What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Obama campaign's Rev. Wright-style approach to fomenting ethnic hate

This is despicable. These Spanish-language ads, targeting Hispanics, attempt to tar John McCain with Rush Limbaugh's 1990s comments on Mexican immigration. Of course, as the Obama campaign surely knows, Limbaugh has been a harsh critic of McCain's views on immigration. But, I guess the Obama campaign figures that the ad's audience will just think that since both men are white Republicans then they must hold the same views on everything. Thus, ironically, this ad attempts to illicit and nurture bigotry in its viewers, which means that the Obama campaign does not respect them. When someone expects you to be a bigot, they don't think very highly of you.

In case you may have forgotten the pastoral insights of the Rev. Wright, go here. These recent ads are cut from the same demagogic cloth.

(cross-posted)

Comments (31)

It appears that the ads also grossly distort Limbaugh's views:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

Thank hank You Prof Beckwith for this post

First Ruben Navarrette in his column showed that the Emperor Obama has not clothes on this issue and yes you are right they are treating Hispanic voters for fools on this issue. I hope the message gets across

Exactly, the ad grossly distorted Rush Limbaugh's statements and views.

It's a despicable smear.

Just like the smears we've seen launched against Governor Palin.

You can be against opening the door to upwards of 80 million immigrants in the next 15 years, and not be a racist. {And that number, and that time frame, ----------- those were the numbers that ranking Senate staffers were batting around amongst themselves, when they mentioned "12 million," --------------- that was the number they used to try to make it palatable, but they knew amongst themselves that number was nothing short of a vast lie}.

I was down there, on The Hill, and I know of what I speak.

The Obama camp's willingness to reduce themselves to the basest levels of behavior in order to discredit the McCain campaign, seems to be increasing in direct proportion to their desperation.

More on false ads (including the one this post is about):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26780270#26780270

The Obama campaign is now afraid they will lose the election, and so the rough stuff comes into play.

I wonder, MW: Do you think McCain's "rough stuff" came into play because he was down in the polls and was afraid he'd lose the election? (Or is it your belief that McCain hasn't engaged in any "rough stuff," that his ads have been honest and fair? Or is that they've been dishonest and unfair, but that this was motivated by something else in his case?)

From the point of view of many Obama supporters, Obama went far too long in not responding forcefully to despicable ads put out by McCain's campaign. We could play the comparison game here: look at examples from both sides, compare how despicable they are, and compare timelines to argue for who is responding in kind to whom. But I don't know if that's a good use of anybody's time here. It is being played out elsewhere. (I will just point out that many who are politically closer to McCain than to Obama have publicly admitted that McCain's campaign has been especially problematic.) But I am really interested in this question, from both MW, and also from Frank: Do you agree that McCain's campaign has been very bad, at least in the same ballpark as Obama's, if not worse, and you're just bringing this up because you're afraid that the coverage has been one-sided, and you want to point out that there's plenty to complain about on Obama's campaign's side *as well*, or do you really think that these problems have been far worse on Obama's campaign's side? I mean, in your case, MW, I really can't tell whether you recognize that McCain's campaign haws been awful, you think that that's been because he didn't want to lose, and you're just trying to make the case that that's so on both sides, now; or whether you really think that this has been quite one-sided, with Obama's campaign actually being the clearly worse one? And an answer from Frank to a similar question would really help me see where you're coming from, Frank.

Oh, I should add: I myself have been very disappointed by some of Obama's ads, especially some of the more recent ones. I am indeed among those who thought he should respond more forcefully to McCain, but "forceful" needn't and shouldn't have meant dishonest. It is both wrong and politically imprudent for Obama to be dishonest himself, esp. while complaining about McCain.

The "Sex Ed" ad by McCain was so egregious that it gave Obama carte blanche to, at minimum, let McCain know that two can play the dirty ad game. If we agree to arm wrestle and you decide to use a broken bottle, you deserve the trip to the emergency room to have your nose reattached.

Given the nature of the campaign that McCain was running up to this point, Obama actually let him off easy. It was also rather brilliant tactically. If McCain runs ads countering the ad he risks losing the anti-immigrant part of his base. Great shot across the bow.

I prefer to take the long view. For too many cycles the Republicans have played dirty with impunity while the Democrats have been expected to take it. No more, it seems. Obama is not going to pretend it's raining. Would be swift-boaters beware.

BTW, have you all seen this quote from a RECENT article that McCain wrote:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

If you haven't, you will be. Dead man walking.

Al,
The other day I snidely advised you to stick with ad-copy, but wish you hadn't taken it so literally.

I'm trying to block out this electoral berserk-fest, but why is the charge Obama voted for the bill a lie? Obama supports killing any infant who survives the abortionist's knife in utero. So the charge he favors sex-ed for 5 year-olds seems of the same order as accusing a convicted rapist of watching porn.

Send some clarifying content, but try to avoid invoking the thuggish imagery of bar-room brawls. O.k.?

Kevin, go over to Factcheck.org and you will find a rundown on all the ads and the problems with them (according to FactCheck, I would disagree with them too on some matters but they offer a useful perspective). Note that there are problems with lots of the ads from both sides.

BTW, your interpretation of the Illinois born Alive Bill is wrong and at best is opinion not very well supported by the facts; state law already protected viable infants.

I will assert that campaign ads are best compared with bar room brawls. Short ads are inherently problematic and I would ban any ads that are under two or three minutes and (IMHO) anyone who uses these ads, by anyone, for anyone, as a source of information is a fool and should be disqualified from voting (yes, I know there is no practical way of doing this and that is why I would ban short ads - perhaps it could be done in the same constitutional amendment that gets rid of the electoral college).

Al, I'm not rummaging through political ads or sites that purportedly "monitor" their dubious content. I'm asking you provide evidence instead of merely echoing the tag-lines from ads you find emotionally satisfying. Is that too much to ask?

I don't know how you get your information Kevin, but I read a lot and if I find a site that answers a question I can pass it on or i can do stenography. Since I would expect that you would check out anything I passed on, it seems simpler to pass on the link. This gives you a way of checking out what i assert.

"I'm asking you provide evidence instead of merely echoing the tag-lines from ads you find emotionally satisfying."

Stating the ad in question is a lie and passing on a source isn't echoing. It is very easy to find copies of the bill in question and compare it with the ad's assertion, something you should have done instead of relying on a bad analogy with an emotionally charged and poorly understood issue. You want evidence and I give you a source and that with the google should be all you need but still you are not happy.

Al, I fought a sex-ed curriculum in my local schools 13 years ago and the old
"age-appropriate" language and "your kids can opt out of attending" ruses were deceptively employed back then. Obama's blood-stained reccord on abortion shows him indifferent towards protecting childhood innocence from the violent encroachments of the State. The GOP could have put together a more factual and damning account of Obama's record if they were committed to these kind of issues. Since they are not, their media managers resort to the standard methods of their dark craft. As the site makes clear; political hacks of both parties lie loudly and often. No excuse for you to play "the dirty ad game" as well. Lets stick to substance and avoid the ugliness of mass propaganda.


"Lets stick to substance and avoid the ugliness of mass propaganda."

Two problems here:

!. This statement, "Obama's blood-stained reccord on abortion shows him indifferent towards protecting childhood innocence from the violent encroachments of the State," is the resu;t of you buying into your sides propaganda.

2. I was merely responding to a criticism by one of this blog's proprietors of one of Obama's ads.

I would be thrilled if we actually discussed a full range of issues and ignored these foolish ads but it seems that isn't my choice or your choice. Sex education and abortion are hot button, emotional issues for some folks and not so much for others. The others may be more interested in health care, economic policy, national security, foreign policy, and civil rights.

We just had our version of the Reichstag Fire and the Emergency Decrees are being worked on; I would rather hear some discussion of that instead of the latest Obama ad.

1) What restrictions does Obama believe should be placed on abortion? At what point in the unborn child's life does Obama thing abortion should be illegal? Please don't say such questions are above his "pay-grade"

2)Agreed

3) The Reichstag Fire analogy doesn't apply here. The Managerial class did not set-out to create an inferno. Though, it is hard to believe they didn't see where the fire they were stoking would lead. Race-based mandates in the mortgage markets, predatory lending practices, arcane, abstract and unregualted investment vehicles, and moral hazard joined witn a bi-partisan desire to find a replacement for the tech bubble. When real wages are stagnant and globalization is beyond reproach, some gimmick is needed to keep the stretched American wage-earner in full buying mode. Cheap credit and the mammoth housing build-out did the short-term trick.

Now we get to watch the all the cynical finger-pointing and demagoguery that was
routine in the late Roman Senate. Good luck finding a white-hat amongst this band of brigands.

Does Obama Support Infanticide? [Peter Kirsanow]


Ramesh states that Obama doesn't support infanticide (re: Born Alive Infant Protection Act —" BAIPA"), but that in certain cases, Obama is pro-choice on infanticide.

Ramesh's formulation is no less accurate for being clever. That said, an argument may be made that Obama's position on BAIPA goes a bit further than being simply "pro-choice" on infanticide — a description that conveys a sense of neutrality, a sense that Obama would merely decline to interfere in the determination not to protect the baby's life once born.

Consider, however, Obama's stated concern during the Illinois state senate's deliberations on BAIPA that the bill is "really designed to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion." In other words, the decision not to bear a living child has already been made. Under extant Illinois law, there are no further legal impediments to executing that decision, and the ultimate outcome will never be in doubt. Therefore, Obama's "no" vote on BAIPA goes beyond "choice" since, in his mind, the predetermined result was always a dead baby. His vote affirmatively enables infanticide.

Obama worked hard against BAIPA. He's the only U.S. senator to vote against the language of the bill — and he voted against it several times. His position went beyond even that of NARAL. He's declared that if one of his daughter's gets pregnant, he doesn't want her "punished' with a baby.

Ramesh's statement is a fair one. It's also fair to say that Obama's position is that once the decision to abort has been made, the child is doomed.

09/19 04:01 PM

...and...

The Born-Alive Ad [Yuval Levin]


Barack Obama’s response ad on the Born-Alive issue says “Obama has always supported medical care to protect infants.” But in the debate about the born-alive bill which he voted against (see page 87 of this transcript), Obama said:

"[I]f we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

So a child who has been born and is living and breathing outside the womb can’t get medical care because by some legal definition he or she is “pre-viable”? That doesn’t sound like always supporting medical care to protect infants.

I assume he is conventionally pro-choice as he supports the Illinois law protecting viable infants. I don't much care beyond that - the stakes are simply too high in this election to let second and third tier issues intrude. The infanticide thing didn't work for Keyes and it isn't going to work for McCain. .

You may have missed my point on the Reichstag fire. I was referring to Lehman being allowed to go under - take a look at the TED spread last week. Calls to ones House member and Senators are in order. This item in the Treasury proposal is tantamount to a coup, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Brad DeLong has posted a copy of Sen. Dodd's proposal which, based on only a cursory reading, seems like an improvement on Paulson's.

Race-based mandates are a red herring and have nothing to do with the matter. Had the lenders not been able to securitize problematic loans, those loans would never have been made. Assertions like that are a good filter - anyone making them simply isn't serious and should be avoided as sources of information.

You might find a visit to the economics blogs useful. Cowen, Mankiw, DeLong, Thoma, and Krugman - esp. Krugman - are really necessary reading in order to get a handle on things.

Let's say Obama is "conventionally pro-choice". That means he is disqualified from any form of civic leadership in a civilized society. And, just to be safe, lets keep away him from unsupervised visits with the disabled and the elderly.

The simple truth is your moral hierarchy is upside down. The same raw self-interest that rationalizes abortion is going to pollute all spheres of social and economic life. The greed,lying,obfuscation and double-dealing in this subprime - special investment vehicle meltdown are just bitter fruits springing from the same poisoned tree of social Darwinism. Look at the bright side. A lot of lives will be ruined by this economic collapse, but so far, no one has been killed.

I'll pass on hacks like Krugman and DeLong, who may, or may not know what a C.D.O. is, but lack a basic insight; the rule of law is meant to protect the weak, the poor and the powerless. Until we as a society recover that fundamental truth, I'm not going to be surprised that a regime of abortion operates in tandem with corrupt government and financial markets. Nor, by the sea of debt, we're perhaps justly drowning in.

"Until we as a society recover that fundamental truth, I'm not going to be surprised that a regime of abortion operates in tandem with corrupt government and financial markets"

Interesting proposition and a testable one. There was a time when abortion was universally illegal in the United states and enjoyed broad support. Was that time one in which we were free of corruption in government and financial markets?

This was, of course, the period of the gilded age going into the late 1920s.

I would ask you to consider that abortion is its own thing and a person's opinion on abortion as a matter of personal choice, subject to whatever limitations, has nothing to do with other, far more important matters.

"There was a time when abortion was universally illegal in the United states and enjoyed broad support. Was that time one in which we were free of corruption in government and financial markets?"

The Roaring 20's were a period of modest ambitions and restrained appetites compared to this current age. Yes, greedy manipulators, we'll always have with us. Nno one can objectively say the Crash of 29 compares to the level and depth of corruption we've experienced this time. "Fordism", the universally held principle that a worker must be able to purchase the very products he produced grew from that age. It has since gone the way of the Lindy and chaperoned dates at the ice cream parlour. The thought that the American taxpayer would in 1930, be asked to finance the largest Management Buyout of our economic and political elites could never be proposed. Even at time when fascism and Marxism were advancing in Europe. Warren Hardy would rather die of shame, dissipation or, by a colleagues hand than tout such an absurd cause. Capone died of syphilis in prison. He was not a respected fundraiser for Presidential candidates. The level of depravity and graft this time around is different by quantum leaps and bounds.

Back then a substantial amount of the populace was willing to endure the hardships of self-government and joined associations, unions and voluntary organizations in order to ameliorate bad conditions and undertake needed reforms. Now, you see a largely bovine public eager to trade in their personal liberty for the sating of their appetites and the management of their lives. Personal responsibility is an antiquated notion to a culture content to "out-source" charitable obligations and the mundane tasks associated with community life.

"...abortion as a matter of personal choice, subject to whatever limitations, has nothing to do with other, far more important matters."

Polls reveal a major declension in moral development when majorities can view abortion both as murder and worthy of legal sanction. A consensus like that probably hasn't existed since pagan antiquity codified the patriarch's right to kill his spouse and off-spring, while the practice of "exposure" enjoyed wide application.

Your contention that murder is acceptable, but lying, theft and presumably, chronic tardiness are not, is a throwback to darker, more bestial times. The illusion that one can erect a humane social order upon such retrograde thinking is doomed to disaster.

Good luck keeping the trains running and the lights on.

Kevin,

You have GOTTA create a Blog of your own from which to record your thoughts on various matters!

Your distinctly erudite opinions even educates an ignorant pleb as myself! ;^)

Keep on, Keep on doin' it!

(With Maximos AWOL, I have no other high brow opinions to chew on!)

"...unions and voluntary organizations in order to ameliorate bad conditions and undertake needed reforms."

I notice you ignored the gilded age. As for unions and the like I would remind you that the Wagner Act was passed in the 1930s and using Warren Harding as an example of virtue is a bit strange. Are you familiar with the string of SC decisions typified by Lochner? The jailing of Debs? Ludlow and Columbine?

One of the biggest problems arising from the combination of "progressive" theories of education and local control of schools has been the failure of the teaching of history. The rise of conservatism is the blow back.

using Warren Harding as an example of virtue is a bit strange.
It's obvious enough that Kevin's point is that even someone as corrupt as Harding wouldn't have stooped as low as today's socialism-for-the-rich crowd. I don't know about that; it's not a testable proposition at all. We do know that he didn't in fact stoop so low, and that the opportunities for, and scale of, corruption, have increased proportionate to government's growth over the subsequent 85 years. If the size of the individual payoffs, adjusted for inflation, is no greater, the number of grasping hands is.
One of the biggest problems arising from the combination of "progressive" theories of education and local control of schools has been the failure of the teaching of history. The rise of conservatism is the blow back.
Please elaborate.

"I notice you ignored the gilded age."

An age of gross excess that in spite of all its considerable vices, resulted in the relatively broad-based dispersion of material goods across American society and managed to leave a rich legacy of cultural institutions; colleges, libraries and museums. What will our modern-day robber-barons bequeath to posterity? High-speed internet access and performance-enhancing drugs for men afflicted with lagging loins?

"...using Warren Harding as an example of virtue is a bit strange."

I didn't. I merely contrasted the arch of his career with that of our contemporary politicians. Today Harding would be a $40,000 a speech celebrity. No age is without sin. What is deadly unique about ours, is its denial of the reality of sin. Rank hypocrisy is preferable to nicely appointed, teeth-whitened barbarism.

Ari, you're too kind and hyperbolic whe it comes to me, but I agree with you on this; where is Maximos?

Ari, you're too kind and hyperbolic whe it comes to me, but I agree with you on this; where is Maximos?

Does that mean "no" as to the question of perhaps considering the creation of your own blog?

Seriously, the withdrawal is severe.

With all the ignorant liberal junk I keep getting bombarded with, such high-brow illumined opinions are ever the more refreshing.

As to Maximos, I have no idea where he's disappeared to or if he even existed.

He is sorely missed.

An age of gross excess that in spite of all its considerable vices, resulted in the relatively broad-based dispersion of material goods across American society and managed to leave a rich legacy of cultural institutions; colleges, libraries and museums. What will our modern-day robber-barons bequeath to posterity? High-speed internet access and performance-enhancing drugs for men afflicted with lagging loins?
They aren't going to pass on anything. They will have sold it all. Ours has been a country living off the principal those much-maligned (and many of them were truly awful people) robber barons left us. Now, I fear, is when it comes to an end. The corruption goes all the way down, and while it is in a sense unfair that we should collectively be on the hook for the masters of the universe, there is another in which it is entirely appropriate.

Ari, Maximos lives and breathes, but undoubtedly suffers from the same sense of loss that Cyrus so aptly describes. Indeed, "it comes to an end", as was foretold by far greater men than we. W4 is a fine safe harbor during the storm and look forward to your commentary and our collective resistance to the designs of our anti-Christian rulers.

Cyrus, your special grace will be to raise your daughter during a time of mass dissolution. Take heart, she will build upon the ruins left by those who mocked God.

Cyrus, your special grace will be to raise your daughter during a time of mass dissolution. Take heart, she will build upon the ruins left by those who mocked God.
We hope not just one daughter, as wonderful as she is, but as many more as God will grant us. My wife and I only wish we hadn't met so late in life, and could have had this joy years ago.

Yes, though, I feel like America's wheels are finally coming off in a way that I've expected for a long time. It's been obvious for decades that the United States could not remain a debtor nation indefinitely, and now it seems the game is up, and that we haven't seen even the beginning of the readjustment. Nor, with all due respect to their supporters, do Obama or McCain inspire any confidence, only differing varieties of dread. Perhaps I'm just getting more cynical as I age, but each presidential election cycle somehow manages to make me nostalgic for the last.

W4 is a fine safe harbor...

Only a United Christendom can stave off The Darkness the ominous nature of current events foretell.

Too bad that the Harbinger of that Darkness in our times has remained unrecognized to certain noble Crusaders of Christendom.

A Voice in the Desert remains unheeded; it's all in the Hands of Divine Providence now.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.