Eh, I can’t get too worked up over it because Palin and McCain are going to lose. Palin will go back to Alaska and either fade into obscurity or end up working in the right wing media somehow. There’s no reason to get all that upset over what Palin says because she’s irrelevant–or will be very soon.
Yes, he did.
Note use of the phrase “the same thing” to refer to the same thing that he claimed in California.
No, I am correct. You have simply moved into Standard Denial Mode - “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”.
Again, so much for reality-based politics.
Regards,
Shodan
And so it continues:
Maybe your definition of “the same thing” is different than mine but where I come from the following two quotes are not the same:
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
<and then>
“And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too – in fact many of you are, because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. … Nobody is thinking about you.”
Similar != Same
YMMV of course.
::Copy and paste post 69.::
I like how Palin and Hayes’ remarks are always cautiously explained as “appearing” to question the patriotism of their opponents.
Actually reading my article above further this seems to be a conservative meme rather than a one-off occurrence:
So…I should dismiss all that as rhetorical puffery? When we see a trend it should be ignored? (directed at anyone…not Marley23 in particular)
Good grief, that’s the least important of the points I made in my post. Psychoanalyzing people as bitter (and there’s an element of sympathy in there) and denouncing them as anti-American are very different things.
I acknowledged earlier that Palin has amped up something that was part of a trend, and I guess the GOP in general is trying to do what Mark Penn told Hillary Clinton to do: play up Obama’s “non-American roots” (or whatever his term was). She didn’t do it.
It should be called stupid and anything else, but not “treason” and that kind of hysteria. It’s a dumb smear, yes, but I think puffery is a fair word for it.
Not mine, Obama’s. He’s the one who said it was the same thing.
Regards,
Shodan
For shooting her own campaign in the foot and insulting the patriotism of the people of the very states and cities she and McCain can’t win without.
Big of her.
It’s been said before, but: yeah, like that notorious liberal underachiever, Warren Buffett. Or those “big city” liberals that…what, got $500,000 condos from their inheritance?
As usual, the cognitive dissonance is yours. You don’t actually know what my politics are, yet you assume that my objection to your illogic is politically motivated. No. It is motivated by my intolerance for unreason, wherever I see it.
Let A = “People have lost their jobs.”
Let B = “People are bitter.”
Let C = “People cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”
In California, Obama claimed (A → B) AND (B → C).
In Indiana, Obama claimed only A → B is true. He made no claim with respect to C, which was by far the more objectionable remark.
When he used the words “because the same thing has happened here in Indiana”, he refers to proposition A. Just like in PA, people were losing their jobs due to a decline in industry.
You are also the only person arguing that a has-been vandal and now mostly obscure college professor is a major figure. So I have to question your ability to make the intellectual distinctions required to identify someone else’s “Standard Denial Mode”.
Wait, what? I’m not sure I understand what you are implying. What Obama said there is this: Voters from the red states are bitter for being ignored and hurt by bad economic times and so are many voters from the blue states. “The same thing” in his quote refers to the fact that the Indiana voters have had the same thing happen to them. I think it’s a misreading to say that it means something else.
The statement quoted above is not divisive but instead is trying to draw folks together. The San Francisco statement that included “clinging to guns, religion etc” was also couched in a way that was about trying to draw people together. The big problem that I see is the “clinging” which has some connotations of looking down on the things that they are clinging to. Regardless of what you think of those things, if you are trying create bridges between the two groups you ought not imply that the other group has stupid ideas.
There is no way around the fact that the underlying idea of what Obama was talking about was understanding of and accommodation with the group of bitter voters. The way he phrased it in the San Francisco speech contained seeds of division and may reflect an underlying bias, but his message was clearly intended to be one of reconciliation.
It is just more of how the repubs unite not divide. Bush will tell you, if you ask.