OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Teal]

Jared, you're going to say something as dishonest and one-sided as "It's the same dirty, dishonest politics that has been the Republican calling card these last eight years"?!? You cannot be the least bit serious. You would ignore all the bullshit that the democrats are doing? Every damned thing, EVERY one, that has gone wrong in this country, is, according to democrats, the fault of Bush and republicans. They were even faulting republicans for a bill that didn't need a single republican in order to pass!

Eight years? Let's talk about decades of 'republicans want to steal your social security, rob your coffers (which is, ironically, exactly the tax plan of the Obama campaign right now), and, oh yeah...they're racist, homophobic, anti-women, and will steal the election' crap we've endured at the hands of liberals for a long time.

Honestly, Jared, sometimes when I read your posts, I get a mental image of Alan Colmes...

[Teal]

For your consideration: Palin's attacks are 'racist', and John McCain is responsible for this bailout bill...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

I'm increasingly believing that this whole bailout bullshit was a campaign stunt, a rope-a-dope to get republicans in bed with the largest government intrusion in American History.

But, anway...we have racism, and we have blaming republicans for something that the (liberal) democrats desperately wanted to pass.

[RobVarak]

Well, they are what you think are lies. I'm looking at the few quotes that I can find by Obama on Ayers, and (from what I've seen) there are no lies there. They've served on a board together over a decade ago, they live in the same neighborhood. They're probably considered lies if you take all of these "connections" served up by right-wing blogs as truth. But so far, they're not.

Take the quote from the Democratic debate:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

The entire quote minimizes and misrepresents the extent of their relationship. The individual clauses may be true, but the picture they paint is a total fabrication.

Obama was hired by the CAC board, including Ayers. Ayers held a campaign event for Obama in his home. Michelle Obama organized an event featuring Obama and Ayers together and which praised Obama for blocking legislation which was at odds with Ayers' philsophy.

If someone hires you for a job dealing with millions of dollars in grant money, throws a party for you and wrote a book that you embraced very closely, I think it's misleading to say that he's just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." This is about as credible as Obama's claims that he didn't know about the anti-Americanism of Rev. Wright because he wasn't at any of his more spirited sermons.

Subsequent dismissals by Obama's campaign are every bit as misleading. Focusing on Obama's age when Ayers' terrorist acts were committed is totally non-responsive.

And again, to bring the question back to Liddy. McCain has gone on his show, <b>praised him</b>, someone who plotted to commit domestic acts of terrorism. There is more of a connection between McCain and Liddy than Obama and Ayers. By those standards, there should be tens of thousands of words written on blog posts about Liddy by those complaining about Ayers.

Now THAT is guilt by association. You're suggesting that people should condemn McCain because of his open service with Liddy. The difference is that McCain has not covered up or obscured his relationship with Liddy. Nobody in his camp dodged FOIA requests regarding documentation of their history.

Moreover, if anyone wants to ask whether McCain shares radical opinions with Liddy they are free to do so. But as I've said many times, this is not an issue because McCain's background, philosophies and record are a large and open book. Obama's is just the opposite.

But they won't, because it's standard hypocrisy to push a "character" question. There's no coincidence that these claims are being pushed now when McCain is at his lowest points in the polls. He knows he'll lose on issues. But he might be able to win if he paints Obama as an unsafe, radical outsider who thinks

And finally, this is a standard distraction ploy. McCain loses on the issues. McCain wins if he paints Obama as an unsafe, outsider who isn't a true American and who pals with terrorist.

This is the classic Democratic reaction whenever one of their deeply flawed candidates is exposed as something less than the embodiment of the Liberal ideal.

First of all, character is an issue. Always should be. So to say that McCain is "losing on the issues" so he's going to turn to character is incorrect.

McCain is losing the debate that Obama has framed, so now he needs to make the case that I said he should be making weeks ago. Obama is a wild card, a cipher. He's more liberal than the electorate thinks and lacks the judgement to be our President. Praising the work of people like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, worshiping with people like Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger, Rev. Meeks etc. are legitimate and verifiable evidence of that.

The Clinton team screamed all the same charges in '92, when genuine issues of Clinton's womanizing and draft dodging were in the air. His serial cheating and lying were "not relevant" and just scare tactics....

Yep. Good thing his lying, overall lack of credibilty and womanizing didn't adversely affect his Presidency.

Again, Obama has the capacity to end all of these attacks by admitting the extent to which he shares Ayers' views and fully explaining the details of their relationship. I can't see why he wouldn't, unless doing so will demonstrate that he really did work closely with a former terrorist who has radical views on criminal justice, education and race.

Ayes doesn't have a church that Obama can quit, so he'll have to come up with something altogether more creative if he wants to throw another embarassing radical pal under the bus.

[Jared]

Jared, you're going to say something as dishonest and one-sided as "It's the same dirty, dishonest politics that has been the Republican calling card these last eight years"?!? You cannot be the least bit serious.

Yes, I can. What was one of the biggest stories in the 2004 elections? The Kerry/Swift Boat smears, which were a character attack without basis in fact, designed to make the election less about issues and more about "character". Or the McCain/black baby rumors in the 2000 primaries? It's a standard strategy that relies on character smears to sway voters and dominate the airwaves, while ignoring the issues.

You would ignore all the bullshit that the democrats are doing? Every damned thing, EVERY one, that has gone wrong in this country, is, according to democrats, the fault of Bush and republicans.

It's funny, all the old Republican claims about personal responsibility. And yet, when they hold the President's office for eight years, and Congress for six of those; and when they're policies (Iraq, the economy) cause major problems for the world, the strategy is to complain that Democrats are blaming it on them. Or Palin can be shown to be ignorant on important historical issues, and then blame it on the liberal media for annoying her. McCain/Palin '08: We drive the waaaahmbulance.

Eight years? Let's talk about decades of 'republicans want to steal your social security, rob your coffers (which is, ironically, exactly the tax plan of the Obama campaign right now), and, oh yeah...they're racist, homophobic, anti-women, and will steal the election' crap we've endured at the hands of liberals for a long time.

Well, they have wanted to privatize Social Security, which (as the current market shows) isn't a good idea. As for the rest of that paragraph...huh? I'm not sure where you're coming from, but you've gotta back that statement up with evidence.

And that last link you posted is not evidence of anything coming from the Democrats. It's an analysis piece by a writer, who suggests that for voters that think he's a closet Muslim, having the VP suggest that he "pals around with terrorists" will reinforce that view. I don't agree with the author's view that it's racism per se; but you can't tag an article by a writer as the official view of the Democratic party.

[Teal]

Sorry, but I put most of the media in the same category, seeing as how most of them ARE in the same category. That you don't see it that way doesn't really matter to me...you typically DON'T see anything the same way I do, or anyone else of conservative leanings. So no surprise there.

But it seems that many times, no matter the volume of information, backed up by sourcing, that people like Rob and others do, you always, ALWAYS kick against it. There's always some way to wiggle out of it, some other way to explain it, some excuse that can be made so that you don't have to agree with the evidence right in front of you. I just find it funny.

It would be easier to debate with you if you would simply admit to what many already know...that you aren't the least bit objective, any more than anyone else in here is. You lean solidly to the left. You can do that, mind you...it doesn't matter to me, because, as I said, I already know it. But Jared, your an unabashed liberal. Just admit as much, and we can move ahead with that framework.

[RobVarak]

I don't agree with the author's view that it's racism per se; but you can't tag an article by a writer as the official view of the Democratic party.

Since when?

On a more serious, but still ludicrous note...

Attempts to tie Obama to a white terrorist are racist? That's truly excellent!

[Feanor]

Meh, edits.

[Teal]

I don't agree with the author's view that it's racism per se; but you can't tag an article by a writer as the official view of the Democratic party.

Since when?

Exactly Have you ever seen how closely the talking points from one reflect those of the other? Oh, wait...of course you haven't!

[Teal]

The hypocrisy displayed in that last paragraph is just staggering.

Whose last paragraph? Mine? Hell, I'm a completely unashamed and unapologetic conservative-everybody knows that, and I don't hide it.

[Feanor]

But it seems that many times, no matter the volume of information, backed up by sourcing, that people like Rob and others do, you always, ALWAYS kick against it. There's always some way to wiggle out of it, some other way to explain it, some excuse that can be made so that you don't have to agree with the evidence right in front of you. I just find it funny.

This paragraph.

[Jared]

Take the quote from the Democratic debate:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

The entire quote minimizes and misrepresents the extent of their relationship. The individual clauses may be true, but the picture they paint is a total fabrication.

In the last post, you said Obama was lying. Now everything in this statement is true. So how is he fabricating things?

Obama was hired by the CAC board, including Ayers. Ayers held a campaign event for Obama in his home. Michelle Obama organized an event featuring Obama and Ayers together and which praised Obama for blocking legislation which was at odds with Ayers' philsophy.

All of the eyewitness accounts are that he wasn't hired by Ayers, but rather Leff. Ayers did host a campaign event for Obama true. (Never hear the third claim.) But basically, you have evidence that they were in the same political circles 10-15 years ago, who he had minimal contact with on the CAC board, and that he agreed with some of his educational policies. There is no "covering up" of their relationship (and the CAC records were opened, so there's no cover up there). And the relationship is only being downplayed if you think they had a substantial relationship; something that I don't think one board, one fundraiser (not even organized by Obama, and one panel over fifteen years or so proves.

Now THAT is guilt by association. You're suggesting that people should condemn McCain because of his open service with Liddy.

No. I'm suggesting that using the same standard for Obama, those pushing the Ayers story should be up in arms about Liddy. I personally don't care about the McCain/Liddy connection. It's just that, logically, it's the same thing. Your dodge is that McCain's positions are well-known, whereas Obama's aren't; therefore we have to ascertain them from one acquaintance from 10-15 years ago, instead of looking at his state senate and Senate record, campaign positions, etc. Which one of those options makes more sense?

This is the classic Democratic reaction whenever one of their deeply flawed candidates is exposed as something less than the embodiment of the Liberal ideal.

First of all, character is an issue. Always should be. So to say that McCain is "losing on the issues" so he's going to turn to character is incorrect.

Let me clarify. Character is an issue. Creating character out of tenuous associations is not addressing character, it's engaging in character smears.

Again, Obama has the capacity to end all of these attacks by admitting the extent to which he shares Ayers' views and fully explaining the details of their relationship. I can't see why he wouldn't, unless doing so will demonstrate that he really did work closely with a former terrorist who has radical views on criminal justice, education and race.

Oh boy. If Obama doesn't spend lots of detailed time directly addressing a right-wing smear (thereby giving it more play in the press and legitimizing it, even if it is untrue), it must be that that he worked closely with a radical. You have to see how that statement makes no logical sense.

Obama has condemned Ayers' views, he has said when they had last met, he's said that Ayers' has in no way shaped his views, and has said that their relationship is minimal. The right-wing smear machine will whine that, even though Obama has explained his relationship with Ayers, he needs to...I don't know, explain it again with their spin on it, or else he must be lying. Please...

[Teal]

But it seems that many times, no matter the volume of information, backed up by sourcing, that people like Rob and others do, you always, ALWAYS kick against it. There's always some way to wiggle out of it, some other way to explain it, some excuse that can be made so that you don't have to agree with the evidence right in front of you. I just find it funny.

This paragraph.

Is that right...okee dokee...

When has Obama ever faced one of these quizzes? Never. When has Biden? Never.

Biden was presented with the same question. It was part of a series, where Couric asked the same questions to both Palin and Biden. They also did the same thing with Obama and McCain.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 3062.shtml

Couric: Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?

Biden: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce.
Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.

Okay. I stand corrected...on this one...

Not that I feel the need to explain myself to you...

[XXXIV]

Campaign 2008...or Smear Wars 2008?...Its all smear by both parties 24 hours a day seven days a week.

[Teal]

Jared:

Obama/Ayers=McCain/Liddy just doesn't compute.

One is repentant, one is not.

[Feanor]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[Jared]

But it seems that many times, no matter the volume of information, backed up by sourcing, that people like Rob and others do, you always, ALWAYS kick against it. There's always some way to wiggle out of it, some other way to explain it, some excuse that can be made so that you don't have to agree with the evidence right in front of you. I just find it funny.

It would be easier to debate with you if you would simply admit to what many already know...that you aren't the least bit objective, any more than anyone else in here is. You lean solidly to the left. You can do that, mind you...it doesn't matter to me, because, as I said, I already know it. But Jared, your an unabashed liberal. Just admit as much, and we can move ahead with that framework.

Sorry, but if the arguments are backed up with poor sourcing, or aren't logical, then I reserve the right to point it out. Unfortunately, a lot of these arguments have had poor evidence, or flaws in the logic. I'm sorry if you don't like that...but as I said before, if you have an issue with my refutations, then bring the counter-argument. Address my arguments and prove me wrong.

[GTHobbes]

I can't believe that Palin's saying that Obama "pals around with terrorists who want to attack our country." Can she get anymore desperate? Does anyone other than the Fox news crowd actually believe this crap? Talk about more of the same old Bush/Cheney/Rove schtick...hopefully our country has had enough over the last 8 years, and someone will actually call her out on it. That aint the way to win over this independent voter's vote, lady.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/ ... index.html

[RobVarak]

In the last post, you said Obama was lying. Now everything in this statement is true. So how is he fabricating things?

He's Clintonian in his word choice, as good liars often are You can compile a mountain of a lie on a bed of underlying truths; Smart witnesses do it all the time to avoid perjury. The picture he paints in that response are of casual relationship and distance. That picture is contradicted by the facts.

All of the eyewitness accounts are that he wasn't hired by Ayers, but rather Leff.

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... obama.html

Diamond has compiled several documents contemporaneous to the selection process that show that Ayers was heavily involved in the selection of Obama and that Obama's relationship with Ayers may have pre-dated his appointment to helm the CAC.

Here is his response to the NYT reporter regarding the Leff quotes:

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... ponds.html

There is no "covering up" of their relationship (and the CAC records were opened, so there's no cover up there).

The records were opened only after days of legal and technical roadblocks by Ken Rollin. Kurtz and Diamond have very thoroughly documented their requests and the responses thereto. And the Tribune also reported on the stonewalling.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 3585.story

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge turned over all of its documents to be archived in the Richard J. Daley Library at the university in 2001, but last month university officials balked when it received a request from National Review magazine reporter Stanley Kurtz to review the files. The university initially said it temporarily blocked that request in order to do an inquiry into the circumstances of the gift of the records.
But e-mails released in response to a law student's Freedom of Information Act request show university officials had a series of exchanges with Kenneth Rolling, the charity's former executive director, days before the files of the charity were opened to the public.

U. of I. spokesman Thomas Hardy confirmed that the university first closed the document collection after being contacted Aug. 11 by Rolling.

Rolling subsequently asked the university not to release several of the charity's files, including records outlining its search for an executive director. In an Aug. 23 e-mail, Rolling said he was concerned about the "confidential nature of some documents" in the grant files.

But university officials said that despite the request by Rolling, none of the documents were withheld when the university reopened the documents to public inspection Aug. 26.

"Absolutely, unequivocally not," said UIC lawyer Thomas Bearrows when asked whether the university had bowed to any of Rolling's requests.

That is an attempted cover-up.

Your dodge is that McCain's positions are well-known, whereas Obama's aren't; therefore we have to ascertain them from one acquaintance from 10-15 years ago, instead of looking at his state senate and Senate record, campaign positions, etc. Which one of those options makes more sense?

It's not a "dodge." I think we absolutely need to look at his legislative record as well. Particularly given that several of his positions on criminal justice legislation are philosophically aligned with Ayers'.

Let me clarify. Character is an issue. Creating character out of tenuous associations is not addressing character, it's engaging in character smears.

It's not a tenuous association, and the leadership of the CAC has been cited by Obama as relevant experience. Discussing exactly what he did in that role, with whom and why are not smears in any way.

Oh boy. If Obama doesn't spend lots of detailed time directly addressing a right-wing smear (thereby giving it more play in the press and legitimizing it, even if it is untrue), it must be that that he worked closely with a radical. You have to see how that statement makes no logical sense.

First he doesn't need to spend a lot of time. One speech was enough to toss Wright under the bus. Wouldn't take more than one speech or interview to deal with these issues.

You can call it a smear all you want, but it's a legitimate question raised by inconsistencies in Obama's story, documentary evidence and logic. It deserves to be met with more than cries of "smear."

Obama has condemned Ayers' views, he has said when they had last met, he's said that Ayers' has in no way shaped his views, and has said that their relationship is minimal. The right-wing smear machine will whine that, even though Obama has explained his relationship with Ayers, he needs to...I don't know, explain it again with their spin on it, or else he must be lying. Please...

He has condemned Ayers' views with respect to the terrorist acts. He has praised Ayers' views on criminal justice, race and ethics; He has worked for the man and embraced legislation consistent with Ayers' views. That's something worthy of discussion beyond accusations of smear campaigns.

[JRod]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 2000

[pk500]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 2000

What did Clinton do on that day? He still had exactly one year left in office Jan. 20, 2000.

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 2000

What did Clinton do on that day? He still had exactly one year left in office Jan. 20, 2000.

Take care,
PK

...facts always ruin bad sarcasm.

[pk500]

A welcome respite from this partisan rancor that hopefully both sides of the aisle can agree upon: Sarah Palin looks dirtier, er, hotter than ever while campaigning with her hair down.



Political disclaimer: Macca approves of this message.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 2000

What did Clinton do on that day? He still had exactly one year left in office Jan. 20, 2000.

Take care,
PK

LMAO In his defense he had pretty much run out of things to lie about by that point in his term.

Pic of some pro-Obama protestors at the Palin rally today:



Use them to get out of speeding tickets or snag husbands, sure. Vote with 'em? No way! And thank goodness, otherwise the voting booths would be substantially less hygenic.

[Jared]

Let me see if I can clarify this a bit.

For every tenuous connection to someone with extremist ties, you can do the same thing, with much stronger connections with McCain and Palin. For a comparison to Ayers, you have actual connections between McCain and Liddy and Singlaub. For Palin, you have her husband (member of a group that promotes a vote for secession from the United States..and yes, to pre-empt, we have no idea if he wants secession...but he's been affiliated with a group that was founded by someone that hates America). For connections to Rezko and other corrput politicians, you've got Keating for McCain and for Palin, you've got Stevens (she was chair of his 527) and herself (see Troopergate). For Pastor Wright, you've got Hagee and Parsley for McCain, and for Palin her pastor holds extreme end-times ideologies.

Now I think it's stupid to judge people based on their connections, because you can do this to nearly every politician. The fact that you can do this with McCain and Palin would seem to make it clear that these are silly comparisons that don't hold up.

[JRod]

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 2000

What did Clinton do on that day? He still had exactly one year left in office Jan. 20, 2000.

Take care,
PK

...facts always ruin bad sarcasm.

Typos do.

Clinton's mantra:

What is 'truth'?