Tuesday, 7 October 2008
|0856 - Obama's associates vs. McCain's|
Neal Boortz points out one inconvenient truth in reply to Obama's attack on McCain's association with Charles Keating:
Charles Keating was not KNOWN to be a corrupt businessman when his relationship with McCain began. Bill Ayers WAS known to be a terrorist when his relationship with Obama began. If you buddy up with someone who later turns out to be a crook, that's one thing. If you begin an association with someone known to already be a crook – in this case a terrorist – that's quite another. Come on, folks. This stuff is so easy. The truth is that the best friend Barack Obama has out there is not a terrorist but is an uninformed celebrity-worshipping electorate.
current mood: annoyed
Ayers walks free to this day. He never saw a minute of prison time, IIRC.
Keating went to prison, partly because of what he did that DIRECTLY INVOLVED McCain. McCain's judgement was formally questioned by the Senate. McCain and his family went on vacations with this guy.
This stuff IS so easy. Obama had nothing to do with the Weather Underground. McCain *was* directly involved in the stuff Keating got pinched for.
Ayers never went to prison because he was a fugitive from justice for most of the 70s, until the statutes of limitations ran out.
Keating wasn't a crook until after he met McCain, and the Democrat-led committee recommended that McCain be exonerated. McCain also refused to help Keating, which is why he was exonerated.
Obama chose Ayers to host his political coming-out party. Ayers also set up the radical Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, and picked Obama to run it.
Obama had nothing to do with the Weather Underground only because it collapsed before he came along. He is closely associated with Ayers, and no amount of crawfishing will make that fact go away.
Sorta like McCain and G. Gordon Liddy.
Except Liddy and McCain are actually friends. And they actually have spoken in the last year. And Liddy has actually contributed to McCain's campaign. Liddy actually did jail time. And McCain has praised Liddy continuously.
But yeah, what did Liddy ever do, right?
Ayers has not. Ayers refuses to. Ayers says that he'd do it all over again.
See the difference? Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who attacked American citizens. Obama knew or should have known that when he chose him as a mentor.
Liddy repented because he was caught. That does not mean it never happened. The man tried to directly subvert the Constitution. He planned kidnappings and murders. McCain has praised him up and down, saying he was a man of principle. Do you not see the disconnect there?
Obama has said no such thing about Ayers. See the difference?
Read the Ayers NY Times interview. Not just the edited excerpts. You'll see what he says about being unrepentant.
Liddy has repented, fully and completely. He's a born-again Christian. He's expressed sorrow for what he did, not because he got caught, but because his faith compelled him to. That's what McCain was praising up and down.
Ayers is unrepentant and said he'd do it all over again. Obama chose him as his political mentor. See the difference?
Of course the NYT would cast Ayers in a positive light. They're all hard leftists themselves who are sympathetic to his radical cause.
Like all hard-core righties, you're taking a Rightie's actions at face value while prosecuting Obama and seeing wheels within wheels.
It's not worth debating.
I don't know what you've been smoking...
Obama's coming-out party for his first run for political office was held at Ayers's house.
Ayers organized the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a left-wing organization to "reform" the Chicago public schools along a hard-left line, and picked Obama to run it. This was easily verifiable until the CAC closed its records in an attempt to protect Obama.
I've gotten pessimistic about McCain's chances, because the left-wing media is thoroughly in the tank for Obama and is succeeding at suppressing any stories that might cast him in a bad light. Your reaction proves it's working.
the left-wing media pretty much solely consists of keith olbermann and rachel maddow. at least, on TV. anything else is basically center-right. hell, even olbermann has covered stories casting obama in a negative light, such as reverend wright and obama's flip-flop on the FISA bill.
basically, i'm just sick of hearing people call the whole entire media liberal when really only a tiny teensy portion of it is.
If the media's center-right, why do I have to learn about things like Obama's massive contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his efforts to stop any regulation of those two, from the blogosphere?
The entry I posted earlier, about the media sending squads to comb through McCain and Palin's garbage but not Obama or Biden's, says it all: the media is unabashedly in the tank for Obama. No story that casts him in a negative light will see the light of day.
i just heard about the obama/freddie/fannie thing today from an actual liberal outlet. i don't remember whether it was real time with bill maher or this american life. i'm sure many papers have published the story as well.
The figure comes from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That number doesn't lie. The other number comes from the decidedly partisan New York Times. I stand by the statement.
Of course you do, because even though it's a flawed measure, it supports your cause.
I thought you were an engineer?
"He's a born-again Christian."
Ah, so he's playing the "forgive me for my past actions, because I wasn't delusional before but I am now" card. Gotcha.
Or more likely just an electorate that is tired of "more of the same" and "science doesn't count if we say it doesn't."
If I thought McCain would be "more of the same", I'd be a lot happier voting for him than I am.
Well he looks like more of the same but not for very long to me. And Sarah Palin is too horrendous to contemplate, she'd definitely be worse than the same.
I don't particularly care for Obama or Biden, especially not Biden, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'd vote for McCain and Palin.
Obama's not running against Palin. He's running against McCain.
On top of that, Obama's never run anything but his mouth. Palin's run a business, a city, and a state. She's got the executive experience Obama is so sorely lacking in.
There's no way in hell I'll vote for Obama. He terrifies me too badly.
Sorry, but the city of Wasilla is nothing but the marijuana capital of Alaska. Running a state for a few months is nowhere better than being a Senator for a few months (or years, actually) and especially if the state is is thinly populated as Alaska. "Running" a state by ignoring or trying to repeal every environmental protection there is doesn't impress me at all. Hunting wolves from aircraft puts me off in no uncertain terms.
Ask anyone who lives in Alaska. Palin's experience is no better than Obama's. She was chosen not for any reason other than appeal to the religious right to try to get them back into the republican camp.
Whatever the merits or lack thereof of the city of Wasilla, and whatever the population of Alaska, the undeniable fact is that someone has to actually run them and make executive decisions, and that someone is the mayor or the governor. Palin's been there and done that. Obama has no experience that's in any way equivalent.
Except that I'm not at all happy with the executive decisions that Palin made, and I don't expect John McCain to live for four more years even if I did agree with his positions.
Every doctor that's examined McCain agrees that he's as healthy as, well, a horse, and expects him to live many more years.
Every doctor who was allowed to speak. As far as horses go, though, I'd trust mine as president first.
I'd trust your horse (any of them) before I'd trust Obama. They're likely smarter, as well.
insults are the last bastion of the desparate, Jay
I would have thought you learned that through your Tron Guy endeavors.
"'It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier,' said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. 'It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly.'"
even republicans agree that there's nothing there.
Nay, the 'inconvenient truth' about this whole thing... is that McCain has a relationship to the person in question, and Obama does not. (However, both are worthless points, Obama for what I just pointed out, and McCain for what you say above.)
In the case of Obama, it would be like accusing me of having some kind of 'nefarious association' with, say Sibe, by virtue of the fact if both of us somehow happened to be on the board running, say, MFF.
It's particualarly funny (or sad, perhaps) for this to be coming up again now, in the way it has, however - in the same.. the very same article... that Palin herself claims is the basis for her attack on Obama about this... that *very same* article concludes, at the end, that Obama had no meaningful or significant association with Ayers at all.
Boortz is sooooooo awesome!
I think Obama's Marxist ties and activity are more important than his terrorist ties (since I'm more likely to be taxed into oblivion than blown up). Probably helps that I'm currently reading Hayek's Road to Surfdom on the advice of a friend. It's been quite an eyeopener. Something written nearly 70 years ago and more true now than ever.