Jeez! The howls of indignation. Grow up, people. Yes, it's gone; that oh-so-exciting post that people can't seem to get enough of. We know deleting doesn't erase it from memory. Like so much urine in a swimming pool, trace elements will remain.
For those of you trolling this site for dirt on Obama and Ayers, please look elsewhere. Red Rabbit and the rest of us have said our piece which doesn't amount to much beyond that yes there was an event which we attended and which has been part of public record for years. If you want to have a serious debate on how progressive Obama truly is then we can talk. But judging from the traffic stats and the comments I doubt that's what you're looking for.
This site has been pretty hard on Obama but has always criticized him from a progressive standpoint. Quite frankly the accusation that Obama would have a terrorist agenda is laughable considering what a cautious politician he is. Nor should Ayers be tried anew for his weather underground activities. His radical bonafides are so outdated, calling him a terrorist is giving him way too much credit.
So go to the Boston Globe, or Politico.com or wherever else we've been quoted. As for us, this blog is independently run, and reserves the right to pull material, specifically if that material hurts the blog at large. Moreover the post in question was up LONG before this election and in the last several months has been woefully distorted to slander a private citizen.
Meanwhile, shouldn't you look to your own candidate? He ain't doin' so well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Moreover the post in question was up LONG before this election and in the last several months has been woefully distorted to slander a private citizen.
What it the world could this possibly mean? Who exactly is being slandered here? Obama? He denied that "launch" (your word) took place in the final debate. Ayers and Dohrn? Calling them "unrepentant terrorists" isn't slander; it's the truth.
So please enlighten us: who was slandered and how?
The issue here is transparency and honesty. Either your attendance at the meeting did or did not happen. If it did the MSM and the Obama campaign are lying. If it didn't then you did.
One core requirement for a political civil debate is transparency and honesty between the contending sides. When one side or both sides REFUSE to do this, civility often becomes trash talking, as is the case today. While both sides distort, this is just one example of the Obama's campaign to hide and distort truth. To deny this is to say you DO NOT seek civil and honest debate.
I love how Libs always scrub their sites of anything critical of Barry O'Bama, once it comes to light.
As if said scrubbing makes it not have happened.
Nothing to see here, move along...
It's not your silly old post that is the issue, it's that the LA Times won't retract. Why don't you be a good little blogger and give them a call.
It's one thing -- and entirely appropriate -- to express an opinion, as you do in this post, that "calling [Ayers] a terrorist is giving him way too much credit." People can look at his history, including not only as a Weatherman founder but his recent history as a self-described radical small-c communist/anarchist "educator," and make up their own minds about him.
But when you delete your prior statement which proves that the major media were wrong when they say there's no recorded basis for the Obama campaign event in Ayers' home being to "launch" Obama's campaign, you're trying to destroy evidence. That you're unsuccessful at that attempt makes it no less ugly and dishonest.
This is repulsive. Point fingers elsewhere, try hard to change the subject, but you're guilty by your own admission of a knowing desire to conceal history.
If you had done this in the context of a criminal investigation, you'd do jail time for obstruction of justice.
@beldar -
My, how overly-dramatic. Last I checked, this is a personal blog, not a court of law.
I take issue with this statement:
...when you delete your prior statement which proves that the major media were wrong when they say there's no recorded basis for the Obama campaign event in Ayers' home being to "launch" Obama's campaign...
Of course, the author's actual statement (found elsewhere) says no such thing. To the contrary, if this was indeed Palin's [speechwriter's] source, it proves that the McCain camp deliberately distorted what was expressed to make it align with their preferred outcome.
But nice try.
You go, beautiful musings and migraines! Love to you all!! BTW, it was great to see you down here in NOLA, Prof. We'd love to have you all down sometime! XOXO
PS: They're starting to squirm, aren't they? Throwing out the self-righteous insults to everyone, but especially strangers they'll never meet. I'm never surprised by the level of cowardice one can find on the web. When S was in Afghanistan, I'd get nasty, hate-filled comments from complete strangers when I wrote about how he didn't have enough equipment, or about the waste, fraud and abuse he saw on a daily basis. What a testament to the state of our political discourse! Keep us all preoccupied with the nonsense so we have no time to talk about what really matters.
BTW, 60 Minutes has a show about Afghanistan this week and it features soldiers at one of the forward operating bases where S was stationed. It ain't pretty!
Tom, you're a bald-faced liar and Maria Warren's own words (which she conveniently deleted) proves it.
Like you said, nice try.
And Kate, it's not us that's squirming...
thebronze,
You might familiarize yourself with the original language: who launched what, exactly? Was it, as Gov. Palin would have us believe, Obama who "launched his career" in Ayers' living room? Or was it something else entirely?
I'd rather be called a "bald-faced liar" by you than be unable to respond to a blog comment except through cheap insults. ;)
Peace,
TR
Get to know Barack Obama
When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing.
I agree with the first four posters.
Your removal of a connection which demonstrates one more thesis in the litany of Obama's overt lies shows how utterly bereft of principle the Left is.
But the Internet doesn't allow for such defacto censorship of the facts. There are still echoes to be found, much like the C-Span coverage of the Dems response to OFHEO's efforts to rein in the FM twins.
Get a clue. You can't lie any more. The fall of Dan Rather should've warned you what was coming. Attempting to "erase" the evidence of Obama's connection to Ayers is futile. Tap dance all you like, people see it for what it is.
The media, by blatantly shilling for Obama, only destroys its last semblance of credibility. The only profession held in lower regard than journalists is politicians. Even lawyers rank higher.
You can scurry about like cockroaches when the light gets turned on all you want. But we've seen you. And we're breaking out the bug spray.
Bronze, you're right. You're not squirming. You're just harassing and attempting to intimidate the writers of this blog.
If we could have some constructive ideas about how to solve the myriad of problems we're all facing together, regardless of our politics, that would be great. But it seems instead you all would rather spread the smear even in cyberspace.
Not so different than your candidate, actually. Sad. And completely not what we need right now. We're still fighting two wars with soldiers who are over-worked and under-appreciated. We're facing the worst recession in our lifetimes. A huge percentage of our neighbors, family members, and friends are without health insurance or are underinsured, while others are facing bankruptcy or foreclosure from mounting health care bills. Our education system is in shambles. We've got the real, bona fide threat of global warming and we're addicted to burning fuel, which makes us not so different from our stone age ancestors.
But what are we talking about? Not these issues, clearly.
We can call each other names, we can attempt to slander each other and whine away, or we can decide to find common ground and solve these problems. The hate, anger, and divisiveness serves a handful of the powerful and leaves the rest of us bankrupt, financially and morally. Let's step up, shall we? Rise up to higher ground? We fail to do so at our own peril. That's clear.
Kate, that's the problem, which you apparently fail to see. Calling people on their lies (like Tom's) is now called slander (or better yet "RAAACIST!!!) by people on your side.
Sorry, but you guys don't want to have anything to do with "civil discourse". You people prove that time and time again.
Tom, you can call facts lies all day long, but that doesn't make them so.
You're still a liar, but you're too foolish to see that.
Everyone else sees it.
Keep dragging up Ayers, reach a little further. Hey look I can use my imagination too!
Do a little digging on the following names and terms and see where it brings you.
Jim Hensley
Kemper Marley
Gus Greenbaum
William Rehnquist
Benjamin Siegal
The Flamingo and it's finances
Peter Licavoli
Charles Keating
Castellammarese War in relation to Benjamin Siegal and Joeseph Bonanno
Joeseph Bonnano in relation to John McCain
Be creative, you can do it!
It's not really that difficult to understand. The blogger was sceptical of Barack 13 years ago, even after meeting him at the infamous Ayers' "launch". The blogger wrote about it, 10 years after.
But 3 years after that, the event becomes a political football (among a cart-load of other political footballs). A whole lotta scrubbin' is goin' on, in lots of places these days.
The 0 campaign (and Himself) lie about the event and the relationship. The little-noticed blog post disappears in a puff of indignation. Curious Americans are told to "get a life," in an acknowledgement that the prior post was pulled because it "hurts the blog at large."
Got it.
Oh, and the original "hurtful" words are quoted back in comments to the post of indignation, in case the blogger forgot them (until they too are deleted, which is expected).
Got it again.
The original witness to history and author of the first-hand account, one Mr./Ms. Red Rabbit, also contributed exactly half of the comments to that report. Perhaps his/her words there should also be recalled for posterity (for maybe an hour or two until he/she wakes up this morning):
"Barack is on Barack's side. I would love to be wrong about him, but I'm not holding my breath. Bobby Rush kicked his butt a few years back because Barack has no substance. He sure has a boatload of ambition, though. Thanks for commenting!"
Got it again, again. Thanks for accepting my comment!
Please be careful. You know what happens to people who question The One's awesome-ness. It's even worse than what happens to those who listen while he inadvertently reveals himself accidentally to ordinary Joes and Janes.
Going on record saying that the Messiah is "on Barack's side," "has no substance," but a "boatload of ambition," is considerably risky, I think.
You know what's so bizarre here?
We keep being told that there is absolutely nothing to see here, that there is no relationship between Obama and Ayers, that there is no story, that there is no "smoke", no "here", here.
If so, how can this post possibly hurt the blog? How can it possibly hurt for any of this to be openly and honestly discussed? If there is transparency, wouldn't the best thing for your candidate be to let the sunshine in? To let people see that (as you say) there is truly nothing to see, no "story" here? Doesn't erasing posts, refusing to cover stories and covering up the past only fuel the impression that Obama is trying to hide something?
first off, i do not think anyone really thinks obama is a terrorist but we do know he fratinized with ayers..... that is a true statement...... now im pretty sure mccain is not fratinizing with ayers or any other person that has attacked the pentagon or a police station, but apparently liberals think that is ok for a future united states presidant to associate with people that do terrable acts of violance against the people that protect us and fight for our freedom...
now your point that ayers is no longer a terrorest or a threat is mute, as been reported before ayers said he wished he bomed more buildings and caused more damage in 2001, that there should be enought for even a liberal to get it threw there thick skull that the man has no remorse and could attack again. the fact is obama knew who ayers was before the coffee.
Thanks Kate and Tom for injecting a dose of reasonableness into a discussion that’s been almost laughably hysterical.
Any further response to the trolls may just amount to pearls before swine, but here goes:
As has already been said, the post was available on this blog for more than three years. The description of the event and BHO’s words were not offered in defense of Obama. This blog has consistently criticized the Democratic nominee for being all too accommodating of the Right. Indeed, one of the political ironies of the moment is that many of the outraged commentators above will likely be more satisfied with the politics BHO pursues if he is elected than will the contributors to this blog.
Since that initial posting, BHO’s right-wing critics have had ample opportunity to prove that the Senator’s politics have been shaped by an association with Ayers or that the centrist politics of the BHO campaign are merely a stalking horse for more radical views. Not only have they failed to do so, they have not--beyond repeating the fact that Ayers and Dohrn held a meet and greet for Obama--produced any evidence in support of their argument. Certainly none of our critics have done so. In fact, did such evidence exist it’s highly unlikely that a bunch of McCain supporters would have taken any interest whatsoever in a left-blog with a very modest regular audience.
To be sure, some of you have claimed that the issue here is not the relationship between BHO’s and Ayers’ beliefs but rather that BHO has at best understated, and at worst lied about the extent of his association with Ayers. Even if he has, the charge is disingenuous because if the issue were simply Obama’s truthfulness, then you would have presented this instance as simply one among many. Instead, what those of you who’ve pursued this line have insinuated is that there must be more here than meets the eye. And Governor Pallin and the McCain robocalls have not been attacking Obama’s truthfulness but his “association” with known terrorists.
We’ve not been bothered that various individuals have taken our mention that Ayers and Dohrn held an event for Obama as a reason to explore whether the relationship between them and Obama was a deep and substantive one. We are, however, very bothered when the “reason” for raising the question about the importance of the connection is then turned into the “proof” of that importance.
The contributors to this blog believe in many things. We don’t, however, believe in guilt by association, which is among the lowest political tactics available, and which is, at the end of the day, all that these criticisms amount to.
So, this was/is a comment about how Senator Obama looked and felt when he was met sufficiently in the past as to have little-to-zero bearing on the type of person that he is now, running for the office of the Presidency?
And rather than, say, attack his policies, his plans, and what he has said in present times, people are digging into his past as if it proves a point about what he is now? That the associations of years past have some significant relevance to whom he is now?
Are people concerned that a President Obama will then pick William Ayers as his Secretary of Education or something? Or that on January 21, we'll see the Senator, as President, set charges and blow up the White House?
If people want to go digging in the past, then I'm sure there's plenty of unsavory people that the Republican candidate is "palling around with", his vice-presidential choice possibly being one he's doing so with today. We don't hear that, though, because there's enough stuff that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential choice have said on the record in the present for people to debate.
Why not spend time in the here and now on what the candidates have said they will do, rather than chasing phantasms of the past to try and prove that one of the candidates is somehow sufficiently "other" to not deserve consideration?
Hee hee. Excellent... it's all falling into place. Now, put the post back up, and then pull it down again. If we can keep these idiots ranting about Bill Ayers for the next two weeks, this election is in the bag.
Mwuhahahahahaha!
Bronze, what you don't seem to get is that there is no 'your side' or 'our side' in the issues we face. We are all in it together. It is this very admission of fact that has led to Obama's meteoric rise and it may lead to him winning the election next month. The constant division and parceling up of Americans into this group and that will get us nowhere, as the last eight years evidence.
Red Rabbit, I'm sorry you've had to take such vitriol from so many. It's a shame that our politics have devolved to this point. Sadly, I don't see it getting any better given the kind of hate-bating that's been going on. It's exhausting. I see that as our only hope -- maybe people will get so sick of their own crap they'll finally let it go. We'll see!
"Bronze, what you don't seem to get is that there is no 'your side' or 'our side' in the issues we face. We are all in it together."
Kate, your statement is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
There are so many issues facing this country that are us vs. them/me vs. you that I just don't care to get into a long debate about that. I'll leave you with Iraq, GWOT, Economic Policies and Taxes as a few.
Live in your divided world, Bronze, while the rest of us work on solutions. We'll be perfectly happy to see you succeed as well.
Cheers!
red rabbit, the fact that you think bho having a coffee with ayers is no big deal is not surprising considering that you were at the house of the unrepentant terrorist ayers wtih him.........go figure?????????
It doesn't matter how much liberals and Obama followers try to spin this - the fact is that Obama lied and the mainstream media, which is really just an arm of the Obama campaign, has given him a free pass and the green light to do it without challenge.
This is not "trivial," this is HUGE. Obama lied about this in the final debate. When McCain brought it up he smirked, shook his head and said "that's not true."
So we have established beyond doubt that he is a liar, unless the author of this blog for some inexplicable reason decided, 3 years before this election, to have a fantasy about attending a party for Barak Obama held in the living room of Marxist terrorist William Ayers.
The post was genuine. It was then scrubbed - to hide the evidence. It's just a good job there are organizations like archive.org to preserve evidence. There is no denying this. The ties between Obama and Ayers go a lot deeper than simply "living in the same neighborhood" or working on the same board. They were ACQUAINTANCES and this much is obvious.
In this light, the literary detective work being carried out by Jack Cashill, who has managed to demonstrate that there is a strong possibility that Ayers wrote Obama's book "Dreams From My Father," is closer to the truth than I thought.
The plot thickens/unravels...
By the way, to those who are claiming that this is just a "smear" against Obama and that his relationship with Ayers has no bearing on his present or his intent for America...hear this:
1) A national leader will always try to reshape the country he/she is leader of into the image of his own values.
2) A person's values are the result of an accumulation of past experiences, connections, attitudes and actions. We do not suddenly wake up one morning with our values - they develop over years.
3) With this in mind - if we wish to gain a better understanding of the values of a Presidential candidate and the ways in which these values will shape his or her agenda for America, then it is perfectly reasonable - in fact essential - to look at that person's past associations and actions.
There is simply no way on Earth that Obama's radical left wing past - Ayers, Acorn, the New Party etc - has not shaped an enormous part of who he is today, his values and how he intends to reshape America into the image of these values.
It's not just about one meeting, or serving on a board, or anything else in isolation. It's the sum total of his past and the ideological path he has consciously trodden throughout his adult life. When Obama talks about "spreading the wealth around," his past associations with Marxists and his membership of the New Party are 100% relevant.
As is his promise to ACORN last year - recorded on tape - that once elected as President he will allow them to shape his agenda for America.
ACORN itself is an organization forged from the same smash-the-system, anticapitalist Marxist roots as Ayers. It was founded by George Wiley who made a serious attempt to bring capitalism to its knees in the early 70's by organizing poor ghetto dwellers to storm welfare offices and demand everything that was possibly due to them. In just a few short years he more than doubled the number of single parent African Americans on welfare, with devastating consequences for black America.
I do not think any of this is "tenuous" or "irrelevant" or "a distraction" or "a smear." I think it's instrumental in telling us who Obama is and who and what has shaped him in the past. We have a right to know everything about the man who promises to "change" America. I'm sick of the way in which Obama supporters cite the concept of "change" as if it were not possible to make any kind of objective judgment of that "change." What kind of change? Look at Obama's past for the answers.
By the way (sorry for the multiple posts) I fail to see what's so "progressive" about a set of ideas that was beginning to look well thumbed and moth-eaten by the end of the 70's. Pushing upon the country an agenda of wealth redistribution and identity politics is "progressive"?
Now Ron Paul, as much as I thought he never had a hope in hell, is "progressive."
lark, if Ayers really wrote Obama's memoir, does this mean we have to let Barack off the hook for referring to himself as a "tragic mulatto"?
If this "scrubbed" post is the only evidence that Obama lied, than the man may very well be a saint, and I'll have to take back every nasty thing I ever said about him.
I'm with you, little johnny. If this is it, dang, Obama is the best EVER! Cool.
What do you mean "if this is it"?
If the man is found to have a much deeper relationship with a Marxist terrorist than he told the US public, then "he is a saint" in your eyes?
Whatever!
Besides, there is so much more...his entire adult life he has been heavily involved in radical left wing politics. He trained ACORN staff and funneled money to them. He told ACORN workers that should he be elected, he'll "bring them all in and let them shape his agenda."
Oh and then there's the small issue of the lawsuits currently filed against him to force him to produce his real, original birth certificate, which for some strange reason he refuses to do. The man may not even be a citizen of this country and even if he is he's worked closely with an anti-American Marxist, been a member of a socialist party and aided and abetted an organization which contributed to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and is currently under investigation for election fraud, as they have been many times before.
Yes of course....he's a saint!
And the fact that the general public seems willing to vote for a man so obviously left wing is testament to the piss-poor job that the mainstream media has done in exposing the truth about him.
By the way, little johnny:
You bemoan that the scrubbed post is the "only evidence" that Obama lied...how much more do you need? Are you disputing that the post does indeed prove that Obama lied?
Unless of course you wish to claim that the blogger who posted it simply dreamed about being at Ayers' party for Obama.
There seems to be some confusion coming from the right-wingers who would cite this blog as the (sole) source for Gov. Palin's recent assertion that Obama "launched his career" in Ayer's living room.
Would the writers of this blog therefore mind clarifying for once and for all: is that an accurate characterization of this event? Did Obama in fact "launch his career" in Ayers' living room?
Thank you.
It's not the sole source - since of course the fact that Obama launched his career in Ayers living room was already known. It has however been disputed by Obama himself. This blog would seem to be independent verification of the fact, since the post in question was written in 2005 well before this issue ever came up.
The only ways in which it's an unreliable source is:
1) The blog's author made up a story about attending the event - an astounding coincidence if this is the case...
2) The author of this blog actually went back recently and back-posted the entry, left it for a while as "bait" and then scrubbed it to generate controversy.
I don't think either of the above are very likely. Let's face it, Obama launched his political career in Ayers living room, which means that their relationship was at least a little deeper than Obama claims.
Lark, your logic lacks logic.
There is absolutely no proof that they had a 'deep' relationship even if Ayers and Dohrn did have a 'coffee' to introduce Obama to other Hyde Parkers. Obama and Ayers served on a board together as part of the Annenberg initiative, a city-wide evaluation of public schools and a development of programs to increase parent involvement in the schools and student performance. They knew each other professionally, which is what this intro, launch, whatever was about -- another example of their superficial, professional relationship. That's it!
By your logic, I should have a close, personal relationship with everyone I've ever worked for or with on any project whatsoever. Well, I once worked on a Red Hot Chili Peppers music video. Does that make us friends? Unfortunately, no.
Such silly false controversies. It's sort of hilarious. Start talking about what McCain and Palin will bring to the country, what they will offer all of us, and maybe your candidates will start getting some actual play beyond the fringe.
Or keep focused on nonsense. It's your choice.
brokenwindowsblog:
I didn't say that they had a "deep relationship," I just pointed out that they obviously had a deeper relationship than simply serving on a board together.
For Ayers to throw a party for Obama in his living room, they can't have been complete strangers. And it is clear to me that the Marxist terrorist Ayers obviously saw in Obama qualities that he approved of. If someone like Ayers approved of me enough to throw me a party, I'd take a damn good look at myself in the mirror.
You make their little pet education project sound almost respectable. I don't call seeing education as a means to indoctrinate kids with Marxist ideas at the expense of the marketable skills they need to survive in life "respectable." I call it brainwashing.
Please don't try and suggest that I'm exaggerating or that nobody really wants to use schools to teach kids this nonsense, because in my home city of New York we have a school which does exactly that - the El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice in Brooklyn. They use math lessons to teach Marxism. Here's a quote from the schools head math teacher, Jonathan Osler:
"The systemic and structural oppression of low income and people of color continues to worsen. The number of people in prison continues to grow, as does our unemployment rate . . . However, in math classes around the country, perhaps the best places to study many of these issues, we continue to use curricula and models that lack any real-world - let alone socially relevant - contexts."
In April of 2007 they held a conference to promote the use of math lessons to promote left wing politics. Cathy Wilkerson, an adjunct professor at the Bank Street College of Education, was one of the "experts" at the college. And in the 60's she was a member of - guess what? - the Weather Underground. She was also present in the West Village townhouse helping to construct the bomb which accidentally exploded, mercifully only killing 3 of her terrorist friends instead of those innocent people at Fort Dix.
You see the kind of mindset we're dealing with when we're talking about ex-Weather Underground terrorists and their agenda for our schools? Obama willingly collaborated on this agenda with William Ayers.
You may think all of this is "nonsense" but that's because you're so mesmerized by the rock star Barak Obama that none of this sinks in.
I have my issues with McCain's ticket - sure I do. And I'm not afraid to talk about them, if you'd like to get into it.
But I sure as hell would prefer that they were elected in place of a man whose values were shaped by an adulthood of involvement in radical far left activism, whose value system is so abhorrent that he condoned and collaborated on a project to brainwash kids minds on a project with someone who was part of a terrorist organization which openly expressed the desire to kill 25 million Americans in a Marxist revolution.
We could also get into the nitty gritty of the insanity of Obama's economic plan, since economics is a subject dear to my heart and since McCain - even though he admits he is no expert on the economy - at least knows enough not to raise taxes on big business during a recession.
Lark, I guess you have no idea who the Annenberg's are. To suggest that their initiative was 'Marxist' is hilarious. Look up their initiative and find out what it was about. It mostly involved literacy programs for parents and increased community and family involvement in schools. If you call that 'Marxist' then dress me in red.
Oh, wait. Red is the color of McCain's party, right?
As for their respective economic plans, by all means, bring it on. McCain would like to sustain two wars and perhaps start a third, bailout failing corporations, buy up bad mortgages, subsidize off-shore drilling, give tax breaks for health care, etc. etc. Where, exactly, will the money come from? Should we all pay for it, or continue to borrow the money from the world's largest remaining bona fide Communist country, China?
The irony would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
BTW, Lark, do you really want to get into the messy tit-for-tat game of guilt-by-association? Really? Even given McCain's associations with:
Charles Keating;
George W Bush (which is enough for most of us!);
Pinochet (a private 1982 meeting with a notorious dictator? Whoa!);
Gordon Liddy (a convicted felon, no less, and a man who has called for the assassination of American politicians among other terrorist acts);
a long, growing list of nutty evangelical preachers who advocate violence and spew hatred and ignorance;
and Sarah Palin, who believes in witchcraft and the insane idea that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together, and whose husband was a member of an anti-American separatist party?
Is this really the road you want to go down?
Instead, why not tell us what McCain offers in terms of actual change from the past eight, horrid years. Why should we vote for him? Right now I have no idea because his whole, sorry campaign has been one muddy pool of nonsense and the only thing his followers present are hysterical, fear-based platitudes about Obama-as-terrorist, or, even worse, Obama-as-Scary-Black-Man.
It's quite sad, really.
FYI:
McCain has always been 100% upfront about the Keating affair. Admitted that it was the worst mistake of his life. In contrast, Obama has lied outright about his association with Ayers and has never apologized about their work in trying to radicalize Chicago's school system.
Pinochet was no saint, but he saved his country from the scourges of Marxism - an ideology which saw 110 million people murdered in the 20th Century. Furthermore, McCain did not "work" with him on any projects and did not share any ideological goals with him.
Liddy never called for the assassination of American politicians, but he did on his radio show advise people how to defend themselves should unidentified law enforcement agents come smashing their way into your home firing their guns. Furthermore, McCain did not work on any projects with him.
Show us this "growing list of nutty evangelical preachers who advocate violence." Give us one example of such a preacher whose church McCain attended for 20 years as he spewed racist, anti-American hate and whom McCain shared a close relationship with. Give one example of McCain or Palin citing one such evangelical preacher as their "mentor."
Sarah Palin does not believe in witchcraft or the idea that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together. You have to, at some point, put down the Kool-Aid and stop being so dishonest.
Furthermore, non of these tenuous associations (and outright lies) speak of an ideological development in the same way as Obama's almost constant work and associations with Marxists, socialists and racists do.
If you don't know what "McCain offers" it's probably because you've limited your media exposure to the mainstream media - which does nothing but promote Obama's message while simultaneously focusing on nothing but McCain's "negative campaigning." In their eyes, Obama has never done any such campaigning, despite doing everything he can to associate McCain with Bush, repeat the mantra "failed policies of the last 8 years" and suggest that anyone who doesn't see him as America's savior is a racist.
The McCain campaign has had a clear campaign message from the start - their economic plans are sounder than Obama's and will do far more to promote economic growth in the long term. He is also far more capable and knowledgeable than Obama on matters of national defense. Even Biden himself has stated twice that he feels that Obama is not ready for the job and is too inexperienced - first in the primaries where he stated it outright, and then recently when he stated that rogue leaders would "test" such an inexperienced President.
I guess all you have to do for a full, unambiguous, mainstream media free look at McCain's clearly stated agenda is to refer to his website - something which the MSM should have done long ago.
By the way, the McCain campaign has never accused Obama of being a terrorist and has never, ever gone anywhere near his race - unlike Obama himself, who has used his own skin color as a plea for sympathy.
We could discuss Obama's tax plan vs McCain's at length next, if you like. Given that the economy is the most important issue facing us today, I would say it's probably the most relevant subject. Just say the word.
I did not see your first reply, so I'll address that too.
The Annenbergs were not Marxists, but like most kindhearted philanthropists who set up foundations, their legacy quickly became hijacked by leftists after their death. Ayers is a Marxist, and he worked with Obama, a socialist, on a plan to radicalize Chicago's schools. You may choose to spin this as "nothing more than literacy programs for parents and increased family involvements in schools" if you like.
Are you denying that Ayers is a Marxist? He worked on the Annenberg foundation. Are you denying that Obama is a socialist? He was a candidate for Chicago's "New Party" which advocated moving the Democratic Party further toward a socialistic ideology.
McCain would like to make sure the situation in Iraq is sufficiently secure before we withdraw. He would like to do the same in Afghanistan. Obama favors taking troops out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan. So what really is the difference? That McCain favors being sensible about Iraq first and foremost.
The bailout stinks to high heaven, obviously. But the alternative would be to let the banking system fail and rebuild itself again. Such a move would cause so much economic turmoil and intensive hardship for a while that anyone who proposed it would be committing political suicide. I happen to think that it would have been the best thing in the long run, but nobody with that view would survive in politics for long. There are also those who say that since the government caused the meltdown through its economic meddling (and this is true - the Fed's manipulation of the money supply and the Democrat's distortion of the housing market and efforts to give people with bad credit loans) then it should be the government who makes the fix. If McCain had opposed the bailout I would respect him more, but then he would stand no chance of being elected. Obama on the other hand supported the bailout but also wanted his friends at ACORN to get a cut too. Again, it's the case of the lesser of two evils.
There is nothing wrong with "tax breaks for health care." In fact there is nothing wrong with tax breaks for anything and anyone. Bring them on! The more tax breaks we all get, the better. But just as long as it's not in the form of raising taxes for one group to pay for the breaks of another, a la Obama.
You ask "where will the money come from?" You do not need money for tax breaks, you just need to stop spending so much. McCain proposes a freeze on spending for everything except basic requirements like defense. Obama proposes spending of a trillion dollars or more. Barney Frank has just admitted they will end up having to raise taxes on everyone - just like Clinton did after lying about giving tax cuts to the middle classes.
Obama's tax hikes on big business will cause them to raise consumer prices, and the hardest hit by any such raises will always be the poor. Then the middle classes. Then small businesses, who will see a loss of revenue as a result.
Obama's stated intention to "spread the wealth" will not produce economic growth. It will produce price inflation and unemployment. We need to lower taxes on big business, not raise them. Big business accounts for much of our prosperity, since their economies of scale enable them to provide us with everyday goods and services at relatively low prices. You hike their taxes, they'll get it back from the consumer.
Post a Comment