” Mr. Rich? If the shoe fits, do have a go at it.

>> This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

Oh perfect Mr. Rich. Now Mr. McCain is also responsible for a string of emails sent around the Internet? Oh indeed, I applaud you on your resistance to assign guilt by association, clearly you have the monopoly on that.

>> That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist.

And by “radical leftist”, did you mean unrepentant murderer? Glad to help you with the wording there Mr. Rich, anything I can do to improve the quality and honesty of your writing.

>> Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

Indeed it did read that way. Could it be perhaps because Barrack Obama’s friend did indeed try to kill that man’s family? And does it matter when it happened if the murderer walks the streets of urbane Chicago while publicly boasting of his past crimes? Could it be perhaps that Barrack Obama not only chose to keep company with such a disgusting enemy of all Americans, but that he actually lied and sought to hide the true nature of this relationship? Hmm Mr. Rich? Could it be?

Keep up the good work Mr. Rich. There’s nothing as refreshing as a political column that uses good old fashion race bating to silence any attempt to get to the bottom of a flawed and un-vetted candidate for the country’s highest office. At the very least you provide an amusing reflection of the current intellectual state of your party and your platform.