Amazon.com Widgets

« Bill Maher - New Rules | Main | Common Man-Off »

John McCain: Member of the Keating Five

Keating Economics I wondered if the McCain attack on Barack Obama's association with Ayers would go unchallenged. Here's the answer.




Quicktime Video 19.2 MB | Duration: 13'26
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

This is really getting ugly, I am not sure Obama's campaign should do this. I would prefer if he came forward with a great speech to the public on how they want to address the economy.

Watch the live congressional hgearing on Lehman brothers ( i obviously have the day off work), it is horrifying. These wall street guys are criminals. They took massive, massive, massive payouts, while the company was going under and they were negotiating a bailout from us the government. These guys should be sued for money from shareholders and put in jail. Makes Conrad Black look like a nice guy.

No, this is good.

It's not a message for the public. It's a message from Obama to McCain. You dig in my shit and I will bury you in yours.

McCain may not be rational enough to listen, but the message couldn't be more clear.

I semi agree to this aspect as well.

But the stuff McCain is bringing up is old news. It's been dug in before.

"I am not sure Obama's campaign should do this. "

Go, O.!

I feel this is an adequate response from the Obama campaign.

For the last 5 days McCain/Palin have done nothing but bring up Bill Ayers and tried to portray Obama as a radical terrorist. While this has not been received well, it will succeed in changing the focus of the race and force Obama to play defense again.

However, people haven't heard about the Keating 5 during this election cycle. Sure it's been hinted at, but it hasn't been brought up by the Obama campaign. By bringing it out now, in a time where McCain is doing nothing but negative campaigning, the fact that it's negative will be diminished a bit. Also, the fact that it's a negative connection for McCain related to the economy is even better. It will keep the focus on the economy and people will feel even worse about McCain handling the current situations.

Even now the McCain campaign has to spend the rest of the day trying to spin the Keating 5 connection while the Obama campaign can allow the media to diffuse all the smears against him. All the smears McCain is using are old news. People don't want old news.

Obama is playing this just right, as of today. Let Palin/McCain get up and complain about Ayers, without any real substance, in their campaign speeches, devoid of any other real policy or direction.

Now, when the "news" talks about this, instead of just reporting "Palin says stuff about Obama's friends", the conversation becomes, "Palin says stuff about Obama's friends and Obama replies by bringing up the Keating 5 scandal of the 80's". Even if Obama refutes the smears about Ayers, the headlines will talk about only the McCain Campaign (and palin, mostly). This online response changes that to almost requiring the news to be about both campaigns and their "associations". The news yesterday was all about the "gloves off" of the McCain Campaign's new approach, today (or tonight) it will be about both sides, rather than replaying ad-nauseum the Palin zingers.

Put this sort of information out there in response, but stick to the issues in your speeches and policy debates.

The Keating Five was a legitimate scandal, not guilt-by-association, so there's no problem at all with Obama going with it, especially when McCain's campaign has retracted his former apology for the episode and is now calling it a smear job.

As for response to Ayers, you can look no further than G Gordon Liddy. The guy is a felon who plotted to kill journalists for Nixon. He told listeners to his radio program how to kill ATF agents--"shoot for the head". Great buddy of McCain, who has appeared many times on the Liddy show.

But Liddy is a movie star! A bestselling author! A friend of Al Franken! Yes, and William Ayers is closer to the mayor of Chicago and other completely mainstream politicians than Obama is. It turns out that people who were formerly beyond the pale do rehabitiate themselves and are accepted back into decent political society. That's what's happened to countless scoundrels and that's what happened with Ayers, who barely knows Obama, let alone "palls around" with him. I really would have thought that they'd have better stuff than this on Obama.

If Palin were the Democratic nominee we would hear a solid month of nothing but the affair she allegedly had with her husband's former business partner.

"If Palin were the Democratic nominee we would hear a solid month of nothing but the affair she allegedly had with her husband's former business partner."

LOL. I have wondered why this hasn't been brought up more. I mean I know it was an Enquirer story, but you think after the Edwards scandal they would have some credit.

Quite possibly the most pathetic attempt at a smear I've yet to see - John McCain was, of course, fully exonerated of any wrongdoing in this matter:

The cloud of scandal did not lift until Nov. 20, 1991, when he was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee after an investigation that included weeks of televised hearings. The committee found that Mr. McCain had ''exercised poor judgment'' in attending, with four other senators, two meetings with federal banking regulators, but it found no improper action on his part. ''I found nothing in my investigation which caused me to question Senator McCain's integrity,'' said Robert Bennett, the Washington lawyer who was special counsel to the ethics panel during what is called the Keating Five investigation. Mr. Bennett, more recently, has been one of President Clinton's lawyers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E7D9123CF932A15752C1A96F958260

But of course with the Obama Kool-Aid drinkers, it doesn't matter, right? He can bring up charges of which McCain was fully cleared, yet nobody worries that Obama:

  • Started his political career with the help of an unapologetic domestic terrorist
  • Will not publicly reveal his funding, while there are many reasons to believe he is receiving money from illegal contributors including foreign groups
  • Was tied to racist, anti-American pastor Jeremiah Wright for twenty years.
  • Has ties to the scandalously corrupt group ACORN
  • Worked for the Joyce Foundation, funneling slush funds into attempts to strike the second amendment
  • Has close ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • Took the second-highest amount of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • Refuses to allow anyone to see his thesis or obtain any information on his school years
  • Worked out a shady land/property deal with Antoin Rezko

... and the list continues.

And I find it ironic that you bring up the concept of sex scandals. Barney Frank, one of the loudest champions of Fannie/Freddie, the guy who repeatedly said there was nothing wrong while Republicans screamed for regulation ... was fucking an executive at Fannie Mae.

Yes, it is going to get ugly. The secrets of the Obama campaign & the Democratic party are going to come out, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media.

the guy who repeatedly said there was nothing wrong while Republicans screamed for regulation

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ..

..

BAHAHAHAHH!H!!! .. AHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH...

Calligraph just answered the question to "what is the sound of one hand clapping".. it's the same sound as a republican 'screaming' for regulation.

You're such a tool. I hope the McCain campaign is sending you a signed book or something for all this astroturfing..

I watched this and thought one of the most damning things was the quote that he "exercised poor judgement," and you're using in his defence. Heh.

You had a good link for McCain. He was basically found guilty of poor judgment but not any wrong doing. Poor judgment indeed, on an issue that's rearing its ugly ugly head at the moment.

As for Obama - you really have nothing of substance. Lots of stuff and nothing to back it up. The others have all covered this; I need not repeat. Hell, people live in the same apartment building in NYC and never meet.

calligraph:

The Keating Five investigation cleared McCain of ethics violations. But the underlying point was that the met with federal regulators on behalf of Savings and Loan interests, the same ones at the center of the huge federal bailout of financial institutions in the late 80s. Let the voters decide if that's at all relevant to what's going on right now.

"Started his political career with the help of an unapologetic domestic terrorist."

What does this even mean? Obama lived in Hyde Park, like Ayers. Obama directed a board of a charitable trust Ayers was on. Ayers is a rehabilitated radical and criminal who's now your run-of-the mill annoying local community do-gooder. It's frankly not that shocking of a story (speaking of the recent history--not Ayers personally or his violent past), and the fact that people are wailing that "Obama lived a half-mile away from Ayers in Manhattan!" proves either that some people don't know what Manhattan is or they have almost nothing to prove a damning connection between Obama and Ayers.

Barney Frank cracks me up! More power to him if he was doing the dirty with some guy at Fannie Mae. That's the stuff of legend. They could write smutty songs about that. The possibilities are endless.

I'm pleased to see the Rolling Stone article digging a little deeper into the substance of our "American hero," John "Crash" McCain. The fact that McCain acknowledges he never need have been shot down over Hanoi if he had been a better pilot. The fact that it was McCain's bomb that cooked off in the fire on the Forrestal that claimed so many lives, that McCain's lack of engagement, lack of character really, could be seen as contributory negligence to the scope of the disaster, his playboy habits, his privileged life as the son and grandson of US Navy Admirals, his addiction to gambling, his shameless treatment of his first wife, all these things and many, many more are referenced in Make Believe Maverick, the Real Story of John McCain by Tim Dickinson.

Will not publicly reveal his funding, while there are many reasons to believe he is receiving money from illegal contributors including foreign groups
Unlike the current FEC complaint against McCain that he's been receiving donations above the $2,300 limit?

Was tied to racist, anti-American pastor Jeremiah Wright for twenty years.

One word: Hagee. Which his 'support' was important to mccain, and mccain looked for during his presidential campaign. You decide what's worse (gee, i wonder what you'll say).

Started his political career with the help of an unapologetic domestic terrorist."

I find this terrorist tripe to be some of the most disgusting political discourse I have seen in a long time.

The man was a protester that took part in vandalizing government buildings with explosives. They did so at times that would avoid injuries or loss of life.

Last I checked that is not within the bounds of "terrorism" unless you believe the US government should not be afraid of its people. By the same definition George Washington and the Sons of Liberty were terrorists.

The use of Terrorist here is despicable slur. Calli, you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such Un-American (in the real definition of that word) bullshit.

Further more, there is no evidence that the man is anything more than an acquaintance of Obama.

Agreed. There is a reason why he's called a 'terrorist' but it's never described that his bombings were in relation to the Vietnam war.

Instead, they link the interview published on 9/11/01 in the NYT about saying he doesn't regret the bombs. They never mention the intentions behind the bombings, instead they are trying to tie Ayers to Islamic Terrorists by leaving out pertinent information about the Vietnam War.

The Ayers thing is ridiculous, totally ridiculous, the Resko/house thing shows some bad judgement, the keating thing was very very bad judgement and in the current climate would be criminal. I mean McCain lobbied that charges NOT BE LAID against the guy.

First calli, who never answers any of my questions. The Keating report says he showed bad judegement. BAD JUDGEMENT. HOW, by doing what McCain always yells at folks for

Mr maverick says he will clean up washington, but has a guy currently being paid by fanniemac running he campaign he takes multiple gifts/trips and writes at least 5 letters supporting Keating, he family is involved in a VERY VERY suspicious deal ( 25 % INTEREST WITH NO RISK, who gets that) with Keating.

McCain was the one palling around with know criminals, he lobbied for his criminals pals best interest to limit measures that would have prevented the S and L debacle, lobbied that he would not be charged, and you say that ayers is fair game and not this?????

Your VP candidate is being investigated right now for a scandal, that even if she is exonerated from, demonstrates dramatically poor judgement and a certain lack of interest in the law.

The Ayers thing is ridiculous, totally ridiculous, the Resko/house thing shows some bad judgement, the keating thing was very very bad judgement and in the current climate would be criminal. I mean McCain lobbied that charges NOT BE LAID against the guy.

First calli, who never answers any of my questions. The Keating report says he showed bad judegement. BAD JUDGEMENT. HOW, by doing what McCain always swears he will do, influence peddling.

Mr maverick says he will clean up washington, but has a guy CURRENTLY being paid monthly by fanniemac running he campaign, he takes multiple gifts/trips from Keating and writes at least 5 letters supporting Keating, he family is involved in a VERY VERY suspicious deal ( 25 % INTEREST WITH NO RISK, who gets that) with Keating.

McCain was the one palling around with know criminals, he lobbied for his criminals pals best interest to limit measures that would have prevented the S and L debacle, lobbied that he would not be charged, and you say that ayers is fair game and not this?????

Your VP candidate is being investigated right now for a scandal, that even if she is exonerated from, demonstrates dramatically poor judgement and a certain lack of interest in the law.

Look I think all politicians are basically crooks, but this scandal does demonstrate bad judgement in McCain's role as a government official, it demonstrates how he does not believe in any regulations for the finanical industry, and demonstrates that he WAS influenced poorly by his associations. This is a legitimate issue on his ability to govern.

I couldn't care less about McCain's scary preacher, or Sarah Palins scary preacher, Obama's preacher at least seems to care about his congregation, the poor blacks in his community.

The Ayers thing is ridiculous, totally ridiculous

Really? Why? Are you really of the camp that thinks planting explosives in US buildings is just "vandalizing" them? Were we wrong in convicting McVeigh - was he just "vandalizing"?

Ayers has refused to apologize for his terrorist actions, has stated that he thinks he "didn't do enough", and was fundamental in shaping the career of Barack Obama. If you think that's "ridiculous", I agree with you but for completely different reasons.

Resko/house thing shows some bad judgement

BAD JUDGEMENT?!? Bad Judgement?!?!?!?!!!

Oh hang on, I thought I was you for a second. Let's just go to Wikipedia for a full assessment of this "bad judgment":

After becoming a major contributor to Rod Blagojevich's successful gubernatorial election, Rezko assisted Blagojevich in setting up the state's first Democratic administration in 20 years. Rezko was able to have business associates appointed onto several state boards. Rezko and several others were indicted on federal charges in October 2006, for using their connections to the state boards to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state. While the others pleaded guilty to the charges, Rezko pleaded not guilty and was found guilty of 16 of the 24 charges filed against him.

The "links to Barack Obama" section is too long to quote here, but suffice it to note that Obama had ties to Rezko from 1990 forward.

the keating thing was very very bad judgement and in the current climate would be criminal.

Ah, so the words of the investigative commission mean nothing when you disagree with them, right? I'll repeat: McCain was exonerated of all wrongdoing. He also paid back every cent he received from Keating's company as an attempt to make amends.

To say you are stretching by reaching back to the 80's to find a case in which McCain was fully exonerated - that's the understatement of the year. Barack Obama has been palling around with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac up until this year. He took the second most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He asked Jim Johnson to vet his VP pick. This is your "Mr. Change"?

There is no longer any rational discussion of this. You are entrenched. You will vote for Obama no matter how many racist people he has associated with for most of his life, no matter his connection to radical groups, no matter his disturbing statements from his autobiographies, no matter how many shady deals are in his past, no matter his lack of experience, no matter his ties to unscrupulous organizations, no matter the fact that his party created this financial mess, no matter anything. Please stop pretending you are making this decision based on fact and reason.

Finally, a video showing your "party of change" lobbying to keep Fannie Mae unregulated. The truth will continue to come out, folks, no matter how much boy-toy Barney Frank and Obama try to stifle it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmcGKbvTLSM

Really? Why? Are you really of the camp that thinks planting explosives in US buildings is just "vandalizing" them? Were we wrong in convicting McVeigh - was he just "vandalizing"?

McVeigh MURDERED people you fuck. Murder its killing people. With a car bomb big enough to demolish an entire building.

Your equating throwing a small bomb through the window of an empty building to make a political statement to a mass murder.

That is despicable

There was noting wrong, illegal, or suspect about the house/land deal Obama made with Rezko.

Rezko was found out to be scum, so this deal was looked into and found to be clean. Even scum do legit business deals from time to time.

Obama's relations with Fanny and Freddie are good points of rebuke imo.

Change is - Democrats in charge.

Change is - No more 'Veitnam Era' thinking.

Change is - Breaking the highest ceiling on race.

Change is - a swing towards more liberal policies

Change is - someone who inspires the poor and middle class, instead of scaring them.

McCain is fundamentally not going to change anything. Obama is not going to really fundamentally change politics, but he is going to fundamentally bring about a change in the country because of who he is and what he inspires. He inspires people to get involved in their government once again, and that is exactly what we need. He is not perfect, and his supporters don't think he is. They think he is the chance for a new beginning in America, and for now, that is enough.

The Ayers thing is ridiculous

This is true.

Calm down calli,...

The issue is not whether ayres, resko, wright are bad guys, the issue is whether there is any substance that they say have anything to show about Obama.

Ie. i work as a psychiatrist, Let us say I have worked in the same department with an unethical psychiatrist, does that make me unethical? Does sitting on the same board that addresses the need of the mentally ill make me unethical? Does sitting on the same committee?

Actually they do not.

But, let us say i also used the unethical methods of this psychiatrist, or went to department meetings suggesting that this persons unethical behaviour should not be punished, or if I knowingly profited from money from this unethical psychiatrist's behaviour, or helped cover up this persons unethical behaviour, that would be different.

So ayres, there is nothing that suggests obama supported his past behaviour, or that the boards he sat on were nothing other than trying to improve education for kids.

Resko, he should not have gotten into a personal business transaction with him, (why, because it looks bad, and this can matter) but there was no evidence Obama was doing political favours for Rezko.

Wright, there is nothing wrong with Wright anyway. All of them have crazy religious pastors.

Keatings. He went to meetings promoting deregulation on behalf of Keatings,he wrote letters (5) supporting this deregulation, he went to meeting suggesting he NOT be charged, all the while accepting free (7?) trips. I suppose I should take back the criminal thing, but he took favours from him, then clearly lobbied for this criminal. Seems as bad as Abramhoff.

I personally think (keating) is old news and not what we should be talking about, but to say this is less revelant than the crap about ayres and wright is silly. I also think the preacher attacks should be out of bounds. Palin can be saved from witchcraft and speak in tongues, McCain can have his anti catholic guy, and change religions all he wants and Obama can have the black power guy. Leave them crazy preachers alone.

But on a funny note obama has one, mccain has two, i wanna be your crazy preacher

Sorry for the repeat postings.

All this discussion should be on how we can stop these politicians from having relationships with lobbyists and being influenced, either overtly or even subconsicously. I have watched the medical doctors convince themselves that they are not influenced by simple dinners at a restaurant, but all available evidence suggests that THEY are influenced by such minor things.

How can we stop this influence on such a bigger scale with politics? If a chicken dinner can influence a doctor, what do these huge donations do, what do fancy dinners on yachts with movie stars do? Why would businesses, lobbyists give so much money to politicians if they didn't end up influencing them?

We need to stop this, put in very very harsh ethics rules with criminal sanctions in them, to prevent conflict of interest etc.

Your equating throwing a small bomb through the window of an empty building to make a political statement to a mass murder.

Yes, I am. And the only thing that amazes me is that you seem to think they're not only drastically different, but that "throwing a small bomb through the window of an empty building" is somehow a valid and reasonable way to make a political statement.

Did you feel that way when Baptists were bombing abortion clinics?

How about when anti-integration Southerners were burning black churches?

Seriously, you need to take a step back and breathe and really think about what it is you're saying. I imagine if one of the cops murdered by Ayers' Weather Report extremists was in your family, you'd see it differently. But again it amazes me that it would require such a direct connection to the event for you to decry it.

But thank you for showing me exactly what type of person is going to vote for Obama.

There was noting wrong, illegal, or suspect about the house/land deal Obama made with Rezko.

Those are all your judgments of the situation. The fact is that their business together was never investigated. Yes, it is "guilt by association" because there was no trial.

I'll state outright that I think this is the least scummy of all of Obama's skeletons. But it's not the only one.

Didn't Clinton have some real estate crimes in his past? What is it with Democrats and electing people who commit fraud in real estate?

Obama's relations with Fanny and Freddie are good points of rebuke imo.

This is what people have been screaming and crying for McCain to bring up. He has steadfastly refused to. You know why? Because he didn't want to point fingers in a time of national crisis.

You can kneejerk-hate McCain all you want, but throughout this entire financial mess he has been the real leader. He has been the one trying to find a solution, while Obama just laid back and blamed others. I called him first! Issuing a statement was my idea! It's not my fault, it's the fault of greed on Wall Street! It's the fault of the people who cried for more regulation while my cronies insisted there be less!

Change is - Democrats in charge. Change is - No more 'Veitnam Era' thinking. Change is - Breaking the highest ceiling on race. Change is - a swing towards more liberal policies Change is - someone who inspires the poor and middle class, instead of scaring them.

The first is superficial, and an odd way to think when we're in a crisis created by Democrats. The second is nonsensical - what 'Vietnam Era' thinking are you talking about? The third is moronic. You are talking about the ultimate Affirmative Action program: put a black man into the office just to make a point? The fourth is ridiculous - how do liberal ideas help this country? Shouldn't we want good ideas, regardless of party - and a man who works with both parties to enact such ideas? And the fifth is just fearmongering and nonsense. If Barack Obama was ever "working class" he hasn't been since he went to Harvard. And who 'inspires' the working class/middle class more: the guy who says you can make money and we won't take it, or the guy who wants to tax you to set up socialist institutions?

The change McCain would bring is the sensible kind of change you should expect in a mature form of government: gradual and systemic change of known problems.

He inspires people to get involved in their government once again, and that is exactly what we need.

Obama inspires voters the way Gore inspired people to fight global warming: by buying a t-shirt, clicking a link, or watching a video and feeling 'hope'. It's the ultimate self-gratification. Real change, real progress, doesn't require a two-minute commitment.

So ayres, there is nothing that suggests obama supported his past behaviour, or that the boards he sat on were nothing other than trying to improve education for kids.

Obama worked for Ayers' non-profit group, eventually becoming the chairman. We can't find out more because the University of Illinois refuses to release any records.

Obama fans try to claim that there was little contact, they just "happened" to be together. But they "happened" to be together in various circumstances for well over a decade. Obama started his political career in Ayers' house.

Something interesting I found out while looking this stuff up - FactCheck.org, the supposedly non-partisan source which has suspiciously sided with Obama on many issues, is a division of the Annenberg Foundation ... which is the organization in which Obama and Ayers met and first worked together.

Wright, there is nothing wrong with Wright anyway.

Funny how tolerant left-wingers are of screaming, bigoted, racist religious people ... when they're involved with a left-wing candidate.

I personally think (keating) is old news and not what we should be talking about

And here I disagree with you. We need to hear all the 'dirty laundry' of everyone (at least, as it relates to their job - I don't really care about Obama's drug use, or McCain's divorce). These are the people who are trying to run our country. You should hear everything about both of them, and actually decide if these issues matter to you, not bury your head in the sand.

I welcome Obama digging this up. I'm certain McCain isn't worried - he can just issue the findings of the investigative commission to show his innocence.

But what can Obama do in response?

All Obama has done is lie about his connections, understate their importance, and refuse to release documents that would shed more light on his past.

And all the mainstream media does is cover for him.

And all his brainwashed followers do is shrug and blindly check the box next to his name.

In the meantime, here's a great video of Barack "genius" Obama making idiotic statement after idiotic statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzi2EqsMUm0&feature=related

Now I see why the Daily Show and Bill Maher are so merciless in making fun of Obama ... oh, wait ...

user-pic

Well I'll have you know that Ronald Reagan starred along side a monkey before rising to become the leading symbol of the "conservative" movement:

AND Reagan was friends with actor and NRA activist Charlton Heston. One of Heston's most notorious roles was an astronaut who traveled to.. get this.. the "planet of the apes"!!! a movie whose crew included 60's radical and make-up artist John Chambers (who was also responsible for Spock's ears).

And even more telling this "fictional" movie contains blatant imagery of the wanton destruction of - yes - a prominent New York City Landmark.

Reagan, Heston, Apes, 9-11. Do I need to say more? Or is this not clear proof that no matter how many links or spurious connections you try to insinuate on this discussion, you are - Calligraph - a stupid poo-throwing monkey.

Barack Obama is actually very smart - do you doubt that?

And, if you want to read about the Make-believe Maverick, there is a great article so now you can't say you didn't know better. There's a great picture of McCain and Keating at Down with Tyranny and, if you want to talk about guilt by association did you hear Begala talking about the racist, anti-Semitic group McCain was on the board of - that was in '81 and they finally had to boot out some of the neo-Nazis in 84 or 85. But, keep up the talking points on the make-believe mavericks, calligraph - they're so interesting....

Meanwhile, DWT also pointed to this USA today piece on how the Democratic voter role is growing and the Republican is shrinking. Looks good so maybe you can't fool most of the people most of the time....

Seriously, you need to take a step back and breathe and really think about what it is you're saying. I imagine if one of the cops murdered by Ayers' Weather Report extremists was in your family, you'd see it differently. But again it amazes me that it would require such a direct connection to the event for you to decry it.

Ok I never said I support what Ayers did. I only said that it is clearly wrong to label him a terrorist or equate him to a mass murderer. Clinic bombings and church burnings targeted average citizens for intimidation and often have been murder attempts and McVeigh and company were targeting the Government for thier interpretation and many individuals for murder. The Weatherman attempted to intimidate no minority and attempted to kill no people.

Ayers is a radical and a felon, not a terrorist.

But thank you for showing me exactly what type of person is going to vote for Obama.

If you can't see that distinction than you are clearly the sort of black and white ideological thinker that I would consider the classical conservative voter. Unable to conceive of the complex nature of our world so determined to control it.

you seem to think they're not only drastically different, but that "throwing a small bomb through the window of an empty building" is somehow a valid and reasonable way to make a political statement. Did you feel that way when Baptists were bombing abortion clinics?

Thanks for bringing this up. John Mccain voted twice against making violence against abortion clinics or doctors a federal crime he also opposed the Colorado "bubble law" which kept protestors 8 feet away from women entering abortion clinics. He also said that any abortion clinic bomber could declare bankruptcy to avoid paying fines.

So, John McCain has HELPED 'terrorists' and their bombing activities, giving them protection from the law. So, if you want to argue who "agrees FUNDEMENTALLY" with domestic terrorists...

Calligraph, you missed my point. Obama REPRESENTS fundamental changes because of who he is: Democratic, young and mixed racial and national heritage. McCain doesn't REPRESENT change of any kind. If these are reasons for someone to vote for Obama, that is up to the voter. But, both McCain and Obama are politicians that support the two party system and our economic system. They are not going to implement fundamental changes to our way of life because of their policy choices, just as the presidents before them didn't. So, all this argument about who has the more scary skeletons in their closet is stupid to me. Obama IS change, in my opinion. And from his life so far, he has shown that he will be a good president and have a good psychological effect on the country. (Even if he rubs you the wrong way.)

user-pic

Calligraph, the victims of the Oklahoma bombing are most likely rolling over in their grave because you try to use their deaths as political jabs.

At some point you should just examine your life, take a step back and realize what a worthless individual you are.

What bothers me about this ayres thing, is Obama was on the board of two non profits, both with very good goals, one to help with education of children in chicago, the other to improve access for minorities and civil rights (see the non profits description) and he is being attacked cause the right is looking for things. Who cares if Ayres was on the board as well. How is that Obamas fault? you think he should have refused to help out in a good cause cause?

There is no evidence that these organizations are radical in any way. So what is this Ayres thing about if it is not scare mongering.

Calligraph, how is referend wright racist? have you guys watched most of his sermons, or just the wee clips we see on TV. Sure he is an angry black preacher who sees religion as a way to improve things for his congreagation, but how is that racist?

oops on the spelling ,,, i am so pissed i am typing too fast

Calligraph - are you donating money to McCain? Or volunteering your time to help his campaign?

Calligraph also is repeating the Fannie and Freddie nonsense which I refuted a week ago and he chose to ignore, so here is the info I posted then. The fundraising numbers are from open secrets.

...McCains ties to Fannie and Freddie are much more intrusive. Half his campaign staff has lobbied for them. The biggest links McCain's campaign have drawn between Obama and F&F are the head of his VP search committee (whom lasted less then a week on the team) and a man whom obama met with once.

Obama has raised $126,349 from F&F employees. That's over his entire federal career. even if it were all for the presidential it would only be 2/100ths of one percent of all money raised. Even the entire banking industry has only given a little more then $2 million, which amounts to about 4/10ths of one percent of his total contributions.

Spare me this bullshit that somehow that amounts to a bigger connection then ...

At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years.

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

So F&F paid more money to one of McCain's staff then all banking employees from every bank in the United States have given to Obama's campaign.

I would really much rather talk about the topics we started with, namely whether this ad was fair, and whether it was politically smart, rather than deal with bullshit, sloppy guilt by association reasoning worthy of Conservopedia. Do you guy really want to have this absurd conversation of responding to charges completely without substance?

Was this ad fair? Well, frankly, Obama wouldn't even have had to make it in the first place if the ridiculous, allegedly "liberal", news media in this country actually did it's job. The ad reports the facts about what McCain's involvement was, the fact that he continued to be involved even after being thoroughly briefed by regulators (which, in my view, hasn't received enough emphasis yet), and that he exercised terrible judgment. It's also obvious that he doesn't really learn from his mistakes, as he's been pushing the same deregulatory policies up until the nadir of the latest fiasco (although, it is likely we haven't yet reach the nadir point).

Was this politically smart? I don't know, but it is obvious that the Obama campaign has deliberately been sitting on this for a long time. They've known for a long time just how dirty McCain was going to be come October, especially given his catastrophic fall in the polls. An alternative and viable political strategy would have been to just rise above their filthy, idiotic attacks, but given that this was only distributed through the internet, it likely has more to do with getting inside McCain's head than anything else (about which more in a moment). Also, actually having competent economic advisors, the Obama campaign probably knew that things would get worse with the economy, and now is just the time to bring these issues up. I wish they would relentless push the Phil Gramm point, because it's not guilt by association when the person is your adviser on economic policy, and you yourself directly and publicly espouse that adviser's views repeatedly.

In the end, as I said, I think it's more about getting in McCain's head. They may be even pushing the McCain campaign to unleash a vat of smear. Because when people struggle to fill up the gas tank everyday, watch their carefully planned and calibrated retirement portfolios crash with the market, watch the value of their home equity fall, and wonder how to pay the day-to-day bills, the McCain campaign's dirty tactics will look like just the silly, perception-is-reality, childish twaddle that they are. So let the McCain campaign talk about Ayers, and Wright, and Obama being a Muslim. The converted 'ditto-heads' who no capacity for rational thought might buy it, but the rest of us ain't.

Finally: What the hell has happened to our democracy? These are the rules for the upcoming "debate":

Under the deal, the moderator may not ask followups or make comments. The person who asks the question will not be allowed a follow-up either, and his or her microphone will be turned off after the question is read. A camera shot will only be shown of the person asking -- not reacting.

While there will be director's chairs (with backs and foot rests), McCain and Obama will be allowed to stand -- but they can't roam past their "designated area" to be marked on the stage. McCain and Obama are not supposed to ask each other direct questions.

[snip]

[T]he candidates are banned during the debates from moving to the other side -- and from wielding proposed pledges.

I am so sick of this shit.

Bring in the Hitchens Bros. to show then how it's done!

I miss the League of Women Voters debates.

Do you guy really want to have this absurd conversation of responding to charges completely without substance?

Ok, that was a little too blunt. What I meant is that I appreciate the smart and savvy de-bunkings on these topics--Red, k., magnolia, Jill, Thaddeus, Chrisstian, and others--but think ultimately there comes a point when it is no longer worth it to respond to substance-less charges, because I suspect most of us don't really believe Obama is a muslim, a terrorist, or interested in enslaving the white race in the service of Black Power.

But but but...

Someone is wrong on the internet!

:D

[T]he candidates are banned during the debates from moving to the other side -- and from wielding proposed pledges.

What happens if they violate the rules? Does the floor fall away like in tron?

You are right Adam. It's a joke. It's not a town hall forum style debate. It's a moderated forum with props.

The real perversity of this whole Ayers charge is that it's of a piece with a narrative about Obama that's 180 degrees from the truth--a black radical raised by the far left who has just recently re-branded himself as a unifying, post-racial candidate. Problem is there's no evidence of it. You read Dreams of My Father and it sounds like stuff he would write today. Obama has been more open about his past than any candidate for president in the last generation, to such a degree that the book "Obama Nation" consists mainly in a series of midreadings, distortions, and exaggerations of things Obama himself wrote. McCain has actually been pretty open too, to be fair.

"Obama fans try to claim that there was little contact, they just "happened" to be together. But they "happened" to be together in various circumstances for well over a decade. Obama started his political career in Ayers' house."

They "happened" to be together because they were both part of the left-wing Hyde Park political scene. It's not a coincidence at all but it has nothing to do with any affinity between Obama's political values and those of Ayers.

Obama didn't "launch his career" in Ayers' home. Obama attended an event for his predecessor in the state senate, the person he was supposed to replace, and the event was for her. This is the kind of thing the right wing is grasping at--the fact that Obama was in the same room with Ayers. they must have had conversations, and they must have been about how they both would like to see the Pentagon blown up! He even lived a few blocks away from him! But Obama must actually be a terrorist sympathizer, since some institution or other won't release records!

I think Ayers is a creep. But to expect Obama to refuse to serve on boards of charitable organizations just because Ayers had been accepted back into the community on the South Side is pretty strange. You can pick any major-league politician at random and find connections like these, especially any that have been involved in the grassroots of either party.

You can pick any major-league politician at random and find connections like these, especially any that have been involved in the grassroots of either party.

I'll say. Oliver North sold weapons to Iran, lied to Congress, and was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (vacated because of an immunity agreement and with help from the ACLU) - McCain's campaign has touted Ollie North's endorsement. Both Ayers and North appear to be proud of their criminal activities, but there are two big differences: (1) Obama hasn't accepted any kind of endorsement from Ayers, and (2) it appears that North is still lying about death and mayhem today.

From the AP today:

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The group was dedicated to stamping out communism around the globe. The council's founder, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain was launching his political career in Arizona. Singlaub said McCain was a supporter but not an active member in the group.

The U.S. Council for world freedom is the group that worked as the front for the US government after congress cut funding to the contras.

From what Begala said, he was on the Advisory Board. There are usually two reasons to put someone on the Advisory Board and both are d@mning. Either he was actually giving advice or he was allowing the use of his name for credibility - either theirs or his. None of that sounds good. But, like Begala says, No one thinks that means McCain is a racist, anti-Semite but...if you are playing the guilt-by-association game, an advisory board position looks pretty active. Perhaps they should let all the Jewish retirees in Florida know about McCain's group. I'm sure there's a really good spin that could be put on it.

Of course, this is cr@p - like Swiftboating Kerry - like Horton and Dukakis...(and Lee Atwater - the pre-Schmidt/Rove Rove - apologized to Dukakis after he found out he was terminally ill) That said - I still can't believe they are bringing up his CONNECTION to Ayers as if there is one! C'mon - how stupid do they think we are?

Kerry allowed himself to be swiftboated.

Obama has been too layed back about the attacks on his patriotrism by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It's about time that he takes off the gloves, although that's not his style.

..too laid back..

Although being "layed back" isn't all that bad of a thing. ;)

Why do we even try to rebut calligraph anymore? He won't won't even agree to facts, much less interpretation. Calligraph is convinced that his convictions stand without requiring defense and is unwilling to juxtapose her very own assertions into something that damages its arguments.

Note the inconsistencies. For example, the only important aspect about McCain's past indiscretions is that he was never convicted by a criminal court of so-called wrongdoing. Of course, it matters not that Obama not only has no convictions, he has never been indicted or brought before an ethics board. Apparently, calligraph is comfortable with apples to oranges.

And of course, associations matter not for McCain, even though they matter for Obama. Look at the facts. Let's consider Ayers a known convict, period. (o.k., he wasn't convicted, but calligraph's arguments are so wrong that we can afford to give him unfair advantages and still win.) So, where's the other shoe? Ayers turned himself in in 1981 or so and admitted to his misdeeds. Then, more than a decade later, he sat on a few boards with another guy in his neighborhood, held a fundraiser for him and donated $200 to him. Well shit, I have an acquaintance who was considering a run for alderman in that very same neighborhood. Does that mean that his community work would have been tainted had Ayers volunteered with him or helped him get elected?

Now, for the record, Liddy, who is more connected to McCain than Ayers has for Obama, is a CONVICTED felon. And he admitted to conspiracy to commit murder. Of course, Liddy's connections to McCain are not significant in the face of what else we know about McCain, but so what. I repeat, they are stronger than Ayer's are to Obama and more recent! Liddy hosted a fundraiser (of significantly more money I might add) as recently as 1998. And Liddy personally donated more money to McCain than Ayers has been reported to have donated to Obama.

And Liddy was doing his thang around the time McCain was becoming famous after getting out of Vietnam. So, McCain had no good excuse not to know that Liddy had admitted in his book Will that he plotted domestic terrorism and murder and was convicted for conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping.

So, what is his point? Similar arguments can be offered for every one of his poor arguments. I see calligraph's Rezko and I raise him a Keating. I see his Ayers and I raise him a Liddy.

For fcuk's sake, this is ridiculous. We do this over and over in circles and he hijacks the threads without even offering good-faith argumentation. Why do we (and why do I above) even give him the time of day?

Superman knew Lex Luthor all his life, that's gotta say something about Clark Kent's ethics. I'm reading two sides of the same coin people, and both sides are covered in shit.

I get the feeling that this cali guy literally runs from listening to Rush Limbaugh to tell all the liberals "the way it is." He probably sits down at his computer out of breath, panting as he types his denunciations of everything progressive, complete with youtube video links and WSJ op-ed pieces. I'm guessing he's got a little Lee Greenwood going on in the background just to help get the juices flowing. Perhaps he types with one hand, the other over his heart (or some damn place). Cali, you are a true America hero.

The problem is I haven't given up my common sense. The Republicans have all but run the country into the ground, or at least they were at the helm when we crashed. The captain of the Exxon Valdes can say that he was drunk when he fucked up; what is Bush's excuse?

If calligraph wanted to actually effectively throw bombs, she might actually try being intellectually honest about it. It can be done, though the substance of such attacks are more or less "ho-hum" even if they are taken at face value. I guess it sucks to be a Republican in this political environment.

Don't get me wrong, Obama is no saint, and I fully plan on being angry at him sometime after he is inaugurated for some decision he'll foul up. But in the mean-time, he's a very desirable choice. Puhleeze, Ayers is supposed to convince me he's worse than McCain. Gimme break!

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives