Alarming News

January 31, 2008

In it to win it

Romney makes significant Super Tuesday ad-buy.

Posted by Karol at 11:40 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I find it interesting that McCain has been able to gain celebrity and political endorsements, while Romney has pretty much been left out of that loop. Romney is right, he is not a washington insider, but in this case it is hurting him a little bit.

Posted by: John at January 31, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Exactly. Daddy only served in Nixon’s cabinet, ran for president (brainwashed about Vietnam-still love Gene McCarthy’s line about all Papa Romney needed was a light rinse), was a governor, fought Agnew for the VP spot in Miami and of course Mommy ran for a US Senate spot.
But Mitt Romney is an outsider to Washington and politics and is a businessman. Kind of like G.W.Bush was an outsider and a businessman.
With all the Gores, Bushes, Cumomos, Tafts, Kennedys-Shrivers-Ahnulds, Doles, Clintons, Jacksons, Macks, Bennetts, Caseys, Pelosis (daddy was a Congressman)….why the hell do we even bother to call it a republic any more? Makes me glad that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe did not have any sons. We’re part oligarchy and part krytocracy.

Posted by: Von Bek at January 31, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Karol, why aren’t you blogging about McCain’s “G^^k” comment. It was in WSJ yesterday, though it pertains to something McCain said during the 2000 campaign.
=====
Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a racially charged controversy–or maybe it’ll turn out to be a mere kerfuffle–involving Republican front-runner John McCain (update: see editor’s note below):
“I hate the gooks,” McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. “I will hate them as long as I live.”
McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, was questioned about the language because of a story last month in the Nation magazine reporting his continued use of the slur.
Since then, reports of McCain’s language have been circulating on Internet chat sites and e-mails among Asian Americans, many of whom find the the [sic] term offensive and inappropriate for an elected official. . . .
McCain made no apologies yesterday.
“I was referring to my prison guards,” McCain said, “and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends.”
We are not going to defend McCain’s choice of words. On the other hand, one quote from the piece helped clarify what bothers us about incidents like this:
The horrors of the past cannot be an excuse for hurting people in the present, said Guy Aoki, president of the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, an anti-defamation group.
“If Sen. McCain had been captured by Nigerians, could he call those people ‘niggers’ and think he wasn’t going to offend everyone who is black?” Akoi [sic] asked. “We can all feel for what he went through, but if that’s his level of sensitivity, I’m very disappointed.”
It seems clear that in this day and age, if a politician used that slur against the Nigerians (or anyone else), it would end his career. As a purely descriptive matter, then, McCain’s slur against his captors is a lesser offense against racial etiquette.
Aoki claims that it should not be so, and in doing so he employs a common trope of political correctness. His premise is that any offense against a designated minority group is the equivalent of the worst possible similar offense against blacks, the prototypical oppressed minority in America.
But try making a similar argument against prejudice by or on behalf of a designated “oppressed” group, and you’ll be told it’s totally different–that whites and men and so on have “power” and therefore cannot be the “victims” of prejudice.
The truth is that in these matters white men have no power. If McCain survives this incident politically, it will be either because Asian-Americans in general are not as outraged by it as Aoki seems to think they should be, or because McCain, in the face of mounting outrage, manages to pull off an effective apology. Either way he is at the mercy of others.
Editor’s note: The San Francisco Chronicle article to which we linked is from 2000. A reader passed it along, having seen it on the Drudge Report, and apparently everyone involved, including this columnist, did not notice that it was outdated. We regret the error.

Posted by: daniel at February 1, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Mostly because I want to say only the limited amount of words that I’ll be ok with eating when he’s our nominee in a month.

Posted by: Karol at February 1, 2008 at 3:08 pm

All right, let’s have Aoki beaten and tortured for five years straight, and see what “racist” term he doesn’t use against his captors.
It’s hypocritical that Aoki can use a racial slur, even just to say it, but because he’s a take-offense-at-anything liberal, he won’t inspire any protest marches.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 3, 2008 at 9:10 am
Post a comment