there has been much discussion of the tone the mccain-palin rallies are taking.  they have become increasingly hate-filled and strident.  the response of the mccain-palin campaign and their supporters has been to say, “liberals say mean things too!!!” and they are right.  they do.  there are whackos on the left, the right, and ~gasp~ in the middle.  these people are the “extremists”.  they act as individuals, condoned by neither party.

until recently.

for months, there have been repeated attacks calling obama a “terrorist”, a “muslim”, an “arab”, the “anti-christ”, a “non-citizen”, who “hates america” and wants to “kill live babies”.  by and large, those attacks have come from individuals, not the hillary campaign, not republican nominee campaigns.

then, enter the mccain-palin campaigns.  it is now the CAMPAIGN, which is driving this escalation in hateful rhetoric. 

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’ Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.  read more…

while mccain comes out and asks that everyone be respectful, etc, his partner (palin) is once again drawing the line in teh sand - good guys vs bad guys.  good guys?  republicans.  bad guys?  THEM.  those who “hate america"… which she has already pointed out includes william ayers and barack obama.

this escalation has me worried.  if it continues, something serious may happen.

john lewis, georgia congressman and civil rights movement leader, agrees:

As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. 

Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.

i. don’t. know. what. to. say.

omg.  she just doesn’t stop.

“Help me, Ohio, to help put John McCain in the White House,” she said. “He understands. He understands you. We understand how important it is that this team be elected. For one thing, we know who the bad guys are, OK?”

That statement elicited scattered shouts of “Obama!” throughout the crowd.

“We know that in the war, it’s terrorists, terrorists who hate America and her allies and would seek to destroy us, and the bad guys are those who would support and sympathize with the terrorists,” she said. “They do not like America because of what we stand for. Liberty. Freedom. Equal rights. Those who sympathize and support those terrorists who would seek to destroy all that it is that we value, those are the bad guys, OK?”

from: Palin draws a line between ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’

sick of the word “maverick”?  so are the mavericks!

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.

continue reading: flirting her way to victory

i have stated before and i’ll state again, sarah palin’s being chosen as a vice-presidential candidate underlines the sexism inherent among the republican party.  the unmitigated ~gall~ to run someone such as palin.  this is the best choice the republicans could come up with for vice president?  this is their brightest, most articulate, most knowledgeable person?  someone who winks and flirts and babbles nonsense? 

it negates the hard work women have done in order to be able to achieve the ability to run for vice president.  she has set the bar so low that it’s not whether or not she can speak intelligently but whether she can speak at all.

and men eat it up.

These numbers pretty much speak for themselves, but men have a favorable imperssion of Palin by a 35-point margin, whereas women have a favorable impression of her by an 18-point margin. Conversely, by a 23-point margin, women do not think Palin is ready to be President, whereas Palin lost this question among men by a considerably smaller 6-point magrin. - fivethirtyeight.com

as one person put it, “WAKE UP GUYS!!  you don’t get to have sex with her if she wins!” yet so far, every male that i know (but one) has told me that palin is “hot” or she’s “cute” or she seems “sweet” or “fun” or, HAHA, “interesting”.  why, they all just wanna love her all up!  gosh darnit, give that lil girl a big hug!  ~pardon me, while i hurl~ some of these same men are ones who have told me that “palin isn’t qualified” to be vice-president, that she “lacks any ~semblance~ of intelligence”, and that “they are ~appalled~ that she could be the nominee”.  but.  “isn’t she cute?”

the only thing missing from last night’s debate and her performance was palin’s handlers smacking her on the ass after the debate and telling her “now be a good little girl and go get us some coffee, the men have serious issues to discuss.”