re: #294 Sergey Romanov

Sure. But as long as the right pushes “he’s the left-winger” meme it’s only fair to point out what is wrong with this.

Yes and no. I think that with the tit-for-tat exchange, all we’ll get is more of the same. RWers will say that what they’re doing is only in response to the Giffords shooting, or whatever.

Killgore thinks what he’s doing is OK because he used the same, lame, guilt-by-association tactics with the Tea Party.

My point is that either way it’s cheap point-scoring, and exploitative, merely to serve a partisan agenda rather than to even approach solving issues.

There aren’t that many things that I am strongly positive on Obama about - but his approach to these issues is one of them. I thought his “speech on race” was extraordinary - in particular the part where he discussed how without reasoned dialog, where we address legitimate grievances, we won’t make progress on highly divisive issues (like race).

Sorry - I know I’m going off on you here more than what is called for, but this is something that does bother me.

Even this post is somewhat of a case in point. Sure - there is no question that there are rightwing loons who have incited hatred by pushing an Obama is the anti-Christ meme, and that is a topic worthy of examination: but does tying this guy to those people really help? I don’t think so. This kind of association only empowers people to say that libz are assigning guilt by association with lunatics: that lays cover for the calculated efforts by mainstream, “normal” people who propagate religion-based hatred towards Obama for political expediency.

Maybe instead of responding with a mirror-image guilt-by-association, people should respond by saying that they’re above guilt-by-association, and in another conversation, focus on the “normal” people who are exploiting religious beliefs for political expediency?