Comments on: New Yorker:Obama cover and the aftermath (1)

By: jafapete

jafapete — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:24:54 +0000

“The most depressing aspect is how many on the left are using this as an example of Republican Party dirty tactics, …”

Eh? Haven’t heard of anyone using the cover as an example of Republican Party dirty tactics. It depicts various examples of Republican Party dirty tactics, but that’s not the same thing. What having you been snacking on, Ed?

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:56:28 +0000

The most depressing aspect is how many on the left are using this as an example of Republican Party dirty tactics, whereas of course the New Yorker is about as republican as Nader. To make the Obama campaign complaints even more ridiculous one only has to look at the vituperative venom that anyone on the right has to bear (and isn’t allowed to complain about) for years, the jokes about McCain’s teeth (damaged as part of the torture he underwent as a POW, POW by the left’s heros, the Vietnamese too), the Kill Bush cartoons, T-Shirts etc, the “Uncle Tom” caricatures of Rice and Powell, the trashing of Bush’s wife, etc, etc, and etc.

All not just condoned by the left but actively cheered on, yet one lightweight “ironic” cartoon portraying the left, and it’s completely unacceptable and racist. Too far fetched even for a Tui ad you would think. Perhaps the NZ vernacular would be appropriate here, “Diddums”.

By: jafapete

jafapete — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:09:06 +0000

Adam, Predictable because it was justified.

Of course he’s ruthless about getting where he wants to go. Even in NZ you have to be really hard-nosed — outside the Green Party — if you want to succeed in politics. Most people would be very surprised at just how hard-nosed.

And why hold his supporters’ zeal against the man himself?

PS I didn’t see you had posted on this earlier, or would have linked to your post.