The weight of words

Looking ahead to the possibility of a general election campaign against Barack Obama, John McCain tried out some attack lines last night. They need work.

Referring to Obama's mantra of "hope," McCain said this:

"Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience."

So far, so good. The reference there is to the long years McCain spent as a prisoner of war, held captive by the North Vietnamese. For enduring that ordeal, McCain deserves, and has, my respect.

But then McCain takes a dumb, offensive turn. He tries to contrast his experience with what he characterizes as Obama's empty rhetoric:

"To encourage a country with only rhetoric ... is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

The rhetoric he is dismissing there as a mere collection of platitudes is a language with a lineage. Obama's rhetoric of hope is the language of the civil rights movement. No matter what he has been through, it is foolish for McCain to suggest that this is cheap rhetoric unacquainted with struggle or lacking in real substance. Yes, from 1967 until 1973, John McCain went through enormous hardship. He is, as Obama said last night, "an American hero." But that doesn't give McCain the right to downplay, disregard or dismiss the hardship of other American heroes. He comes across as suggesting that he alone has earned the right to sing "stony the road we trod / bitter the chastening rod." This is unbecoming.

It's also evidence that McCain doesn't understand the rhetoric he's dismissing. He doesn't understand that words with a history are words with substance. He fails to grasp the history of those words, so he pretends they have no substance.

It's February, senator, a fitting time to brush up on the history of your fellow Americans who have also seen "hopes tested in hard and cruel ways" that far too many have experienced. Invoking the hope and the struggle embodied by Louis Allen, Willie Brewster, Benjamin Brown, James Earl Chaney, Addie Mae Collins, Vernon Dahmer, Jonathan Daniels, Henry H. Dee, Cpl Roman Ducksworth Jr., Willie Edwards Jr., Medgar Evers, Andrew Goodman, Paul Guihard, Samuel Hammond Jr., Jimmie Lee Jackson, Wharlest Jackson, the Rev. Bruce Klunder, the Rev. George Lee, Herbert Lee, Viola Gregg Liuzzo, Denise McNair, Delano H. Middleton, Charles E. Moore, Oneal Moore, William Moore, Mack Charles Parker, Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn, the Rev. James Reeb, John Earl Reese, Carole Robertson, Michael Schwener, Henry E. Smith, Lamar Smith, Emmett Louis Till, Clarence Triggs, Virgil Ware, Cynthia Wesley and Samuel Younge Jr. is not a mere "platitude."

None of those people lived to see 1967. Their names, too, are engraved in black granite and their struggle also counts. The rhetoric of that struggle has meaning and substance, even if the senator from Arizona chooses not to understand it.

Comments

[Abelardus]

Hmm, I like it.

[Jeff]

"I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience."

Why then, Senator, do you comntinue to continence torture? The White House has admitted they have used waterboarding; you know that waterboarding is torture. And yet you do nothing -- less than nothing: you made sure that habeus corpus was not afforded tortured men.

When will you say that Bush is a criminal?

[Robb]

Looking ahead to the possibility of a general election campaign against Barack Obama...

Hmm. . . Fred, something doesn't feel right about that sentence. You need to clarify -

Looking ahead to the inevitability of a general election campaign against Barack Obama...

That's better. It's nice to know that I'm yet another who thinks that.

[Robb]

When will you say that Bush is a criminal?

Sadly, he won't; he can't - even if he truly thinks it - but he can't say anything about it until he's won the election. Can't risk offending those who think Bush shits bricks of gold.

[Anna]

I have a feeling that this is something McCain will start to run into again and again, no matter who wins the nomination. The problem that McCain is going to face is the basic discrimination that underlies the Repub platform. It's not as obvious when it's only white Ivy-educated men in the race, but throw a woman or a black man in there and the issues become obvious. So much of Republicanism now is premised on the idea that only white male experiences matter (or matter most), and that those experiences need to be protected and privileged. Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) is a nice counterexample to that: someone who can stand up and say "look, there are all these disenfranchised people out here whose experiences and perspectives we weren't even talking about, and they deserve a voice too". That won't be explicit, of course, but every time Obama says 'hope' or 'change', that's what people will hear. And the more McCain tries to hit the note he sounded last night, the better the Dem candidate looks.

There's another curious aspect to this. The full McCain quote is this: "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." That quote actually applies better to the rhetoric Obama has co-opted (that of the civil rights movement) than the one McCain has co-opted (the Repub platform). 'Proven ideas... and the strength of free people'? That would be the civil rights movement, not BushCo. McCain's speech writers need to stop trying to use the language that came of age in freedom marches against the man who's the logical successor of those marches. It makes McCain look silly at best, and racist at worst.

[Tonio]

One of the most terrifying and saddening things I've ever read is "From Alabamy With Hate," Harlan Ellison's account of the March to Montgomery. McCain should read it.

[Karen]

Well, here's a very, er, interesting, take on Obama. I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this as the election nears.

[Cat]

Oh, good Geddy Lee. On behalf of Canada, I apologize for the David Warren article. In fact, just from the tone of it, I'm tempted to issue a blanket apology for everything he says in the future, too.

[Brandi]

The White House has admitted they have used waterboarding; you know that waterboarding is torture. And yet you do nothing....

He's just done something: he voted against a ban.

[Karen]

Cat, if the worst Canada can produce is an obnoxious pundit, who, by the way, spills gallons of ink in praise of horrible American policies, your country should be proud. If it weren't for us, Warren wouldn't have anything to say.

Also, that's not his worst column. That honor goes to something he wrote in, I believe, 2004, for the defunct Crisis Magazine in which he argued quite seriously that boys would never learn to respect girls if girls were allowed to play sports. Unfortunately I can't find that article to link, and it would only make anyone with sense angry.

[Robb]

Oh, good Geddy Lee

Ah Canada, such wonderful native deities.

[Jon H]

It seems to me that McCain's experience of hope was as a passive thing. It's true, no amount of inspirational talk among the prisoners would have actually freed him any earlier, and might have lead to empty promises.

But there's another kind of hope, which is active, and engaged, working to make things happen. That's what Obama's talking about, and which you reference.

[Nenya]

I wonder how many people are going to nod along to McCain and think he's being "serious" when he says things like that. :(

[magistra]

Is David Warren in some kind of competition for Nastiest Canadian with Mark Steyn? Does the fact that wingnuttery is less common in Canada mean it has to be extra concentrated or what?

[not_scottbot]

Remember, this Republican senator comes from Arizona - a state whose Republican governor proudly rejected Martin Luther King Day, as did the state's voters. A senator who also worked with Jesse Helms, who according to Wikipedia, '...also criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism."' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Day#Reluctance_to_observe_day ) Nothing like demanding justice in the name of the Constitution and Bible to be declared an 'action-oriented' Marxist in the eyes of a Republican.

What part of 'southern strategy' does anyone think is not understood by any Republican attempting to win national office? And what part of the anti-war traitor King meme among the paleo-, neo-, and plain insane conservative political streams is still not grasped by those who still think that being anti foreign wars is as anti-American as unconditionally opposing torture?

Lots of 'anti' feelings floating out in the zeitgeist - America has the sheer luck to yet again have a politician whose talents seem to be in harnessing that mood for positive change (whether it happens being an entirely other question - after all, even a man as sincerely opposed to slavery as Lincoln did not actually end it in a state like Maryland).

However, it is possible that McCain, unlike Clinton, will not actually be bitterly disgusted at the citizens of America when he loses to Obama. I am willing to give him at least that much credit.

[mcc]

McCain seems to be using some really unusual rhetoric in his attempts to diffuse Obama's inspirational qualities. This jumped out at me in particular:

"I don't seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness," McCain said, "that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need."

I... um... okay? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[Tonio]

Not_scottbot, good points about Arizona. For some reason, I had assumed that racism in Arizona was of the Northern variety instead of the Southern variety, less rooted in misguided romanticism of the Old South and of Jim Crow. Was Arizona a slave state? Did it have Jim Crow?

[Eh Nonymous]

Samuel Hammond was killed in 1968, according to the link you posted. It doesn't detract from your point, but the date endpoint you gave was wrong.

Thanks for pulling those links together; posted to bloglines and treasured.

[Matthew F]

Remember, this Republican senator comes from Arizona - a state whose Republican governor proudly rejected Martin Luther King Day, as did the state's voters.

No, the state's voters did not "proudly reject" MLK Day. I was here, I voted in that election. What actually happened was that the vote was intentionally split by the PTB (including that very nasty governor, who we have long since replaced with a good Dem governor) by putting up two amendments, one for a paid holiday and one for an unpaid holiday. The result was that neither passed by a tiny bit, the polls revealed that a solid majority of the voters voted for one or the other.

Not_scottbot, good points about Arizona. For some reason, I had assumed that racism in Arizona was of the Northern variety instead of the Southern variety, less rooted in misguided romanticism of the Old South and of Jim Crow. Was Arizona a slave state? Did it have Jim Crow?

Racism here is of the Northern variety, by and large. Arizona wasn't a state during the time of slavery, so we were neither a slave nor free state (we've been a state for less than 100 years). The territory was roughly divided north-south between the US and the Confederacy, but nothing was official. We had an anti-marriage Jim Crow law, but that was about it (not that any amount is acceptable, of course).

The two most important things to understand about Arizona racism are that (a) the vast majority of the population of the state is composed of people who moved here in the last 50 years, so any racial bigotry is of a more "modern" and, generally, northern variety, and (b) we have a comparatively small black population, so most racism is reserved for native americans and latinos.

Oh, and yes, McCain is a dick. But that's not because he's from Arizona.

[not_scottbot]

Matthew F -
fair enough about the voters - the original sentence I wrote referenced the recalled Republican governor (a true Republican, just ahead of his time), and when reading the Wikipedia info, the fact that the voters also rejected the holiday (for whatever reason) seemed worth noting - without any further qualification.

But don't be so touchy - I come from a state which still has an official Lee-Jackson Day -
'Lee-Jackson Day is a holiday celebrated in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the USA, for the birthdays of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. The original holiday, created in 1889, celebrated Lee's birthday. Jackson's name was added to the holiday in 1904. Lee-Jackson Day is currently observed on the Friday before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and results in the closing of state offices such as the DMV.'

Which is something of an improvement over this -
'Lee-Jackson-King Day was a holiday celebrated in the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1984 to 2000.
---
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan approved an Act of Congress declaring January 15 to be a national holiday in honor of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Since 1978, Virginia had celebrated King's birthday in conjunction with New Year's Day. To align with the federal holiday, the Virginia legislature simply combined King's celebration with the existing Lee-Jackson holiday.

The incongruous nature of the holiday, which simultaneously celebrated the lives of Confederate generals and a civil rights icon, did not escape the notice of Virginia lawmakers [a personal note - what a delicate way of framing why it only took 16 years to 'notice' and then change]. In 2000, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore proposed splitting Lee-Jackson-King Day into two separate holidays, with Lee-Jackson Day to be celebrated the Friday before what would become Martin Luther King Day. The measure was approved and the two holidays are now celebrated separately.'

In other words, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was originally just tacked on to an existing holiday, then later was tacked on to a holiday celebrating two Confederate figures. Worthy men, admittedly, except for being traitors who took up arms against the United States of America. They also have their own statues on Loser's Lane, in Richmond - an inside joke among Northern Virginians who spend any time in Richmond - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Avenue

[Geds]

In other words, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was originally just tacked on to an existing holiday, then later was tacked on to a holiday celebrating two Confederate figures. Worthy men, admittedly, except for being traitors who took up arms against the United States of America.

Wow. Just...wow.

[rm]

This jumped out at me in particular:
"I don't seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness," McCain said, "that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need."
I... um... okay? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

MCC, yes it is.

He is appealing to the deep-rooted belief of the rural Republican base in being humble (pronounced "umble" in right-wing churches . . . Fred, can you explain that? Was there a 19th-century fundamentalist leader with a Cockney accent that they are all imitating, or what? They don't drop any other aitches.) Don't get above your raising. Give the glory to God, not to yourself. Don't be proud. G. W. Bush was -- back when he was God to them -- a master at the body language, facial expressions, and turns of phrase that conveyed "UMBLE"-ness to these people. He did it so well they couldn't see he was a raging egomaniac control freak. They thought he was a simple man whose rise to power was so unsought and unaccountable that the only possible explanation was God's guiding hand. Just like Moses or Peter or David.

And I must say there is a kernel of truth to the idea that Obama shows flashes of arrogance. A good bit of politics is the gut-level reactions to body language and demeanor which leads voters to say "he/she is one of us" or "he/she is different from me." When Obama appeals to "us" and "we" and uses Civil Rights Era preacher-language, he's going to pull in swing voters. But when he shows arrogance or lets his Harvard-bred professorial side show, he's going to alienate them.

[Tonio]

PTB

I admit to being stumped. What does that acronym mean?

Wow. Just...wow.

My reaction as well. Pardon me while I metaphorically disinfect myself by reading my James Loewen books...

[Geds]

He is appealing to the deep-rooted belief of the rural Republican base in being humble

Yes, and it has the added benefit of making him the anti-Huckabee. Because Huckabee is telling people that the righteous are praying for the Huckampaign and that he's going to be the one to put god's laws back in that horrible, secular Constitution.

It makes him more palatable to possible Democrat and moderate swing voters.

[Tonio]

He did it so well they couldn't see he was a raging egomaniac control freak.

That would fit the "dry drunk" theory.

Just like Moses or Peter or David.

What if GWB pictures himself descending from Mt. Siani bearing tablets representing the Patriot Act?

[Richard Hershberger]

"I admit to being stumped. What does that acronym [PTB] mean?"

Almost certainly "[the] Powers That Be". This is, incidentally, an interesting fossilized use of the subjunctive mood.

[Tonio]

the vast majority of the population of the state is composed of people who moved here in the last 50 years, so any racial bigotry is of a more "modern" and, generally, northern variety

White flight?

[Froborr]

Wow. Just... wow.
I don't get it. What's controversial about the statement you're reacting to? The Confederates *were* traitors. They committed treason. That can be morally acceptable when one is opposing a government engaged in evil practices, but Confederates did *not* rebel out of opposition to the ethnic cleansing of the continental U.S. that occupied much of the nineteenth century. They can be somewhat forgiven for this on the grounds that ethnic cleansing was not widely recognized as evil until the Second World War hammered the point home, but nonetheless their treason was primarily motivated by old tensions between agricultural and industrial-commercial states that to some degree persist to this day (though now it's a Red State-Blue State, rather than North-South, division). These tensions are hardly legitimate moral grounds for treason.

[Tonio]

What's controversial about the statement you're reacting to?

I can't speak for Geds, but I was expressing astonishment that Virginians like Gilmore don't recognize how their actions dishonor everything that King stood for and died for. Lee was personally opposed to slavery, and I don't know about Jackson's view. But their actions would have led to the perpetuation of the horrors of slavery. Lee in particular didn't recognize that his moral obligation to his fellow humans far outweighed any loyalty he had to his home state.

[Geds]

I don't get it. What's controversial about the statement you're reacting to? The Confederates *were* traitors. They committed treason.

Dude, I was reacting to the overall thing and using that particular quote to represent the whole thing. Trust me, I'm a pretend internet historian and the entire reason I got in to history is because I started reading about the Civil War in, um, 3rd grade. We're good to go.

And the idea of attaching MLK's holiday to the two best-known representatives of the Confederacy is pretty much horrid. Regardless of Lee and Jackson's individual qualities, they are representations of the bad side of a horrible chapter in American history which MLK worked to finally abolish. It would be hilariously ironic were it not so mentally vomit inducing.

[Geds]

Lee was personally opposed to slavery, and I don't know about Jackson's view. But their actions would have led to the perpetuation of the horrors of slavery. Lee in particular didn't recognize that his moral obligation to his fellow humans far outweighed any loyalty he had to his home state.

Jackson was career military and to my recollection never owned slaves, nor did he come from a slave owning family. You're right about Lee. The general idea that they sided with their state over humanity is the bigger problem. Moreover, it's probably important to look at the attitudes of the people who put Lee-Jackson Day in place and the attitudes of the people who said, "Hey, let's just throw King in here," as Lee and Jackson themselves really had nothing to do with anything that was put in place after they died.

[not_scottbot]

Geds -

I could have further written 'except for being traitors who took up arms against the United States of America, and defended slavery.'

Which while technically true, does miss some of the complexity of that time as represented by those two figures. While Lee did come from a proud Virginian family with a long tradition of slave holding, neither man seems to have been particularly attached to slavery.

But never forget, for many of today's most devoted Republicans, men like Lee and Stonewall Jackson are part of a proud American tradition, while King was a despicable man. After all, quoting the Constitution that both Lee and Jackson cast aside makes King un-American, while his quoting of the Bible simply did not support such noble American goals as supporting one side in a Vietnamese conflict based on the Vietnamese fighting foreigners (between 1900-2000, that included the French, the Japanese, the French, the Americans, and then the Chinese).

King remains a disturbing reminder to many Republicans what happens when you let loose talk of justice and peace run rampant. And now, America is poised to elect its first African-American. Because he waves the banner of change.

And as the term 'African-American' is bandied about, how the Republicans must be gnashing their teeth. Obama is truly an African-American, after all - no way to attack him there, since there is nothing even remotely politically correct in calling him that.

I'm quite sure that the Republican attack machine feels like someone poured sand in their finely meshed gears. And McCain is now the most convenient target at hand - though admittedly, he has shown how to sit and wag his tail, having voted for torture as an instrument of American policy. They might just pat him on his head - after all, poodles never really threaten anyone much.

[McJulie]

I'm quite sure that the Republican attack machine feels like someone poured sand in their finely meshed gears.

It's true! The hawks hate McCain. The evangelicals hate everyone except Huckabee, everyone else hates Huckabee. At least when the presumptive nominee was H. Clinton, they could rely on being able to press the same tired old anti-Clinton buttons. But Obama has them a bit stumped, and it looks like they are already starting to fall into the trap of using fairly overt racism -- unfortunately for them, a tactic that is likely to have a positive effect only on those who weren't voting for the Democrat anyway.

The sound of the machine falling apart is sweet, sweet music.

[Tonio]

Moreover, it's probably important to look at the attitudes of the people who put Lee-Jackson Day in place and the attitudes of the people who said, "Hey, let's just throw King in here," as Lee and Jackson themselves really had nothing to do with anything that was put in place after they died.

Exactly. Those attitudes probably had little to do with those generals' personal views of slavery. There are numerous statues all over America honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest. What were these intended to recognize, his military service or his role in founding the KKK? And even the former is suspect because of the Fort Pillow massacre.

[Geds]

King remains a disturbing reminder to many Republicans what happens when you let loose talk of justice and peace run rampant. And now, America is poised to elect its first African-American. Because he waves the banner of change.

Not to blog-whore or anything here, but I've spent a lot of time thinking of this very subject. I wrote about it here, but on a tangential thought pattern, and am way too lazy to reproduce it in the comments on Slacktivist.

To sum it up, though, yes. I agree with you completely.

[Grey Duck]

In regards to the David Warren thing... it echoes a sentiment I've heard over and over, everywhere form the blogosphere to NPR. People keep saying Obama has no plans or policies, just platitudes. Have people not seen the 64-page "blueprint for change" on his website? How can you say he has no plans or policies?

.....argh.

[Lizzy L]

Grey Duck, good point. Some of that is just plain laziness on the part of commentators: they don't want to have to go the website and read, it's too much like work. Some of it is the tyranny of the either-or narrative: Clinton is the policy wonk so Obama can't be, he's the inspirational but vacuous speaker. I blame Bill Clinton, for making us think that serious candidates recite lists of "here's what I'll do for you" in their speeches, and anyone who doesn't do this is therefore Not Serious. Obama has started to respond to this a bit by talking more about his policy details in some of his small audience speeches.

[Toby]

To be fair, although it is true that Obama is actually quite the wonk, a great deal of his campaign has completely glossed over his inner wonkiness--because that's not what sells. He spent some time being pretty wonky before, but his campaign took off after he toned down the wonk and turned up the inspirational oratory.

So while the image of Obama lacking plans and whatnot is a false one, it is an image which is in part a product of his current campaign strategy.

[Geds]

So while the image of Obama lacking plans and whatnot is a false one, it is an image which is in part a product of his current campaign strategy.

I would imagine, too, that Obama is going to start dealing more and more with the nuts and bolts as he hits the general election. It really doesn't pay to be a wonk in a Democrat Party primary, since most of the issue is one of inspiration and trying to tie all of the various definitions of liberal together under one common banner (it's kind of like the Republican problem, but with more than three divisions and a tendency between the various groups to not actually hate each other, more of a big geodesic dome than a big tent). But now that it's increasingly looking like Obama v. McCain, Obama's going to bring the policies, as he already did in Wisconsin earlier this week.

I think I said it last week, but Obama's biggest strength (in my mind) against Clinton was that he doesn't sound like a politician and she does. After seven years of Bushco, Obama's ability to actually sound and act like he will bring real change and not just say he's going to bring change, then do the same thing everyone else has done was pretty important for the primaries.

And I honestly think the right-wingnuttery about him has helped. When you get they, "Hey, that guy might be a closet Muslim terrorist!" people out and about they pretty much give off the impression that nobody has anything sensible to say against Obama. I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot with that.

Clinton didn't help herself on that count either, though. When she got up and said that he'd only won the states Democrats can't win in a general and in those bizarre, hard to understand caucus states, it just came out as, "Yeah, I've got nothing left but sour grapes. Neener."

Actually, as annoyed as I was about the whole two-year presidential election we're now in the middle of, the primaries have reawakened my ability to give a crap. They're incredibly funny and interesting to watch.

[Tonio]

Somewhat off-topic:

IRS Probes Pastor's Huckabee Endorsement

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a complaint with the IRS. Drake later lashed out at them in an Aug. 14 press release and urged his supporters to direct "imprecatory prayer" toward two of the group's officials, Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming.

He gave as examples of imprecatory prayer: "Persecute them. ... Let them be put to shame and perish" and "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

I've never heard of imprecatory prayer, but the concept strongly resembles hate crimes.

[Geds]

IRS Probes Pastor's Huckabee Endorsement

Fred talked about that back in August. It was a big deal at the time, but I don't think anybody remembered to care. Drake's a moron, though.

The hate crime thing was tossed about a bit at the time, but the biggest problem was the question of how anybody would actually prove the charge.

[Tonio]

The hate crime thing was tossed about a bit at the time, but the biggest problem was the question of how anybody would actually prove the charge.

Thanks for the link. I had forgotten that entry. Perhaps "hate crime" is the wrong phrase. Veiled death threat, maybe? What would to stop his followers from seeing themselves as God's instrument of vengeance and actually making the men's children fatherless and their wives widows?

[Geds]

What would to stop his followers from seeing themselves as God's instrument of vengeance and actually making the men's children fatherless and their wives widows?

Common sense?

That's the thing, though. Had somebody actually tried to kill the whistleblowers, Drake probably would have been brought up on charges as an accesory or something. But Drake's parishioners are 1.) smarter than he is, 2.) too lazy to do anything, 3.) thought god would actually do it if god wanted to, or 4.) nonexistent (sadly, it doesn't seem to be 4), so nothing ever happened.

Although it would have been interesting to see the what would happen if one of targets of imprecatory prayer had been struck by lightning and the other had suddenly tripped and fallen over dead...

[Tonio]

But Drake's parishioners are 1.) smarter than he is, 2.) too lazy to do anything, 3.) thought god would actually do it if god wanted to, or 4.) nonexistent (sadly, it doesn't seem to be 4), so nothing ever happened.

You're probably right. I wasn't ruling out the possibility that he was a Charles Manson type, with a terrifying power over his followers.

[Geds]

Actually, spend some time with Baptists and you'll learn that it's really, really hard to actually get them to DO anything. It's why most political stuff aimed at Baptist types is scare-mongering. If you get them freaked out you can direct them, but if it's just about standing up and saying, "Hey, I think we should do this," you'll be met with a chorus of "Meh."

[Randy Owens]

Tonio: (about Arizona's populace) White flight?

If by "white" you mean their hair colour, yes, that's a good part of it. Many retirees. And a fair number of immigrants from the Mexicans border, about which you might have heard.

[Matthew F]

But don't be so touchy - I come from a state which still has an official Lee-Jackson Day

Oof, that is truly awful.

Sorry, I am touchy about it. In the years prior to that I participated in a letter writing campaign to get our state congress to pass an MLK Day but they refused. I later helped with the petition to get it on the ballot, and we were thwarted (and yes, PTB = Powers That Be, though I guess PTW is more grammatically correct). Since then I've heard many, many times about how Arizona voters decided against the holiday. I guess it's personal.

Lee-Jackson Day, woof.

[Tonio]

If by "white" you mean their hair colour, yes, that's a good part of it. Many retirees. And a fair number of immigrants from the Mexicans border, about which you might have heard.

I was suggesting that the enraged bigotry of the Arizona Minutemen was driven by the collapse of their false expectations. Meaning that no matter where they live, they can't get away from those scary dark-skinned people - oh, the horror.

[josh]

"To encourage a country with only rhetoric ... is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

Whether or not you agree that Obama's has only attempted to "encourage the country with only rhetoric", why do you disagree with this statement? You hearken to the Civil Rights movement, but it was much more than rhetoric-it was a "battle" fought on cultural, rhetoric, economic, and political levels. The words were important, but fought only with words, the Civil Rights movement would have been lost. That's (I think) McCain's point.

How does this translate to Obama? Let's talk about his plans. Those of you who claim (I'm not necessarily disagreeing) that he's a wonk, let's hear why his policies will be effective. Let's see the evidence that he can build consensus. The benefits of inspiration are contingent on the plans of those inspired.

But that doesn't give McCain the right to downplay, disregard or dismiss the hardship of other American heroes.

I don't think he's denigrating their hardship at all. He's just saying their words weren't enough to successfully govern a state. It's like saying that spending several years in a Vietnamese dungeon does not make McCain qualified to be Commander in Chief. What's insulting about that?

[Jeff]

OT:
From Making Light: Prairie Dog Rapture. I wonder if they shed their fur...