Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
You're wrong. Voters do care who you are tied to. Didn't Obama finally make a complete break from Wright, and McCain from that preacher (who is now tied to Perry)? They wouldn't have done so if it didn't matter.
Whoa, hold up. I'm not saying that don't care under any circumstances. I'm saying it clearly doesn't generally disqualify candidates for them. The salient fact is not that Obama had to make a complete break (which is true), the salient fact is that he was
able to, and didn't suffer too many ill effects after that.
So, your argument should not be that Perry is doomed, but that you think Perry will have to distance himself from them at some point, right? And if past campaigns are any indication, doing so should probably neutralize the issue pretty well.
The problem for Perry is timing. Obam's minister didn't become a controversy, his views widely known, until after Obma was running for President. Obama, I don't know if it was true or not, claimed he never heard Wright say those things and so was at first reluctant to dissasociate from the church, then Wright made controversial comments during the campaign and Obama left the church. Perry's problem is he knew who these people and what their views are. It has already come up before in Texas. You don't a week before you announce you are running for President organize an event with such people and share the stage with them knowing full well what they stand for. He can't renounce them now and he won't. In fact he has made a political miscalculation it is a good idea to be linked with such characters. It worked fine in Texas. Doesn't work up North. His decision completely baffles me. Bachmann and Pawlenty may be reluctant to criitiize him for it in Iowa because they don't want to risk losing evangelicals. Romney probably won't mention it in Iowa because Perry doesn't take votes way from him there. But if Perry takes Iowa, man, are you going to see thee characters in Romney commercials. And the question from reporters and media exposure will put the Perry campaign on the defensive when he should be talking about the Texas economy, not explaining why he got on a stage with someone who thinks the First Amemndment only applies to Christians and openly advocates discriminating agains Muslims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
I am no Jerry Falwell fan, nor of Pat Robertson, and yes, they both have said some screwy things, but usually if memory serves me, along the lines of hurricanes and flood's are God's punishment for the gay lifestyle and sexual permissiveness. This guy and his comments are in a whole different category. He is explicitly endorsing a Christian religious state by saying the First Amendment applies only to Christians. Robertson and Falwell never sad anything remotely like that. He advocates expelling Muslims from the United States. That is Hitlerian, far from Falwell and Robertson whose political comments didn't stray from Moral Majority mantra. I am amazed you can't tell the difference.
Well, first off, I specifically said Falwell was a bit different, but dramatically different? I don't think so. Robertson, for example, said it wouldn't be a bad thing if someone dropped a nuke on the State Department. And frankly, I think the difference between "really really crazy stuff" and "really really really crazy stuff" is far from massive. At some point it all gets lumped together as crazy.
I didn't know Robertson said that. But that is goof talk. We are talking, particulary the main organizer of the event, with a hate filled political agenda. Robertson was just shooting off his mouth. He doesn't really want to drop a bomb on the State Department. He probably apologized for it. This guy really does want to ban all Muslims and prevent them from building mosques. He has said it repeatedly on his program. That is the difference. Nobody would have asked Bush, do you think Robertson is right we should nuke the State Department? But Perry is going to get a lot of questions about Fischer.
The inclusiveness of the event was the point, however. The entire idea was to pray together; I don't think that should be taken as an endorsement, and there's no reason to unless you're already going out of your way to attack Perry. Fischer sounds like a terrible guy, and probably a bit worse than Falwell, but they don't have to be the same to make the point in question. Falwell had "ties" to
lots of politicians and caused very little issue for them. That needs to be factored in. It's not that Falwell almost sunk a candidacy, so some guy a bit worse than him is definitely going to. It was a non-issue.
The worst of the bunch, Fischer, paid for the event and his organization was the main organizer. It was hardly all inclusive because non Christians were not invited. Fischer isn't a bit worse than Fallwell. He is much, much worse. What happened when Fallwell said something controversial? He apologized. He apologized a lot, but he did apologize. Fischer is not going to be apologizing becasuse they are not off the cuff remarks like Fallwell's. They are core beliefs. And his organization has been identified as a hate group. If the Moral Majority was ever labeled a hate group, I missed the announcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
Ayers should have gotten a life sentence. But he served his time and Obama took some money from him and may or may not have known about his background at the time.
Do you actually believe he didn't know he was taking money from a domestic terrorist? Is that even
better?
My point as Ayers had a teaching position at the time and in Chicago was no longer regared as a pariah. Ayers probably raised money for other politicians back then. Did any of them turn it down? I assueme when he became a political liabilty Obama dumped him. His association with Obama was past, long past, not present when word about it got to the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
The difference is Ayers was not making controversial comments when Obama took money from him. Obama was not by taking money from Ayers endorsing in any way what Ayers did decades ago.
And Perry was not, by holding a prayer event, endorsing in any way what Fischer said.
Why is he associating himself with him at all? And he has not to date said if he endorsed his beliefs or not. He is dodging it so far altogether. He won't be able to that forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
It will matter. Just watch and see. I suspect when you see it does you will blame it on the media for the inequitable treatment instead of recognizing the difference.
I absolutely might, because that absolutely might contribute to the degree to which it matters. And I'm not disputing that it might matter, I'm disputing that it spells inevitable doom.
I doubt someone who talked like Fischer would be tolerated very long on this forum. I haven't seen Just Mike around lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
I already answered this above.
Is that a "yes"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
Again, Ayers raised some money, not a lot of money, wasn't a major contributor, did it in the past, before Obama ran for the Senate, or for President. He wasn't connected to him in any way when he ran for President. He wasn't a campaign manger or advisor.
Raising money is a more substantial, connected political act than allowing someone to organize a prayer meeting. I'm not sure how this is even arguable. Money creates a tangible obligation and a literal, traceable connection.
Before Obama ran for the Senate, before running for President, that is the Ayers connection. The ties were severed before running for more importsnt office. You think that is the same as close ties to someone preaching hate just before you declare your running for President?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
They were not close. Why are you deliberately mischaracterizing what I said about Fischer? He didn't merely share a stage with Perry. His organization paid for the event. They organized it with Perry's staff. And did it just before Perry announces he is going to run. Why are you even arguing this? If you were running for political office would you have anything to do with Fischer? Would you want anyone to think there was any possibility you endorse his televised comments? I doubt it.
No, I wouldn't. And I'm not arguing that it's
awesome that he organized the event. I'm arguing that it dooms his candidacy, or that it even should. I'm arguing that every major candidate ends up shaking hands or organizing an event with or even taking money from some unsavory characters. And I'm arguing that this is what partisans do: unless they're just bad people, they don't make stuff up, but they apply reasoning selectively, magnifying some things while playing down others even though they're similar.
Perry made a conscious deliberate decision to have close ties with a hatemonger and instead of doing what any rational politician would do, distance himself beforehe runs for President, orgaizes an event with him. This guy is not just unsavory. He is loathsome. I can't recall any politican who would have done what Perry is doing when they are about to declare they want to be President. Look at Michelle Bachmann. She has evangelical ties. She is playing them down and emphasizing her fiscal credentials. She distanced herself from her own husband who tries to make gays straight (which is controversial, but not really all that bad. His counselors are just talking to gays, not trying pass laws against them like Fischer advocates). I guarantee you neither Bachmann or Pawlenty will be appearing on Fischer's show anymore. The difference is Pawlenty and Bachmann have no real direct ties to Fischer. Perry does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
I think I have already answered this as well. In retrospect Obama would have been better off he stayed clear of Ayers, but it was in the past and he distanced himself by later comments. Perry has done the opposite, chose to get closer to Fischer as he gets ready to run.
But he hasn't run. You're comparing what Obama did eventually to some future Rick Perry whose decisions and positions we haven't even een yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
I didn't say it nineteen times. Before this prayer fiasco I said he had a good chance of winning the nomination. I never heard of Fischer prior to it. I did say Perry would have a harder time defeating Obama than Romney. So I have actually said he couldn't get nominated just twice, and never said any of it nineteen times.
Well, first off, I would hope it's obvious that saying you've said it nineteen times is hyperbole. But I wasn't talking about the very specific claim that Perry would lose the nomination, I'm talking about the positively
incessant rhetoric about how allegedly unelectable he is. A small sampling that took me only a few minutes to find:
"He apparently thinks he can get the Republican nomination the way he won elections in Texas. He can't."
"If the Republicans are so stupid to nominate Perry the negative campaign against him will be tremendous."
"Rick Perry by doing this can't save the Republican Party from Mitt Romney, who is still the only candidate who can beat Obama."
"...he has already killed his chances for the nomination."
"If Rick Perry thinks the way to the White House is that cynical and phony stunt he just pulled he is sadly mistaken. That nonsense does not play outside of the South."
"It doesn't matter what Rick Perry is really like. He can be portrayed like a nut job in commercials."
"they are not going to win with boring Pawlenty or a Texan to the right of George Bush like Rick Perry"
"I think he would be a very poor candidate"
"...that is another nail in their coffin if he is their candidate"
"Rick Perry will not be vaguely acceptable to most Americans."
"...he probably won't be if you Republicans nominate Rick Perry."
"It shows what a load of crap Perry is"
"the Republicans need a Romney or a Huntsman to defeat him, but they will probably shoot themselves in the foot with Perry"
It's getting kind of tired.
The first five comments I think came in two possibly three threads after the prayer meeting. I don't regard them as separate comments because they were part of a post discussing Perry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
will.15
You may think I am blowing smoke and Perry's other critics about this prayer thing are full of hot air, and that is your right, but I know political suicide when I see it. Perry's way to the White House was by emphasizing his job record as Governor, not his religious right connections. He has made that now the issue and he won't be able to switch to his more politically effective message because the media will not let him. Nor will more mainstream Republican voters. The way for him to challenge Romney was to talk about the supposed Texas miracle, not by thumping the bible and sharing the stage with hatemongers.
So you keep saying. But if the economy gets worse, it's going to dominate the headlines. Whatever "controversy" this represents, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It takes a real scandal to dwarf month after month of terrible economic news and jobs reports. If it gets better, than Perry wouldn't have won anyway. If it doesn't, it'll be the most important topic, unless Perry kicks a puppy on live television.
I'm taking a break right now, haven't finished yet. My quotes don't show up in the to type out version so I have to look at some of them to understand what you are saying and I'm a little burnt out right now also. I'll finish later today.