Hunting Parties
On the campaign trail, any number of hunting or war analogies are bound to come up. Following a leader, or "poaching" delegates, which candidates are in the hunt and can fire at whom. It is in this environment, it's easy to see how people can start to think any rules are permissible. The problem, this isn't war and we need to be able to work together after this is all said and done. We expect the mudslinging to be there, and in this kind of campaign, we're gonna see more of it. But there are lines, and it looks like some people are starting to cross them. First and foremost, Bill O'Reilly, one of Foxnews's Jackasses-in-Chief said this about lynching Michelle Obama, wife of the candidate. He does say he doesn't want to lynch, UNLESS he has proof. Read the whole quote, take in scariness. It's a pretty terrible thing to say, but he's apparently defending Michelle Obama. Since, well, lynching someone is a great defense. Of course, The New York Times now had a story about possible relationship problems with John McCain. Apparently, his aides were worried that he was getting too close to a lobbyist, and were further worried it might be romantic. Yes, it does remind me of a movie, but it also is not a real story, or at least not in the way the paper of record wants it to be.
O'Reilly is well known for making controversial statements, some times there are racist statements and other times they are scarily sexist. He has never held himself up as a paragon of tolerance or political correctness, but he keeps crossing the line, and this time it was huge. Hearing Eugene Robinson on MSNBC tonight was to hear a man about to break down into tears because of how angry he was. He was not just a little offended, he was very offended. He went into the all too recent history of lynching in this country and what it meant. It was a form of terrorism, it was designed to kill a black person or family, and to scare the rest of the black community around into not voting, not owning property or generally not doing anything the white power elites didn't want them to. It was used to politically disenfranchise blacks from voting, let alone run for the highest office in the land. So, saying this about the wife of a black candidate for a remark people are misunderstanding, is pretty far beyond the pale. Note, he did say he didn't want to do this. . .unless there was proof she said something like that. Yeah, he's all for a lynching party if she DID say something he thinks is unpatriotic. As a wise man once said, The Secret Service investigates all threats".
Speaking of investigations, McCain is now weathering allegations of a possible improper relationship with a lobbyist. McCain's response was not the greatest response, as it mostly denounced The New York Times and only briefly denied the idea of an affair. The facts are these, she was a lobbyist and he was a Senator who made his career on hating lobbyists and their influence. He has, since his involvement with The Keating Five, become one of the most vocal opponents of earmarks and elected officials profiting from their works in office. She appeared to have clients who benefited from her close influence on McCain. Two old staffers of McCain have come out and said they advised McCain to keep her away and acted on their to keep her away from McCain and limit her access to the campaign. There has been a big deal made about she's a lobbyist and he's a Senator and there might have been a romantic relationship. According to all accounts, they were just close and hung out a lot. Now, it's been said that in DC if you want a friend, buy a dog. It was always said as a warning against trusting anyone else too much, but it can be taken to mean that if you want an innocent relationship no one can question, get a dog.
This is the problem with being an elected official. There is no such thing as "innocent", "accidental" or "harmless". A man hanging out with a woman that much HAS to be improper. I have a lot of female friends I'm close to, therefore I'm probably going to sleep with them. Of course, most of them are lesbian, which could be taken any NUMBER of bad ways. Lobbyists and politicians are close because, well, they're in the same business. Doctors know doctors, even those outside their specialty. Lawyers know other lawyers, prosecutors know defense attorneys, even though they may be on opposite sides of a case the next day. Most lobbyists are former employees of elected officials, or former elected officials themselves, since those jobs pay well and one doesn't have to be superqualified depending on the job. Sure, some retire, some go on to teach somewhere and some change jobs in the government, but lobbying pays well. One can stay in the Washington game (and if you're living near DC, why NOT be in politics) without having to deal with a lot of crap. Expense accounts and favors are part of the pay. Many would work in offices, get to know lots of political officials and, shockingly, stay friends with them. So if a lobbyist and a politician happen to be longtime friends, then apparently, it's a totally inappropriate relationship.
While both of these things deserve to be looked into, a four page New York Times article is a little much for what could end up being a close friendship that MIGHT have looked bad. O'Reilly should get a rash of shit for what he said. Don Imus was fired for his comments about calling some black college students "nappy headed hos". O'Reilly was suggesting conditions under which it wold be okay to lynch a black woman. Not just call her ugly, not just insult her patriotism, but actually say there are circumstances when it would be all right to get a group together, pass judgment on her without her defense then do whatever comes naturally next. This should get him fired if Westwood One, the company that owns the radio show where he spoke these comments, were paying attention. Fox should also do something to reprimand him, but odds are they will say it wasn't on their network, they don't have to do anything. McCain might have more problems if Republicans decide he's a dirty man, but O'Reilly will probably lose no fans over this.
So, who wants to be president again?
So it is written, so do I see it.
O'Reilly is well known for making controversial statements, some times there are racist statements and other times they are scarily sexist. He has never held himself up as a paragon of tolerance or political correctness, but he keeps crossing the line, and this time it was huge. Hearing Eugene Robinson on MSNBC tonight was to hear a man about to break down into tears because of how angry he was. He was not just a little offended, he was very offended. He went into the all too recent history of lynching in this country and what it meant. It was a form of terrorism, it was designed to kill a black person or family, and to scare the rest of the black community around into not voting, not owning property or generally not doing anything the white power elites didn't want them to. It was used to politically disenfranchise blacks from voting, let alone run for the highest office in the land. So, saying this about the wife of a black candidate for a remark people are misunderstanding, is pretty far beyond the pale. Note, he did say he didn't want to do this. . .unless there was proof she said something like that. Yeah, he's all for a lynching party if she DID say something he thinks is unpatriotic. As a wise man once said, The Secret Service investigates all threats".
Speaking of investigations, McCain is now weathering allegations of a possible improper relationship with a lobbyist. McCain's response was not the greatest response, as it mostly denounced The New York Times and only briefly denied the idea of an affair. The facts are these, she was a lobbyist and he was a Senator who made his career on hating lobbyists and their influence. He has, since his involvement with The Keating Five, become one of the most vocal opponents of earmarks and elected officials profiting from their works in office. She appeared to have clients who benefited from her close influence on McCain. Two old staffers of McCain have come out and said they advised McCain to keep her away and acted on their to keep her away from McCain and limit her access to the campaign. There has been a big deal made about she's a lobbyist and he's a Senator and there might have been a romantic relationship. According to all accounts, they were just close and hung out a lot. Now, it's been said that in DC if you want a friend, buy a dog. It was always said as a warning against trusting anyone else too much, but it can be taken to mean that if you want an innocent relationship no one can question, get a dog.
This is the problem with being an elected official. There is no such thing as "innocent", "accidental" or "harmless". A man hanging out with a woman that much HAS to be improper. I have a lot of female friends I'm close to, therefore I'm probably going to sleep with them. Of course, most of them are lesbian, which could be taken any NUMBER of bad ways. Lobbyists and politicians are close because, well, they're in the same business. Doctors know doctors, even those outside their specialty. Lawyers know other lawyers, prosecutors know defense attorneys, even though they may be on opposite sides of a case the next day. Most lobbyists are former employees of elected officials, or former elected officials themselves, since those jobs pay well and one doesn't have to be superqualified depending on the job. Sure, some retire, some go on to teach somewhere and some change jobs in the government, but lobbying pays well. One can stay in the Washington game (and if you're living near DC, why NOT be in politics) without having to deal with a lot of crap. Expense accounts and favors are part of the pay. Many would work in offices, get to know lots of political officials and, shockingly, stay friends with them. So if a lobbyist and a politician happen to be longtime friends, then apparently, it's a totally inappropriate relationship.
While both of these things deserve to be looked into, a four page New York Times article is a little much for what could end up being a close friendship that MIGHT have looked bad. O'Reilly should get a rash of shit for what he said. Don Imus was fired for his comments about calling some black college students "nappy headed hos". O'Reilly was suggesting conditions under which it wold be okay to lynch a black woman. Not just call her ugly, not just insult her patriotism, but actually say there are circumstances when it would be all right to get a group together, pass judgment on her without her defense then do whatever comes naturally next. This should get him fired if Westwood One, the company that owns the radio show where he spoke these comments, were paying attention. Fox should also do something to reprimand him, but odds are they will say it wasn't on their network, they don't have to do anything. McCain might have more problems if Republicans decide he's a dirty man, but O'Reilly will probably lose no fans over this.
So, who wants to be president again?
So it is written, so do I see it.