comMITTed to Romney!

I’m updating and bumping this post to highlight an update below. This story is gaining major traction.

From the San Francisco Chronicle on 2/18/2000:

“I hate the gooks,” McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. “I will hate them as long as I live.”

As you can see from my picture, I am Asian by heritage (specifically Korean). I immigrated (legally) with my parents when I was four months old. They had two suitcases, a baby, and hope for a better life for themselves and their future children and grandchildren. We have lived the American dream.

Growing up, I heard stories of what life was like during the Korean War. My parents and grandparents fled down the Korean Peninsula to make it past the Pusan Perimeter with North Korean Communist troops at their backs. Their generation reveres General Douglas MacArthur and loves the United States of America for the brave sacrifices made in the defense of liberty and freedom. These were not small sacrifices: 36,516 American dead, 92,134 wounded, 8,176 MIA, and 7,245 POW in only 3 years.

John McCain was one of 2,459 POW/MIAs from the Vietnam war. I honor his service. I am thankful for his sacrifice in a way that only someone who understands all too well that were it not for the United States and men like John McCain, I would likely be digging trenches for Kim Jong Il in a labor camp or dead instead of sitting here writing this blog post in the comfort of my home here in Silicon Valley.

I can only imagine the pain inflicted upon John McCain and his fellow POWs by his North Vietnamese captors. I can understand his hatred for these evil men. I don’t judge him for his emotions when he remembers his experience.

At the same time, I am dismayed by a United States Senator and Presidential candidate’s use of the racial slur “Gook.”

Despite being called out on it by the media and Asian American advocacy groups, he refused to apologize. He claimed that he only uses it in reference to the specific North Vietnamese who were holding him captive, as if this should make it okay.

What an individual former POW says in the privacy of his own home, or amongst his personal friends is their business. What the most famous Vietnam POW in America says to the public using the MSM’s megaphone aboard his campaign bus is not just his business. It’s America’s business.

If John McCain had been beaten and robbed by a couple African American gang-bangers, would he be justified in announcing aboard his campaign bus that he hates niggers? Or what about a couple ’spics or wetbacks? Would it be okay as long as he clarified that he was only referring to those individuals who had robbed and beaten him?

Of course not. Words have meaning no matter how many caveats you put around them. The backlash from black or hispanic groups would have been fast, furious, and justified.

I don’t believe that he is a racist. I believe that he is angry and it is a deep seeded anger which has been refined in the fires of hate deep inside his soul for decades. Nonetheless, a man of John McCain’s position and stature using this kind of language sends the message across the country that racial slurs have an acceptable role in our national public discourse. He is contributing to the coarsening of America and validating the some of the worst instincts of the ignorant among us. Afterall, if it is acceptable for John McCain can use the word “Gook” why should anyone else or society at large be held to any higher standard?

*******************************************

UPDATE: This story is getting major traction. Here’s McCain’s response from the San Francisco Chronicle via Jonathan Martin at the Politico:

“I’m not going to waste my time,” a visibly tense McCain said when reminded of his quotes in the column. “You can say what you want. I’m proud of my record, my service with my comrades. And if anyone has any criticism of that, I can only say I stand on my record and my Silver Star, my three Bronze Stars and my Distinguished Flying Cross.

Huh? What do his medals and commendations have to do with his use of a racial slur? This is the classic McCain response to anything he doesn’t want to discuss…become indignant and hide behind his military service.

Please help Mitt get the nomination. Make a donation to his campaign today.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

CNN Political Ticker.

“CHUCKling”, but we all know that Mitt Romney will get the last laugh.

“If John takes over the presidency at 72 and he ages 3-to-1, how old will he be in four years? Eighty-four years old — and can he handle that kind of pressure in that job?” Norris said, as Huckabee looked on.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I was watching this report with my father tonight while I sat there and visited him with my daughter, and it literally made my Dad walk away and he threw his hand down at the TV. It disgusted him that much. Prior to my involvement with the Romney campaign (i.e. this blog, and various trips) he would have been solidly in McCain’s camp, but my Dad knows Romney’s character. He’s read what he wrote in my book, the various letters and post cards, and the way he’s treated me at meetings with him. Not to mention the fact that he cares about my kids so much. To people like my Dad those are signs of true character. Sure, he has his disagreements with him, but my Dad sees Romney as “the real deal”.

It’s truly sickening that Huck chose to commute these people’s sentences for religious reasons. Reeks of out and out discrimination, I guess he’d never commute a jew, they aren’t going to have that “coming to Jesus” moment.

Commutations Score:
Romney - 0
Huckabee - 1023

Share on Facebook

Share This