OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[greggsand]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Surely McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to get into this whole "obama is a terrorist" bit in the debate (he'll save it for later). Palin is already being questioned as a racist on talk radio today.

[FatPitcher]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Surely McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to get into this whole "obama is a terrorist" bit in the debate (he'll save it for later). Palin is already being questioned as a racist on talk radio today.

I can't figure out how bringing up the whole Ayers thing makes her racist.

Feel free to step in your mouth at the earliest convenient moment.

[RobVarak]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Surely McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to get into this whole "obama is a terrorist" bit in the debate (he'll save it for later). Palin is already being questioned as a racist on talk radio today.

Of course she is. How can she criticize Obama and not be racist?

Get ready for four years marked by a blizzard of race cards if he wins. He may think he's post-racial, but ironically his supporters will be the ones to undermine that.

[greggsand]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Surely McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to get into this whole "obama is a terrorist" bit in the debate (he'll save it for later). Palin is already being questioned as a racist on talk radio today.

I can't figure out how bringing up the whole Ayers thing makes her racist.

Feel free to step in your mouth at the earliest convenient moment.

Huh? What did I say? I reporting what I heard on the radio. Read the whole sentence.

[TheHiddenTrack]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Surely McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to get into this whole "obama is a terrorist" bit in the debate (he'll save it for later). Palin is already being questioned as a racist on talk radio today.

I can't figure out how bringing up the whole Ayers thing makes her racist.

Feel free to step in your mouth at the earliest convenient moment.

It's kind of like the logic many Palin supporters were using when accusing people of being sexist. I don't see any solid line of logic that would support that assertion but I don't think much in politics is coherent. The difference between honest questions and "hit jobs" at this point is decided by party affiliation, not rational evaluation of the facts.

[Teal]

I read it right, greg. I see what you were saying, and I think FP just missed it somehow. Yeah, there's going to be an undercurrent of 'racism' no matter what criticism is leveled at him, and no matter if it is true or not, the attempt will be made to stamp it out by playing the race card.

As far as the sexism stuff is concerned, I don't hear anything about that since the 'lipstick on a pig' stuff started. And whether Obama meant it toward Palin or not, his crowd sure took it that way...and gleefully so. But there's not been any charge of sexism from the campaign since then. Stupid-assed questions? You betcha. But they weren't sexist questions...

[Jared]

I don't accept your premise that she's "much less of a known quantity" for starters, but I'll accept it to clarify my point.

Unlike the Obama campaign, and apparently the media, I accept all of those as legitimate areas of inquiry.

Understood, and agreed to an extent. If Obama were best buds with Ayers and/or a host of other former terrorist radicals, then you'd be able to make a case. However, my point is that the evidentiary standard for Obama's connections is much lower than for McCain or Palin. There's been countless print in the right-wing press dedicated to Obama ties with Ayers that consists of one meet and greet, one shared board, and one panel over the course of 10+ years. If people find out that they really were best friends, then you've got a story. But as of now, there's nothing substantial there. Just a few meetings, a statement (a guy in my neighborhood) that is correct and considering the limited # of contacts between them over a 10+ year period, not dishonest IMO. If you use the same threshold for "connection" with McCain or Palin, I'd argue that you'd end up with a far worse roster of unsavory individuals. (Though I'm not going to argue that point, because I think we've beat this dead horse about as much as it can be beaten.)

[RobVarak]

(Though I'm not going to argue that point, because I think we've beat this dead horse about as much as it can be beaten.)

Agreed, although on the bright side we never moved the Defcon meter

[Jared]

(Though I'm not going to argue that point, because I think we've beat this dead horse about as much as it can be beaten.)

Agreed, although on the bright side we never moved the Defcon meter

I thought I might have had to when JRod gave away the Liverpool score.

[FatPitcher]

I don't accept your premise that she's "much less of a known quantity" for starters, but I'll accept it to clarify my point.

Unlike the Obama campaign, and apparently the media, I accept all of those as legitimate areas of inquiry.

Understood, and agreed to an extent. If Obama were best buds with Ayers and/or a host of other former terrorist radicals, then you'd be able to make a case. However, my point is that the evidentiary standard for Obama's connections is much lower than for McCain or Palin. There's been countless print in the right-wing press dedicated to Obama ties with Ayers that consists of one meet and greet, one shared board, and one panel over the course of 10+ years. If people find out that they really were best friends, then you've got a story. But as of now, there's nothing substantial there. Just a few meetings, a statement (a guy in my neighborhood) that is correct and considering the limited # of contacts between them over a 10+ year period, not dishonest IMO. If you use the same threshold for "connection" with McCain or Palin, I'd argue that you'd end up with a far worse roster of unsavory individuals. (Though I'm not going to argue that point, because I think we've beat this dead horse about as much as it can be beaten.)

My turn on the horse.

The difference between my view and yours is that I think where there's smoke, there's fire.

There are two parts to this issue: whether Ayers is rightly villified, and whether he and Obama were close enough that Obama's judgment and political views can be called into question. I haven't seen a viable defense on the first issue, and the second is still unexplored by the media, with the only coverage coming on attempts to cut off discussion of the issue with charges of racism (AP, not talk radio) and such.

The media is repeating the Obama-initiated defense of "the terrorism was a long time ago, when Obama was 8." This does not address either part of the issue, because the issue is not whether Obama and Ayers were terrorists together.

Hosting the launch of Obama's political career indicates some degree of closeness, and Obama's CAC appointment reflects the fact that Ayers knew and trusted Obama well enough to appoint him. Those things alone, not in dispute, are enough to raise questions, the "smoke" that I think makes it worth digging deeper.

Then there is the cover-up. First, the misleading statement by Obama that he and Ayers had no working relationship, only proximity and a casual personal relationship. This is clearly not that case, based on the things were know for sure are true. Next, the attempted stonewalling of the release of CAC records indicating that Obama and Ayers worked together. Why try to hide something, if there's nothing to hide? This isn't a criminal case where the burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. On balance, these two instances of cover-up make me extremely suspicious that there's something smelly that we don't know yet.

Then there is the tolerance of Ayers' extreme views. Even if he did not share those views--which is neither proven nor disproven--and is not "best friends" with Ayers--which I think he is not--he was certainly not repelled at all, that we can tell, by Ayers' anti-Americanism and self-proclaimed communist views. He didn't say, "no, I can't launch my career at the house of someone who doesn't regret committing domestic terrorism." He didn't say, "Sorry, I can't accept the position of Chairman of the Board and work with your organization because I don't feel comfortable with your past actions and present views."

How and when did Obama and Ayers meet? We don't know, and no one is telling. How much of the CAC agenda did Obama have a say in? We don't know, and no one is telling. How similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views? Are we supposed to take Obama's word for it unquestioningly, while the media sits on their hands, smiling and nodding, getting off the bench only to try to put a lid on the story with accusation of racism when it does surface?

[greggsand]

How and when did Obama and Ayers meet? We don't know, and no one is telling. How much of the CAC agenda did Obama have a say in? We don't know, and no one is telling. How similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views? Are we supposed to take Obama's word for it unquestioningly, while the media sits on their hands, smiling and nodding, getting off the bench only to try to put a lid on the story with accusation of racism when it does surface?

LOL, ok. How does one find out "how similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views"? Talk about proving the un-provable. What, is there a lost diary out there or a big blue-print that Ayers' & Obama cooked-up to hijack an airplane?

Is the media "sitting on their hands"? There's been plenty of discussion on the AP & TV news today... Probably not the kind the gop was hoping.

[edit] I gotta pull a "pk" on this thread before I join him in the rubber room.

[FatPitcher]

How and when did Obama and Ayers meet? We don't know, and no one is telling. How much of the CAC agenda did Obama have a say in? We don't know, and no one is telling. How similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views? Are we supposed to take Obama's word for it unquestioningly, while the media sits on their hands, smiling and nodding, getting off the bench only to try to put a lid on the story with accusation of racism when it does surface?

LOL, ok. How does one find out "how similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views"? Talk about proving the un-provable. What, is there a lost diary out there or a big blue-print that Ayers' & Obama cooked-up to hijack an airplane?

Is the media "sitting on their hands"? There's been plenty of discussion on the AP & TV news today... Probably not the kind the gop was hoping.

[edit] I gotta pull a "pk" on this thread before I join him in the rubber room.

I am sure it was the kind of coverage they were expecting. Say something bad about Obama and get called a racist. Not exactly a difficult pattern to discern.

Anyway, there are plenty of possible indicators that Obama and Ayers had similar views: did they admire the same fringe figures? Are there people who were involved with the CAC who can give some insight into its inner workings? Right now, they're all clammed up. And just what was the CAC agenda? What led Ayers to offer the Chairman position to Obama? etc.

Also, why do you keep suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is calling Obama a terrorist?

[greggsand]

How and when did Obama and Ayers meet? We don't know, and no one is telling. How much of the CAC agenda did Obama have a say in? We don't know, and no one is telling. How similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views? Are we supposed to take Obama's word for it unquestioningly, while the media sits on their hands, smiling and nodding, getting off the bench only to try to put a lid on the story with accusation of racism when it does surface?

LOL, ok. How does one find out "how similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views"? Talk about proving the un-provable. What, is there a lost diary out there or a big blue-print that Ayers' & Obama cooked-up to hijack an airplane?

Is the media "sitting on their hands"? There's been plenty of discussion on the AP & TV news today... Probably not the kind the gop was hoping.

[edit] I gotta pull a "pk" on this thread before I join him in the rubber room.

Also, why do you keep suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is calling Obama a terrorist?

Where did I do that???

(edit) I was just following the whole palin=obama might be a terrorist thread. perhaps you are speculating that ayers & obama both share views that are 'soft on education'? lol...

[pk500]

The cries of racism against Palin are more acute because the GOP pulled out the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" card precisely at the same time Obama has pulled his largest lead in the polls since the GOP convention.

Any coincidence? Of course not.

It's a sign of a campaign reaching for any tactic that will stick because it's falling behind with voters on issues that truly matter, namely the economy. At least that's how this undecided voter sees it.

And if I hear Palin utter the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" line one more time, my mind will be pretty much made up for Nov. 4.

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

LOL, ok. How does one find out "how similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views"? Talk about proving the un-provable. What, is there a lost diary out there or a big blue-print that Ayers' & Obama cooked-up to hijack an airplane?

Is the media "sitting on their hands"? There's been plenty of discussion on the AP & TV news today... Probably not the kind the gop was hoping.

[edit] I gotta pull a "pk" on this thread before I join him in the rubber room.

Also, why do you keep suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is calling Obama a terrorist?

Where did I do that???

(edit) I was just following the whole palin=obama might be a terrorist thread. perhaps you are speculating that ayers & obama both share views that are 'soft on education'? lol...

This part:
"What, is there a lost diary out there or a big blue-print that Ayers' & Obama cooked-up to hijack an airplane?"

My suspicion is that Obama was part and parcel of the CAC's attempt to sneak radical left-wing indoctrination into grade schools under the guise of reform. His being Chairman of the Board of that organization suggests so. And then throw in the fact that the only organization where he has had substantial authority was by its own measure a complete failure and waste of $150 million, and the whole thing seems pretty relevant to the election.

Unless you think that whole "running things" stuff is overrated when it comes to establishing fitness for running the country.

[FatPitcher]

The cries of racism against Palin are more acute because the GOP pulled out the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" card precisely at the same time Obama has pulled his largest lead in the polls since the GOP convention.

Any coincidence? Of course not.

It's a sign of a campaign reaching for any tactic that will stick because it's falling behind with voters on issues that truly matter, namely the economy. At least that's how this undecided voter sees it.

And if I hear Palin utter the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" line one more time, my mind will be pretty much made up for Nov. 4.

Take care,
PK

What about the Democratic response, digging up the Keating 5 stuff? Oh, that's right, Obama's already outlined His recovery plan, and with His guidance, we have averted a recession.

Seriously, has Obama done a single thing since the crisis emerged except to say that Bush = McCain and that Republicans and free markets are to blame for the subprime mortgage problems?

If that and the thuggish assaults on free speech by the Obama campaign (not to mention his highly dubious 2nd amendment stances) aren't enough to turn off a genuine libertarian, then Obama's going to win 95% of the vote.

[FatPitcher]

Well, they have wanted to privatize Social Security, which (as the current market shows) isn't a good idea.

I'd much rather have my money in the hands of Wall Street than Congress. With a 401(k) you hold something with real world value that can be liquidated. With Social Security, you have an I.O.U. from a government program that is actually forecast to go bankrupt in the foreseeable future, and no one is even saying they will do anything to make it solvent indefinitely. The money in your "Social Security account" doesn't exist anywhere. It's not being saved or invested; it was already spent paying off current retirees' bills and the government's public debt.

If your retirement savings are in the stock market and are diversified, and/or are in mutual funds, you will get a better return than by paying social security taxes. That has always been true over the long term, even with short-term problems like the one now, the crash of '87, etc. Those blips are good for scaring people into thinking the government system is safer, an infinite piggy bank, when in fact it is mathematically guaranteed to fail.

State-funded pension plans are also getting into a lot of trouble lately, mostly because the state governments haven't been able to put enough money into them.

[FatPitcher]

I hate to call a state as large as California a "microcosm," but this article points out a California-specific example of a problem that makes members of Congress less accountable to the People: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ing_sanity

[Jackdog]

It's a sign of a campaign reaching for any tactic that will stick because it's falling behind with voters on issues that truly matter, namely the economy. At least that's how this undecided voter sees it.

And if I hear Palin utter the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" line one more time, my mind will be pretty much made up for Nov. 4.

Take care,
PK

Wow,you would let a talking point decide your vote? Policy does it for me. Bigger goverment is where I see Obama taking us. I don't care for Obama's brand of socialism. It's my belief that bigger government can do nothing but hurt the economy. The question is how much? Obama and the democrats mean well, I will give them that. The problem is they see government as the answer to social problems. I believe that government can never be the answer.

We have been spending billions and billions of dollars on programs every year that attempt to help the poor, yet I have not seen very much progress made. I see people stuck on the goverment plantation with no incentive to break free.

The declaration of independence says that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To me that means it's governments job to protect your life and your liberty, and it is your job to find your own happiness. The idea that we can subsidize the poor out of poverty is noble but misguided. IMO people fail to see that anything you subsidize, you get more of.

The founding fathers preached self-reliance, and they were correct. Our government was not created to be anyone's crutch, it was merely created to protect our life and property. Life can be very hard, and I am not saying it is wrong to help those in need. I am saying forcing people to help others is not the answer.

Here's Obama's Urban Policy.
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/

Sounds wonderful doesn't it? I've read Obama Blueprint For Change three times. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It all sounds wonderful. The problem is the already huge goverment will become gigantic and taxes will have to be raised. That won't bother the rich and it won't hurt the poor that don't pay taxes now. It will hurt us.

[pk500]

What about the Democratic response, digging up the Keating 5 stuff? Oh, that's right, Obama's already outlined His recovery plan, and with His guidance, we have averted a recession.

There's a difference between the Keating 5 and Ayers. The Keating 5 has a documented trail of McCain's involvement, and he was rebuked in the U.S. Senate for his role. To McCain's credit, he accepted that his involvement shouldn't have happened and that he apologized. But he had clear, documented involvement in the matter.

If that and the thuggish assaults on free speech by the Obama campaign (not to mention his highly dubious 2nd amendment stances) aren't enough to turn off a genuine libertarian, then Obama's going to win 95% of the vote.

I have not ruled out a vote for Barr. But if the "terrorist pal" crap continues, I definitely won't vote for McCain. I have more respect for a campaign going down in flames by sticking to issues than resorting to this crap. I would feel the same if Obama was trailing this month and resorted to these tactics.

What exacerbates this tactic to me is that the campaign has trotted out Patty Powder Puff to do the dirty work just so McCain can continue to look "presidential" and above the fray. That's really, really weak.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Wow,you would let a talking point decide your vote? Policy does it for me. Bigger goverment is where I see Obama taking us.

Jack:

The current inhabitant of the White House has mushroomed the size of government in the last eight years.

New Cabinet-level government department -- Homeland Security -- that would be totally unnecessary if the existing, bloated government agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, did their jobs properly. A five-year war that's consuming billions. A $700-billion bailout that was strongly, strongly pushed by Bush. McCain approved of all of these measures.

And you're worried about government getting larger than it is now?

I still haven't ruled out a vote for Barr. But I don't believe for one second that McCain will shrink the size of the Federal government one bit since the GOP has created a blueprint for big government in the last eight years. McCain isn't going to stray from that; neither is Obama.

Government will expand during the next four years, regardless of whether Obama or McCain is elected. It's accelerating into an even higher gear now, with the increased oversight of the financial industry and the bailout.

Take care,
PK

[F308GTB]

I guess I need to start reading up on Barr. Last week had me questioning who to vote for. McCain certainly didn't have his pen out to cross out those earmarks and pork on the bailout bill. He showed no leadership in that respect. Watching the Palin-Biden debate, I'd be more inclined to stick Palin in as president. Sure she lacks foreign policy experience, but it seems of all the bozos she has the most common sense and practical experience.

And yes, Bush was a better Democrat than what the Democrats could have placed in the Presidency.

Wow,you would let a talking point decide your vote? Policy does it for me. Bigger goverment is where I see Obama taking us.

Jack:

The current inhabitant of the White House has mushroomed the size of government in the last eight years.

New Cabinet-level government department -- Homeland Security -- that's totally unnecessary if the existing government agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, did their jobs properly. A five-year war that's consuming billions. A $700-billion bailout that was strongly, strongly encouraged by Bush. McCain approved of all of these measures.

And you're worried about government getting larger than it is now?

I still haven't ruled out a vote for Barr. But I don't believe for one second that McCain will shrink the size of the Federal government one bit since the GOP has created a blueprint for big government in the last eight years. McCain isn't going to stray from that; neither is Obama.

Government will expand during the next four years, regardless of whether Obama or McCain is elected. It's accelerating into an even higher gear now, with the increased oversight of the financial industry and the bailout.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

And if I hear Palin utter the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" line one more time, my mind will be pretty much made up for Nov. 4.

Take care,
PK

Oh, you'll hear it again for sure. Palin sure likes to repeat herself a lot.
If anyone is interested, here are the facts on the Ayers thing:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... errorists/

It's not like Obama sought him out or something. The only reason this is even an issue is because they both live in the same area of Chicago. And where does she get this "paling around" thing? Where they seen at a ballgame or fishing together? Ayers has cleaned up his life and is now a professor. Also, the guy was protesting our involvement in Vietnam. OK, so bombing our own federal buildings isn't the best way to go about it (joking) but it's not like he's part of Al Queda or something.

This is such a stretch, it's unbelievable that McCain's campaign agreed to go along with it. What's next? Linking Ayers somehow to the 9/11 attacks?

[Jackdog]

Jack:

The current inhabitant of the White House has mushroomed the size of government in the last eight years.

New Cabinet-level government department -- Homeland Security -- that would be totally unnecessary if the existing, bloated government agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, did their jobs properly. A five-year war that's consuming billions. A $700-billion bailout that was strongly, strongly pushed by Bush. McCain approved of all of these measures.

And you're worried about government getting larger than it is now?

I still haven't ruled out a vote for Barr. But I don't believe for one second that McCain will shrink the size of the Federal government one bit since the GOP has created a blueprint for big government in the last eight years. McCain isn't going to stray from that; neither is Obama.

Government will expand during the next four years, regardless of whether Obama or McCain is elected. It's accelerating into an even higher gear now, with the increased oversight of the financial industry and the bailout.

Take care,
PK

I understand that. My post related to social problems. I DO NOT want to see programs for the lazy expand anymore than they already have. We have capable people sucking on the goverment tit with the working class providing the milk. I believe it will get worse under Obama.

[pk500]

I understand that. My post related to social problems. I DO NOT want to see programs for the lazy expand anymore than they already have. We have capable people sucking on the goverment tit with the working class providing the milk. I believe it will get worse under Obama.

That is a very legitimate concern of mine, too. I fear growth of entitlement programs -- just another synonym for government-enabled laziness -- under McCain. I fear the explosion of entitlement programs under Obama.

Problem with this election is that there isn't good enough lipstick to make either Obama or McCain look like a hockey MILF.

Take care,
PK