28 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

1. That’s right! Why hasn’t anyone talked about Ayers or Reds-go or whatever the hell his name is? It’s media bias I tell you. And another thing… everyone’s talking about all these “conservatives” that want her off the ticket. You know what? They are elitists too!

   They laugh at small town folk… but you know what… they can keep laughing, but Sarah Palin keeps roping in the endorsements. The latest ones come from Chuck and Sally Heath. See, what people seem to fail to understand is that Sarah Palin is a human interest story. After watching all the conflict and crisis in America today, sometimes you gotta just kick back and take in some empty calories. And you know what? Sarah Palin delivers.

   So to all those naysayers and doomsayers and critics out there that can do what they want because it’s a free country, Sarah Palin is just going to be Sarah Palin and take on her next challenge:

   Charming Voters One at a Time

   From your friends at SERENDIPITY

   Comment by merge divide — 9/29/2008 @ 5:20 pm

2. You know who might want Joe Biden off the Democrat ticket? Joe Biden.
   http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html

   Comment by JC for State Chairman — 9/29/2008 @ 7:32 pm

3. Great point, JC for State Chairman. I love when Biden says Hillary’s more qualified than he is!

   Comment by Spencer Doyle — 9/29/2008 @ 9:13 pm

4. These aren’t attacks on Palin. Asking her whether she agrees with the Bush Doctrine isn’t an attack. It’s her chance to show her opinion and expertise on foreign affairs. Just because she doesn’t know what the hell is going on in the world doesn’t mean that everyone is out to trap her.

   Comment by yuri — 9/30/2008 @ 3:49 pm

5. Does a gotcha question on the Bush doctrine really prove she has no idea what she’s talking about? I’d venture a guess and say she knows why she and her country are sending her child to Iraq.

   And, sorry to repeat myself, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in Obama’s foreign policy credentials either. Remember his grandfather who “liberated Auschwitz?” Obama’s campaigning in “57 states?” His demand that we recruit people who speak Arabic so we can communicate in Afghanistan? (!!!!). The difference here is that inexperience is on the top of their ticket.

   Comment by Tommy — 9/30/2008 @ 4:03 pm

6. My major point is these aren’t gotcha questions. It only seems like that because she knows very little.

   Comment by yuri — 9/30/2008 @ 5:10 pm

7. I don’t if you’ve noticed, but Obama has been running for president for some many months now - having done numerous press conferences, interviews, debates, etc. The media has jumped on every perceived gaffe - it’s what they LOVE to do. The same has been true of Biden, although Palin’s newness has taken the spotlight off of him. The fact is, Biden, McCain, and Obama all have much more foreign policy experience than Palin. But more importantly, they’ve all shown an interest in foreign policy. And most importantly, they’ve all been relatively accessible to the national and local media - it’s unheard of that a potential VP (or Pres) hasn’t had a press conference since she was nominated - or that she’s had only two major interviews (Hannity and Hugh don’t count). Her responses show not just that she doesn’t know the “correct” (or often McCain’s) answer, but that she doesn’t understand the question. It’s embarrassing to watch her, even for many conservatives! If you’re waiting for the media to “grill baby, grill” Obama, then you haven’t been paying attention for the past 20 months or so.

   Comment by archangel37 — 9/30/2008 @ 9:04 pm

8. I am still waiting for Obama and Biden to get grilled by the media, and I’ve been paying very close attention. Even O’Reilly’s interview let Obama off easy. Biden’s recent gaffes have basically been brushed off by the media, as if they are simply laughing, “Oh, there goes old Joe again. It’s what he does.” And Obama and Biden seem to disagree more than McCain and Palin, but the differences between the latter are more widely reported.
   It’s also not just gaffes we are talking about. It’s real issues regarding the candidate’s backgrounds that the media is inadequately reporting. They seem to think that Wasilla, Alaska has more political dirt and corruption than Chicago.
   I also wouldn’t say that Obama’s foreign policy credentials count as “experience.” He certainly has foregin policy knowledge, but the real experience comes from McCain.

   Comment by JC for State Chairman — 9/30/2008 @ 9:59 pm

9. JC, you haven’t been paying that much attention then - just yesterday, I heard some two or three times on CNN a comparison of Biden’s gaffe’s and Palin’s gaffe’s. The media LOVES these gaffes, on both sides - you can do a search of any of the major news sites and see stories on Biden’s gaffes. But there is a fundamental difference between the coverage of Biden and Palin’s coverage, precisely because there are fundamental differences between Biden and Palin! While there is no question that Biden is experienced, knowledgeable, and intellectually curious, there is serious doubt that Palin is - even among conservatives! Her “gaffes” matter more because there is less proof she understands the issues facing America, what the issues are, or even what McCain’s positions on those issues happen to be.
   Regarding the backgrounds, I haven’t seen a major news report saying that Wasilla has “more political dirt” than Chicago - they are saying Palin is involved in more political dirt than Biden. Indeed, she is the only one on either ticket involved in an ethics/abuse of power investigation!
   Finally, whether you consider Obama’s credentials as experience or knowledge, it’s clear that Palin has neither. She has no experience, no knowledge, no curiosity, and no ability to articulate well thought out answers on her own. She can’t even name a single Supreme court case beyond Roe and can’t name a single newspaper or magazine she reads. This is why the coverage of Palin is different and to ignore these simple facts is foolish.

   Comment by archangel37 — 10/1/2008 @ 11:27 am

10. Wow, 3 whole times! That absolutely proves the absence of media bias.
    Well I’m glad you admit that the media is covering Biden and Palin very differently. I’m not convinced that Biden’s gaffes should matter less. For a man that has been in the senate as long as he has, we should be concerned that he’s still making amateur mistakes. Certainly Palin’s involvement in international affairs does not compare to Biden’s, but ultimately Palin comes down on the right side of the debate. It is Biden that voted against the first Gulf war, it is Biden that proposed the now discredited partitoning of Iraq, and it is Biden that voted against the successful surge. But I think you proved my point. The media is more concerned about the Supreme Court cases and newspapers that Palin can list, and less concerned about Biden’s poor judgment in foreign policy.
    Obama’s involvement in Chicago’s notorious political wasteland is obvious and is dying to get reported, but as I wrote earlier, the media sends more investigative journalists to Wasilla. You will find more reports about “troopergate” than you would about Tony Rezko or Bill Ayers. I wouldn’t even call Palin’s involvement in the trooper issue a “scandal;” she asked for the termination of a trooper that tasered a 10 year old kid. It would be more scandalous if she didn’t have him fired.
    It doesn’t seem so, but I am actually not complaining about the media bias toward Palin. It is the inherent burden of a Republican seeking office. To deny, however, that media bias exists is more out touch than John Kerry at a hunting party.

    Comment by JC for State Chairman — 10/1/2008 @ 12:38 pm

11. JC - oh, no doubt, the media has a bias - but their main bias is not the one most Republicans, like yourself, believe it to be. It’s a horse-race bias, a gaffe bias, a need to fill 24 hour news cycle bias - but rarely a liberal bias.
    When I referred to the three times, I was talking about three times I listened to CNN yesterday - and every time I did, they mentioned Palin and Biden’s gaffe’s together. That didn’t even include the numerous times I read about it online! But that’s part of their mistake, pushed on by people like you. People who think the MSM is in the tank so much for Obama that the MSM gets scared. Then, the MSM attempts to equalize every gaffe, equalize every lie.
    I love your line about Palin coming down on the right side of the debate: What was Palin’s view on Gulf War I? Or the second war in Iraq? Or the Serbian conflict? Or the war in Afghanistan? Or her views on the partitioning of Iraq? Or of the surge, pre-VP talk? If you can find her views on any of these issues before becoming VP nominee, then I’ll wholly impressed. If you can’t, then I think you’ll understand my drift.
    The media is concerned with Palin’s judgement because it’s become increasingly clear she doesn’t have a judgment - right or wrong, you can at least argue with Biden because he’s staked out positions. He knows the arena. He knows the stakes. People can’t say that bout Palin!
    The fact is, Obama took on the Chicago political machine - he was running against a Democrat, a popular one, to win his state senate seat. He was 8 years old when Ayers did or said the things he did or said - they sat on the same board and Ayers had him in his home once. Rezko sold a strip of land to Obama. Go to the Chicago Tribue, they’ve done numerous stories, many of which have been picked up by the mainstream media. Or go to Factcheck.org - they discussed these issues for months. How else could I know these things if the MSM didn’t report them? Magic?
    What’s scandalous is that she fired the state’s top law enforcer because he didn’t want to fire Wooten - and then proceeded to lie at every new stage. If you consider that commendable, then it’s no wonder you likely supported Bush. Look, the media was IN LOVE with John McCain a few years ago - there is a reason he called them his base! The media loves access - but people like Palin, Cheney, Bush, and now McCain, who shy away from the public light and attack the media to rile up their base - yeah, they’re going to get more focus. How people like you aren’t up in arms that she still hasn’t done a major press conference less than 40 days before the election astounds me.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/1/2008 @ 1:00 pm

12. Palin had reason to fire the state’s top law enforcer because he failed to fire an unethical state trooper. I thought liberals were against police brutality, but I guess not when it comes to tasered 10 year old alaskan kids.

    Let’s not sugar coat what Ayers “did or said.” What he did was an act of terrorism- he bombed the pentagon, the Capitol Building, and an NYPD station, along with several other government buildings. He and Obama aren’t passing acquaintances. They are good friends. Ayers is unapologetic about what he did, so it’s not like Obama is friends with a reformed man. If an 8 year old on 9/11 were friends with Osama Bin Laden 30 years from that date, I’m sure even you wouldn’t find that friendship appropriate. Ayers hosted an event at his home for Obama’s first campaign for state senate. What are we supposed to think of a candidate that launches his campaign in the home of a terrorist?

    Rezko’s ties with Obama go beyond a simple strip of land. The transaction was very questionable, and the two have cut deals with each other before. As a state senator, Obama funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Rezko’s pet projects. As an attorney for the firm representing Rezko’s company, Obama provided legal cover to Rezko to allow him to continue running his properties like a slumlord. Obama never took on the Chicago political machine, he benefited from it.

    And I would like to know Palin’s stances on the first Gulf war, the surge, etc too. The media, however, doesn’t. They would rather ask her what newspapers she reads, why 9/11 happened, if homosexuality is a choice, if God is on our side…The media frankly doesn’t care about Palin’s policy stances; they want to portray her as Churchy McChurch frontier hick and they will ask the proper questions to satisfy that narrative.

    Comment by JC for State Chairman — 10/1/2008 @ 7:42 pm

13. Let’s take this issue by issue, as there’s a lot to discuss in these recent posts.

    The MSM definitely displays those aforementioned biases you referred to, archangel37. But, in sum, one can put them all together and notice that there is a leftward tilt in the news and opinion sections in TV and newspaper reports. If you look at any legitimate study of the political affiliation of reporters, you will find they’re overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. And why shouldn’t the MSM give equal time to gaffes by the Democrats? Isn’t that inherently fair?

    In all honesty, I don’t think Palin’s views on the Gulf War (’91) or Serbia (’91-95) are relevant. The Gulf War occurred before her time as a city councilwoman, Serbia during her tenure. The foreign policy crisis she MUST take a stand on, and has, is the War in Iraq. She entered public life before the war was launched (she was a mayor in ’02, serving on the oil and gas commission from ’03-’04), she has a child currently fighting in the conflict, and she will have to deal with it when she and John McCain win in November.

    Obama “took on” the political machine in Chicago?!?!?! That’s flat-out untrue, no question about it. He was a Daley man in principle and in practice. Obama launched his political campaign in the house of Ayers, and they served together on the board of a radical group called ACORN.

    Wooten should not have been a law enforcer to begin with. He was caught, if memory serves me correctly, with a beer in his patrol car, killing a moose illegally, and threatening to kill his father in law, not to mention the tazering of a 10 year-old. If that’s your idea of a good state trooper, then we have quite a few problems.

    Comment by Tommy — 10/1/2008 @ 9:13 pm

14. JC:I quote from the Anchorage Daily News, probably the best source for these stories: “Before she was governor, Palin pushed for a trooper investigation of Wooten over a number of matters, including using a Taser on his stepson, illegally shooting a moose, and accusations of driving drunk. At one point, Palin and her husband hired a private investigator.

    Troopers did investigate, and Wooten was suspended for 10 days, later reduced to five. That took care of it, Monegan said. But the Palin administration and Todd Palin wouldn’t let go, he said.” The police punished him, apparently not to the Palin family’s liking. But there are several things going on here: Can you say with any authority that if Wooten had done this to any other children not related to Palin, that Palin would have pushed to fire him? Do you think he’s the only state trooper who’s done something like this? Indeed, Palin completely denies firing Monegan because he failed to fire Wooten - she lied about there being an direct contact; finally admitted there was some contact; lied about the reason she fired him - first incompetence then for seeking federal money to prevent sexual assaults. If her motives were so benevolent, why didn’t she admit to firing Monegan for these reasons?
    Secondly, I’ve heard everything you’ve mentioned about Obama and Ayers - and not from Redstate. Why is that? Because the media beat it to death for weeks after Clinton mentioned it in a debate. And I would LOVE to see your evidence that Obama and Ayers were “good friends.” Moving along, Ayers was never responsible for killing a single innocent person - quite unlike Bin Laden. Moreover, Ayers is considered a distinguished professor - also quite unlike Bin Laden. While in your mind, one “terrorist” equals another, the reality is that isn’t true. But most importantly, the media has covered this. Try a google search, it’s not hard to find.
    The Rezko thing - covered - although not that well, at least if we can judge by your source. There’s no evidence that he funneled tax dollars to Rezko. He wrote a letter in support of low income housing, a letter Rezko didn’t ask for. Finally, Obama worked only 5 hours on Rezko related work - and you know what’s amazing, that I was able to find all of this out using the main stream media. Go figure.

    You don’t think the media would LOVE to ask her questions like these? Reporters would trip over themselves to ask her about the bailout (again). Or to ask her about her support of a constitutional right of privacy without a right to abortion. But they can’t because the McCain campaign won’t let them. She’s the only modern VP candidate to go this far without a single press conference because the press hasn’t been “deferential” enough to her. If there are things you don’t know, blame Palin and McCain, not the media.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/2/2008 @ 3:54 am

15. Tommy: Some studies have shown that journalists tend to be social liberals - but those same studies show they tended to be fiscal conservatives. Of course there is some bias among the MSM - but the fact remains, the most important biases aren’t political, but financial. It’s fine if the MSM wants to give equal time to gaffes - that’s what they do - but not all gaffes are created equal. And most importantly, they are a giant waste of time - but the financial pressure to fill up 24 hours news cycles requires this.
    Lovely, so we agree she should have views on Iraq - now, can you tell me what they were in August? Or her views on Afghanistan? Or her views on what to do about Bin Laden?
    Show me your evidence that he was a Daley man in practice and principle. Show me the evidence that Ayers and Obama were on the ACORN board together.
    Re: Wooten, he was punished for the things he did - and the top cop was satisfied with that punishment. Palin wasn’t, apparently. But instead of saying “I’m firing Monegan because he didn’t fire Wooten,” she lied about it, over and over. It’s classic Bush cover up, all over again. Like watching Godfather part 3.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/2/2008 @ 4:04 am

16. What?! Journalists are fiscal conservatives? Are you kidding me? Have you watched one iota of the financial crisis coverage? They’re down-the-line liberals, fiscally, internationally, socially, and otherwise. Why else would they lambast the House Republicans like they have for being “obstructionists”?

    Obama’s 1995 run for office was launched in the HOME of Bill Ayers. Though Obama was only 8 when the Pentagon was bombed, their connection later, in Obama’s public life before he ran for president, is undeniable. Start here:
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTUxNTZiOWUzNTdjZjVhNTM5YjYwOTkwYTE1OWMwNzI=

    and then go here for more info:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

    Obama depended upon the powerful Chicago Daley machine to get votes and crucial community support as a “community organizer.” There was a great National Review article a month back about his connections to Ayers, Pfleger, Daley, and Wright (with friends like these….). Obama depended upon the support of these shady characters to even PRETEND that he did something substantial in his early Chicago years.

    Comment by Tommy — 10/6/2008 @ 4:10 pm

17. Archangel, I’m intrigued by the standard you set for whom we befriend. “Ayers was never responsible for killing a single innocent person.” As if he didn’t try. And since Ayers only attempted murderer, any association Obama has with him is perfectly fine?

    Comment by JC for State Chairman — 10/6/2008 @ 10:39 pm

18. Tommy: So your sources for proving some nefarious link between Ayers and Obama is the National Review and Wikipedia. Two bang up sources there.

    Is there any doubt that Obama was in Ayer’s home, while Ayers was a professor at a distinguished University? Nope. Was there any doubt that they were on the same board together (And that it wasn’t ACORN?) Nope. Is there any doubt that their relationship ended about there and that they were not friends or even real acquaintances? Nope. Is there any evidence to suggest that Obama condoned Ayers’ actions. Nope - indeed, he publicly denounced Ayers.

    Again, I would love to see your evidence linking Obama to the typical Chicago political machine.

    Also of interest: McCain’s ties to ultra-conservative organizations that illegally supported the contras and had several anti-semitic leanings; or McCain’s ties to the Keating Five scandal. Or Palin’s ties to the Alaskan Independence Party, founded by someone with a professed hatred for America and its institutions.

    Most importantly, what all this Ayers stuff does is attempt to change the subject - because no one in their daily lives can say that this limited relationship has a bearing on the pressing issues facing America today. That’s a fact. People don’t want to hear about what groups McCain or Obama hung out with 10 or 20 years ago - they want to know what the candidates are going to do about the economic crisis going on Right Now.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/7/2008 @ 5:44 pm

19. JC,

    While changing the terms of the discussion might be an effective strategy, it generally only works when the other person can’t remember what the original discussion was. In this case, you were trying to compare Obama’s relationship to Ayers with a hypothetical relationship to Bin Laden. I pointed out that analogy failed on several levels, but I never said Ayers was a great guy and Obama should be proud to have known him. But this guilty by association crap isn’t helping anyone in America. It isn’t helping improve the economy. It isn’t even helping McCain win the election, even though he’s sold himself out to do so.

    Quite simply, there are much more important things that Americans are worrying about.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/7/2008 @ 5:49 pm

20. Archangel: My apologies for my last sub-par post. I agree National Review and Wikipedia aren’t the best sources (take a look at the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, and do a search on NR online for Obama-Ayers). Here’s one more:

    The University of Illinois at Chicago released information about “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge” which Ayers helped found and Obama chaired. How is that NOT a connection? Remember, Ayers bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol before anybody had ever heard of Al Qaeda, and Obama said he was “just a guy in my neighborhood.” What a joke.

    Obama has never denounced Ayers – only the violence of his actions. Note that he condemns none of Ayers’ anti-American beliefs. The fact to the matter is that they do not have to be friends – they’re associates. A man who will get 45%-50% of America’s votes come November knowingly and willingly cooperated with a domestic terrorist. Unacceptable.

    John McCain was one of five senators (4 Dems, 1 GOP) at the center of the Keating Five Scandal, yes. Nobody disputes that. The Senate Ethics Committee cleared McCain of all wrongdoing, though it also reprimanded him for “poor judgment.” But given McCain’s far-sighted positions on the Surge, Russia/Georgia, and spending, I’m 100% confident that McCain’s judgment is unmatched.

    Comment by Tommy — 10/15/2008 @ 8:20 pm

21. Tommy,

    You’re quite forgiven for the use of poor sources.

    You know what’s interesting to me is that you bring up the Annenberg Foundation - you do know that it was started by a Republican who once worked for Reagan, right? And you know that Walter Annenberg’s wife is now supporting McCain? Can we say that a Republican linked to McCain funded a domestic terrorist? Yup - they are “connected.”

    You must have missed the debate last night were Obama directly denounced Ayers and his actions during these times. Of course he denounced his anti-American beliefs. It’d be political suicide not too.

    Keating Five aside, what of McCain’s other ties? To the ultra-right wing group who illegally funded the Contras? Or their anti-Semitic ties? Or McCain’s ties to Gordon Libby? Or his transition to the White House chief who has ties to Saddam Hussein? Or his VP, who has ties to the Alaska Independence Party, a group founded by someone with a professed hatred for America? You don’t find any of these situations “unacceptable?”

    Re: The surge - what was the goal? McCain often confuses the tactics (bringing in lots of troops to reduce the violence) with the strategy/goal (to create breathing room for the political factions in Iraq to create last stability). It’s not clear at all the surge was strategically successful. Moreover, a study done by UCLA more than suggests that the Real cause for the drop in violence was ethnic cleaning done primarily before the surge began.

    Colin Powell suggested that McCain’s saber-rattling in the Georgia/Russian conflict was uncalled for, stating that he believed Georgia started the conflict. In regards to McCain’s “we are all Georgians” comment, Powell had this to say: “You have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you’ve taken a good analysis of the whole situation.” Hardly a ringing endorsement, eh?

    Finally, on spending, McCain is sort hopelessly attached to the idea of being an Earmark crusader that he’s convinced himself he can balance the budget in his first four years in office, something NO ONE believes he can actually do. At the same time that he’s promised a spending freeze, he’s proposed billions of dollars in new spending, including buying up bad mortgages at Face Value, and passing on the immediate loss to tax payers. If you’re hoping for a classic “tax cuts and spending cuts” Republican, McCain isn’t your man.

    He was wrong about going to Iraq. He was wrong to suggest “Next stop, Iraq” after 9/11. He was wrong to assume things would be easy. He was wrong to assume we’d be greeted as liberators. He is wrong about the time-table. He was wrong about the Georgian/Russian conflict. And that’s all just foreign policy. And most importantly, in the most important decision a presidential candidate makes, whom to choose for his VP, he was Very Wrong. He picked a political lightweight because he thought it would be the best political choice, throwing out all his arguments that the VP needed to be ready on Day One and that Obama was too inexperienced to be President.

    Some judgment.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/16/2008 @ 10:05 am

22. well put archangel

    Comment by yuri — 10/16/2008 @ 5:20 pm

23. I know this post is yesterday’s news, but I cannot allow some of these statements to stand. Obama and Ayers SERVED TOGETHER on the Board of the Annenberg foundation, therefore they are associated. They rubbed shoulders, working together in the cesspool of Chicago’s politics. If McCain and Ayers were ever associated, please post a link, I cannot wait to see it. Has Annenberg’s wife even met McCain?

    Oh and check out Obama’s glowing review of Ayers’ book: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/4932. It took HOW long for Obama to disassociate himself with this guy? 20 years for Reverend Wright. How long will it take Obama to disassociate himself from a sub-par cabinet member, ambassador, or party official? He makes George Bush look like a pragmatist, and that’s saying something.

    Who’s “Gordon Libby”? If you’re referring to G. Gordon Liddy, I think it’s safe to say he’s paid his debt to society with his jail time. He’s a fixture in the conservative media, and quite a few people appear on his national radio show. If McCain is guilty of a terrible association here, so are quite a few other center-right figures in American politics/media.

    The goals and tactics of the Surge are linked. And they both worked. A reinforced security presence in the country allowed us to wage a classic counterinsurgency strategy– which, by the way, is working to this day. Violence levels countrywide are down 80-90%. You Democrats are stuck in 2006, still thinking some form of unconditional, immediate pullout is popular with the American people. It isn’t, which is why the media has completely dropped the issue.

    I’m fans of Powell and McCain both. Smart, reasonable people will have their disagreements. Powell is a wonderful American and a courageous, intelligent man. Ditto with McCain. Wish I could say the same about the Messiah, but I cannot.

    And since we’re discussing foreign policy faults, let’s take a few looks at Obama’s: 1) He’d meet with any foreign leader of any country without precondition in the first year of his presidency, 2) Thought his grandfather liberated a Polish concentration camp, 3) Wants to invade/bomb Pakistan, 4) Called a nuclear-armed Iran “a small threat”, 5) Called for Georgian restraint after Russia invaded the tiny country, 6) Was against a united Jerusalem before he was for it, 7) Is against missile defense programs in the age of Iran-North Korea-Russia, Said (as have you) that the Surge had little to nothing to do with the diminishing violence, and 9) Picked an “experienced” Senator as his VP who voted against the Reagan defense buildup, the Gulf War, then was for toppling Saddam before Bush got in office, then reversed course when the war went badly – opting instead for a “partition” scheme that, if enacted, would have dwarfed the levels of violence in 2004-2006.

    Comment by Tommy — 10/21/2008 @ 1:23 am

24. Tommy - it’s worth looking into these things before you post.

    1) Ayers and Obama didn’t serve together on the Annenberg Challenge board: “However, Ayers “was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge,” and he “never made a decision programmatically or had a vote,” Rolling said.” - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/ . And if you can provide a picture of them “rubbing shoulders” or hob-knobbing or palling around, or some other evidence of them working closely together on the cease-pool of Chicago politics, I’d love to see the link.
    2) I have no idea whether McCain has met Annenberg’s wife - but she is prominently listed on his website as a supporter. Stands to reason he’s ok with her support then. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-4868-9906-62f555376089.htm

    3) So your proof that Ayers and Obama are connected is Obama saying his book is “searing and timely.” Really. That’s it? Maybe the idea of rehabilitation seems impossible to you, but it was, and in many cases, still is a part of our criminal justice system and moral system in America. And Obama makes Bush look like a pragmatist? Come again? Please do explain in greater detail, because I certainly don’t see it.

    4) Yep - Liddy. My sincerest apologies. So, conservatives can be rehabilitated but 60’s radicals can’t. That it? But your point of “if McCain has a negative association, so do lots of other conservatives” brings up the main point. The ridiculousness of guilt by association. Such as….Annenberg started a foundation. That foundation gave a grant to Ayer’s cause. McCain proudly announces his support from Annenberg’s wife - a person who funded a domestic terrorist! My goodness, that’s really easy to do. And pointless.

    5) Was an immediate troop withdrawal ever popular with the American people? Even if it was, that isn’t what Obama is talking about. Nonetheless, the American people don’t want troops in Iraq for another 100 years. They want out of Iraq. Most importantly, the Iraqi people don’t want us there. Their Prime Minister, al-Maliki, all but supported Obama’s timetable for leaving Iraq. More Americans agree with Obama’s plan than with McCain’s plan. That’s just fact. More people disagree with the war in Iraq. Also a fact. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

    6) Powell considers Obama a better pick for president. Both because Obama has the qualities to be president and McCain has shown Powell some qualities that disqualify him- erratic actions on the economy, too much foreign policy aggression, negative campaiging and for picking Palin, whom he considers not ready to lead the United States. But what does a former general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of State know about that, eh?

    7) Although he’s since clarified those initial statements, even Kissenger agrees in meeting with our enemies. Powell agrees. Foreign Policy heavyweights agree with Obama.

    Actually, he said his great uncle liberated a concentration camp. He did, but Obama initially got the name of the camp wrong. What a travesty.

    Obama wants to invade Pakistan if have credible evidence that we can get Osama and if Pakistan won’t do it. Which Palin agreed with, no less, before she realized she wasn’t supposed to say that out-loud. And even McCain suggested he’d do it - but just wouldn’t announce it (not like that bomb bomb bomb Iran or “Next up, Iraq” bit, of course). But hey, if you support letting Osama stay free, that’s your call.

    Called Iran, which currently doesn’t have nuclear weapons, a tiny threat compared to the Soviet Union back in the day. Which is completely true. And?

    Georgia started the conflict in the region - Powell acknowledged this. He even said McCain’s actions/words were naive concerning the Russian/Georgian conflict.

    Missile defense programs which work? Or that don’t escalate the tensions in the world? Right….

    A surge which likely reduced the violence -but also may have been because of increased ethnic cleansing?

    And McCain, who picked an “experienced” executive - who had what views on foreign policy before she took the job? Any?

    If even Colin Powell, one of the foremost foreign policy experts in the world, can see and publicly state that Obama has what it takes to be president, that McCain is too erratic, and that Palin isn’t ready, I would hope that you would give up on that line of argument. But I’m sure you won’t. You need some way to rationalize a vote for McCain, despite Palin. So, by all means, if guilt by association or some Republican talking points do it for you, then vote for McCain, the third coming of George W. Bush economics and foreign policy. I’m sure the third time is a charm.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/21/2008 @ 11:58 am

25. Oh yes, before I forget, Tommy:

    I noticed that you didn’t talk about McCain’s ties to the ultra-right wing group illegally supporting the Contras, or their anti-semitic ties. Or Palin’s connections to the AIP, a group that advocates seceding from the United States, founded by someone with a professed hatred for America.

    I’m sure it’s coming in the next post, though. Right? Certainly, someone such as yourself who abhors anti-American ties or negative associations will denounce McCain and Palin for these connections, correct?

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/21/2008 @ 12:01 pm

26. Liberals remind you of how credible Colin Powell is, just like they’ve said for years.

    Comment by Justin! — 10/21/2008 @ 4:32 pm

27. Justin!

    Well, it certainly is humorous to find lots of conservatives suddenly deciding Powell has no clue what he’s talking about. But I was going off of what Tommy said to me - his respect for Powell.

    It’s always bothered that Powell didn’t do more to slow down the march to War - and it’s something that he regrets. Does that suddenly mean he’s not a good judge of McCain’s character or actions? Or that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to talking to foreign leaders or dealing with a foreign crisis? Would I give him the immediate benefit of the doubt if he went up to the UN to make another case for another war? No, probably not. But that doesn’t mean I can’t point out his expertise or his reasoning for supporting Obama and not supporting McCain, especially to those who do value Powell’s views.

    Are there going to be some liberals who suddenly love Powell just because he backed Obama? Yeah, probably. As there will be conservatives/Republicans who suddenly don’t like Powell just because he endorsed Obama. Both are silly positions, if you ask me. Sillier still to argue he only endorsed him because of race, but hey, what do I know.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/21/2008 @ 5:09 pm

28. We’re going to play a game called “who said this quotation.”

    “Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests. … Kill the sons of bitches.”

    If your guess is Bill Ayers, guess again. No, it’s not McVeigh either. It’s Gordon Liddy in 1994 - a prominent supporter of McCain.

    Or: ” “I’m … not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”; “The fires of hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.”

    If your guess is Rev. Wright, nope. No, still not McVeigh. It’s the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, which Todd Palin was a member of and that Palin supported throughout her political years in Alaska.

    This whole guilt by association stuff is easy - no wonder it’s all that McCain is depending on to win the election.

    Comment by archangel37 — 10/21/2008 @ 5:26 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.