Today I read this:
Personally, I find it impossible to vote for McCain, because the Republican aristocracy tortures animals. Bad as the Beltway Dems are (FISA, bailout, no HOLC), they haven’t yet sunk to that.
If you were to click on the link in that quote from Lambert, you would see this story:
“McCain’s national finance co-chair, when drunk in college, looked on and did nothing as dog was killed, then barbecued”
I missed that story from last December because I first went to Corrente earlier this year. Now Lambert’s vote belongs to him, and he is free to decide what factors are relevant to him in deciding how to cast that vote. So if he wants to judge McCain on what an associate of the Arizona Senator watched someone else do back in 1959, that’s his business. But Lambert banned me from Corrente for disagreeing with this:
Hearing the tiresome “William Ayers” talking point over and over makes me feel like I’m dealing with an unfunded, less feral, far clumsier, and far less effective version of the winger’s Mighty Wurlitzer.
It’s the PUMA equivalent of Bill Clinton shutting down LAX to get his haircut — a zombie talking point, repeated over and over and over again, gaining even its truthiness solely through currency. No advancement of the discourse, no analyis, certainly no analytical tools, no integration into any wider context: Just zombie-like repetition.
It’s not even ingenious or interesting character assassination: At least the wingers can do that!
If this talking point came from the OFB, I’d assume they went to camp to learn the techniques, and then got texted by Axelrod. If it were the freepers, I’d classify it as just another circlejerk, and tell ’em to, please, wipe the spooge off the Cheetohs before passing them on.
If the point is that Obama associates with dangerous radicals, that’s just smoke. Obama’s a Villager who’s going to govern from the center right. He’s slightly farther from being a dangerous radical than Hillary is, meaning he’s a Centrist.
If the point is a purity test, and “nobody fit to the President should associate with such people,” then there’s literally no candidate who’s going to pass it, because they all “associate” with such people. That’s how CT works and why foil sales are holding steady. Even in the most innocent case, there’s always a six-degrees-of-separation connection to be made. The same can be said of both Bush and the Clintons. And the same could probably be said of most of us, on exactly the same principle. “Why won’t [insert name here] deny that he fucks goats?”
And the amazing thing is — and here’s where teh stupid really, really burns — there are all sorts of reasons, right or wrong, not to vote for Obama that are actually important. That have to do with real people’s lives and real issues.
Now speaking for myself only, I think that Obama’s close association with a self-admitted domestic terrorist matters more than McCain’s association with someone who watched other guys kill a dog. YMMV
By the way Lambert, if you’re gonna ban someone from your site you don’t get the privilege of posting your comments on their site or their threads. Fair is fair.