Look at the dates on the video. Attacks on Obama from the right and the left started in early 2007, when several Democrats had announced their intent to run for President. Why wasn't FoxNews attacking John Edwards or even Chris Dodd? Could it be, perhaps, that Barack Obama was (and is) a frightening figure because he's African American? The only other Democrat who got a fraction of this treatment was Hillary Clinton, who had the double whammy of being female and a member of the Clinton Democratic dynasty.
From these incendiary beginnings, the election proved that not all Americans can be brainwashed by scare tactics. However, now that Obama is American's new President-Elect, both sides are crying persecution. Take these examples into consideration:
1) A middle schooler who wore a teeshirt to school that said "McCain Girl" chronicled her peers reactions. From the article,
People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.
Then it got worse.
"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.
Kudos to Catherine for being inquisitive, but there are several things wrong with this story and the way that the article was written. First of all, middle school has never been known as a paragon of tolerance. Most people try to get out of middle school with the least amount of mental anguish possible, and oftentimes that includes making fun of the kids who are different so the crowd doesn't turn on you. For the reporter to write this article as if these 12-14 year olds who are both full of hormones and unable to vote is irresponsible and incendiary. Oak Park is a very liberal suburb of Chicago, Obama's hometown. Most (or all) of the children who made fun of Catherine got their political ideas (probably just Obama good, McCain bad) from their parents anyway. Add to that the hometown pride phenomenon and you're solidly in Obama territory.
With that said, I don't know if I can point to any person I know who didn't get made fun of in middle school, whether for clothing choices, hairstyles, or even just physical appearance. To make a case for "liberal intolerance" with a group of middle schoolers as the sample is just bizarre and sloppy journalism.
2) An Ausberg College student who was, allegedly, beaten up by four, larger black women who called her a racist for supporting McCain/Palin. From the article,
The team trainer, who checked her out the next day, said she probably had a concussion and barred her from practice for two days. She said she's also been required by the school to attend counseling and missed a day of classes. [...]
Augsburg spokesman Jeff Shelman said the school doubts that the women are students, citing a review of dorm building video surveillance that evening and the fact that the victim didn't recognize any of them.
So after this vicious attack, the alleged victim does not get checked out by a doctor, nor call the police. Instead she waits until the next day to get checked out by her hockey team's trainer. Not only that, but no such women (or attack) are seen by the other students present or the school's surveillance cameras. Is it possible that this girl could have gotten injured another way and made up a story overnight to show the depths of liberal intolerance? It's been done before.
3) A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest who is withholding communion "because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him 'constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.'"
Shouldn't the separation between church and state go both ways? What about helping the poor and other corporal works of mercy? Why should the church only care about abortion, which is legal anyway and doesn't appear to be going anywhere? And, if the sanctity of life is what's crucial, how could such an organization support Republican candidates who are in favor of the death penalty?
When did religion get tied to the right so intimately and doesn't it weaken the church's tax-exempt status if the priest is using his pulpit for politics?
The article also addresses the Democratic Catholics who have been disenfranchised by statements like this:
"Father Newman is off base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."
If nothing else, Obama and McCain supporters can agree on the fact that this is one of the most divisive elections in recent memory. Both sides have been unfairly treated by a select few and the media is covering it, not just for the story, but, perhaps, also to show how unfairly their side is being treated. There's a difference between reporting stories in a factual and unpolitical way that doesn't push the two sides further apart.
How do moderates feel because of all this? When the entire American political system has been deeply cleaved into "RIGHT" and "LEFT" how are people supposed to make up their own minds instead of buying into reports of intolerance, from either end?
3) A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest who is withholding communion "because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him 'constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.'"
Shouldn't the separation between church and state go both ways? What about helping the poor and other corporal works of mercy? Why should the church only care about abortion, which is legal anyway and doesn't appear to be going anywhere? And, if the sanctity of life is what's crucial, how could such an organization support Republican candidates who are in favor of the death penalty?
When did religion get tied to the right so intimately and doesn't it weaken the church's tax-exempt status if the priest is using his pulpit for politics?
The article also addresses the Democratic Catholics who have been disenfranchised by statements like this:
"Father Newman is off base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."
If nothing else, Obama and McCain supporters can agree on the fact that this is one of the most divisive elections in recent memory. Both sides have been unfairly treated by a select few and the media is covering it, not just for the story, but, perhaps, also to show how unfairly their side is being treated. There's a difference between reporting stories in a factual and unpolitical way that doesn't push the two sides further apart.
How do moderates feel because of all this? When the entire American political system has been deeply cleaved into "RIGHT" and "LEFT" how are people supposed to make up their own minds instead of buying into reports of intolerance, from either end?
No comments:
Post a Comment