McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Benzgirl

I can't blame the internet on all people, such as the two that took the mic in Minnesota. I blame pure ignorance and the fact that some people just don't want to believe their statements are wrong and defamatory. Even when McCain told Ms. Quinnell to her face that her statement was not true, she still didn't believe him.

Some people were born with the "dumb gene".

Is it a dumb gene or a hate gene? That lady's not going to like Obama whether or not he's actually Arabic.

Muslims, particularly Arabic Muslims, have been so vilified by both parties (even though they say they're not), but specifically the Republican Party, that I'm not surprised that Obama is so feared by a part of the population. They're still living in 2001, or the 2004 Presidential election. It really makes me worried that if Obama is elected, these nutjobs may actually follow through with their promises.

Which sucks, because not all Republicans think he's a terrorist, and most Republicans have moved on from the massive fear-mongering campaigns by Bush/Cheney in the 2004 election.

[Educatingblue]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Muslims, particularly Arabic Muslims, have been so vilified by both parties (even though they say they're not), but specifically the Republican Party, that I'm not surprised that Obama is so feared by a part of the population. They're still living in 2001, or the 2004 Presidential election. It really makes me worried that if Obama is elected, these nutjobs may actually follow through with their promises.

I am curious to know which party ethnic minorities other than African-American and Hispanics are pulling for. I know the news always focuses on the largest two minorities...so I am just wondering. I did notice a few Asians at the Republican convention.

In regards to the "promises" many of his opponents are making, I think this election has set us back at least 50 years in regards to race relations.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Educatingblue

I am curious to know which party ethnic minorities other than African-American and Hispanics are pulling for. I know the news always focuses on the largest two minorities...so I am just wondering. I did notice a few Asians at the Republican convention.

In regards to the "promises" many of his opponents are making, I think this election has set us back at least 50 years in regards to race relations.

What do you mean?

[Educatingblue]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

What do you mean?

The overall mob/riot mentality made me immediately think of integration in the deep south years ago...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Educatingblue

The overall mob/riot mentality made me immediately think of integration in the deep south years ago...

Where are you getting mob/riot mentality? A couple of people yelling out dumb stuff at rallies equals turning fire hoses on people and bombings?

I know John Lewis said something to this effect this week, but it just seemed crazy to actually compare the two. What "promises" were you referring to?

And how in the world can you say a campaign that may result in the first multi-racial President in US history set us back 50 years? How does that compute?

[Educatingblue]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where are you getting mob/riot mentality? A couple of people yelling out dumb stuff at rallies equals turning fire hoses on people and bombings?

I know John Lewis said something to this effect this week, but it just seemed crazy to actually compare the two.

I did not say fire hoses or bombings. I think anyone can see the tone of this election has definitely changed.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Educatingblue

I did not say fire hoses or bombings. I think anyone can see the tone of this election has definitely changed.

Well, what did you have in mind when you said you immediately thought of integration in the deep south? What was the comparison you were making?

I don't see that the tone has changed in regard to race. I see the media giving coverage to some nuts who have probably been there all along. And again, I see Obama leading in the polls. How is that a set back?

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where are you getting mob/riot mentality? A couple of people yelling out dumb stuff at rallies equals turning fire hoses on people and bombings?

I know John Lewis said something to this effect this week, but it just seemed crazy to actually compare the two. What "promises" were you referring to?

And how in the world can you say a campaign that may result in the first multi-racial President in US history set us back 50 years? How does that compute?

Did you read the article I posted in this thread? You might find it interesting and informative, particularly since you were asking for links earlier.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

Did you read the article I posted in this thread? You might find it interesting and informative, particularly since you were asking for links earlier.

I don't really think I value Frank Rich's opinion as much as you do.

We have relatively few actual documented instances of people yelling crazy stuff at rallies and a whole lot of speculation about what that means. I don't think it points to anything new or actually dangerous in any real way, anymore than all the Bush=Hitler crap we've been hearing for the last eight years meant anything for him (ETA: well, not eight year, but you know what I mean).

And I especially don't think that anyone is going to take any "Republican rage" out on black people generally, which is why I find the race relations setback comments so strange.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Is it a dumb gene or a hate gene? That lady's not going to like Obama whether or not he's actually Arabic.

This is the real issue behind all of the racial comments, and the candidates standing up against the people making them. Some people just hate others based on absolutely nothing. This woman could have read on the internet that Obama is actually a weird shade of purple, and she would have said, "He's the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater!" Whatever she hears about him is just more information she can use to rationalize her pre-existing hatred for him.

Because of that, candidates should not be required or expected to say anything to these wacked out crazies. If John McCain, or anyone else, said something to this woman, or to anyone else who yelled out, "kill him," their efforts to change their opinion would have been futile.

And the reason that people associate being an arab with being evil is because of 9/11. Back in 2001, people would make this assumption because the twin towers fell, the pentagon was hit, and a plane full of good people were killed in PA trying to bring down some of the terrorists. And those people that made that assumption were just as ignorant as the people making that same assumption today. At least for the people who thought this 7 years ago, they were worked up, that event just occurred, and it caused them to fight back "in the heat of the moment." But now, as I said before, this has simply become a way of justifying harsh criticism and hatred concerning who Obama is and what he plans to do.

[Leslie Anne]

While I agree with most of your argument, ASTalumna06, I completely disagree with this statement:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Because of that, candidates should not be required or expected to say anything to these wacked out crazies. If John McCain, or anyone else, said something to this woman, or to anyone else who yelled out, "kill him," their efforts to change their opinion would have been futile.

Whether or not the effort would be futile is not the point. There's a moral imperative here. If someone threatens violence against the opposing candidate, a message is given by McCain or Obama by what they say and what they fail to say. The crazies on either side will probably continue to believe their crazy thoughts regardless but the presidential candidates must be the voices of reason.

I give McCain credit for what he has said to the crazies. I've been told that some crazies on the left have said Palin deserves to be gang raped. I haven't heard that during an Obama rally but if I did I would absolutely expect Obama to call those people out forcefully. If he didn't, I would be shocked, disappointed and livid.

It's about the character of the candidates on both sides. Nothing speaks more to character than what one chooses to ignore or fight against.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

While I agree with most of your argument, ASTalumna06, I completely disagree with this statement:



Whether or not the effort would be futile is not the point. There's a moral imperative here. If someone threatens violence against the opposing candidate, a message is given by McCain or Obama by what they say and what they fail to say. The crazies on either side will probably continue to believe their crazy thoughts regardless but the presidential candidates must be the voices of reason.

I give McCain credit for what he has said to the crazies. I've been told that some crazies on the left have said Palin deserves to be gang raped. I haven't heard that during an Obama rally but if I did I would absolutely expect Obama to call those people out forcefully. If he didn't, I would be shocked, disappointed and livid.

It's about the character of the candidates on both sides. Nothing speaks more to character than what one chooses to ignore or fight against.

RIGHT EXACTLY.

McCain should come out against these type of statements. It may not do any good in the crazies' opinions, but rational voters will respond better to him if he defends Obama against his crazies rather than ignoring them.

[KSigkid]

A journalist I know was roughed up at a McCain-Palin rally recently:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/ca...from_pal.shtml

Crazy stuff...Joe's an incredibly nice guy, so I can't really think of any good reason why this other guy should have gone after him.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

While I agree with most of your argument, ASTalumna06, I completely disagree with this statement:



Whether or not the effort would be futile is not the point. There's a moral imperative here. If someone threatens violence against the opposing candidate, a message is given by McCain or Obama by what they say and what they fail to say. The crazies on either side will probably continue to believe their crazy thoughts regardless but the presidential candidates must be the voices of reason.

I give McCain credit for what he has said to the crazies. I've been told that some crazies on the left have said Palin deserves to be gang raped. I haven't heard that during an Obama rally but if I did I would absolutely expect Obama to call those people out forcefully. If he didn't, I would be shocked, disappointed and livid.

It's about the character of the candidates on both sides. Nothing speaks more to character than what one chooses to ignore or fight against.

I guess I should have stated that differently. It is not their responsibility to get involved in the argument. Trying to calm them, and briefly make a statement in disagreeing with them is fine. But to go much further than that could honestly put their own lives in jeopardy. To know that your candidate "supports" someone who you absolutely hate could set some people off.