Tennessee GOP stoops to attacking and distorting Michelle Obama

Parent Cafe
121

<p>sunnymamere: “The questions about CM concern her behavior, health and spending of money in unethical ways. Exposing this in a truthful way is important.”</p>

<p>All of that is sadly true. </p>

<p>It is also true that Cindy McCain’s particular mental illness hijacks the part of the brain which manages self-control, reasoning, and moral behavior. This is a medical fact. So to come down on her for what she did while using is exactly like coming down on someone with Tourette Syndrome for yelling “Fire!” in a theater, or some other harmful remark. It is also like blaming someone who suffers from Autism for a sudden, impulsive gesture which could cause something to fall on some one else and hurt them.</p>

<p>The reality is that Cindy McCain has a disability, and we are supposed to be evolved as a society about people with disabilities. When it comes to addiction, we aren’t.</p>

<p>Addiction is called a “baffling” disease for good reason. Even up close and personal (as I am with it), it is still sometimes difficult for me to focus accurately on exactly what I am seeing. I won’t blame people when they put Cindy McCain under the spotlight (they already have, and it is going to get WAY worse for her), because I understand how impossibly challenging it can be to empathize with her disease. On the other hand, I will defend her all that I can, and others who understand the disease medically will as well. While I wouldn’t wish being a poster child for addiction on anyone, I believe that Cindy McCain is going to get that dubious honor. Her humiliation will help countless others by improving understanding about her illness.</p>

<p>Barack Obama is SO SMART, however. He is totally putting on this “don’t attack my wife” bit so when Cindy McCain is attacked, which she CERTAINLY would have been anyway, the left can claim that the right started it. He even says he is warning them. Too funny! Talk about foreshadowing! This guy wasn’t Editor of the Harvard Law Review for nothing!</p>

122

<p>"MO’s nasty criticism of Hillary not being able to “keep her house in order” is not “accurate commentary”. When has it become morally acceptable to blame victims? By this line of reasoning, should we go back to the good old days when women were blamed for their own rape because of the way that they dressed? </p>

<p>I’m curious what you think Hillary could have done to keep her house in order, since this was such an accurate statement. Lose weight? Cook better meals? Please explain."</p>

<p>Hillary chose to stay married to a man who was prone to affairs. I’d have a lot more respect for her if she’d dumped him and moved on with her life including her own political career. Instead, there’s every evidence that she lied to protect her husband’s political career (referring to his presidential ambitions, not to Monica, whom it seems that Hillary didn’t learn about until Bill told her).</p>

<p>I’m not impressed by women who stand by their men at all costs. That also doesn’t jibe with Hillary’s being a feminist and also claiming to be her own person when it comes to politics.</p>

<p>I’d have a lot more respect for her if she hadn’t chose to stay with her husband apparently so she could hitchhike on his career. I can understand that for reasons of caring about the country, Hillary could have made a thoughtful decision to stay with Bill until the end of his presidency. Afterward, though, the only reason I think that she chose to stay with him was to further her own political ambitions. Doesn’t make me at all confident in her ability to operate independently of him. Not interested in a Bill and Hill presidency. Tried that before. Didn’t work.</p>

<p>And if she lacked the ability to figure out her own longtime husband was a liar and cheat, I doubt that she’d have good judgment about heads of state and other people whom she’d have to work with as president.</p>

123

<p>"NOrthstarmom: "A big reason that I’m not pro Hillary is that I don’t want Bill Clinton in the White House again. When he won the presidency, he was by far my candidate of choice, but due to his personal transgressions, he screwed up big time. "</p>

<p>Now you are doing exactly what you said we shouldn’t do (criticizing the possible First Spouse). If it is good for the gander, it is good for the geese."</p>

<p>Nope. Hillary’s potential first spouse is a former U.S. president. That is what makes her situation different. In addition, lots of the political experience that Hillary claims was experience that she obtained when Bill was president.</p>

<p>This is the first time that we’ve ever had a former president or former elected official of any kind as a potential first spouse, so the rules are different for Bill, who helped make some of the laws and policies that Hill would be enforcing or attempting to end.</p>

<p>It’s also very unlikely that Bill, who when he ran and became president said the U.S. was getting a “twofer” referring to Hillary at his side, will be the kind of presidential spouse whose main projects are redecorating the White House or promoting literacy.</p>

124

<p>“Barack Obama is SO SMART, however. He is totally putting on this “don’t attack my wife” bit so when Cindy McCain is attacked, which she CERTAINLY would have been anyway, the left can claim that the right started it. He even says he is warning them. Too funny! Talk about foreshadowing! This guy wasn’t Editor of the Harvard Law Review for nothing!”</p>

<p>I don’t think that the Dems will stoop to attacking Cindy by making her the focus of ads. </p>

<p>If Obama is the person whom I think he is, his campaign will continue to be above that kind of smear tactics against someone who isn’t running for office.</p>

125

<p>"post69 by sunnymamere: “Obama can triple my taxes,”</p>

<p>Sure sweetie." posted by Simba #109</p>

<p>First Simba, thank you for bringing to my attention that my comment was meant to read 100 YEARS, not 10 years, as I incorrectly wrote. We all have heard McCain speak of his 100 year plan to remain in the Middle East.</p>

<p>What you did with my comment, editing it into an inaccurate sound bite, is what people object to. Smarmy, smear tactics, to put it lightly.</p>

<p>My comment stated Obama could triple my taxes, instead of drafting my children. My children are worth millions to me.</p>

126

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, so now it’s a “plan”! Sheesh! All he did was make a comparison to our presence in Korea or Germany for example.</p>

<p>Do you think we shouldn’t have military stationed overseas??</p>

<p>McCain has said repeatedly that he doesn’t want fighting or loss of life. He’s got two sons on active duty, for goodness sake. People love to imply that McCain is a warmonger - he is anything but that. His years as a POW would lead anyone w/ half a brain to believe that he would be LESS inclined to engage the military. He KNOWS - more than anyone running for office (or IN office for that matter!) - what is at stake when we fight!</p>

<p>This point could probabaly be drummed over & over, but people will still believe what they want to believe…</p>

<p>and grasp at straws to make their own candidate look good.</p>

127

<p>Northstarmom: RE: Your last few posts.</p>

<p>I really don’t think any of us should judge what went on in the Clinton household, or what she knew or felt in her private relationship with her husband. I certainly haven’t walked a mile in Hillary’s shoes. Looking at that family now, she clearly made the right choice, and her child is thriving. Sometimes sticking it out is the more difficult and better choice. I applaud her for that. And I am NO FAN of Clinton the candidate.</p>

<p>Regarding who we can and can’t pick on, there seems to be an excuse here for any possibility of holding MO accountable when she wants to step in the ring and put on the gloves instead of cheering from the stands. If she wants to get into the topics the candidates should be covering, she needs to be able to handle criticism. Regarding Mr. Clinton, he is no longer president. He is now just a spouse. When he talks politics and steps in the ring, he is fair game as well.</p>

<p>NSM: “I don’t think that the Dems will stoop to attacking Cindy by making her the focus of ads…If Obama is the person whom I think he is, his campaign will continue to be above that kind of smear tactics against someone who isn’t running for office.”</p>

<p>Well, it’s hardly ever the candidate who gets his hands dirty - they leave that to other people. I don’t know…A guy who can break bread with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, someone who escaped prison because of a wiretap mistake and brags about bombing our buildings? Didn’t Obama launch his political career at the guy’s house?. The Obama who could sit for years while Rev. Wright ranted his hate speech? No, I vote that he will certainly do what every other politician seems to do, which is to encourage whatever it takes to get elected and look the other way.</p>

<p>If I were Michelle Obama, I would have NEVER allowed my husband or children to be members of Reverend Wright’s “church”. The fact that Obama did leaves more to be concerned about than a wife trying to deal with her husband’s philandering so that she could keep her family together. And if I were Michelle Obama, I would never allow my family to have had any contact with Mr. Ayers, who is about as good a guy as Timothy McVeigh. The fact that Barack Obama did should bring enormous concern to the mind of every person who really understands the situation. This stuff is unfitting of a future POTUS, and these are real issues. Forget unfitting - it’s downright SCARY!</p>

<p>Barack Obama certainly does appear to be a likeable guy. Very much so. He seems easygoing, and I bet he would rather not pick on Cindy McCain or anyone. But this is a very ambitious man, and he clearly loses some of his judgment when his big goals get in the way. That is a very dangerous thing in a president. </p>

<p>Frankly, BO reminds me A LOT of Jimmy Carter (not in his personality, but in his thinking). These are way more dangerous times, and we cannot afford to have a Jimmy Carter today.</p>

128

<p>“Barrack Obama certainly does appear to be a likeable guy. Very, very much so. He seems easygoing, and I bet he would rather not pick on Cindy McCain or anyone. But this is a very ambitious man, and he clearly loses some of his judgment when his bog goals get in the way. That is a very dangerous thing in a president.”</p>

<p>Spideygirl–I think that running for President of the United States requires that one be extremely ambitious and filled with ego. Otherwise, who–of either party–would be willing to subject himself/herself to the defamatory rigors of campaigning for such a high office?</p>

129

<p>bz2010: “people will still believe what they want to believe…”</p>

<p>Well, that might just be the truest thing posted on this thread!</p>

130

<p>Hindoo - Yes, ego is necessary. But not being able to think past your ambition? Not good. You need to be able to see the big picture. I think it’s a job requirement. In Obama’s case, he is just too inexperienced.</p>

131

<p>I feel pretty strongly that Obama can see past his own ambition. It’s Hillary Clinton I sometimes wonder about.</p>

132

<p>“I think that running for President of the United States requires that one be extremely ambitious and filled with ego. Otherwise, who–of either party–would be willing to subject himself/herself to the defamatory rigors of campaigning for such a high office?”</p>

<p>Very true. A big ego – one big enough to have tons of self confidence and to be able to withstand the inevitable criticism – is required of any candidate for public office, and the higher the office, the larger the responsibility and criticism, and the larger the ego must be.</p>

<p>As long as that ego is used in a way to help society, not just the politician, I have no problems with it.</p>

133

<p>post 126 bz2010</p>

<p>Quote:
We all have heard McCain speak of his 100 year plan to remain in the Middle East.
“Oh, so now it’s a “plan”! Sheesh! All he did was make a comparison to our presence in Korea or Germany for example.”</p>

<p>A google search of “McCain’s 100 YEAR PLAN” brings up nearly TWO MILLION
hits.</p>

134

<p>“It is also true that Cindy McCain’s particular mental illness hijacks the part of the brain which manages self-control, reasoning, and moral behavior. This is a medical fact. So to come down on her for what she did while using is exactly like coming down on someone with Tourette Syndrome for yelling “Fire!” in a theater, or some other harmful remark.”</p>

<p>Wow, that’s definitely not what Alcoholics Anonymous or any other 12-step program has to say about addiction. They believe that even though you’re sick, you are 100% morally accountable for everything you say and do while using. In fact, a critical part of recovery is making amends to all those you have wronged during your addiction. Someone with Tourette’s (or autism or epilepsy) is not morally accountable for what their body does without conscious control. But addicts have choices, and the whole concept of recovery is that they can (and do) learn to make better choices.</p>

135

<p>

</p>

<p>A google search of “Barack Obama is gay” brings up over 800,000 hits. What’s your point?</p>

136

<p>What’s your point?^^^^</p>

137

<p>Number of Google hits is not a very reliable way to prove the truth of a statement, unless the statement is “Lots of people believe X” or “There are a lot of press reports saying X.”</p>

138

<p>Hanna: Wow, that’s definitely not what Alcoholics Anonymous or any other 12-step program has to say about addiction. They believe that even though you’re sick, you are 100% morally accountable for everything you say and do while using. In fact, a critical part of recovery is making amends to all those you have wronged during your addiction. Someone with Tourette’s (or autism or epilepsy) is not morally accountable for what their body does without conscious control. But addicts have choices, and the whole concept of recovery is that they can (and do) learn to make better choices."</p>

<p>This is not entirely true. The medical view of addiction and the AA 12-step view are not mutually exclusive. They actually quite compatible.</p>

<p>Addiction is not EXACTLY like Autism or Tourette’s, but it is certainly also a mental illness. And addicts do need to take responsibility for their actions in order to get better. As you get better, that is possible. It is a process, and starts out as a goal. Getting back in charge of your brain, and overcoming the compulsion to use, allows this. But making amends to those you have wronged does not mean that that your disease didn’t hijack your true self.</p>

139

<p>Spideygirl wrote:

What Michele Obama actually said:

</p>

<p>Q.E.D.</p>

140

<p>I think you just got caught spideygirl.</p>