It seems that on two separate occasions recently supporters at McCain / Palin campaign rallies shouted out epithets directed toward Senator Obama, and were not rebuked for their outbursts. The first instance occurred at a McCain rally, where somebody yelled out “A terrorist!” after McCain asked who the “real Barack Obama” was. McCain looked briefly disappointed, but failed to chastise the man, and continued on with his speech.
The second happened at a Palin rally where she launched into a speech accusing Obama of supporting terrorism through Bill Ayers. One man cried out “Kill him!”, referring to Obama, and Palin continued with her speech, ignoring the comment.
I find it incredible and entirely unacceptable that the McCain and Palin would tolerate such remarks, greeting them not with the proper derision or outrage but rather silence, and with that tacit acceptance. As pointed out in this rather partisan article, Obama regularly intervenes when his supporters so much as boo the opposition. The article also mentions several other excellent points, such as how Palin has deep ties to an Alaskan separatist organization, and how McCain has voted to protect domestic terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. I’m honestly appalled the McCain campaign, and find it insulting that the senator has the gall to constantly reference how supposedly honorable he is, when he would appear anything but.
Interesting that you think Obama “intervenes when his supporters so much as boo the opposition.” Admittedly, the only Obama event I have been to is the one held on our own campus. However, people repeatedly booed McCain/Palin/Republicans in general at this rally, and I did not see Obama even raise an eyebrow.
Is Obama a terrorist? No. Are his acquaintances with several different people of questionable characters and histories really defining to his overall character? I don’t think so. But are they relevant? In this election, everything is relevant.
People get worked up at rallies. They may say things that are patently untrue, rude, or just dumb. Should McCain take time out of his speech to stoop to their level and defend a comment that is just out of place and rude? I don’t see why he should. It would be giving someone valuable time that he could use for someone else to chastise one of his supporters.
Again, I don’t in any agree with these harsh comments made by Obama adversaries. However, I have to disagree that McCain should comment or alter his speech to have a discussion on Obama’s ties to ex-terrorists.
Ben Roth does not only think it is “interesting” that “Obama “intervenes when his supporters so much as boo that opposition.”" The author of the article that he based his post on obviously agrees with him. Rallies do get heated and people are excited at times but this is not excuse for a death threat. I was also at the Obama rally at UMW but I dod not remember the audience rallying to kill the opponent.
The incidents noted in “Hate Speech at McCain and Palin rallies”are just the effects of the tactics of the Mcalin campaign. They are feeding on anger, embarrassment, and entitlement. Anger at the other party, embarrassment over their own parties’ performance, and the sense of entitlement that plagues the Republican party. These vicious tactics reek of post WWI Germany propaganda. This is not politics as usual. Mcalin is hiding behind the ‘evil media’ when they are the people instigating this behavior.
Whether Mcalin chooses to recognize inappropriate threats is not the issue, the cruel group-think, bullying tactics that are dominating the Mcalin campaign are what needs to be confronted.
Both Ben and Nicolette have raised good points here about the tone of rallies, and what role a candidate should (or can) play in moderating it all when the discourse gets a bit too heated. Rallies have always offered the largely partisan crowds opportunities to cheer the “good” candidate and hiss and boo the “bad” opponent, and as the two posts point out, both sides do it. That’s why they call them rallies. But we have seen something that goes beyond the usual this year.
Did you see the video of McCain at a rally last Friday, where he corrected some of the misstatements by the crowd and followed up by stating clearly that he respected Obama and that people did not need to be afraid of him as a president. He got booed, but he stuck to his points. Probably the clearest and most compelling “maverick” example from him in the campaign.
Then, John Lewis (an Obama supported) spoke out and appeared to link McCain’s campaign to some of the same tactics and attitudes of George Wallace. For goodness sakes! The Obama campaign was quick to disavow this over the top comment.
But then on Sunday, on Fox News, I watched the two campaign managers go at over these (and other) flash points in the campaign. Red faced, out of breath, interrupting each other and the moderator, they put on a totally displeasing show. It was hard to watch. The campaign managers need to learn to restrain themselves, or else (in the words of a popular slogan) we may see more of the same. Time for a little country first!
I think that McCain and Palin did the right thing by ignoring the rude audience-member. By ignoring him, they showed that they are above the kind of epithets and curses he was making. If they had dignified his outbursts with a response, he would have gotten exactly the result he was looking for: media recognition. With the lack of response from the candidates, they demonstrated their maturity.
Ah, but the outbursts from the audience (which I think went far beyond the level of “rude”) _did_ attract media attention and were widely publicized. Additionally, I do not believe that the individuals in question were purposefully trying to attract media attention to themselves- what would they have had to gain by doing so? It’s not like “kill him!” is a really persuasive political argument that radicals are desperately trying to get on the airwaves.
Rather, I think that McCain and Palin have a duty to control their supporters and prevent their rallies from turning into forums for dangerous and disturbing hate speech. To remain silent at your own rallies while vocal threats are made on the life of your political opponent is not only shameful but also akin to tacit acceptance. John McCain and Sarah Palin should have known better, and McCain’s refusal to repudiate or even admit the incidents when they were brought up during the third debate brings up very serious concerns about his character and temperament.
More hate Speech at a Palin rally.
Last week an over zealous Mcalin supporter shouted, “and he’s a NIGGER,” in response to what Palin was saying about Obama’s tax policies. This is embarrassing and frightening. To continue categorizing people by shrouding their character in antiquated ideologies and in terms of their race and gender is a thoroughly abhorrent and ignorant practice that should be rejected in public discourse. Why isn’t this being addressed by the media? No one is benefiting from the media and the Republican Party ignoring these instances of “Average Racism.” Racism is a societal construct that is being perpetuated when it is not firmly addressed and renounced.
I was talking to a friend in the Phillipines early this week, and she made a comment wondering why Osama could be president. I was puzzled so I asked what she meant. She responded that she thought that he would be excluded from the possiblilty because he was a Muslim with established terrorist ties. She couldn’t understand how BO could be a legitimate presidential candidate.
It seems like the rest of the world have a clearer viewpoint than the Amercian population.
Seriously?
I don’t remember anyone standing next to the metal detectors at the Obama rally interrogating people as to what they may or may not shout.
Uhhh, free speech?
Anyone can attend rallies. People are not screened.
What should McCain/Palin say? “Please don’t make racist comments”? I would think that goes without saying. Why would McCain want to appeal to or interact with those individuals?
No party or candidate has the duty or the capability of controlling its supporters. The category of “supporters” is so huge and undefined…impossible. Furthermore, everyone except the kinds of people who MAKE such comments wishes things like that weren’t said or thought. But no one can force that to happen through censorship. No one gains by giving those individuals attention, or dignifying them with a response, candidates and media alike.
Where would such behavior lead us?
We discussed in class once how tired we are of candidates constantly saying “I love America” and discussing their patriotism. Acknowledging racist fanatics in political discourse not only gives them a soapbox, but causes the candidates to have to “prove” their “open mindedness.”
It’s a lose-lose situation.
And making sweeping generalizations is an institutionalized societal dilemma, as well.
I believe it is important to remember that there has been “crossing of the line” (to put it mildly) on both sides. Republican campaign headquarters have been attacked, and let’s not forget the hanging effigies of Sarah Palin. Rational minds can see this behavior as inappropriate, and I think it would be a mistake to ascribe such misdirection to an entire political party’s members.