New Democratic ad: What’s Steve Cohen doing in our churches?

posted at 8:48 pm on August 6, 2008 by Allahpundit

Interesting question. A better question: What’s a blogger to do when, after righteously hammering the left all week for reading nefarious subtexts into innocent ads, he’s confronted with an ad that might not be so innocent? I’d give Tinker the benefit of the doubt here if not for the fact that her last ad compared Cohen to a, er, Klansman. We know she’s perfectly willing to hit below the belt, in other words; the only question is how low. Judge for yourselves. Is the “our” in “our churches” a tad too inflected for comfort?

Update: Damn, looks like the video’s been pulled. TPM has a transcript.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Love the chick that says “The Repugs are stripping every last veneer of respectability off their movement – they really are aimed like an arrow at the heart of that part of White America that is scared shitless of the entire rest of the universe.”

When it’s pointed out that speaker is a Dem, she’s like, Oops.

Hee.

Tanya on August 7, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Democrats are the party of hate. Without it, they could not exist.

volsense on August 7, 2008 at 8:33 AM

The south had ever right to seceed.

The fact that Lincoln was willing to kill so many good men, in order to force the south to remain in the Union is one of the biggest crimes of the last millenia.

Lincolns lone legacy is that he proved that the side with the most guns gets to tell everyone else what to do.

Dictators ever since, have been following his lead.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM

BTW, Lincoln himself wrote that if he could preserve the Union, while preserving slavery, he would.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 8:49 AM

The south had ever right to seceed.

The fact that Lincoln was willing to kill so many good men, in order to force the south to remain in the Union is one of the biggest crimes of the last millenia.

Lincolns lone legacy is that he proved that the side with the most guns gets to tell everyone else what to do.

Dictators ever since, have been following his lead.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM

So you think Lincoln should have just stood idly by and watch the Union dissolve? Wow, where do you people come from. The Union survived and is the greatest country in the world. It took tremendous sacrifice and the lives of 600K men. The Civil War is what defines us a nation.

carbon_footprint on August 7, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Dictators ever since, have been following his lead.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM

That’s absurd. It’s so fortunate that Lincoln came on the scene, otherwise Stalin wouldn’t have known what to do!

Your point fails on three counts.
1 – Secession was not attempted peacefully. When the states seceeded violence did not break out.
2 – The Constitution gives power to put down insurrection. That means the founding fathers valued union over rebellion; Lincoln acted in accordance with the Constitution.
3 – He also was doing the will of the majority of the population. Of course, they thought the war would be over more quickly, but the point remains.

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM

BTW, Lincoln himself wrote that if he could preserve the Union, while preserving slavery, he would.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 8:49 AM

His original quote was that he would free all of the slaves, one of the slaves or none of the slaves in order to preserve the Union. His point being, the war was about saving the Union at all costs.

carbon_footprint on August 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM

carbon_footprint on August 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Lincoln’s foremost concern was the preservation of the Union. He most certainly was not a dictator. I’m still not convinced that the South was in rebellion, or conducting an insurrection since they had seceded from the Union in the same way they joined it. They had broken ties, formally, with the Union and no longer considered themselves a part of it. In my mind that casts some doubt that the term insurrection is appropriate. Same with rebellion. What happened at Sumter is controversial. One thing is certain somebody started shooting. The Civil War was a tragic event in our history but the Union was preserved and we became a stronger nation because of it. Any questions about what might have been can only be pure speculation and will not change history one whit. The war happened, the North won and we are one nation.

Oldnuke on August 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Uh kids, let’s be clear about Lincoln and preserving the Union: the Union was broken. The southern states had seceded. What Lincoln did was force a re-union.
This would be like the former husband breaking into his ex-wifes house and, under gunpoint, march her to the justice of the peace and force her to make wedding vows.
Many historians believe the south would have rejoined the Union with 10-20 years.
Lincoln looked at many strategies, including freeing the slaves and sending them back to Africa.
Mr. Lincoln is not the calm, peaceful, reflective President that appears in kids stories.

Amendment X on August 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM

The Civil War was a tragic event in our history but the Union was preserved and we became a stronger nation because of it. Oldnuke on August 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Indeed, as I said before, the Civil War defined us as a nation. One nation. As Shelby Foote said, before the war people used the term “the United States are“; after the war, people said “the United States is” So the war made “us” an “is”.

carbon_footprint on August 7, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Amendment X on August 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Your opinion.

carbon_footprint on August 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM

What happened at Sumter is controversial.

Oldnuke, what do you mean it was controversial?

I’m still not convinced that the South was in rebellion, or conducting an insurrection since they had seceded from the Union in the same way they joined it.

Interesting, have you considered, however, that the secession was because of Lincoln’s election. They threatened to succeed if their favored candidate wasn’t elected (blackmail). Then when the will of the populace went another direction, the South began to secede. They essentially took their ball and went home.

Lincoln didn’t even issue statements or speak so as to not inflame the issue between the time of election and taking office. Your point about rebellion and insurrection, I suspect was very much in his mind as well, and until the firing on the fort, I’m not sure he was certain even himself of the correct course of action. After violence erupted though, he saw it through as he believed right.

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM

So you think Lincoln should have just stood idly by and watch the Union dissolve?

Yes, he should have. Instead he decided to trash the constitution and kill hundreds of thousands of people because he believed that his vision of the world was superior to everyone elses.

If a nation has to be maintained by enslaving it’s citizens, then it is not worth maintaining.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

If Lincoln was doing the will of the majority of the people, why did he need to institute a draft in order to find enough victims to fight his war for him?

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 1:37 PM

They essentially took their ball and went home.

Which they had every right to do.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Which they had every right to do.

Perhaps. But firing on Ft. S turned it into a war, which makes their previous ‘principled’ stand of no consequence.

Yes, he should have. Instead he decided to trash the constitution and kill hundreds of thousands of people because he believed that his vision of the world was superior to everyone elses.

Please, where did he violate the Constitution, Ron Paul?

If a nation has to be maintained by enslaving it’s citizens, then it is not worth maintaining.

That’s an interesting point you offer to void the authority of the South to exist independently.

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Let me state up front that I’m no Civil War expert so controversial may have been too concrete a word to use in that post. I have read differing accounts of what happened and have listened to discussions among supposed local (Spotsylvania County) historians about the events. As you might guess the war of Northern aggression is a very popular subject around here :-) I think that the most popularly accepted version is that the South fired first. I wasn’t there I don’t know. I do know that not everyone accepts the popular version. In any case it’s the event that started the shooting.

I don’t think that the reason for the secession is a valid argument. What matters is that it was a decision made by each state individually to withdraw. I’ve never seen anything to support the idea that they were prohibited from doing that.

I agree with you that Lincoln did not trash the constitution. A valid point could certainly be made that he was responding to hostilities initiated by a foreign power on Union forces. My only doubt lies in whether or not the states had the right to withdraw from the alliance that they had entered into. Even today what legally prevents individual states, for whatever reason, from seceding from the union?

Oldnuke on August 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Oldnuke on August 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Thanks, I wasn’t trying to back you in a corner or anything, I was curious.

I do know that not everyone accepts the popular version.

Yeah. I think the popular view with continue to be held up through the ages of history because of public record. Here: I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only;
and here:
The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.
Just as examples.

As regards secession, in my own mind the strongest argument against succession is also the strongest argument for it :) Meaning the fact that the Constitution provides no method of removal after the document was approved indicates self-removal was not approved. Moreover they didn’t even require 100% approval, but rather 9 states ONLY were needed to ratify. The ramifications of this are clear to me: the destiny of 13 states could be determined by 9. Which is to say the Union came before the individual states. For that reason, I don’t believe the founding fathers envisioned a separation of the Union once it was formed.

Of course, as alluded to above, the strongest argument for the right of succession is also Constitutional, ie that it isn’t mentioned within the Constitution, and thus a reserved right for the state. I think this argument is insufficient based on the 9/13 principle, but regardless it is an arguable position.

The argument for succession based on the Declaration of Independence, I think is even weaker. Because the South did indeed have recourse, whereas the DoI is about having no other recourse. They, the South, were simply losing the argument among the electorate.

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Thanks, I wasn’t trying to back you in a corner or anything, I was curious.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Never thought you were, just wanted to make sure you understood that I was a tyro in this area. Wouldn’t even call myself a beginning amateur. I may have to change that though, this thread has sparked my interest and I live in an area so rich in civil war history that it boggles the mind. My home is 5 miles from the spot where Stonewall Jackson was shot, I could literally walk to Salem Church. I routinely have coffee at a little shop in downtown from which I can see one of the cannons taken from the Merrimac. I’ve toured all the battlefields and museums but just never got interested in it. I’ve never even watched Gone With the Wind let alone read it. Most of my CW education came from listening to conversations/debates among guys on my shift at work whiling away hours on the mid shift. One in particular had such detailed knowledge of the battles that I never once saw him stumped or proven wrong. He was amazing, he was also a very good engineer.

Oldnuke on August 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Here it is again, on Yahoo video:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3251984/9166885

seanrobins on August 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM

… still wondering what Steve Cohen had to do with the Civil War …

corona on August 7, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Oldnuke on August 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM

You don’t seem like a newbie, you ask the important questions. Yeah, I came to the CW later in life myself because I always found brother vs brother sad. But now, as I’ve grown older, I understand that sometimes war is necessary, and these as the last battles of the Revolution.

As aside, I think Lincoln would be loved by the South also if he hadn’t been murdered. His mind was at the end “With malice toward none, with charity for all, …let us strive on to finish the work we are in” His death brought in policies of malice and no charity. Pity, really.

Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2