South Carolina State Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson) has removed this from his blog:
 |
The blog entry (18 July) in which the pic originally appeared has been changed to read:
Thank you for your interest in the picure recently posted on this site. As this picture has gotten plenty of attention, I would rather change the focus of this discussion to Sen. Obama’s record on National Security.
Are you buying that? He says it twice, adding in the post for 22 July:
I have been very impressed with the reaction to my blog post on Barack Obama. I originally posted the photo without commentary to stimulate an examination of Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy. I remain certain that his foreign policy ideas pose a great threat to American security no less than those of Al Gore or John Kerry might have. I believe that America has avoided another terrorist attack precisely because President Bush has been office for the past 8 years. I’m convinced that an Obama presidency will plunge us back into the failed foreign policies of the Clinton administration and put us in great danger. …
I have no regrets from this picture, however, I’m sure that a further examination of Obama’s foreign (and domestic) policies must occur in order that voters might truly understand the vast, vast differences between him and Sen. John McCain. I refuse to cower to the cultural police who evermore seek to censor our political discussion.
Well, I guess he’s playing to the stands, and anybody stupid enough to vote for Kevin Bryant in the first place is probably stupid enough to believe he meant his cheap shot as a stimulus to serious discussion of foreign policy. They might even be stupid enough to believe we didn’t have a terrorist attack in this country because Bush was in the White House ― making Bryant’s constituents as smart as Mike Meehan of Orlando. Meehan put this billboard up around Orlando:
 |
and then explained: “9/11 could have been prevented if we’d had a Republican president.”
It’s no secret that the Christian Right is deep in denial, but even I’m surprised to learn that they apparently forget that the de facto leader of the Christian Right at the time of the attacks, the man they believe is all that has stood between us and bin Laden, actually was in office at the time of the attacks. That would be the same man who apparently didn’t bother to read a report entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US,” which was handed to him more than a month before 9/11; the man who kept on reading My Pet Goat after he learned of the attacks; the man who responded to the attacks by going into hiding in Nebraska; the man who ― nearly seven years after the attacks ― still hasn’t captured bin Laden; the man who ignored the terrorist threat both before and after the attacks; the man who cynically used the attacks as propaganda for a completely unrelated invasion of Iraq; yes … that man. What party does he belong to, Kevin? Mike?
Back to Kevin Bryant. I’m not surprised at Bryant’s attempts to mislead. Unlike Jesus, the Christian Right has no problem at all with lying; their entire movement is built on lies (along with fear and hatred).
I’m not even surprised at Bryant’s sullen whining about “the cultural police who evermore seek to censor our political discussion.” Fundies love to whine about being persecuted, and if you disagree with them, they really do consider that persecution and censorship. Damn it, why can’t the world understand that it’s it mean to disagree with fundies? It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference that nobody tried to censor him. People have called him an idiot, a bigot, and a hatemonger; people have laughed at him; but nobody I know of tried to censor him.
However, Bryant did censor me. He apparently didn’t like my comment on his blog post of 18 July, and refused to allow it to appear. I guess I’ll just post it here:
Always good to see our fine God-fearing politicians standing up for the traditional Christian values of mudslinging and character assassination. As the Lord taught, “Blessed are ye, when ye say all manner of evil falsely for my sake.”
Sarcasm, no doubt, counts as persecution and censorship in Bryant’s mind, and in the tiny minds of his supporters.
Digg it!
Stumble it!
Of all mankind the great poet is the equable man.WaltWhitmanWalt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, 1855
Senator Bryant now tries to dummy his post down by saying that he “wanted to create a local discussion of Sen. Obama’s weak commitment to the war on terror”.
His original post had nothing to do with Senator Obama’s commitment to the war on terror. The obvious intent was to depict Obama as a Muslim and/or a terrorist. The logic was that considering Obama sounds like Osama and that if dressed somewhat alike, they must be the same. His message was that if we vote for Obama, it would equate to a vote for Osama because their names are simular. Senator Obama has already been accused of being a Muslim, something that has been proven to be untrue. Senator Bryant’s post was an attempt to rekindle that false notion. To try to sell this concept based on a man’s name and looks is something that isn’t expected out of an elected representative of a state. It’s considerably disturbing that he now flip flops by saying his intentions was to bring up a disscusion on Sen Obama’s stand on the war. What does his looks or the sound of his name have to do with his political thinking?