I think it’s difficult for the Republicans to distance themselves too far from the Moral Majority because it’s such a cohesive group, easy to pander to. On the left, the groups seem to be much more fractured, extreme environmentalists, feminists and economists. And with the Republicans courting many different forms of christians, the left has a lot of groups with different religions that don’t share many basic beliefs. My wiccan, buddhist and athiest friends don’t share a lot of the same views.
That’s a pretty astute analysis IMO. The 25% of ‘Independents’ I mentioned include this fractured group as well as middle-of-the-road ‘leave me alone’ types like me.
That’s because you’re not looking, frankly.
This article is a pretty fair description of Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers. You will recall that Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, and participated in bombings of a New York police station, the Pentagon, the Capitol and the State Department, among others.
He has never renounced this violence, and indeed stated that he should have set more bombs.
Now, I wouldn’t accuse Obama of doing something other Democrats in Illinois haven’t done - namely tolerating this guy and Bernardine Dohrn and allowing them to become fixtures in Chicago-area Democratic and liberal politics. But it is interesting that they are so tolerated and accepted. Certainly their past qualifies them as far-left wackos, yet Obama never spoke against them and indeed served with Ayers on a foundation board.
So you can easily find this stuff on both sides, frankly. That’s the danger of running two big-tent parties - you’ll find people in your tent you don’t like or support. It happens so often as to be commonplace.
That’s why I don’t feel that claiming the Democrats have any special virtue in this area is warranted - there are just too many examples like this to credibly state that.
You don’t think this shows an incredible lack of judgment and taste? Here is an article on it.
Yes, but how many of those people are on TV, have thousands of people listening to them, write best-selling books, or are actively courted by mainstream candidates? And yes, I understand the political side of it, but I don’t get why anybody with integrity would associate with such awful people, or why the media doesn’t call them on it.
So to you, “pandering to the far left” equals once visiting a house 13 years ago that was owned by some 60’s radicals? That is patently ririculous and another sign of how little the right has on Obama, but that is getting off topic.
John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, a man who considers Catholics, the largest single religious denomination in the U.S. as evil. Show me an equivalent situation on the “far left” and I’ll give it due consideration. Your example is not persuasive.
Well, sure, but the most disgusting thing is that Obama wasn’t even wearing a flag lapel pin when he did it!
Why he hasn’t been drawn and quartered yet I’ll never know. Must be further evidence of the Liberal Media.
Joe
Did you forget about Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, or Keith Olberman? Not exactly tame lap-dogs.
But without judgment on my part of the morality, I think it’s even simpler than the people of power not ‘calling them on it’ - O’Reilly, et al, are still doing their schtick because if it bleeds it leads. They sell papers, they sell books, they get people listening, they get people watching. And that, to their corporate masters (i.e. shareholders), is so much more important to them than nearly anything else. It’s the new American blood sport, and it clearly has money-making capability. I guarantee you that when their ratings start to drop, or when the profit is threatened, the right-wing blowhards will be long gone.
I don’t think Obama’s casual relationship with a former 60’s radical is much ti get excited about but nonetheless, the media is raking him over the coasl for it. It just proves the point that the media has a double standard in how it covers the associates of Democratic amd Liberal candidaues. Obama is expected to denounce/reject/repudiate Farrakhan, even though he has no assocation with Farrakhan at all and already HAS renounced him, yet Reopublicans are never expected to disavow the religious bigots who hang all over them, pollute the stages at their rallies and insert themselves into legislative policy or even into the Cabinet.
Do you have an opinion about this asshole, Hagee? If Obama has to “reject” Farrakhan to make white people happy even though Farrakhan has no relationship with Obama, then why shouldn’t McCain have to reject the endorsement from Hagee and his Texas hate church?
Do you feel comfortable voting for a candidate who says that an anti-Catholic bigot represents his views?
I don’t believe it was ‘prominently address’(ed) in the OP or by the OP…or by anyone else in this thread either. However, since I don’t want to hijack the thread I’ll bow out and let you guys sing kumbaya if that is what you want. Even a little thought should show you that the Democrats have in the past failed to disassociate themselves from their own nutball wing and have happily received endorsements from some fairly unsavory folks. It’s a consequence of having a two party system where both parties attempt to gain support from both of their lunatic fringe element while running to the center. The fact that you and the OP (and probably 90% of the other posters in this thread) fail to see that is pure partisanship. BOTH parties do this…and have always done it.
If we are talking about only Obama and McCain I’m sure that I could dig up something on Obama…certainly I’m sure there will be folks supporting him that he wouldn’t normally choose to associate with but who he doesn’t want to alienate either as they represent a significant voting block. I guarantee you that when he is the Dem’s candidate there will be nutcases from the left wing who will support him just as there are nutcases from the right who will hold their nose and support McCain…and that Obama is not going to publicly repudiate those nuts who support him and the significant voting blocks they represent. Not if he wants to win.
Anyway, carry on…I shouldn’t have dipped a toe into this one as the answer to the OP is…they won’t. The Republicans won’t distance themselves from the right wing nutters, at least not publicly and outright…same as the Dem’s won’t do the same with the left wing nutjobs. What both parties will do is pander to their nutball wing and then in the general election run to the center…as usual.
-XT
That’s your idea of the “loony left?” Are you serious? Would you really compare those guys to Pat Robertson of Dobson or Dobbs or O’Reilly? I think your crazy meter needs to be recalibrated.
Yes, Ayers is a scumbag who did a lot of bad things almost 40 years ago. I don’t think anyone will fight you on that. However, the article does not say anything about Obama and him being close associates, nor do we see Obama touting his relationship with Ayers for political gain. Even the article is titled, “Obama once visited '60’s radicals”. They don’t even pretend to say that there is a real connection there, other than them “running in similar circles”.
Oh come on now. Yes, they are probably bad people seeing as they are apparently not remorseful for their crimes, but I think there has to be a statute of limitations on these things. This happened almost 40 years ago, how long must society shun these people? You are comparing them to people who are hurting far more people now, and are actually buddied up with the candidates. The best you have is that a guy who committed crimes decades ago was a casual acquaintance of Obama.
I never claimed any special virtue, just that they are far better on this issue than the GOP. They also have not made it a cornerstone of their election politics.
You’re making an assumption that i think the names you mention are all loonies. On the crazy Liberal side, Michael Moore - absolutely. Stewart and Olberman, not so much but still both significantly further left than I am. Pat Roberston and O’Reilly aren’t exactly my cup of tea, but they’re not foam-at-the-mouth nutso - they just believe differently than I do. Dobson and Dobbs are increasingly nutso IMO.
Both sides have demons, is my point. Perhaps the Left just seems to have fewer of them since you agree with them yourself?
Is Caddyshak 2 really your guide on how to behave in polite society?
Absolutely, although I believe Caddyshack 1 is a far better moral compass. 
Isn’t Stewart a comedian.? Like Coulter and Rush.
Yes, with a nationally syndicated programme on 5 nights a week and rebroadcast all over the world. Quite a bit more than just a comedian.
Both are jokes, sure, but comedians? That requires talent.
If Pat Roberston isn’t foam at the mouth crazy, I don’t know who is. Are you familiar with some of the things he’s said in the past? Saying Americans deserved 9/11 isn’t nutso? Did you know he opposed giving black people the right to vote in South Africa? Did you know he supported a brutal dictator in Liberia (in direct opposition to US policy and the Bush administration) because of his financial interests there? What about all his prophecies that God is going to destroy American cities with hurricanes if they support gay rights?
I could write a book about Pat Robertson’s insane statements.
Bill O’Reilly is almost as bad, and hey, he’s also an admitted sexual predator.
I don’t know who they are on the left. They certainly aren’t in the mainstream media or in Presidential cabinets like they are with the GOP.
He’s made some doozies, sure, but he’s got a different direction than I do. He’s getting his guidance from the big guy upstairs; since I don’t happen to believe in the big guy, I’m not on his wavelength.
Ad hominem much?
Who in the cabinet is a foaming nutjob then?
As for Mainstream Liberal whackos - how about oh, I dunno - Jessie Jackson? Al Sharpton? Both are pretty nutso in my view. Ward Churchill ring any bells?
I did nothing of the sort. I don’t think associating with Ayers and serving on boards with him is out of the ordinary for liberals in Illinois.
But doesn’t it say something about liberals there that he is accepted so well, even though he isn’t remorseful? And let’s remember, his crimes weren’t victimless.
You want a statute of limitations on that? Says something about your values and your political stance that you’d want one. Personally, I think if this was a right-wing wacko bomber that McCain tolerated and never denounced, you’d have a field day.
I was just making the observation that large parties are going to have some loons - and I could find lots of them on your side that you’d likely consider clear voices of reason. After all, you only think people are heading in the wrong direction by comparing their motion to yours.
Given the choice, I wish Hagee wasn’t around, or at least wasn’t in my party. But I’m not getting too worked up over it - just like you don’t seem to care much that Ayers is free and unrepentant.
Get rid of all the pervs and nut cases in the Repub party and no one would be left. Except maybe Moto and I am not sure of him.