Addendum: As of today (October, 10-24-08), the young woman in Pittsburgh admitted to fabricating the attack. Fortunately, individuals that "invent crimes" such as this, are rare,(See Duke University Rape Case)and should face prosecution. This young woman's fabrication does not lessen the violent acts which continue to be committed in the name of politics, whether it be the throwing of a brick, shooting at a bus, or shooting at a campaign managers house (see links at end of article), the original intent of this opinion piece stands - anarchy and political protest through acts of violence are documented below. Additionally, as has been the case with the media, victims (or those who disagree with a specific ideological bent), are victimized.
One can search high and low and find not one physical attack on an Obama supporter, verbal abuse, perhaps, but physical violence – no. Within the last few weeks, there have been multiple assaults on Republicans. Obama’s campaign does not endorse any of these acts, yet, somehow they keep on coming . Violence against Republican’s (or what might be viewed as the establishment) are similar to those which occurred during the 1960’s, domestic terrorism which was promoted by individuals such as William Ayers.
Today, in Pittsburgh, PA a McCain campaign volunteer was mugged at an ATM, when the assailant discovered she had a McCain bumper sticker on her car, he carved a “B” for Barack into her face. It is the most violent act yet, in a series of violent assaults on McCain supporters across the nation. If one can’t win by voter fraud, (ACORN), then perhaps assaulting supporters of the opposition is a better way to go. Understanding that most moderate Democrats are decent, hard-working, pro-American individuals, the new Progressive-Socialists are another story indeed. It is one thing to protest, it is quite another to take it to the streets. The message this is sending across America – dissent – in the voting booth – for McCain. Prediction – like the stories listed below, the media will barely cover this, and when they do, CNN, CBS and that ilk will make a case for the true “victim”, this young woman’s assailant.
October 22, 2008 Lakewood Florida a Republican Headquarters Manger had his home shot up because he had McCain signs in his yard.
October 20, 2008 New Mexico - McCain campaign bus was shot at with a .22 caliber gun and paintballs.
October 22, 2008 Tennessee McCain Headquarters brick with “anarchy” written on it thrown through a window
October 21, 2008, Colorado – Palin’s Motorcade Attacked (video below)
October 17, 2008McCain Supporter Attacked in Manhattan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Call me a cynic… but if I’m going to rob a woman at knife-point in front of an ATM on the busiest street in Bloomfield (which happens to be the almost-entirely-white Little Italy section of town), I’m not going to stick around afterwards to see what bumper stickers she has on her car, and then double-back to carefully scratch (it was certainly not “carved” as some would have it) a very neat backwards (or upside-down) “B” into her cheek (therefore making a political statement), and tell her I’m “teaching her a lesson”. Especially if I know that Sean Hannity just happens to be in town the next day.
I guess it’s within the realm of possibility…
By the way (for your edification)...
OBAMA CANVASSER ATTACKED
Dear Merge & Divide,
Welcome back. First, I find it really disgusting that you would suggest that what happenned to this young woman is suspicious becuase a mark might have been scratched, not cut into her face. That is truly partisan and pathetic.
Do you expect someone from New England to believe that an attack like this could not occur in a “Little Italy”? The fact that you interject race into your comment is really pitiful – “Little Italy’s”, from Hartford, Springfield and Providence, are integrated neighborhoods (Springfield being a prime example), (I’ve been to both Pittsburg and Philly and the same is true) - and crimes are committed regardless of color or ethnicity. The divide here is not racial, rather political – criminals or those who might be inclined to violence, may also be politically minded. The point is that politics is driving violence, coming from a political thought process. For your edification: there is a list of links in this article to suggest a level of violence that is coming from the left that reminds one of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The anti-war movement in that era was one that was fraught with violence; granted most of those involved (myself included) participated in benign protest, such as sit-in’s, however, there was dismay at the level of violence coming from the Marxist’s, who instigated attacks on returning veterans, and anyone who disagreed with their political thought process. One cannot defend violence in the name of politics. To that end, I stand corrected, and I did search for articles that pointed to both sides – this particular article did not appear last evening. Should you find additional articles from other areas of the country, I would appreciate it if you would come back and post them here.
Now, just to be fair to the young woman in Pittsburg, the attack on the Obama campaign worker, has two sides to the story. Apparently, when repeatedly asked to leave the property, after a heated exchange, the homeowner regrets that he pulled her hair – which, I am by no means condoning. (No arrest has been made.) Although there is a difference between a bit of hair-pulling and a maiming - there is no excuse for either. I trust, given the state of the media (another point in this), the McCain campaign worker will be investigated, ad nauseum, (her grades, her job, her boyfriends, her family, her medical records), and then the media will pronounce sentence.
Look, you are obviously an intelligent young person, who is deeply vested in the process, so much so, that you would be ready to denigrate an attack on a campaign worker simply because they are from the “opposing team”. What say you about the links to the attacks listed below? Do you support those actions? Do you feel they are justified? Were you even aware that they occurred?
That was a key theme in my opinion piece, that there was a level of violence growing that was similar to that espoused by certain 1960’s Marxists. In addition, the “in-you-face” campaign tactics have some people aggressively seeking votes, in door-to-door’s and supermarkets (believe it! – Massachusetts!), should be tampered a bit – perhaps before sending out canvassers across state lines, training should take place, underscoring the need to move on should a potential voter not be inclined to hear the message. Having gone door-to-door in a campaign in decades past (Jimmy Carter), the guidance given was this: should someone not be receptive, at least leave literature behind, never in a mail-box (that would have been breaking the law).
Also amusing is your reference to Hannity of Fox News, I understand that Obama himself is now using his name repeatedly, to what end, I have not honestly bothered to investigate. Mr. Hannity is too far right for my taste, as some are too far left. I’ll wait for your answer (save yourself the time re: long-winded, boring, etc., that begins each post), and just let me know a) about other attacks on Obama workers, b) your thoughts on current in-you-face campaign tactics” and c) do you condone the attacks listed in this piece or are you willing like me to disavow any violence that is propagated in the name of a political thought process?
O.K. Mr. Divide ... as you wish ... you're a cynic!
Looks like another case of a liberal supporting 'Cut and Run' ...
You guys can't say you weren't warned. I'm sure you've learned nothing from this interaction.
On the contrary ... we have learned from history and apply those lessons to both our own personal lives, and, what we wish for our children's, children's America.
Oh by the way ... it is not us "guys" ... I believe it to be quite obvious that, as a feminist, Tina is a 'gal' ...
And now the truth comes out:
Police: Woman With 'B' Scratched In Face Faked Political Attack
Hi there Merge and welcome YXDEXX! First, YXDEXX, thank you for the link, I've added an addendum to the original opinion piece. Merge; frankly, the young lady should be prosecuted, as should anyone who has falsified a police report. That said my opinion has not changed regarding the other attacks mentioned, nor those responsible. "You guys"? You're getting chummy! That's the spirit! James, quite right - I'm a feminist; I believe young Merge is just being playful - I spent most of my career(s) playing against and with "the boys" - so I do not mind being called "one of the guys".
Tina,
I'm glad you understood the spirit of my last post, James' chivalry notwithstanding.
Ashley Todd should face prosecution, but I believe that she is in more need of mental/emotional therapy than punishment. I'm not sure if she understands the scope and scale of the harm she might have done if people had not been as vigilant as they have been. I am proud of the Pittsburgh police for handling this the way they have.
I am disgusted by Drudge and Hannity for pushing the extremity of the story they automatically believed, and disappointed with the McCain campaign (again) for parroting that tale before the facts were in (this may not be something you are aware of because local news outlets changed their articles after publishing them).
Finally, it is natural to me to disavow violence in the political process. That, in fact, is one of the big reasons I support Obama over McCain in this race. I completely reject that approach from all "sides" and individuals.
Hi Merge!
You do realize, that although we may have differing points of view regarding politics, that we are both on the same side? James is defending me, and the concept of the article, I am of an age where chivalry is still appreciated; there are hard-line feminists who will not allow someone to hold a door for them – which, was something I always felt a bit ridiculous when there were so many larger issues at stake. I digress, (which you are now aware is not uncommon). I may disagree with you regarding the young woman’s state of mind – what she did was reprehensible and also calculated; it was designed to create drama and to push an agenda – that is also anarchy, regardless of which political party one chooses. The Pittsburg Police absolutely did a great job; they investigated thoroughly and, in quick order, got to the bottom of this. On Drudge, he picks stories as current, and then follows up – in the defense of a blogger (although he is much more than that), he does follow-up quickly, as soon as something is debunked he has it up there. There simply is no defense for Hannity – although I agree with him in principal on some points, it is his presentation that is unnerving – similar to an Olberman – they take the point of view to the right or left and just keep gnawing at it like a rabid terrier. Honestly, Merge, I write and I watch constantly, and when I am following a story line, I get updates from local news as well as national outlets – there are also some wonderful links that are available: Newslink.org,
Mondo times and the like, which can help in quickly finding local newspapers in many areas – as a last resort, Google: Newspaper in (fill in the state/town). I use these outlets to find stories that might not make it up on the Drudge, or other outlets. Unfortunately, as I am sure is the case with many, I do work full-time (in media of all places); I am not always able to get back to the blog as quickly as I would like.
I will agree to disagree as to which party is now the party of peace – however, we can do so politely and that is why I am enjoying your visits and discourse. Here’s my thoughts: We are probably like minded, however, you state that you support Obama over McCain because you disavow violence in the political process, yet, the majority (as you corrected me) of the violence is coming from the left (for lack of a better adjective), and neither McCain or Obama has control over their supporters, be it at a rally or in the street. Unless of course, you are referring to violence of a different sort? I would think that you might support Obama over McCain because of Obama’s world views, and his more socialist bent, taking from the superrich (taxes) and giving to those who pay few to no taxes (in an attempt to stimulate the economy) while I support McCain because, I am a conservative, who is also somewhat moderate. I actually supported his plan on immigration which he worked out with Ted Kennedy, (being Hispanic), (for which the hard right had a meltdown), he is a man that has proven he can push his own party aside in favor of getting the job done. Finally, with the Republican’s in control of the House, Senate and the White House, it was a disaster – no kidding – it would be no different should there be a different party in place across the board – I am not being partisan in this, I am being sensible, If you want to see an example of runaway left, vs. right policies, merely look at what is happening in Massachusetts – it is a schematic I fear the country just cannot afford. Finally, call me crazy, but as a mother, I want a Commander in Chief that makes me feel confident. McCain makes me feel confident, his experience especially, since he would be the one that would not go off half-cocked, understands how men (and women) suffer in the armed forces form a personal perspective and again, his views were not always supported by his own party. – So there are all my reasons, and I’d love to hear yours. It is this type of exchange, that gives both of us an opportunity to listen to the opposing view, and you never know, I may change your mind on one issue, or you may change mine, or we might come up with something better.
Ms. Redmond,
I also appreciate a dialog that goes beyond the divisive rhetoric and personal attacks so prominent within the last eight years in American politics. And thank you for the news links, by the way.
I want to make it clear that I don't believe that every Obama supporter rejects violence. That would be a ridiculously simplistic assertion for me to make. I can't assess the exact amounts of physical violence exacted by either side. But I see a tremendous amount of violent rhetoric coming from the Right, and I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket itself is not only encouraging that, but also participating in it. I'm confident we disagree on that point, so I'll just leave it sit.
I believe that McCain is the candidate most likely to take a violent approach to foreign policy. His temperament has been widely acknowledged (by many who know him personally, and his colleagues in the Senate) as violent and erratic. He has run his campaign in a manner that bolsters this view. You (I'm sure) are aware of the aggressive nature of his foreign policy positions, and I understand that it gives you "confidence". Meanwhile it provokes an immense amount of anxiety in me. I think that McCain is clearly the pro-war candidate of the two, and I consider this to be a threat to our nation's well-being. The fact that he only wants to engage in negotiations with our "enemies" with an accompanying threat of force and/or compulsion (for such is the nature of a policy of necessary "preconditions" in diplomacy) is extremely problematic. His record of "joking" about bombing other countries just reinforces my fears. Add to that his unyielding commitment to finishing a mission despite the situation on the ground, and seeking "victory" without objectives... and I consider him a threat to the future stability of this country. I realize that these are strong and provocative words, but I truly believe them.
For my views on what you term "socialism", I'll have to refer you to my blog... I'm frankly losing patience on that issue (not your fault), and I'm not motivated to engage in a discussion of it here. Suffice it to say that it involves assumptions that are all too-commonly leveled at both Obama and many of his supporters. To suggest that I object to such a formulation of Obama's domestic economic policies would be a severe understatement.
As far as McCain being a "moderate", I see no evidence of that. Maybe this applied to the Senator from Arizona eight years ago, but he has undergone a complete transformation, as evidenced by the number of flip-flops he has made on the issue since then.
Regarding his stance on immigration (which you cite as an example of his "bipartisanship"), I consider McCain's position to be motivated by an anti-organized labor attitude. McCain backs a pro-corporate agenda that encourages immigration in order to depress the value of American labor. I am resolutely against that.
Howdy Merge!
First, good one! (It’s Mrs. And since that’s my married moniker, my husband, a died in the wool conservative, will absolutely appreciate the change.). I like the sense of humor, that's what has been missing from this process (not our conversation) and what we all need. Additionally, we need to respect each others points of view. You are more than welcome for the links, should you want more, let me know, I’m a research fanatic. I must correct you on the divisive rhetoric and personal attacks; it has not been the last eight years alone; this has been part and parcel of American politics from the beginning! Here’s an interesting article on the 1800 campaign. (History is my passion.)
I would not for a moment believe that you approved of violence, however, the verbal assaults you find coming from the right, are also available coming from the left. I cannot condone it from either side; unfortunately, there will always be partisans who believe that it is fine and dandy to cast aspersion on candidates’ characters and their families without fact. I must ask you if you read the Daily Kos. – I find those individuals no different that say Sean Hannity.
Ah, and herein lies the crux of the matter, it is public policy – and your perception and my perception differ. While McCain made a clear gaffe (joke) regarding bombing Iran, Obama clearly stated in early primary debates, that he would invade Pakistan! (video available on YouTube). On the balance, I find your strong words, as a commitment to an anti-war point of view, which is commendable. You must also understand, that as a parent, I am no fan of war, however, understand that there are needs to be met and a price to be paid. This comes not from US history, but from a European perspective (my parents came from Spain and Austria). My families suffered greatly on their own soil – this does not make be pro-war, rather protective.
We will agree to disagree on Progressive Socialism. It is not your fault either –again, we have differing points of view that is acceptable and should be encouraged!
We part way in your assertion that McCain is a flip-flopper and that he changed in the course of eight years. As a conservative, McCain was my least favorite choice in this election cycle, in fact, if you go back in the archives, you would find, that as the field cleared, I made a clear case for Hillary Clinton, simply because I found her to be more moderate than McCain on certain issues, and McCain more left for my tastes. As to changing one’s position, surely you must have noticed that both candidates have changed positions on several issues during the course of this campaign, not before. On immigration, you clearly have not followed McCain prior to the election – as Conservatives were railing against him because of his affinity for illegal immigrants – visit the Senate voting records. I allow that it is a tedious task; however, you will find that McCain’s record is more in tune with Ted Kennedy’s on certain issues. It is the way, my friend, of the campaign. I am a cynic at that. Regardless, your choice has been made, as has mine (and I am going to add your blog, under my perspective links – it is good to offer divergent points of view), and honestly, anyone who tells a pollster they are still undecided at this point, is truly pulling someone’s leg. Now, we both wait for the end result, and regardless of the outcome, the world will not come to an end – and we can continue to disagree however, I truly believe that we may also learn from each other, and more importantly, reach compromises on issues that would allow us to move forward and solve problems.
One thing I wanted to address is the misconception a lot of people have regarding Obama's position on Pakistan. I believe that this belief is due to the fact that his words have been taken out of context by his political opponents:
You wrote...
"Obama clearly stated in early primary debates, that he would invade Pakistan! (video available on YouTube)."
This is his clarification (in August) about his stance--
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Note that he isn't talking about "invading Pakistan" in the way we refer to the invasion of Iraq. He is not talking about "regime change" or any operation vs. the people or government of Pakistan. He's explicitly talking about al Qaeda terrorists who slip over the border for refuge. If he had the opportunity to launch a missile (or other attack) on "terrorist" operatives, and he passed on it (no matter what country they were in) the Right would use that against him politically forever. So I don't understand this talking point being used against him. I think it's simply partisan rhetoric at this point.
Merge, I am sure that you watched all the debates, as did I, and frankly, that is exactly what Obama said, - invade Pakistan - as to a clarification of his remarks – Here is a segment of the AFLCIO sponsored debate in which Dodd questions his remarks re: Invading Pakistan and Obama responds, defending what he had said – that was his first clarification – it is what it is and does not require further clarification. One either said something or did not say something, to continually allow politician’s (regardless of which side of the aisle) to clarify a remark – is ridiculous – not for nothing; there was no excuse for McCain’s Bomb, bomb Iran joke either – however, that said, it was a joke, which he did not clarify as there was no need – because it was a joke (jokes are made in poor taste by both sides) – Obama, in his remarks about invading Pakistan, to my point of view, was politically calculated to call attention to the fact that all those primary challengers (with the exception of Kucinich), had voted to authorize force in Iraq, and he would not have, (had he been in the Senate), instead, he would have continued to seek out Al Qaeda wherever they went, including Pakistan. There was nothing in his remark that required further clarification – the remark was seized on and played in the press by his opponents in his own party, as reckless. Was it a gaffe, or reckless? We can disagree on that.
MSNBC - AFLCIO Democrat Primary Debate - Dodd - Obama, on remarks Obama made about invading Pakistan
I guess you are going to believe what you want to believe. To me it is as clear as day. He's never talked about attacking the government or people of Pakistan. Never. It's obvious he's talking about going after Al Qaeda.
Merge, come on, it is not a case of believing what I want to belive, it is a case of listening to the words coming out of the man's mouth - it is what he said, granted to go after Bin Laden - you are correct about the context - no-one is perfect, that includes politician's. It is you who cannot come to terms with it - there are limits to being partisan, young man - take some advise, Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Socialist, they are all imperfect - there is no perfect leader. I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.
"I'm beginning to feel sorry for you."
Ok, then I'm done with the discussion. I don't need that.
Post a Comment