Who Can Possibly Take This Seriously?
It’s preposterous to think that this New Yorker Magazine cover is anything but satire.
Obama in a turban and Michelle as Angela Davis giving Dap (that’s a fist bump for you non-urban folk) while the American flag burns in the fireplace. Barry Blitt, the artist who created the cover, has this to say:
I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.
Nico Pitney over at Huffington has some of Blitt’s other provocative covers. The right wing wil be all over this, whining (thank you, Phil Gramm) that they could never get away with putting such an image on one of their publications. And that is true, because they would actually mean it. Are we so uptight that we can’t recognize good satire when we see it?
Jake Tapper runs down some of the other satirical covers for which The New Yorker is known.
For those who lable the Obamas unpatriotic or terrorists there can be no response but ridicle.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
This may be good satire, but it’s also dangerous.
I really can’t appreciate the satire here, bc I know damned well that there are plenty of people out there who will take this as a true representation of the Obamas. Maybe if it weren’t displayed on the front page. Can you imagine conservatives and people who are scared of Obama’s relationship with Wright walking by the newsstand and seeing this?
Great satire for us, but very dangerous for the Obama haters.
(btw, did you guys here the nice man call Radio Graffiti Friday night and say “save our land, join the Klan”? for him, this cover is going to be an actual portrait)
July 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
It’s dangerous because the picture confirms not who they are literally. but it’;s who they are politically. It’s where their allegiances are.
The Lefties who made that cartoon probably had a lot of fun thinking they were making fun of a lot of people.. instead they have come up with a picture that is way more description of Obama’s politics than they would have imagined.
That is why it is dangerous.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Cheryl: The reason I picked up on the word dangerous is because on the Morning JOe show the airhead was going on about it being dangerous
BRZEZINSKI: N-o-o-o. It’s a dangerous joke. It’s dangerous, I think.
WILLIE GEIST [incredulously]: How is it dangerous?
BRZEZINSKI: We’ll talk about it.
Minutes later
SCARBOROUGH: Alright, so, Mika, tell me, why do you think this is dangerous?
BRZEZINSKI: I just think this is the whole discussion we’ve been having for a year about Barack Obama as a potential nominee, which he is now, and that it is dangerous to go after him. There are different dimensions and layers of danger, revolving around race and . . .
Apparently anyone can say anything they want about anyone except Obama. No one can saying or joke about him.
He’s too fragile and too sensitive. He’s a joke.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I wonder if they did a satire of GW Bush holding hands with his Saudi buddies, after Salem bin Laden and the BCCI bailed him out of Harkin Energy.
Or how about one with Safig bin Laden watching 9/11 with Bush Sr at a Carlyle Group meeting?
Or how a cover depicting James Baker’s law firm, Baker Botts, representing the Saudis AGAINST the 9/11 families?
And they want to say that OBAMA is sympathetic to terrorism??
It might make sense in the Twilight Zone!
July 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Only in the Bizarro World of the Left does the question of “Does Person A do X” depend upon whether or not Person B does Y.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I, too, agree it is a dangerous picture because there are still misinformed people in this country who actually BELIEVE this displays Obama’s true politics and, as such, won’t see it as satire.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Personally, I appreciate the satire behind the cover, but I have to agree with those who think that a fair number of people are going to look at this and take it at face value. As “Calvin and Hobbes” cartoonist Bill Watterson observed after getting some hate mail for one of his cartoons: “I thought the juxtoposition was ludicrous enough that no-one would take it seriously. But, as I’ve learned, some people take everything seriously.”
July 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Has anyone noticed that when something is against the Obama’s, a lot of people react like the radical Muslims over the Dutch portrayals of Muhommad? I think at some point, we’re taking ourselves a little too seriously.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I understand that they meant it to be satire but frankly it doesn’t come across that way. I think they missed their mark. It might have helped had they put in big black letters on the bottom … The Politics of Fear, something like that but they say nothing so it could be easily miscontrued. Sometimes satire doesn’t work without providing just a little more to make your point.
Proof of how they missed their mark, is that Democrats are hating it and Republicans are loving it for the most part. And I agree, it just comes across highly offensive.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Yea, that was funny. If the New Yorker wanted to lampoon someone they should have lampooned O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter since they’re the sources of the pander that the cartoon attempts to lampoon. Copy that …lemmings?
July 14th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Epiphany~ i totally agree that they missed the mark. a headline/title accompanying the picture would have been much more responsible and effective.
DS~ very interesting quote.
LV~ i don’t think this is quite the same as Muslims freaking out over a picture of Muhammed. the issue that i personally have with it is that it feeds into either latent or overt prejudices that some of our fellow citizens have. that’s why i’m not impressed with the pic. anyway, did you read the quote DS provided? it’s very interesting.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
The best was when Stephen Colbert realized that it was NOT a “cute little bump”, but indeed, a “TERRORIST FIST JAB”!!!
The fact that you see this gesture EVERYWHERE just proves how deeply they have infiltrated.
I love how he uses the Bush loyalist logic.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Everyone who voted for bush had no Idea they would be taking back their vote(except 25%)who think bush is still better then sliced bread. Maybe its time we predict the future and let the cadidate prove themselves. Better yet the people should have more power to impeach if the aproval rate falls below 40%
just like Donald Trump…..YOUR FIRED !
July 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It will feed the right-wing smear machine, especially as there are people all across the country who know nothing about the magazine, but they’ll see this cover and say, “See? It’s on the cover of the New Yorker so it must be true!”
Note to Mr. Blitt: people see what they want to see.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
All one has to do is visit daily kos to see the left’s hate for this little “joke.”
Once again proving that liberals aren’t tolerant, don’t have a sense of humor, and are very hateful to those that don’t agree.
It seems that their hatred of right-wingers have turned them into the same thing they hate.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Brandon:
Oh, you mean like Michael Reagan who “wants to blow up Muslim babies” or O’Reilly who “would like the terrorist to bomb California”.
You mean THAT kind of hate?
July 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
It’s probably in bad taste, but as Alan stated who the heck could take it seriously? Obama may be a lot of things, but he’s not a Muslim. He loves this country.
I question some of his associations…but he seems to genuinely want the best for America (however warped the “best” is in his mind). As a person, I really like him. Politically, obviously I don’t.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
TDro: are those Muslim babies in the womb? Then they’re just abortions! Just a “choice”!
July 14th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Lets pretend that Hillary Clinton and her people weren’t the ones who spread the Muslim rumor and came up with the Obama-in-Tribal-Drag picture.
It’s the illusive ‘right-wing’.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Satire, perhaps, but tasteful, not.
The Obamas, while a likeable couple, are not subscribing to policies that are in the long-term interests of anybody I know.
The policies should be the issue, not this mish-mash of peripheral symbols.
I yawn at this cover.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Flap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4NMx0Vd7Q
July 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Then they’re just abortions! Just a “choice”!
Yeah, like our soldiers “chose” to die to make Bush (who has an interest in oil) rich.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
July 14th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Oh my God, TDro, I have never seen that video before nor had I heard that he said that. What a disgusting, sick and vicious person Michael Reagan is. I didn’t think he was like that and I have to admit I’m shocked. Christ, how ugly some people are on the inside. He should have been fired for that kind of dangerous hate speech.
Even here in NYC, I once saw a man shove a Muslim woman (wearing a headpiece) and knock over her stroller with her baby in it. I went to help her, and the man ran away, coward that he was. I apologized to her and told her that not all the rest of us are like that. She was very upset but understood and was pretty much ok. I think. The baby was ok too but crying.
That kind of language from Reagan encourages that kind of behavior. He’s a real creep for sure. Ugh!
July 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I really can’t appreciate the satire here, bc I know damned well that there are plenty of people out there who will take this as a true representation of the Obamas.
———-
Yeah, I actually thought that this was some crazy right-winger’s work until I read about it.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Lord have mercy!
I should do a picture with McPander pushing the button.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The people who take it seriously wouldn’t vote for Obama even if John McCain joined al Qaida. There’s a lot of stupidity out there, as evidenced by the Newsweek poll just released in which 12 percent of voters surveyed said Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur’an, 26 percent believe he was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in Indonesia.
I believe the New Yorker intended it as satire. Of course, the magazine’s argument would be stronger if it hadn’t run the cover photo at the top of its Web page exactly between a teaser headline subtitled, Hendrik Hertzberg, Ryan Lizza, and Jeffrey Toobin on flip flopping” and Hertzberg’s piece discussing Obama’s real and exaggerated ”flip-flops.” And the main article, by Lizza, is generally negative.
The Hertzberg article also discusses many of McCain’s flip-flopss, but groups them in a single paragraph at the end of the story, after most will have stopped reading.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
lol, Dave
July 14th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Alan asks, “Who can possibly take this seriously?”
Some WorldNetDaily readers, that’s who.
In an online poll, 60% chose “The image isn’t too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family.” One can only hope the poll got purposely freeped because it that is really how people think, then it’s really pitiful that so many people are so ignorant.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807140002?f=h_latest
July 14th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Next: a magazine cover featuring Senator John McCain as Major T. J. “King” Kong from Dr. Strangelove, astride his H-bomb after dropping from a B-52.
“Yeeehawwww”!!!!
“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room.”
July 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I thought The New Yorker cover was hilarious. I also find it hilarious that some (liberals) find it offensive. Maybe a conservative satirist could provide Barack’s face as Mohammad with a stick of dynamite up his ass. Now that would be hysterical. Believing Barack Obama is a follower of Christ is equally hysterical.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I, too, found Michael Reagan’s comments so disgusting I had to shower after watching the video.
This is why it bothers me that the right wingers accuse us of being hateful. They should seriously listen to what the people on the right are spewing before they criticize the left.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I cringed when I saw the cover of the New Yorker yesterday while watching CNN’s “Reliable Sources” and thought…”Good grief!, Is this ever going to stop?” Then I felt my cynical side taking over…..I started to think that this has to be some sort of “shadow” campaign going on here, to somehow benefit Sen. Clinton, going into the convention…I thought, “New York Magazine-New York Senator-lost the nomination to Barack Obama”. Then I just got angrier, when I thought about the higher standards that the media has put on Barack Obama, then they have on John McCain. John McCain is treated like that elderly uncle who farts at the dinner table and you try to act like it doesn’t bother you~ If Barack sneezed the wrong way it would recieve a headline…!!!
July 14th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
The Media treats McCain better than Obama?
You people have lost it.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
It’s pretty sad how progressives always end up eating their own….
July 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Vince~ You took your glasses off…..? You must find them and put them back on~
July 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Well, I guess in the end the New Yorker went with this cover to stir up a bunch of BS and sell extra copies.
And I guess it would be funny, if racism were funny.
It would be funny like an illo of George Bush sitting on a stool in the corner of a classroom with a dunce cap on his head and big pair of buck teeth sticking out of his mouth.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
John McCain is treated like that elderly uncle who farts at the dinner table and you try to act like it doesn’t bother you
Hahaha! Lucieann that is EXACTLY how the media treats John McCain! Great analogy. Every time Obama has a “gaffe” it’s the end of the world. When McCain does it, he’s just having a “senior moment”.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Well it had not been for the media I would never have seen the picture, I dont read the New Yorker.
Now if it had graced the cover of National Geographic I would have seen it.
And if the sophisticated crowd that reads the New Yorker were really sophisticated they would be reading academic journals.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Forget McCain and Obama. I’ll be voteing for Bob Barr.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
This cover is imflammatory. It is the intentional infliction of emotional pain. It gives credibility to the stereotypes and myths that have plagued the Obama campaign from a source out of New York. Was this political payback by a “Sore Loser?” This smells like an inside hit job from a friend. Keep your enemies close and your friends closer. Know who you can trust before going into battle. This was the lesson learned by Gore and Kerry. Not all Democrats are Democrats. Not all Democrats want to win unless they are in charge.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Cecil,
Here we go again with conspiracy theories. Liberals are good at conspiracy theories, but you’ve stuffed your big foot in your mouth on this one. The New Yorker is a liberal publication and the artist was actually poking fun at conservatives like me who believe Obama is a Muslim. Now, don’t you feel stupid? I bet you do, and now we know you are. Typical liberal.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
TDro, aren’t babies just “old” fetuses? You libs don’t want to protect unborn babies, so why should I seriously care what someone says about things being done to born babies?
If *innocent* life, such as unborn or born babies (and not the red herring concerning enemies we are FIGHTING in a war) is supposed to be protected, then you have a point against Reagan.
BUT: if you were intellectually honest, you’d find violence against late-term unborn children versus newly born children virtually indistinguishable.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Exactly, Epiphany!! And it is beginning to be so commonplace it is way beyond annoying!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 12:12 am
“If Barack sneezed the wrong way it would recieve a headline…”
Well, certainly, if he as much as blows his nose they would cover it. Oh wait, they already did that.
“Apparently anyone can say anything they want about anyone except Obama.”
I guess this is why we had months about Rev. Wright. Because no one can say anything about Obama.
And, by and large, his most fervent critics have nothing worth saying.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
And it only took them one year to catch onto Wright .. and that was only because there was a tv tape of Wright. In other words if there’s no video tape of something, the media has no problem ignoring stories.. If there’s something visual then they usually can no longer ignore it.
The Wright episode is a great example of press sycophanty… every time Obama would say something about it, the majority of them would be like “Great.. that resolves that. Lets move on”
Chris Mattews was saying Obama’s deflection speech on race was right up there with the Gettysburg Address.
And what happens later when Obama finally says things that prove that all his statements around race-speech time were lie… Not a thing.
Where’s Alan and his before/after quotes with that?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
There you go again, Alan. Get in a dig at conservatives even when someone on the left does something controversial. By the above comments it seems that you may be the only liberal with a sense of humor.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Nobody cares about Wright.
If anything, he was railing about the injustice, (you can agree or disagree whether it is real or perceived injustice), inflicted upon the people by a powerful government, while the right wing pastors complain about the government NOT using it’s power to keep the people in line.
I think Rev Wright was more in keeping with the founders.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Well since Old Lefty said this
“Nobody cares about Wright”
then the opposite must be true.
You better believe a lot of people care about Wright,.. that’s why the demagogues on TV keep insisting they don’t.
That Obama raises his daughters in a racist church means a lot to people who can think.
Does that mean that Wright is the only reason to be against Obama? No.. there are so many other reasons to be against him as well.. as the many Democrats who have rallied around the Just Say No Deal coalition prove.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Poor Michele My Belle and Barack Hussein Obama. This is light stuff compared to the total degradation the Bushes have endured, as well as other presidents and first ladies. Where is the outrage about the depictions of Presidents Bush and Clinton? I havent heard Barack Hussein Obama condem that. Cant be too tough on the Messiah now can we?
July 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Flap:
I refuse to get into a pissing contest with you about abortion.
I just feel it’s less painful for everyone involved to lose the embryo before it’s born than to lose a child after it’s born (to abuse especially by parents who didn’t want the child in the first place, war, killing, etc.).
That is my position. Now if you are against abortion, I suggest you don’t have one.
BTW, I apologize for my nasty remarks the other day. I had two friends who died in an abortion clinic bombing a few years back by some fanatic who wanted to punish the doctors and nurses for the choice of the mother.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
James you made a good point.
Take Clinton for instance.. Some right-wingers called Hillary, Hitlery (and still do.. which I think is stupid).. You never heard them crying about that.. besides, they gave as they good as they got.
The Obamas are the epitome of the humorless academic.. who btw has no problem telling any lie or distortion about others.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The only people who think that Obama’s church is really racist are the people who would never vote for a Democrat,and those who would never vote for a black person ANYWAY.
Especially not an uppity black.
They want to see racism because it comforts them.
“Poor Michele My Belle and Barack Hussein Obama.”
Michelle and Barack are doing fine and dandy… Thank you very much.
(Did you also say John FITZGERALD Kennedy to emphasize
that he was Catholic?
Poor, poor George Bush. I feel ALMOST as sorry for him as I feel for those who died in the World Trade Center, from the anthrax attacks, in Afganistan, Iraq and New Orleans!
And to think, he has nothing but his family fortune to comfort him.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Here’s my conservative theory about TDro. He probably has several kids by several women, and may be a deadbeat dad living life from a humanistic point of view as his own God. No wonder he’s for abortion.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Vince P,
What did I tell you about OldLefty?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
TC: yep.
It’s amazing how all of these Leftists defend racists, rapists, murderers, plunderers, religious extremists, liars as long as the perp of all of things are doing so in a political manner against the United States.
Now OldLefty is pretending that there aren’t millions of Anti-Obama Democrats.
I wonder if there’s any positions that a Lefty takes that doesn’t involve denigrating the country
July 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Vince P,
The Messiah Barack Hussien Obama and the little Mrs. are very upset about the New Yorker cover and have invited OldLefty to the pity party. I hope he goes. They might throw him out once he opens his mouth.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Vince P,
Maybe not.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The Conservative:
You are soooooooooo wrong. Now go back to trashing liberals, since it seems it’s the only thing you know how to do. BTW, Jesus was a liberal
July 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I love the way these conservatives are always wrong.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
You confuse denigrating the Bush administration with denigrating the country.
When they called Bill clinton a rapist, a murderer, a drug runner a liar and a crook, THAT wasn’t denigrating America, THAT was just denigrating Clinton! Please!!!
As for religious extremists:
Between Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley and…
Francis Schaeffer:
“When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps) rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the “murder of the unborn,” has become “Sodom” by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, “under the judgment of God.” They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama’s minister’s shouted “controversial” comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton. ”
Spare me the feigned outrage!
Actually, I ‘m not offended at the New Yoker cover. They ARE , after all poking fun at the right wing smear machine, and those who fall for it, I just think that with the Leebrul media fewer people know about McCain’s “family values” than know that Obama is not a Mooslem.
Our nation is not served well by ignorance.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Here’s a preview of the fascism that is always associated with any Marxist movement:
Anti-Obama Bloggers Question Why Google Froze Their Accounts
Some bloggers opposed to Barack Obama say they suspect Obama’s supporters — with the assistance of Google — may have tried to censor them when the Internet giant froze their Web sites for five days last month.
Seven blogs run by Democrats who oppose Obama’s nomination for the presidency were incorrectly flagged as spam sites by Blogger, the hosting service Google has owned since 2003. Google says it was an automated response from a spam filter.
But the bloggers believe that Web surfers who support Obama took advantage of a loophole in Blogger’s system that allows readers to report spam blogs, the artificial Web sites that abound on the Internet and are used to promote other sites.
“It appears that [Blogger's] policy can be manipulated by people determined to shut down the free exchange of ideas,” said Carissa Snedeker, whose blog, BlueLyon, was among those that were frozen.
“It’s unusual — I’ve never heard of similar blogs of the same nature being shut down like that,” said Danny Sullivan, editor-in-chief of the tech site SearchEngineLand.com.
Google said in a press release that the blogs were blocked because an automatic spam filter had locked on to those seven Web sites.
“We believe this may have been caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the ‘Just Say No Deal’ network of [anti-Obama] blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam,” Google wrote, referring to a coalition of disaffected Democrats who oppose Obama’s candidacy.
Blogger quarantined the seven anti-Obama blogs on June 25 while it conducted a review, a process that took five days and made it impossible for the bloggers to write posts on the weekend of a joint event held by Obama and Hillary Clinton.
“Blogger’s ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach is appalling,” wrote blogger GeekLove on her site, Come a Long Way. She said she felt silenced by the freeze.
“The conclusion that many of us came to was that we were specifically targeted by some over-enthusiastic Obama supporters,” Snedeker said.
The bloggers believe it’s part of a larger campaign to evict them from left-wing sites like the Huffington Post and DailyKos.
Google says the bloggers’ suspicions are unfounded. “Politics had absolutely nothing to do with this — it was a spam issue,” Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich told FOXNews.com.
Sullivan said he would have expected more blogs to get shut down if there had been a concerted effort to stop anti-Obama sites.
“I think that there’s something weird, in general, that all these were shut down,” he said, “but why, exactly, is uncertain.”
As a result, all seven bloggers opened accounts with WordPress, a rival blog-hosting site, hoping to avoid such problems. The other affected blogs are Hillary or Bust, McCain Democrats, NObama Blog, The Political Lizard and Reflections in Tyme.
Google said it was addressing the issue and “constantly evaluating our policies and technology to reduce the number of false positives caught by our spam filters.”
“We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs,” it wrote, “and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression.”
Snedeker wrote on her blog that she wasn’t satisfied with Google’s gesture.
“How’s about a little benefit of the doubt for the next set of bloggers that get caught in your ‘automated spam detection’ maze?” she wrote.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I know for a fact that the Google-owned YouTube terminated “Nobama”’s (or a similiar name) account for no apparent reason.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
TDro,
Again you show your liberal (Jesus was a liberal)stupidity. However, I’m not surprised, but curious how liberals like you concieve such a theory.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Conservative:
Imagine that! An idiot calling a liberal “stupid”.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
OldLefty,
I don’t support either candidate. McCain has leaned left for years. The only other candidate I’ll consider is Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. The issues your father opposed where brought about by liberal efforts, not conservative, and I respect your fathers’ efforts. However you address racism as a white only problem. There is racism within black society as well. Pull your head out of the mud pal.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The Conservative
I didn’t know what you were talking about ‘My father”
then I realized.
My post was about Francis Schaeffer:
It was an excerpt written by his son. That’s who ‘my father’ is.
My point was that these right wingers HATE America, but from the right’s vantage.
They seem to hate the freedom of the people.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I was truly amazed at the number of people who could not just laugh this off. Get a grip people and stopping complaining about everything. It seems to me that the only ones who took this seriously were the people who wanted to get offended by it.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
OldLefty,
The Messiah Barack Hussien Obama knew it would be almost impossible to venture into the political arena as a Muslim. He befriended Mr. Wright and opted to disguise himself as a Christian and attend the church. I’ve heard Obama and many others speak about this accusation but I’m not convinced it’s false, plus his term as a Senator has been very short, and with little experience in the political arena I would’nt bet my shoes on him as President. I won’t for McCain either.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
According to the New Republic, The Rev Wright is a former Muslim. Interesting, isn’t it?
July 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
It was stupid, in bad taste, and not funny.
Which describes a lot of things besides magazine covers – Faux presidential seals, “Bomb Bomb Iran”, maybe we can kill them using cigarettes, all of which are at least arguably relevant as insights into the campaigns thought processes and blind spots.
This is an insight into the New Yorkers thought processes and blind spots. Interestingly enough, I’m not voting for them either way.
Jonnan
July 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
TDro,
Your assumption that Jesus is a liberal is nothing short of stupidity. Scrpture is obviously not one of your strong suits either.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:17 pm