I Don’t Care Who You Vote For, But Don’t Lie About The Candidates
Posted by supercynic on March 23, 2008
Actually, I do care, but what I mean is, you’re free to vote for whomever you feel is best qualified to lead the country. But let’s please dispense with the chain-email-full-of-lies-technique of campaigning.
There’s a chain email going around about how Obama is really a closet Muslim and the Antichrist; how he beats up old people, pinches the breathing tubes of quadriplegics, etc. The ballsy part of the email is that it says, “Check this out for yourself on snopes.com.” Well, I did. It’s false.
But you don’t need snopes to know it’s false. What’s interesting about the email is that it purports to come from the wife of a pastor of a Christian church.
So, now the right-wing Christians find themselves in somewhat of a pickle. Who is the real Obama? The white-hating, black militant Christian who for 20 years has faithfully attended Rev. Wright’s “white-hating” church? Or is he the closet Muslim Antichrist?
I can just see Young Republicans on college campuses across the country shouting at each other, “White-hating Christian!”
“No, closet Muslim Antichrist!”
What a dilemma. Which lie do I go with????
And that brings me to my point. Can we please stick to the facts?
You’re for McCain? Great. He’s a solid patriot who deserved the Republican nomination in 2000. I wish that he were the same candidate now that he was then.
Clinton? Great. She’s smart as a whip and I’ve actually worked a legal case with a former law partner of hers who thinks the world of her and totally discredits the “bitch” reputation that she has.
As I’ve said before, I’m for Obama. However, you will not receive a chain email from me claiming that McCain performs back alley abortions with AIDS-infected butter knives or that Clinton is secretly working with extraterrestrials on a plan to invade Newfoundland. Please be for who you are for because of facts. Be against who you are against because of facts. We’ll all be the better for it.
By the way, I have it on good authority that both McCain and Clinton have Osama bin Laden on their short lists for VP. Pass it on.
This entry was posted on March 23, 2008 at 10:20 pm and is filed under Humor, Religion. Tagged: Antichrist, campaigns, Christian, Clinton, lies, lying, McCain, Muslin, obama, Politics, president, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
JSmith said
I’ll spread the word. bin Laden = Democratic VP. Gotcha. I’ve also heard the blurb about Obama being the antichrist. I actually worried that dubya was the antichrist and I may have been right.
supercynic said
I think W. was slated to be the Antichrist, but he kept flubbing his lines and Satan just said, “I can wait.”
JSmith said
You’re so quick. I just assumed it was the whole “being resurrected” thing. Bush I and Bush II. You’re right though. Not even Satan would have chosen Dubya for his spokesperson.
supercynic said
Lunch hour. I have nothing better to do than sit here and wait on people to post comments.
JSmith said
Well don’t expect any from Andrew. He told me that he’s heard all of your “tired old crap” before.
JSmith said
That’s a joke. He didn’t really say that. What he DID say was much much worse.
supercynic said
He’s just a hater. He’s the only guy I know that goes to middle school 4H shows to heckle the kids. “That’s no way to present a cow, you little twit. I’ll show you how you handle a sheep.”
hicker said
Brian, I want a blog entry about how you were formally a republican and used to get into beat downs with my brother about it. Another good one would be about psycho David.
Enjoying your blog, bro.
Matt
redneck pundit said
Serious question – why do blame the negative stories about BO on the right-wing Christians/Republicans?
I submit that a fair amount originated from BO’s opponent, HC. She’s the one BO’s running against right now.
The GOP wouldn’t waste the money to “campaign” against either one of the Dems until one emerges as the DNC nominee.
Can you admit that it’s possible, if not probable, that HC is behind some of the unflattering reports on BO?
I can’t wait to see how the Rezko trial turns out. ;-)
supercynic said
RP — Serious answer. I don’t doubt for a second that HC’s campaign is behind some of the mud-slinging. But I’ll bet the moon that the particular chain email I mentioned in my post came from someone who could be described as a “right-wing Christian.” I’ve had family members who I won’t name say that they were scared Obama was a “secret Muslim.” That’s ludicrous.
Also, I’m not saying McCain had anything to do with it. I’m saying that certain folks on the Christian Right are so against Obama that they’d send a chain email like that. So, I’ve admitted that HC would and has gone negative against Obama, but that email came out of someone’s head whose heart isn’t in the right place.
Regarding Rezko, prosecutors have said that they’re not even calling Obama to testify. I think if they had dirt on him, they would have used it. But I could be wrong. Sure wouldn’t be the first time. However, when this administration issues indictments, I read about them with a wheelbarrow full of salt, Dickie Scruggs notwithstanding.
supercynic said
Hicker — you’ve nailed me and called me out. Yes, I was a former College Republican (that’s why I know all the code words) and to paraphrase the god of the Republican Party, “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.” Twenty years ago, your brother, a self-proclaimed Democrat, once called me a Democrat, with his finger in my face, because I’ve always championed the underdog, and now he represents insurance companies against the little man. Did the devil put his soul on a payment plan or was it a lump sum? Please tell him I said hello. Good to hear from you.
redneck pundit said
Just to knock your socks off, I hope BO does get the D nomination. The guy has an excellent vocabulary and knows how to use it. I wonder why Ed Koch isn’t impressed…
Are you familiar with David Ehrenstein’s article on BO, printed in the LA Times last year?
supercynic said
I know all about Ehrenstein’s article: “the magic negro” and “white guilt.” Please, oh, please don’t accuse me of supporting Obama because I have some sense of white guilt. I would vote for Obama if he were white. You’ve kept up with my blog. I’ve stated in detail why I’m for Obama. I didn’t support Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes — even though I thought Keyes got the shaft by Republicans for not at least getting a Cabinet position. I wouldn’t want to debate Keyes on certain subjects.
Perhaps this is overkill, but even the term “white guilt” bothers me. Having a sense of history and acknowledging that there has been a past to our country that has not been fair to black people doesn’t mean that I have a guilt complex. History is context and everything must be viewed in context. As Faulkner so aptly put it, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” I don’t think blacks or anyone else today should get a free ride because of something that happened ___ years ago to someone else. But at the same time, we can’t ignore what has happened; how we got to where we are. That’s why I encourage everyone to take 37 minutes and listen to Obama’s speech on race. It is filled with substantive reasoning on where we are and how we can move forward. No politician, by my recollection, has spoken so frankly about such a powder keg issue as he did. As I’ve said before on these pages, if you don’t want to vote for him for this reason or that; okay. But don’t discount him because he has a D beside his name, or because Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter or any of those folks keep repeating that he has no substance. His website is very detailed on his positions — definitely as detailed as Clinton’s or McCain’s, and I’ve been to both. Anyway, I know I can’t convince you to vote for Obama, but please don’t think that I, or the majority of Obama’s white supporters, are voting for him out of “white guilt.” It only cheapens the debate and it shows a cynicism that is out of supercynic’s range. Not picking on you, bro. I’m really thinking of the less astute, knee-jerk folks out there.
redneck pundit said
No offense taken. I mentioned the article, not to accuse you of anything, but to get your take on the intent of the article. I’d never heard of Ehrenstein before that article was published. Just curious, really. I have no political “fight’ in me anymore. I’m completely disenchanted with the entire process.
I may not even vote this time around, unless the Libertarians can offer a candidate with an established record of fiscal conservatism, and a good understanding of our Constitution.
supercynic said
You and I are both completely disenchanted with the process. I started using the term cynic because of the political process.
The REAL Cynic said
Hell, throw Chelsea in. After seeing how she gracefully handled/smoked the heckler at some college today, I say “you go girl’. PS I like Hillary over Obama, even if she did embellish just a hair on the whole sniper fire business. Regardless of who supercynic, my husband, has worked with in the past, I believe she is a tough skinned bitchy ass woman that won’t put up with any crap. Female over male in this campaign. We deserve it. We’re smarter than you. We’re prettier than you. And gosh darnit, people like us.
The REAL Cynic said
and to all the unknowns out there, don’t bother leaving a cynical reply. Frankly, I don’t care what you think. HOLLA – MATT.