Gay Patriot Header Image

An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election

In 2008,” wrote the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein soon after “Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., introduced himself to a national audience as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate“,

. . . the central component of Obama’s meteoric rise was that politics had become too cynical and small, and that it was important to have a more substantive debate on the pressing issues facing the nation.

Obama was going to be a new kind of politician who did not engage in the petty politics of the past, a leader who showed respect for opposing viewpoints, who treated his ideological adversaries with dignity.

In contrast to his rhetoric in 2008, Obama today is running for reelection by waging perhaps the “lowest, meanest most negative campaign in history“.  George Will delineates the striking contrast between the Democrats’ negative campaign today with Barack Obama’s lofty rhetoric of 2008:

He on whose behalf the Soptic ad[*] was made used to dispense bromides deploring “the smallness of our politics” and “our preference for scoring cheap political points.”

Obama is trying to win by going to gutter, by leveling shameful, dishonest attacks on his Republican rival.  And yet the crux of his 2008 appeal was that he would be a new kind of politician, elevating our political discourse.  If the Democrats wins this year, he wins by playing that old kind of attack politics.

So much for hope and change.

*Link not in original op-ed, added for those who don’t recognize the name.  From Will’s column:

Romney embraced Ryan after the sociopathic — indifferent to the truth — ad for Barack Obama that is meretricious about every important particular of the death from cancer of the wife of steelworker Joe Soptic. Obama’s desperate flailing about to justify four more years has sunk into such unhinged smarminess that Romney may have concluded: There is nothing Obama won’t say about me, because he has nothing to say for himself, so I will chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become — silly and small.

Share

67 Comments

  1. It’s amazing how a person could come from the most corrupt city in America and be believed by people so quickly. It’s scary that people fell for it. I will never give Chicago one penny of my earnings. I will never visit that city and will be better for it. I wish we could annex Chicago and it’s inhabitants from these United States. Nothing good has ever come from there and nothing good ever will. Democrats will never be trusted again except in places of corruption where lies always outweigh good.

    Comment by Jeff King — August 13, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - August 13, 2012

  2. Perhaps not. When George Bush supporters referred to John McCain as “the f@g candidate” and insinuated that he cheated on his spouse, his wife was a drug addict, and brought attention to the color of his youngest daughter’s skin color, it was possibly the lowest, meanest, most negative campaign in history.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 13, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - August 13, 2012

  3. I wish we could annex Chicago and it’s inhabitants from these United States.

    Things said by People Who Really Hate Obama

    Nothing good has ever come from there and nothing good ever will.

    That’s a blanket generalization if ever there was one.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 13, 2012 @ 2:13 pm - August 13, 2012

  4. Dirty, shameful, and brutally dishonest? Absolutely. But nowhere near the pure unadulterated bloodsport that American politics used to be. There was the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876, where Hayes linked Tilden to the assassination of Lincoln and Tilden supporters in the South systematically gunned down blacks who tried to vote. Or Hoover/Smith in 1928, which made the anti-Catholicism bent against JFK look like a walk in the park. Or, if you need a more recent example, LBJ/Goldwater, where the president actually ordered the CIA to bug his opponent’s campaign plane and put out the infamous “Daisy Ad”. THOSE were some guys who knew how to fight dirty.

    http://mattweeks.hubpages.com/hub/The-Dirtiest-Presidential-Campaigns-in-the-History-of-United-States-Politics

    Comment by Matt Weeks — August 13, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - August 13, 2012

  5. “George Bush supporters referred to John McCain as “the f@g candidate” and insinuated that he cheated on his spouse, his wife was a drug addict, and brought attention to the color of his youngest daughter’s skin color, it was possibly the lowest, meanest, most negative campaign in history.”

    Please provide sources for your assertions – if you can.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 13, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - August 13, 2012

  6. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26612340/ns/today-books/t/it-his-hug-bush-mccain-relationship/#.UClaimNAYww

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 13, 2012 @ 3:56 pm - August 13, 2012

  7. In his new book, author Paul Begala, a former senior strategist and counselor to President Bill Clinton

    Truly an
    *sunglasses*
    unimpeachable source.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 13, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - August 13, 2012

  8. As to Obama, I did poit out in 2008 that he had more experience dealing with terrorists than Sen. McCain.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 13, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - August 13, 2012

  9. In answer to the title of your post: yes, it would – but his supporters do not care one whit about this, and it would be cold comfort to America once shown the fact in terms that cannot be mistaken or glossed over.

    Comment by perturbed — August 13, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - August 13, 2012

  10. Paul Begala? Really, Snatch? You must be kidding.

    Talk about a “biased source.” It bears about as much relation to objective truth as one would expect to find in a “History of the Jewish People” commissioned by Adolf Hitler.

    Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 13, 2012 @ 5:13 pm - August 13, 2012

  11. Perhaps not. When George Bush supporters referred to John McCain as “the f@g candidate” and insinuated that he cheated on his spouse, his wife was a drug addict, and brought attention to the color of his youngest daughter’s skin color, it was possibly the lowest, meanest, most negative campaign in history.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 13, 2012 @ 2:09 pm – August 13, 2012

    Let’s see, cheated on spouse, drug addict…..yup, looks like we have yet another case of one of our liberal betters lecturing us on standards of propriety to which they have absolutely no intention of adhering or applying to fellow liberals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 13, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - August 13, 2012

  12. NDT +1

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - August 13, 2012

  13. As to Begala as a source: I agree, LESS THAN ZERO credibility there.

    Please note: I am not saying it didn’t happen, that someone who ultimately voted for Bush went over the top like that. Stranger things have happened.

    But I did just google “mccain fag candidate”, and all the first two pages of hits (with one exception to note below) were either Begala, or other Bush-haters repeating each other’s charges, echo-chamber style. Many quoted the same words from some unnamed, unsourced, and thus unverified “fact sheet”. The stories were not consistent; sometimes it was a telephone push-poller who had called McCain “the fag candidate”, other times it was a church flyer, etc. One commentor at Democratic Underground did suggest that it was Fred Phelps who’d done it.

    The one exception to note is that Jonah Goldberg made a decorative reference to the “church flyer” version of the story, in a 2000 column. The point of Goldberg’s column was to fulminate against the poor behavior of Paul Weyrich and a few others. I say “decorative” because the reference has the feel of a throwaway detail that Goldberg never bothered to check out, and even that reference does not hint at the slightest connection to the Bush campaign.

    Long story short: nothing like an objective news report, in the first two pages of hits. I don’t have any more time to spend on it; if someone else does, knock yourselves out.

    Cinesnatch, at #2 repeats the story -as if it were connected, or should be connected, to a campaign choice of Bush’s-. Typical.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - August 13, 2012

  14. CHARLESTON, S.C. — When Senator John McCain and his wife campaign in South Carolina these days, people pull them aside to apologize for what happened during the presidential primary here in 2000.

    A smear campaign during the primary in February 2000 here had many in South Carolina falsely believing that Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit union. Mr. McCain’s patriotism, mental well-being and sexuality were also viciously called into question.

    In the years that followed, many around Mr. McCain said, the South Carolina ghosts were not easily exorcised for Mr. McCain or the people close to him. Just a few months ago, at the onset of this campaign, Bridget, now 16, summoned Mr. McCain’s aides and asked them to explain in detail what had happened in South Carolina and to give assurances that it would not happen again.

    Mrs. McCain was also unsure about another run. The ultimate decision was in her hands, she said, and she was deeply influenced by the feelings of Bridget, who only learned about the events of 2000 when she Googled herself last year.

    Perhaps most significantly, though, an underground campaign was bubbling all around.

    People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

    It was a reference to Bridget, who was adopted as a baby from an orphanage in Bangladesh and is darker skinned than the rest of the McCain family. Richard Hand, a professor at Bob Jones University, sent an e-mail message to “fellow South Carolinians” telling recipients that Mr. McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.”

    Literature began to pepper the windshields of cars at political events suggesting that Mr. McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, that he was mentally unstable after years in a P.O.W. camp, that he was the homosexual candidate and that Mrs. McCain, who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs years earlier, was an addict.

    “You had a sense of besiegement daily,” said Mark Salter, a longtime aide to Mr. McCain.

    The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt.

    Charlie Condon, a former South Carolina attorney general who supported Mr. Bush in 2000 and is now co-chairman of Mr. McCain’s South Carolina committee, said the downward spiral the contest took was not surprising.

    “Our primaries have a way of doing that,” Mr. Condon said. “There is a tradition of it, it is accepted behavior, and frankly it works.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?pagewanted=all

    Comment by rusty — August 13, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - August 13, 2012

  15. Thanks, rusty!

    Interesting – “The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt”, and missing “the fag candidate” phrase (which would have been needed to pull it into my google’s results).

    Bruce has spent a bunch of years in the Carolinas, right? I wonder what’s his take on this.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 7:15 pm - August 13, 2012

  16. You’re most welcome ILC

    Shall we make a new rule of life from tonight: always try to be a little kinder than is necessary.
     James Matthew Barrie

    Comment by rusty — August 13, 2012 @ 7:52 pm - August 13, 2012

  17. I thought the rationale of Obama’s 2008 election was “Let’s elect a black guy to show how we’re not racists.”

    And I think the rationale of electing Romney in 2012 is, “Let’s elect a competent guy to show we’re not idiots.”

    Comment by V the K — August 13, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - August 13, 2012

  18. Kinda funny how all the libs who wouldn’t vote for “McSame” in 2008 because he was old, white and Republican are now pretending to be his best buddies.

    Comment by V the K — August 13, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - August 13, 2012

  19. Kinda funny how all the libs who wouldn’t vote for “McSame” in 2008 because he was old, white and Republican are now pretending to be his best buddies.

    VTK, please be more specific than “all the libs.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 13, 2012 @ 8:21 pm - August 13, 2012

  20. Well some days, rusty, kindness can be relative. I had the following experience, just recently. A new-ish acquaintance had, before my eyes, so offended basic human decency that I would have felt morally obligated to throw in their face a drink or worse, if our paths had crossed again. Months later and after much prodding, they made a small amends. Small and late, as these things go… but when I learned of it, I decided to take it. Not in the sense of being friends with them – I was long past that – but in the sense of no longer feeling like I should confront them. I accepted (with some relief) that my moral duty to confront them on the matter, had ended. Merely to let go of confronting them, was the kindness that I could manage. Whether it was kind on some absolute scale speaks to our human imperfection and is, I guess, for God to say.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 8:38 pm - August 13, 2012

  21. Hey Twat, shall we bring up the liberals who mocked his war record or shall we leave that alone? How ’bout the ones who alleged he caused the fire on the USS Forrestal? Do you assholes really want to play this game? Rusty?

    If you want find the dirtiest, rottenest bastards, all you have to do is look to the party you circle the wagons around and hand your votes.

    The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt.

    Couldn’t have been liberals that manufacture fake noose and racism incidences. Couldn’t be the liberals that shot up Bush campaign HQs or assaulted campaign volunteers. Nah. The liberal twats are as pure as the wind driven snow.

    Comment by TGC — August 13, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - August 13, 2012

  22. V – and IYRCAITYD – (ok: If You Remember Correctly And I Think You Do – ) they were also pretending to be his best buddies before the campaign.

    He was sort of a mascot to them, well sort of a badge to prove that they weren’t one-trick left-wing ideologues… which, of course, they were. As soon as McCain was the Lightworker’s opponent, they cast him aside. Then picked him up again, once he was no longer a threat.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 8:45 pm - August 13, 2012

  23. “To err is human; to forgive, divine.”

    ILC, those around me, those close to me cab attest and frequently point out my wicked tongue. I have the Barrie quote on my bathroom wall, to remind myself.

    It is a family trait- curse to hold a grudge. My Jesuit counselors have always reminded the benefits of foregiveness

    Comment by rusty — August 13, 2012 @ 8:49 pm - August 13, 2012

  24. Can attest

    Comment by rusty — August 13, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - August 13, 2012

  25. Couldn’t have been liberals that manufacture fake noose and racism incidences

    TGC: Now that you mention it, I suppose some of 2000 campaign matter in controversy could have been planted at the time by lefties, to sully the GOP.

    We just don’t know. But I think that the fake “Congressman Lewis” matter (wherein the good Congressman fabricated stories of Tea Party racism, despite the existence of video which contradicted him) showed that lefty activists are capable of stooping that low.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 8:55 pm - August 13, 2012

  26. rusty – agree

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 8:56 pm - August 13, 2012

  27. Cinesnatch:

    You provided proof of your assertion in comment 5. It was from MSNBC, an organization that is not often factual and incredibly biased. Surely you can find your truth with a more fair minded TV station.

    Comment by davinci — August 13, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - August 13, 2012

  28. Kind of funny, the Republican party is constantly bashed at being right-extremist… but every presidential candidate since 1988… Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McLandslide, Romney… has come from the moderate center.

    Comment by V the K — August 13, 2012 @ 11:15 pm - August 13, 2012

  29. #26 Which is why I’m unimpressed with twat’s claims as long as there’s no evidence as to who carried it out. The fact that the liberals and their media tools were the ones who went balls to the wall on it makes it doubly suspicious.

    Comment by TGC — August 13, 2012 @ 11:42 pm - August 13, 2012

  30. TGC, I’m still warming to the idea. When a crime is done that can’t be traced, you ask “Who benefits?” Clearly, the McCain people could not blame the Bush people, or they gladly would have – and the NYT would have gladly reported it. You can almost hear the sadness, as Pravda must reluctantly concede, “The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin…”

    So who else benefitted, or would have believed at that time that they were benefitting, from McCain being taken down by rank smears? Why, Democrats. The Gore campaign. At that point in 2000, they thought Bush was the weaker, more politically isolated candidate. Having McCain taken down by racist-type smears would have been a two-fer, sullying the GOP while simultaneously driving the GOP to the “weaker” candidate.

    Again, I really have no idea what happened or who did it… just saying that if it did come out someday that Paul Begala thought of it all, I would not be too terribly shocked.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 12:38 am - August 14, 2012

  31. n February 2, 2000, John McCain arrived in South Carolina red-hot, a 19-point-upset victor in New Hampshire over George Bush. In the final days there, some of Bush’s aides had pressed him to turn aggressively negative. Bush had resisted. His political guru, Karl Rove, overconfident for too long, had agreed.

    Now, in South Carolina, Bush had lost close to a 50-point lead. With just 17 days before the vote, his back was firmly against the wall.

    “Desperate people do desperate things,” Warren Rudman, the 74-year-old former New Hampshire senator and one of McCain’s national chairmen, told me. “When you look at a lot of campaigns, not just that one, when front-runners suddenly fall behind, their campaign consultants just go off the deep end.… People going down for the third time, they grab on for anything they can get ahold of, and if it happens to be something nasty, rotten, and false, that doesn’t make much difference.”

    At a meeting of Bush’s top staff that first day, the signal went out “to take the gloves off,” Time magazine reported at the time.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2004/11/mccain200411

    Comment by rusty — August 14, 2012 @ 9:37 am - August 14, 2012

  32. @rusty,

    All this goes back to accusations, not proof.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 14, 2012 @ 9:50 am - August 14, 2012

  33. So rusty, I don’t have time this morning to read the article you brought up – does it say that the Bush campaign authored the smears in question? It’s not clear from what you quoted; saying that the Bush campaign wanted to takes the gloves off could mean that they were going to hit McCain on, say, his Keating Five scandal.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 9:51 am - August 14, 2012

  34. ILC, ’twas a date Vanity Fair article. 2000 elections – 22 years ago

    But all I am saying . . .

    Karl Rove

    Comment by rusty — August 14, 2012 @ 9:59 am - August 14, 2012

  35. An old-time South Carolina Republican politico—an active insider in the McCain campaign in 2000 who relishes Atwater-style hardball and now supports Bush—offered to give me his view of Rove, but only if we spoke off the record. “Listen,” he finally said, “Karl Rove is the meanest son of a bitch in the world. Oh, man … there’s nothing he wouldn’t do to win a campaign. Winning is all that matters.”

    Comment by rusty — August 14, 2012 @ 10:01 am - August 14, 2012

  36. Dated Vanity Fair

    Comment by rusty — August 14, 2012 @ 10:16 am - August 14, 2012

  37. OK, I’m skimming the first couple pages. So far, the article quotes a lot of people saying stuff about Bush, but carefully shies away from asserting their claims as facts. This is the first real factual claim, on page 2:

    The “revolting” e-mail—alleging that “McCain chose to sire children without marriage”—was from Richard Hand, a professor of the Bible at Greenville’s Christian-fundamentalist Bob Jones University

    In other words: Not Bush.

    Or this:

    Mark Carman, who owns the Capitol City News & Maps store, told me of going to a candidates’ debate in Columbia, “and when we got back to our car, there was a flyer under the windshield wiper saying something about McCain having a Negro child. My wife is African-American—she just tore it up.”

    State representative Jim Merrill, a political operative in 2000 who’d backed Dan Quayle before moving to McCain, told me, “We caught a couple of kids red-handed putting flyers on cars outside a seniors’ center in Hilton Head. One of the kids said a guy had paid him 50 bucks to do it.” Who was that guy? He had no idea.

    In other words: Not necessarily Bush.

    Or this – again, note the careful use of the passive voice:

    McCain was labeled the “Fag Army” candidate.

    In other words: Not by Bush.

    If you want to argue that there was/is an SC power structure that decided to back Bush, and did their usual dirty job, – Fine. That seems to be an element of it (as with the Bob Jones people). But again, I still haven’t seen anything to rule out mischief from yet another party.

    Again, that is only up to page 2 of the article – really all I have time for this morning, sorry!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 10:19 am - August 14, 2012

  38. But all I am saying . . .

    Karl Rove

    That seems to mean something different to you, than me. I don’t assume that Karl Rove is what the Left has painted him to be. I know that in the Valerie Plame affair, for example, the Left’s accusations on him were proven false.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 10:21 am - August 14, 2012

  39. P.S. then I really have to go: I also know that the Left’s mythology about “swift boating” or the Swift Vets, is false. They were men of conviction who had served with Kerry, and rose up on their own to stop him. Rove/GOP was, if anything, reluctant to embrace them. Amazon has a book: http://www.amazon.com/Set-Record-Straight-Veterans-Defeated/dp/0979984106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344954736&sr=1-1&keywords=to+set+the+record+straight

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 10:33 am - August 14, 2012

  40. (Or -largely- on their own, I should have said. It was unfortunate that they got in bed with Jerome Corsi. But he was the college roommate of the Swift Vets’ leader, John O’Neill, who came from a family of military Democrats and had a history of supporting people like Perot and Gore.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 10:42 am - August 14, 2012

  41. Vince,

    Your wrote this @ #2:

    When George Bush supporters referred to John McCain as “the f@g candidate” and insinuated that he cheated on his spouse, his wife was a drug addict, and brought attention to the color of his youngest daughter’s skin color, it was possibly the lowest, meanest, most negative campaign in history.

    Then you wrote this @ #19:

    VTK, please be more specific than “all the libs.”

    Clearly you were scolding VTK for making a blanket statement about “all the libs” and you are correct that such a generalization is rarely supported or merited.

    However, your own words at #2 claim that George Bush supporters referred to John McCain as “the f@g candidate” and insinuated that he cheated on his spouse, his wife was a drug addict, and brought attention to the color of his youngest daughter’s skin color.

    I was a George Bush supporter and did none of that. Now, clearly, you did not write “all” George Bush supporters. But neither did you write “some” or ” a handful” or “one activist group” or any other qualifying statement.

    You committed an error that is all too common in reporting history by allowing a tacit understanding of prevalence to go unaddressed. When you wrote “George Bush supporters referred” you permitted the assumption that what followed was general and rife among George Bush supporters.

    You painted with a broad brush and then you attempted to smack VTK down for “painting with a broad brush.

    I recall the mess in South Carolina and it offended me when the McCain people revealed the robo-calls and the innuendo crap. It offended me even more when Vanity Fair tried to elevate it to a national stage by playing throwing it against the wall in hopes of making it stick and smear.

    The quote VTK made that got your “painting with a broad brush” ire up is:

    Kinda funny how all the libs who wouldn’t vote for “McSame” in 2008 because he was old, white and Republican are now pretending to be his best buddies.

    Really now, Vince. The error VTK made is very simple. He reports that all of the libs who wouldn’t vote for Mc Cain are now (every one of them) his best buddies.

    You chose to put the irony and teasing aside and to ask VTK to prove that every single person in the former group has flipped and is now in the latter group.

    A.) You are engaging in a non-argument of your own creation. (“Frank said the sky is blue and everyone knows air has no color and ……”)

    B.) Your blanket statement that George Bush supporters referred….. is a classic, textbook example of what you are lamely trying to pin on VTK.

    You are welcome. I will not presume to bill you for this basic lesson in rhetoric. It is up to you to decide if you will learn anything from it. Your troll credentials are just fine. But if you are attempting in any way to be a contributor to the thread, you have failed miserably in this case.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 14, 2012 @ 11:16 am - August 14, 2012

  42. And the other entertaining thing that seems to be being lost in rusty and Cinesnatch’s Formula 1-engine-level spinning: that, after calling such tactics “the lowest, meanest, most negative campaign in history”, they then went and used those tactics themselves.

    This is what Breitbart meant when he said, “Apologize for WHAT?” The tendency in conservatives is to self-examine, assume one can be wrong, and hold oneself to principle, which is absolutely admirable. But what we see here is that it is being abused and exploited by people like Cinesnatch and rusty who are devoted, not to principle, but to shutting conservatives and others who disagree with their Obamamessiah up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 14, 2012 @ 3:50 pm - August 14, 2012

  43. NDT,
    Your persistent fawning over me, well it’s touching.

    This clip makes things so clear

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA58snw4cuQ&sns=em

    Smooches

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/37ab1b9e.jpg

    Comment by rusty — August 14, 2012 @ 4:31 pm - August 14, 2012

  44. On a related note, there is also this great piece about the Obama campaign entitled “The Most Divisive Campaign in American History.” Although one can certainly quibble as many have above about whether or not it is actually THE most divisive, it is certainly a campaign built on nurturing divisiveness, as noted in the linked post: “The Obama campaign is not accidentally divisive. It did not stumble into divisiveness. It is not even divisive as a byproduct of its real aims. Divisiveness is its aim. Divisiveness is the only way that a divisive administration can hold on to power. The anger and the violence are not an accident, they are the whole point. Set one group against another, feed the hate, massage the grievances and very soon there is no longer a nation but a handful of quarreling groups being roped into a mutual alliance to reelect their lord protector whose appeal is that of the outsider becoming the insider.”

    Comment by Kurt — August 14, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - August 14, 2012

  45. Nice effort, Heliotrope. But Vince has made clear repeatedly his inability to appreciate jest or wit.

    Comment by V the K — August 14, 2012 @ 6:09 pm - August 14, 2012

  46. an active insider in the McCain campaign in 2000 who relishes Atwater-style hardball and now supports Bush—offered to give me his view of Rove, but only if we spoke off the record. “Listen,” he finally said, “Karl Rove is the meanest son of a bitch in the world. Oh, man … there’s nothing he wouldn’t do to win a campaign. Winning is all that matters. And worst of all, he didn’t HIRE me

    … is my takeaway from that dubious anecdote.

    Comment by V the K — August 14, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - August 14, 2012

  47. one can certainly quibble as many have above about whether or not it is actually THE most divisive

    Well… Campaign of 1860, anyone?

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist. Joking about the Civil War, “is it too soon?”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 14, 2012 @ 8:37 pm - August 14, 2012

  48. ILC asks: “Well… Campaign of 1860, anyone?”

    Well, for the past few years I have been thinking more and more of a memorable line from Walt Whitman’s pamphlet “The Eighteenth Presidency!” which was written during the campaign of 1856: “The President eats dirt and excrement for his daily meals, likes it, and tries to force it on The States. “

    Comment by Kurt — August 14, 2012 @ 10:04 pm - August 14, 2012

  49. […] ‘Ending Medicare’ Myth And How It Turns The Issue In Favor Of The GOP Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election The Glittering Eye -The War on Algebra VA Right! – No Mr. President. BUSH Tried it YOUR Way and it […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations..Ryan’s Hope Edition — August 15, 2012 @ 3:59 am - August 15, 2012

  50. […] An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Ides of August nominations — August 15, 2012 @ 4:31 am - August 15, 2012

  51. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations … Ryan’s Hope Edition | therightplanet.com — August 15, 2012 @ 11:18 am - August 15, 2012

  52. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — August 15, 2012 @ 11:20 am - August 15, 2012

  53. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations… Ryan’s Hope Edition | askmarion — August 15, 2012 @ 11:46 am - August 15, 2012

  54. […] ‘Ending Medicare’ Myth And How It Turns The Issue In Favor Of The GOP Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election The Glittering Eye -The War on Algebra VA Right! – No Mr. President. BUSH Tried it YOUR Way and it […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations..Ryan’s Hope Edition | Virginia Right! — August 15, 2012 @ 11:49 am - August 15, 2012

  55. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — August 15, 2012 @ 1:13 pm - August 15, 2012

  56. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Ryan’s Hope Edition | Independent Sentinel — August 15, 2012 @ 7:04 pm - August 15, 2012

  57. Obama should brag about all his accomplishments. Why doesn’t he? Why does he have to resort to divisive, down-in-the-mud tactics without ever bragging about his spendthrift ideas. For one, unemployment was 8.3% in 2009 and it’s 8.3% now. Look what he’s done for gas prices. Chud did want them to equal Europe’s and we’re getting there thanks to Obama and his team. He need to run on all that great stuff.

    Comment by Sara — August 16, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - August 16, 2012

  58. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » This week’s Watcher of Weasels submissions — August 16, 2012 @ 5:26 pm - August 16, 2012

  59. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels Nominations – Ryan’s Hope Edition | Maggie's Notebook — August 16, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - August 16, 2012

  60. […] Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Rising IQs | — August 16, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - August 16, 2012

  61. […] – The Noisy Room – Optimism for a Change Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Right Planet – Obama Goes Full-On Marxist: […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watchers Council Results — August 17, 2012 @ 3:29 am - August 17, 2012

  62. […] Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watchers Council Results | therightplanet.com — August 17, 2012 @ 5:12 am - August 17, 2012

  63. […] – The Noisy Room – Optimism for a Change Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election Seventh place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Right Planet – Obama Goes Full-On Marxist: ‘Prosperity […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watchers Council Results | Virginia Right! — August 17, 2012 @ 5:34 am - August 17, 2012

  64. […] Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — August 17, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - August 17, 2012

  65. […] Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Winners — August 17 ’12 Edition — August 17, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - August 17, 2012

  66. […] Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watchers Council Results | Independent Sentinel — August 17, 2012 @ 7:35 pm - August 17, 2012

  67. […] Sixth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – An Obama victory in 2012 would undermine Obama’s 2008 rationale for his election […]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for August 17, 2012 — August 21, 2012 @ 6:32 pm - August 21, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.