Like Jason, I am out of my usual haunts. It's hot and humid in Arkansas, but still feels good to be back in the land of my birth. Blogging will probably be light. My parents have decided to skip the internet age.
I just noticed that my esteemed colleague emeritus, David Newquist, has this to say about the race card:
It has been clear since the primary that the McCain campaign is going to be devoted to ad hominem attacks on Barack Obama. The Republicans call the process "defining" him. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert points out, they have chosen to define him as "boy." He hasn't the experience, they say, to be president. That damned boy doesn't know his place. Abraham Lincoln did not have any more experience than Obama, and he was elected largely on the effectiveness of his words and his rhetoric. And, says McCain, that Obama boy sure can be glib. Watch out for him.
Actually, I the word "boy" doesn't occur anywhere in the Bob Herbert column. Nor, does the argument that Professor Newquist makes here. And what is that argument? Here it is in standard form:
The Republicans say that Obama doesn't have the experience to be President.
Boys are inexperienced.
Therefore: the Republicans are calling Obama a boy.
If that logic convinces you, then you can be convinced of anything.
Professor Newquist says that "Abraham Lincoln did not have any more experience than Obama, and he was elected largely on the effectiveness of his words and his rhetoric." Actually, Lincoln served a term in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for the Senate in Illinois. In his 1858 Senate Campaign, Lincoln ran against one of the most important statesmen of his day, and whom he would meet again in the Presidential election of 1860. The Lincoln-Douglas debates attracted the attention of people all over the United States, as they centered on the central issue of the day. Obama went from the State Legislature directly to the U.S. Senate, and began exploring a Presidential run almost immediately. I doubt very much whether anyone in Illinois can remember Obama's campaign for Senate.
Finally I note that Professor Newquist accuses McCain of "ad hominem" attacks on Obama. This use of the term "ad hominem" is, I think, illegitimate. It is used to mean nothing more than personal attacks, but those who use it in that way apply it exclusively to personal attacks that the user disapproves of. Does Professor Newquist disapprove of personal attacks in political discourse. Clearly not. I note these words from his prior post:
A few more covers like this should keep the red neck intelligentsia pondering its meaning up to election time.
I am not quite sure who the "red neck intelligentsia" is, but I am sure that calling someone red neck is a personal attack. Why is not an "ad hominem" attack, as David uses the term. Because it's only ad hominem when the Republicans do it.
Recent Comments