Politicians and Slander?

[trillionaire]

I read this comment online:

"If I were to make such a false and outrageous accusation against someone, I would be sued and charged with slander. Whereas politicians … read more can maliciously smear all they want and it is just chalked up to part of the political game. Why the difference? Why can''t politicians be held accountable for this kind of crap just like us regular people?"


What do you think? If we held politicians liable for slander and libel, do you think that it would make politics more "honest"? I guess I would imagine that excessive lies, distortions and defamation of character attacks would be what we were talking about. Or would it just be a nightmare?

 

[vintagecushion]

I think it would be a nightmare. But it's an interesting idea.

In this election cycle we're seeing political sites and blogs favored in some cases over "mainstream media", but it's resulted in a proliferation of "consultants" and "journalists" claiming to be experts with zero liability attached. Unless the news source does original reporting, can be sued for libel, and have processes to deal with this, I'm reading that secondhand source with an extremely suspicious eye. I think sloppy standards in journalism is one of the issues being highlighted this year and a huge contributing factor to political fatigue and mistrust, not to mention fear.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

I think it''s an interesting idea..but we don''t do it because it would kill our country legally. I think it would be a nightmare of the kind Obama''s truth squad wants to create. We''ve worked really hard to get to where we are as bad as that sounds. It took years to be able to speak out against politicians at all. And as much as it sucks..even for Jerry Falwell who as extreme as he was lost a lawsuit over crazy libel (believe it was written) because he was a public figure. Once you''re public..you lose most protection, that''s unfortunately the way it is.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:23:13 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS
I think it's an interesting idea..but we don't do it because it would kill our country legally. I think it would be a nightmare of the kind Obama's truth squad wants to create. We've worked really hard to get to where we are as bad as that sounds. It took years to be able to speak out against politicians at all. And as much as it sucks..even for Jerry Falwell who as extreme as he was lost a lawsuit over crazy libel (believe it was written) because he was a public figure. Once you're public..you lose most protection, that's unfortunately the way it is.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's only recently that people "spoke out against politicians"? I would argue that slandering your political opponents is a time-honored American tradition, dating back to at least the second presidency and likely before that.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:30:36 AM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 10/13/2008 1:23:13 AM

Author: SarahLovesJS

I think it's an interesting idea..but we don't do it because it would kill our country legally. I think it would be a nightmare of the kind Obama's truth squad wants to create. We've worked really hard to get to where we are as bad as that sounds. It took years to be able to speak out against politicians at all. And as much as it sucks..even for Jerry Falwell who as extreme as he was lost a lawsuit over crazy libel (believe it was written) because he was a public figure. Once you're public..you lose most protection, that's unfortunately the way it is.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's only recently that people 'spoke out against politicians'? I would argue that slandering your political opponents is a time-honored American tradition, dating back to at least the second presidency and likely before that.

If I am remembering my early American con law correctly, then Americans were routinely arrested for speaking against politicians since it was "divisive."

ETA: Let me add a "some" in there.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:38:02 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 10/13/2008 1:30:36 AM

Author: ladypirate

Date: 10/13/2008 1:23:13 AM


Author: SarahLovesJS


I think it's an interesting idea..but we don't do it because it would kill our country legally. I think it would be a nightmare of the kind Obama's truth squad wants to create. We've worked really hard to get to where we are as bad as that sounds. It took years to be able to speak out against politicians at all. And as much as it sucks..even for Jerry Falwell who as extreme as he was lost a lawsuit over crazy libel (believe it was written) because he was a public figure. Once you're public..you lose most protection, that's unfortunately the way it is.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's only recently that people 'spoke out against politicians'? I would argue that slandering your political opponents is a time-honored American tradition, dating back to at least the second presidency and likely before that.

If I am remembering my early American con law correctly, then Americans were routinely arrested for speaking against politicians since it was 'divisive.'


ETA: Let me add a 'some' in there.

*Sigh* LP I can't find my notes..

..so just ignore it right now. People routinely said nasty things of course..but I remember people being arrested for speaking out and/or writing pamphlets against politicians. So..I'll let you know if I find proof.

ETA: I found it LP! I was thinking about the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798!

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:52:46 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 10/13/2008 1:38:02 AM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 10/13/2008 1:30:36 AM


Author: ladypirate

Date: 10/13/2008 1:23:13 AM



Author: SarahLovesJS



I think it''s an interesting idea..but we don''t do it because it would kill our country legally. I think it would be a nightmare of the kind Obama''s truth squad wants to create. We''ve worked really hard to get to where we are as bad as that sounds. It took years to be able to speak out against politicians at all. And as much as it sucks..even for Jerry Falwell who as extreme as he was lost a lawsuit over crazy libel (believe it was written) because he was a public figure. Once you''re public..you lose most protection, that''s unfortunately the way it is.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it''s only recently that people ''spoke out against politicians''? I would argue that slandering your political opponents is a time-honored American tradition, dating back to at least the second presidency and likely before that.

If I am remembering my early American con law correctly, then Americans were routinely arrested for speaking against politicians since it was ''divisive.''



ETA: Let me add a ''some'' in there.

*Sigh* LP I can''t find my notes..

..so just ignore it right now. People routinely said nasty things of course..but I remember people being arrested for speaking out and/or writing pamphlets against politicians. So..I''ll let you know if I find proof.


ETA: I found it LP! I was thinking about the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798!

Yay for notes!

I was more thinking of candidates speaking out against each other. As far as I know, Jefferson and Adams didn''t get arrested and they said some pretty awful stuff about each other.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/13/2008 2:43:50 AM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 10/13/2008 1:52:46 AM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 10/13/2008 1:38:02 AM


Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 10/13/2008 1:30:36 AM



Author: ladypirate

Date: 10/13/2008 1:23:13 AM




Author: SarahLovesJS




I think it''s an interesting idea..but we don''t do it because it would kill our country legally. I think it would be a nightmare of the kind Obama''s truth squad wants to create. We''ve worked really hard to get to where we are as bad as that sounds. It took years to be able to speak out against politicians at all. And as much as it sucks..even for Jerry Falwell who as extreme as he was lost a lawsuit over crazy libel (believe it was written) because he was a public figure. Once you''re public..you lose most protection, that''s unfortunately the way it is.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it''s only recently that people ''spoke out against politicians''? I would argue that slandering your political opponents is a time-honored American tradition, dating back to at least the second presidency and likely before that.

If I am remembering my early American con law correctly, then Americans were routinely arrested for speaking against politicians since it was ''divisive.''




ETA: Let me add a ''some'' in there.

*Sigh* LP I can''t find my notes..

..so just ignore it right now. People routinely said nasty things of course..but I remember people being arrested for speaking out and/or writing pamphlets against politicians. So..I''ll let you know if I find proof.



ETA: I found it LP! I was thinking about the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798!

Yay for notes!

I was more thinking of candidates speaking out against each other. As far as I know, Jefferson and Adams didn''t get arrested and they said some pretty awful stuff about each other.

Yeah they said awful crap about each other..I can''t remember who it was that spread the word that someone''s wife (I think it was AJ''s) was rather promiscuous, etc. Compared to what they used to do to each other things are better now than then! Haha.

 

[swimmer]

Out of the four acts making up the A&S acts, only sedition applies in this case, that was to prevent/arrest individuals publishing pamphlets and speaking out against the "Quasi" war the Federalists were waging with the French, hence the first three acts, designed to stem the flow of Frenchies in and their citizenship in the US. The Sedition act was only in place for three years. The only one of these four still in effect is the Alien Enemy act, which allows the US govt to deport any individuals whose country we are at war against. Think Japanese-Americans during WWII.

I can''t think of what you are thinking of Sarah, several state govts have enacted legislation to stop protesting, but courts have shot them down under the First Amendment.

When I read the title, I thought this thread was going to be about the wild lies that McCain''s ads have been putting out there. To answer the question, Under the First Amendment, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964''s case, New York Times v Sullivan, a public figure attempting to bring an action as a result of defamation; the public figure must prove one more thing: The statement must have been made with "actual malice". Meaning, the person making the statement knew the statement was false, or the statement was issued with reckless disregard as to its truth. So, super hard to prove and worth the free press for the defense in the case? Probably worth it just to let it die.

On a side note regarding truth and politicians, sadly, we all know that some of the things that politicians say that they will work for are just not going to happen, not just because our economy is in the toilet, but because the Executive branch can not just enact something without the Judicial and Legislative branches going along with it. That is what makes me crazy when people talk about "activist judges" um, that is their job, to act. But both McCain and Obama have a grasp of this balance that W never really did (want to?) get, and of course post 9/11 legislation gave him tons of power. I''m not certain that the American people will go along with that again. We did it before in 1932 and 1941, but perhaps we will remember history this time.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/13/2008 9:04:41 AM
Author: swimmer
Out of the four acts making up the A&S acts, only sedition applies in this case, that was to prevent/arrest individuals publishing pamphlets and speaking out against the 'Quasi' war the Federalists were waging with the French, hence the first three acts, designed to stem the flow of Frenchies in and their citizenship in the US. The Sedition act was only in place for three years. The only one of these four still in effect is the Alien Enemy act, which allows the US govt to deport any individuals whose country we are at war against. Think Japanese-Americans during WWII.


I can't think of what you are thinking of Sarah, several state govts have enacted legislation to stop protesting, but courts have shot them down under the First Amendment.


When I read the title, I thought this thread was going to be about the wild lies that McCain's ads have been putting out there. To answer the question, Under the First Amendment, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964's case, New York Times v Sullivan, a public figure attempting to bring an action as a result of defamation; the public figure must prove one more thing: The statement must have been made with 'actual malice'. Meaning, the person making the statement knew the statement was false, or the statement was issued with reckless disregard as to its truth. So, super hard to prove and worth the free press for the defense in the case? Probably worth it just to let it die.


On a side note regarding truth and politicians, sadly, we all know that some of the things that politicians say that they will work for are just not going to happen, not just because our economy is in the toilet, but because the Executive branch can not just enact something without the Judicial and Legislative branches going along with it. That is what makes me crazy when people talk about 'activist judges' um, that is their job, to act. But both McCain and Obama have a grasp of this balance that W never really did (want to?) get, and of course post 9/11 legislation gave him tons of power. I'm not certain that the American people will go along with that again. We did it before in 1932 and 1941, but perhaps we will remember history this time.

Right - only sedition would apply..but it's the full name of the acts so thus I posted it to make sure I was extra clear.

 

[swimmer]

Being specific is excellent, the grad students I teach always think they have moved to a place where they have no need for specificity. Excellent that you stick with it. I''m still not sure how the original question related to A&S because the slander is not treasonous, but it is fun to chat about.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/13/2008 9:33:05 AM
Author: swimmer
Being specific is excellent, the grad students I teach always think they have moved to a place where they have no need for specificity. Excellent that you stick with it. I''m still not sure how the original question related to A&S because the slander is not treasonous, but it is fun to chat about.

Not sure..it was late and for some reason I was stuck on sedition!

 

[luckystar112]

In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

 

[VRBeauty]

Deleted because I just read Swimmer's explanation, which was far better than my vague recollections from my undergraduate constitutional law class!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/13/2008 9:04:41 AM
Author: swimmer
Out of the four acts making up the A&S acts, only sedition applies in this case, that was to prevent/arrest individuals publishing pamphlets and speaking out against the ''Quasi'' war the Federalists were waging with the French, hence the first three acts, designed to stem the flow of Frenchies in and their citizenship in the US. The Sedition act was only in place for three years. The only one of these four still in effect is the Alien Enemy act, which allows the US govt to deport any individuals whose country we are at war against. Think Japanese-Americans during WWII.

I can''t think of what you are thinking of Sarah, several state govts have enacted legislation to stop protesting, but courts have shot them down under the First Amendment.

When I read the title, I thought this thread was going to be about the wild lies that McCain''s ads have been putting out there. To answer the question, Under the First Amendment, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964''s case, New York Times v Sullivan, a public figure attempting to bring an action as a result of defamation; the public figure must prove one more thing: The statement must have been made with ''actual malice''. Meaning, the person making the statement knew the statement was false, or the statement was issued with reckless disregard as to its truth. So, super hard to prove and worth the free press for the defense in the case? Probably worth it just to let it die.

On a side note regarding truth and politicians, sadly, we all know that some of the things that politicians say that they will work for are just not going to happen, not just because our economy is in the toilet, but because the Executive branch can not just enact something without the Judicial and Legislative branches going along with it. That is what makes me crazy when people talk about ''activist judges'' um, that is their job, to act. But both McCain and Obama have a grasp of this balance that W never really did (want to?) get, and of course post 9/11 legislation gave him tons of power. I''m not certain that the American people will go along with that again. We did it before in 1932 and 1941, but perhaps we will remember history this time.

Theoretically....that is the case. But we''ve been in a long war now that has never been "declared", just to mention one tiny thing. I love the text of Bush''s signing statements where he says esentially, "I am the one who interprets the Constitution as it applies to ME." Pretty scary stuff. The current executive branch has done great damage to the balance in their ideological zeal to "restore" a perceived loss of power and prestige of the President. Oh swimmer, how I hope you''re right!!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

They don''t HAVE too.

I''m going to strongly suggest that everyone on these threads, read War, Propaganda and the Media. This link is to a section of the parent site, globalissues.org, that is so balanced and informative that anyone on any side of anything could benefit from reading it. It will be no comfort to ANY person here, how easily we ALL fall for this stuff.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 10/13/2008 9:04:41 AM
Author: swimmer
Out of the four acts making up the A&S acts, only sedition applies in this case, that was to prevent/arrest individuals publishing pamphlets and speaking out against the ''Quasi'' war the Federalists were waging with the French, hence the first three acts, designed to stem the flow of Frenchies in and their citizenship in the US. The Sedition act was only in place for three years. The only one of these four still in effect is the Alien Enemy act, which allows the US govt to deport any individuals whose country we are at war against. Think Japanese-Americans during WWII.

I can''t think of what you are thinking of Sarah, several state govts have enacted legislation to stop protesting, but courts have shot them down under the First Amendment.

When I read the title, I thought this thread was going to be about the wild lies that McCain''s ads have been putting out there. To answer the question, Under the First Amendment, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964''s case, New York Times v Sullivan, a public figure attempting to bring an action as a result of defamation; the public figure must prove one more thing: The statement must have been made with ''actual malice''. Meaning, the person making the statement knew the statement was false, or the statement was issued with reckless disregard as to its truth. So, super hard to prove and worth the free press for the defense in the case? Probably worth it just to let it die.

On a side note regarding truth and politicians, sadly, we all know that some of the things that politicians say that they will work for are just not going to happen, not just because our economy is in the toilet, but because the Executive branch can not just enact something without the Judicial and Legislative branches going along with it. That is what makes me crazy when people talk about ''activist judges'' um, that is their job, to act. But both McCain and Obama have a grasp of this balance that W never really did (want to?) get, and of course post 9/11 legislation gave him tons of power. I''m not certain that the American people will go along with that again. We did it before in 1932 and 1941, but perhaps we will remember history this time.

I was originally talking about both the press and the wild lies that both or either campaigns have used. (I live on factcheck.org) I also enjoy the organic nature of these threads, and learning so much more about the world through the comments of others. (for example, I know nothing about law) I find that in the political threads, I learn a lot more when we don''t get into bashing one candidate of the other, but discuss salient issues that transcend candidates.

Thank you for defining malice for us. I know that proving malicious intent may be difficult, but I know that candidates have been criticized during this campaign for repeating things that are agreed upon as false. I would like to see accountability for this type of thing. If you say something once, it is disproven, and then you back off of the statement, then okay, but to continue repeating something that is patently false strikes me as grossly irresponsible, and if it is in fact false, and you keep repeating it, then does that not count as malicious?

As far as journalists, it seems that it would be more difficult to pin libel or slander, but I can''t help but think it would be an incredible step towards a more objective press corp.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

Wow.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama's comment about how he is being judged because he doesn't look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

First, as the OP, I wanted to say that I did mean this thread generally, about the press and both candidates.

I don't think it serves the public to let any politician off the hook, and the more honesty that we can inculcate, the better for voters, because we can make accurate informed decisions.

That being said, I am interested in your comments about the role of race in this elections season. If you reflect personally, do you feel that the decisions of the McCain campaign to paint Obama as "other", and equating him as a "terrorist sympathizer" and tacitly as a "Muslim, Arab or terrorist" is a neutral decision? The "with us or against us" rhetoric, and the "us vs. them". Who is us and who is them? We are all American, so what is the subtext? We have progressed enough as a nation to know that overt racism is taboo. That is a given. McCain is not going to call Obama a Muslim or a terrorist, but he is leading his followers to believe it, and he took his good time correcting them. Additionally, he didn't go the next important step, which is reminding people that a.) There is nothing wrong with being Muslim or Arab (not that they are the same), and that Arab, Muslim and Terrorist as not synonymous. You absolutely do not have to say race to talk about race. And the "I have a friend" is a terrible argument. It is much easier to judge an individual on their personal merits and see them as an exception than to recognize the collective worth of an entire group. I am actually not even suggesting that McCain has a problem with a specific racial group, just that he might have found it politically expedient to slide into rhetoric that plays to the racial and ethnic fears that clearly some Americans still have. What I do find dispicable, too, is the hate mail that has been recieved by the black man that stood up at the McCain rally and supported his campaign. I think that this deserves wide criticism as well, though he got his forum this weekend on CNN.

It is has been widely reported that Obama can still lose this election because people have clearly, as demonstrated throughout the primaries, said they would vote for him because it is PC, and then NOT voted for him. And the only explanatory factor that political scientists can attribute this to is race. We don't know how to have comfortable conversations on race in this country, and that makes it really difficult to navigate what is and isn't problematic.

On Hidden Racism
An interesting article

FWIW, I would be happy to dialog with you about this, because I am truly curious to hear what you think on that matter. However, it may be most appropriate to start a separate thread to do so. If you'd like to continue, please let me know and start a thread, and I will be happy to join you

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/13/2008 5:10:41 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

First, as the OP, I wanted to say that I did mean this thread generally, about the press and both candidates.

I don''t think it serves the public to let any politician off the hook, and the more honesty that we can inculcate, the better for voters, because we can make accurate informed decisions.

<mini thread jack>

That being said, I am interested in your comments about the role of race in this elections season. If you reflect personally, do you feel that the decisions of the McCain campaign to paint Obama as ''other'', and equating him as a ''terrorist sympathizer'' and tacitly as a ''Muslim, Arab or terrorist'' is a neutral decision? The ''with us or against us'' rhetoric, and the ''us vs. them''. Who is us and who is them? We are all American, so what is the subtext? We have progressed enough as a nation to know that overt racism is taboo. That is a given. McCain is not going to call Obama a Muslim or a terrorist, but he is leading his followers to believe it, and he took his good time correcting them. Additionally, he didn''t go the next important step, which is reminding people that a.) There is nothing wrong with being Muslim or Arab (not that they are the same), and that Arab, Muslim and Terrorist as not synonymous. You absolutely do not have to say race to talk about race. And the ''I have a <insert racial group here> friend'' is a terrible argument. It is much easier to judge an individual on their personal merits and see them as an exception than to recognize the collective worth of an entire group. I am actually not even suggesting that McCain has a problem with a specific racial group, just that he might have found it politically expedient to slide into rhetoric that plays to the racial and ethnic fears that clearly some Americans still have. What I do find dispicable, too, is the hate mail that has been recieved by the black man that stood up at the McCain rally and supported his campaign. I think that this deserves wide criticism as well, though he got his forum this weekend on CNN.

It is has been widely reported that Obama can still lose this election because people have clearly, as demonstrated throughout the primaries, said they would vote for him because it is PC, and then NOT voted for him. And the only explanatory factor that political scientists can attribute this to is race. We don''t know how to have comfortable conversations on race in this country, and that makes it really difficult to navigate what is and isn''t problematic.

On Hidden Racism
An interesting article

FWIW, I would be happy to dialog with you about this, because I am truly curious to hear what you think on that matter. However, it may be most appropriate to start a separate thread to do so. If you''d like to continue, please let me know and start a thread, and I will be happy to join you

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/13/2008 4:36:33 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

Wow.

Wow what, moon? This is obviously something very close to you and if you want to elaborate...do so.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/13/2008 7:55:32 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 10/13/2008 4:36:33 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

Wow.

Wow what, moon? This is obviously something very close to you and if you want to elaborate...do so.

trillionaire did it for me. Why don''t you respond to her post.

 

[decodelighted]

Apparently respected Congressman John Lewis feels that McCain has been encouraging a hate-filled atmosphere that seemed *familiar* to him. And now McCain = not too happy about it.

Lewis on Saturday said in a statement that McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin "are sowing the seeds of hatred and division."

"During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama," wrote the Democrat.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/13/2008 5:10:41 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...
Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama's comment about how he is being judged because he doesn't look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

First, as the OP, I wanted to say that I did mean this thread generally, about the press and both candidates.

I don't think it serves the public to let any politician off the hook, and the more honesty that we can inculcate, the better for voters, because we can make accurate informed decisions.

<mini thread jack>

That being said, I am interested in your comments about the role of race in this elections season. If you reflect personally, do you feel that the decisions of the McCain campaign to paint Obama as 'other', and equating him as a 'terrorist sympathizer' and tacitly as a 'Muslim, Arab or terrorist' is a neutral decision? The 'with us or against us' rhetoric, and the 'us vs. them'. Who is us and who is them? We are all American, so what is the subtext? We have progressed enough as a nation to know that overt racism is taboo. That is a given. McCain is not going to call Obama a Muslim or a terrorist, but he is leading his followers to believe it, and he took his good time correcting them. Additionally, he didn't go the next important step, which is reminding people that a.) There is nothing wrong with being Muslim or Arab (not that they are the same), and that Arab, Muslim and Terrorist as not synonymous. You absolutely do not have to say race to talk about race. And the 'I have a <insert racial group here> friend' is a terrible argument. It is much easier to judge an individual on their personal merits and see them as an exception than to recognize the collective worth of an entire group. I am actually not even suggesting that McCain has a problem with a specific racial group, just that he might have found it politically expedient to slide into rhetoric that plays to the racial and ethnic fears that clearly some Americans still have. What I do find dispicable, too, is the hate mail that has been recieved by the black man that stood up at the McCain rally and supported his campaign. I think that this deserves wide criticism as well, though he got his forum this weekend on CNN.

It is has been widely reported that Obama can still lose this election because people have clearly, as demonstrated throughout the primaries, said they would vote for him because it is PC, and then NOT voted for him. And the only explanatory factor that political scientists can attribute this to is race. We don't know how to have comfortable conversations on race in this country, and that makes it really difficult to navigate what is and isn't problematic.

On Hidden Racism
An interesting article

FWIW, I would be happy to dialog with you about this, because I am truly curious to hear what you think on that matter. However, it may be most appropriate to start a separate thread to do so. If you'd like to continue, please let me know and start a thread, and I will be happy to join you

I think that a thread would be deleted as fast as it is started, as we aren't supposed to be talking about race and yet it was too late to delete my post.

I did see ksinger's response before yours, and I am still left with the question as to how anything McCain has said in any of his ads have alluded to the color of Obama's skin. Or how has he "not said it's not about the color of his skin"? The Ayer's ad? No....Ayers is white and the relationship was relevant. It was the New York Times that declared Palin's comments about "palling around with terrorists" as "racially tinged". It made no sense to those of us who haven't been looking at race in that manner, but the NYT was apparently looking out for the ignorant people who might be reading when they published the article. With that being said, calling her comment "racially tinged", in effect, is more damaging to Arab/Musims than saying nothing at all. I wasn't thinking of skin color when I saw that comment...not until the NYT reporter forced me to.

When has McCain ever said or alluded to Obama being a muslim or Arab? He hasn't. And since he hasn't, it is therefore impossible for him to imply that there is something wrong with that. These are all things that have been floating around since the primaries. You pointed out that McCain did not take the time to say that there was nothing wrong with being Arab when the old lady made the comment. But IMO he was caught off guard, perhaps a little embarassed for her. He pointed out she was wrong but he did not go far enough for you, that's fine.

Let's get logical here though...the voters in America who are racist enough to allow the color of Obama's skin to sway their vote will be voting for McCain. They say stupid things, they believe stupid things. That isn't McCain's problem. And it doesn't give Barney Frank the right to stand there and say "it doesn't hurt that these folks are black".

Racism is thrown around far too often in this campaign...almost like Dems were anticipating it and have been playing defense when the other team is on another field.

 

[decodelighted]

I think his "that one" comment showed McCain''s true ahem colors. But its interesting that people are up in arms about the *sexism* when it comes to Palin (no retouching on photo, attack on her mothering, makeup) yet I haven''t heard Obama or Biden make any statements like that. So is the *campaign* sexist ... or just crazy factions and/or media elite?

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/13/2008 5:10:41 PM
Author: trillionaire


That being said, I am interested in your comments about the role of race in this elections season. If you reflect personally, do you feel that the decisions of the McCain campaign to paint Obama as ''other'', and equating him as a ''terrorist sympathizer'' and tacitly as a ''Muslim, Arab or terrorist'' is a neutral decision? The ''with us or against us'' rhetoric, and the ''us vs. them''. Who is us and who is them? We are all American, so what is the subtext?

Explain this. I am interested how you feel McCain illustrates these things.


We have progressed enough as a nation to know that overt racism is taboo. That is a given. McCain is not going to call Obama a Muslim or a terrorist, but he is leading his followers to believe it, and he took his good time correcting them.

How is he leading people to believe this? This belief about Obama was around (and disproven) long before McCain won the nomination.


Additionally, he didn''t go the next important step, which is reminding people that a.) There is nothing wrong with being Muslim or Arab (not that they are the same), and that Arab, Muslim and Terrorist as not synonymous. You absolutely do not have to say race to talk about race.


I explained why I felt that was in my last post. But I''d be interested to hear in what ways McCain has not talked about race, to talk about it. Examples please. Cause all I''m seeing are libs reading into things and generating fear for their own benefit.


And the ''I have a <insert racial group here> friend'' is a terrible argument. It is much easier to judge an individual on their personal merits and see them as an exception than to recognize the collective worth of an entire group. I am actually not even suggesting that McCain has a problem with a specific racial group, just that he might have found it politically expedient to slide into rhetoric that plays to the racial and ethnic fears that clearly some Americans still have. What I do find dispicable, too, is the hate mail that has been recieved by the black man that stood up at the McCain rally and supported his campaign. I think that this deserves wide criticism as well, though he got his forum this weekend on CNN.

I don''t think it is a terrible argument. I think it is extremely relevant. And I agree with you about the black man at the McCain rally.

It is has been widely reported that Obama can still lose this election because people have clearly, as demonstrated throughout the primaries, said they would vote for him because it is PC, and then NOT voted for him. And the only explanatory factor that political scientists can attribute this to is race. We don''t know how to have comfortable conversations on race in this country, and that makes it really difficult to navigate what is and isn''t problematic.

Agreed. Something that bothers me is that it is that McCain is being blamed for people''s prejudices regarding Obama''s race, and these are people will not be voting for Obama for that reason. Yet somehow it is not as racist to vote for Obama because of his race, which I''d say is a lot more damaging to the republican campaign. This is still racism. And if the GOP were to ask openly why that is, why that would be a racist question.

On Hidden Racism
An interesting article

FWIW, I would be happy to dialog with you about this, because I am truly curious to hear what you think on that matter. However, it may be most appropriate to start a separate thread to do so. If you''d like to continue, please let me know and start a thread, and I will be happy to join you

I am not complaining about or denying the fact that there is true blue racism out there that will be affecting this campaign. I am complaining about every little criticism, every ad, every statement about Obama that is being blamed on bigotry. Specifically Obama''s comment about reps "telling them that he''s different, he doesn''t look like those other presidents on the dollar bills" and the comments by John Lewis, Barney Frank, and others. I thought it was ridiculous when it was coming from the liberal blogosphere but it is apparently something that is saturating the whole democratic party.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:08:12 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 10/13/2008 5:10:41 PM

Author: trillionaire

Date: 10/13/2008 12:44:59 PM

Author: luckystar112

In my personal opinion both candidates would be in trouble, not just McCain...

Personally I find it disgusting how the Republican party is now considered a bunch of racists. Colin Powell anyone? Condi??? This was pulled during the primaries against Hillary and here it is now for us to deal with. The liberal media, leftist blogs, and people like Barney Frank and John Lewis have turned this so ugly. Obama''s comment about how he is being judged because he doesn''t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills...

absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge neither McCain or Palin have brought color into this at all.

First, as the OP, I wanted to say that I did mean this thread generally, about the press and both candidates.

I don''t think it serves the public to let any politician off the hook, and the more honesty that we can inculcate, the better for voters, because we can make accurate informed decisions.

<mini thread jack>


That being said, I am interested in your comments about the role of race in this elections season. If you reflect personally, do you feel that the decisions of the McCain campaign to paint Obama as ''other'', and equating him as a ''terrorist sympathizer'' and tacitly as a ''Muslim, Arab or terrorist'' is a neutral decision? The ''with us or against us'' rhetoric, and the ''us vs. them''. Who is us and who is them? We are all American, so what is the subtext? We have progressed enough as a nation to know that overt racism is taboo. That is a given. McCain is not going to call Obama a Muslim or a terrorist, but he is leading his followers to believe it, and he took his good time correcting them. Additionally, he didn''t go the next important step, which is reminding people that a.) There is nothing wrong with being Muslim or Arab (not that they are the same), and that Arab, Muslim and Terrorist as not synonymous. You absolutely do not have to say race to talk about race. And the ''I have a <insert racial group here> friend'' is a terrible argument. It is much easier to judge an individual on their personal merits and see them as an exception than to recognize the collective worth of an entire group. I am actually not even suggesting that McCain has a problem with a specific racial group, just that he might have found it politically expedient to slide into rhetoric that plays to the racial and ethnic fears that clearly some Americans still have. What I do find dispicable, too, is the hate mail that has been recieved by the black man that stood up at the McCain rally and supported his campaign. I think that this deserves wide criticism as well, though he got his forum this weekend on CNN.


It is has been widely reported that Obama can still lose this election because people have clearly, as demonstrated throughout the primaries, said they would vote for him because it is PC, and then NOT voted for him. And the only explanatory factor that political scientists can attribute this to is race. We don''t know how to have comfortable conversations on race in this country, and that makes it really difficult to navigate what is and isn''t problematic.


On Hidden Racism

An interesting article



FWIW, I would be happy to dialog with you about this, because I am truly curious to hear what you think on that matter. However, it may be most appropriate to start a separate thread to do so. If you''d like to continue, please let me know and start a thread, and I will be happy to join you

I think that a thread would be deleted as fast as it is started, as we aren''t supposed to be talking about race and yet it was too late to delete my post.

Let''s get logical here though...the voters in America who are racist enough to allow the color of Obama''s skin to sway their vote will be voting for McCain.

both points well taken.

as far as the fear-mongering, most of it IMO was coming from Palin, but she is part of his campaign and a reflection of him. McCain sets the tone, and decides what is and isn''t off limits.

And Deco, I saw the "That one" comment was more of a awkward moment, not a racial one. Just MHO.

Anyway, I guess we should all get back talking about the media and how they are doing a crappy job, lol.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:12:22 PM
Author: decodelighted
I think his ''that one'' comment showed McCain''s true ahem colors. But its interesting that people are up in arms about the *sexism* when it comes to Palin (no retouching on photo, attack on her mothering, makeup) yet I haven''t heard Obama or Biden make any statements like that. So is the *campaign* sexist ... or just crazy factions and/or media elite?

That''s exactly the type of thing I''m talking about, Deco. You saw racism. I didn''t. I saw "that one" being blown completely out of preportion. People were acting as if McCain used a racial slur. Was it rude to refer to him as "that one"? Absolutely. But I doubt his motive in doing it was to appeal to the racists in the audience. My mind doesn''t think like that...it''s too bad that so many other people''s minds do. If it was earlier in the year and McCain was debating Romney and referred to him as "that one", would people say that McCain was being prejudiced against Romney because of his Mormon background? I doubt it.

I think both campaigns have their set of looneys and that the media surely contributes to he cries of racism and sexism in this campaign. They are finding legitimate claims of racism and sexism and then sometimes they are stretching the imagination for the sake of readership.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:27:30 PM
Author: trillionaire


both points well taken.

as far as the fear-mongering, most of it IMO was coming from Palin, but she is part of his campaign and a reflection of him. McCain sets the tone, and decides what is and isn''t off limits.

And Deco, I saw the ''That one'' comment was more of a awkward moment, not a racial one. Just MHO.

Anyway, I guess we should all get back talking about the media and how they are doing a crappy job, lol.

Sorry trillionaire....I was on a roll. Three posts in like 10 minutes. lol. This is something I feel strongly about and I know others don''t agree with me, (and that perhaps neither of us are completely right).

Back on topic!!!

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:30:23 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 10/13/2008 8:27:30 PM

Author: trillionaire



both points well taken.


as far as the fear-mongering, most of it IMO was coming from Palin, but she is part of his campaign and a reflection of him. McCain sets the tone, and decides what is and isn''t off limits.


And Deco, I saw the ''That one'' comment was more of a awkward moment, not a racial one. Just MHO.


Anyway, I guess we should all get back talking about the media and how they are doing a crappy job, lol.

Sorry trillionaire....I was on a roll. Three posts in like 10 minutes. lol. This is something I feel strongly about and I know others don''t agree with me, (and that perhaps neither of us are completely right).


Back on topic!!!

No problem, it''s hard not to cross post, and I really was curious about your take on things, but as you noted, it is an "off-limits" topic area, so we will have to preserve the integrity of the thread by following the rules.

lol