No liveblog this time, I’m just going to let it sink in and then comment on it afterwards.
|
Isn’t this guy the one who supposedly throws politics out the window whenever it clashes with his conscience? Isn’t John McCain supposed to be a man who will never compromise on his beliefs or “sell out,” as it were, just to score political points? Yet here we are, watching his sleazy campaign defended because he’s “forced” into it, and apparently he’s incapable of doing something crazy like standing up for himself. Or maybe that’s just how much of a maverick he is. He’s so maverick-y that he even goes against himself. John McCain, 06-30-2008: “I don’t question Obama’s patriotism, but I do question his judgment.” Sarah Palin, 10-05-2008: “”Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” Honorable campaigns are for losers anyway. Er, wait.
Let me clarify that I do not believe John McCain is part of the machine of Iran-Contra, I don’t think he’s a flaming racist or an anti-Semite, nor do I think he’s connected to Nazis or other radical groups. My sole point in this is that if we’re going to call Obama’s weak tie to Ayers or Rezko a “legitimate issue”, then we’re going to have to call all these legitimate as well. Palin threw McCain into a dangerous game, one that it seems as though McCain himself was avoiding.
McCain and Palin are throwing that one around like crazy, with lots of wonderful instances of it during both debates. Global warming and the Iraq War seem to be the most popular topics that we’re not supposed to look backward on, instead focusing solely on the future. There’s a problem with their “logic”: looking at the past is always, always, always a good thing. Let me set up a hypothetical for you. You come home and find your house has been broken into. You call the police to investigate. It turns out the local police has two officers who have a history of scamming people by staging break-ins and then steal more when the victim calls the police over. Don’t you think it’s a good idea to know the history of the people you want to help your current situation? McCain is saying you don’t need to know that. Here’s another. You feel sick, so you go to the doctor. It turns out you have incredibly high cholesterol. The doctor doesn’t ask anything about your medical history, and so he tries various solutions such as Lipitor and suggesting more exercise. It doesn’t get better and so you have surgery to clean out your arteries. At no point do you bring up that every day you eat a dozen egg yolks before bed because you heard it’ll keep you in shape. Wouldn’t it have been a good idea for the doctor to know that? Palin is saying that’s not important. This “don’t look at the past” thing is bogus anyway. They want us to praise McCain’s POW history, to look at a few unpopular things he did in the Senate, to high five Palin over doing something-or-other as mayor, to talk about William Ayers’ time as a radical and what school Obama went to as a child. They love the past when it’s good for them, they just want us to ignore it when it means figuring out that these two people aren’t to be trusted to solve these problems. |
 |
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Hanlon's Razor - All Rights Reserved |
||
The truest mark of desperation is when your people are defending your actions with tortured logic and bend-over-backwards rationalization. At this point they can’t say that McCain’s running a clean campaign, so we’ve got people saying that 
Since we’re in the business ot seeing what unsavory characters we can link each politician to, we might as well add this one to the list. The AP is putting up a connection between 
I’ll tell you, I’m really losing my patience for this “let’s stop looking at the past” crap. I don’t care who does it, it’s a stupid phrase that means one thing: if you look at the past, you’ll figure out something I don’t want you to. It’s sort of like when someone says “I don’t want to play the blame game” or “people on both sides are guilty” in that it’s a weak attempt to distract.
