Some goof from the Associated Press wrote an article condemning the McCain campaign, and more specifically vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for inserting "... another potential appeal to racism..." See 'Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge.'
OK, the writer fusses about her attack on Senator Obama's ties with Bill Ayers (former Weather Underground member, current Chicago mover and shaker despite being unrepentant re his youthful activities). No problem... the extent and depth of those ties can and should be debated. However, the writer accuses Palin of covert racism on the grounds that a) she ties Obama to a terrorist, and, b) "In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago..." Ergo, racism.
What nonsense. Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country..." Doesn't seem to this blogger to be a reference to foreigners, OBL and/or radical Muslims... Perhaps the writer is projecting here, he seems to be the only one equating terrorism with swarthy foreigners! Is this bibulous patter what passes for serious reportage these days?
This blogger has one question - by putting the words 'racially tinged' in the headline and then claiming a "... potential appeal to racism..." what exactly is the purpose of the word potential? So, is it covert racism, or could it be "potentially" seen as racism by some, or is this just a weasel word that allows the writer to weigh in one side of the debate, while giving himself an escape hatch through which he can scuttle if called out on this arrant nonsense? Looks like it is probably the latter - the writer gives himself away by including a gratuitous swipe at Senator McCain for supporting "... a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan ..." The last time this blogger looked Senator Obama also supported the bailout plan (and in fact his campaign was at pains to make the case that his support convinced more representatives to vote "yea" than the efforts of McCain!)
And finally, what exactly is the problem with McCain/Palin saying "... "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America..." This blogger believes that this is the official position of Obama/Biden, and that their supporters would respond to this by saying "Hell yes!"
OK, the writer fusses about her attack on Senator Obama's ties with Bill Ayers (former Weather Underground member, current Chicago mover and shaker despite being unrepentant re his youthful activities). No problem... the extent and depth of those ties can and should be debated. However, the writer accuses Palin of covert racism on the grounds that a) she ties Obama to a terrorist, and, b) "In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago..." Ergo, racism.
What nonsense. Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country..." Doesn't seem to this blogger to be a reference to foreigners, OBL and/or radical Muslims... Perhaps the writer is projecting here, he seems to be the only one equating terrorism with swarthy foreigners! Is this bibulous patter what passes for serious reportage these days?
This blogger has one question - by putting the words 'racially tinged' in the headline and then claiming a "... potential appeal to racism..." what exactly is the purpose of the word potential? So, is it covert racism, or could it be "potentially" seen as racism by some, or is this just a weasel word that allows the writer to weigh in one side of the debate, while giving himself an escape hatch through which he can scuttle if called out on this arrant nonsense? Looks like it is probably the latter - the writer gives himself away by including a gratuitous swipe at Senator McCain for supporting "... a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan ..." The last time this blogger looked Senator Obama also supported the bailout plan (and in fact his campaign was at pains to make the case that his support convinced more representatives to vote "yea" than the efforts of McCain!)
And finally, what exactly is the problem with McCain/Palin saying "... "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America..." This blogger believes that this is the official position of Obama/Biden, and that their supporters would respond to this by saying "Hell yes!"
