Has anyone heard this report?...
I was listening to the radio this morning and heard that McCain wants to change the debate topic for tomorrow night's Second Presidential Debate. The debate is to cover all topics (or perhaps specifically the economy?). According to this news report I heard today, McCain would like to change the topic from The Economy to Why Does Obama Have Pals That are Terrorists? (Roughly that - according to the news story, McCain would like the topic to be Obama and his ties to terrorism, or something like that.)
Well, yeah, I guess McCain at this point WOULD like to change the topic to something like that. Perhaps a second topic could be, Has Obama Quit Beating His Wife?
I tried to find this news story online and have not found it yet. Is this serious?? McCain is really grasping at straws here. And one could hardly blame him, he's having his bottom handed to him.
What I don't think he gets is that it is exactly this sort of behavior that is driving normal people away from McCain (and this sort of Republican action).
Now, if McCain seriously wanted to look into the associates of BOTH candidates - both his and Obama's - do you think he'd think that would be a worthwhile debate topic? Does McCain want to spend part of the debate talking about his involvement with the Keating Five? How about his endorsement from Oliver North - a man who McCain has not rebuked for his involvement in illegal selling weapons to IRAN so that he could illegally fund terrorists in Nicaragua? Terrorists that eventually killed tens of thousands of people!
Does McCain really prepared to make these topics of discussion in a debate? No, of course not. He wants the debate to be about Obama and his terrorist "pals."
McCain's candidacy is officially toast.
29 comments:
No, the McCain campaign is in trouble, but it is not yet "toast." This desperate move could actually work and has in the past. But it has usually failed when pocketbook issues were first in voters' minds--so, in '92 attempts to focus on Clinton's college smoking of weed or "draft dodging," didn't work. This will probably not work, either, but it could.
And it shows how desperate McCain's camp is when this is their ONLY remaining tactic. If they haven't changed the basic dynamic of the race (not just narrowed Obama's lead in some polls) by 15 October, THEN they're toast. But they are certainly looking much toastier than in the week following the GOP convention.
Does McCain want to spend part of the debate talking about his involvement with the Keating Five?
He's actually been very candid about his role in the Keating scandal, and has been since 1981.
Anyway, there's quite a difference in scale between associating with a embezzler and associating with a terrorist. Especially since McCain's affiliation with Keating was under a year, and Obama has been wrapped up with Ayers for two decades.
I do, however, agree that the economy is a more pressing issue, and is more properly the subject of debate. Although I've not seen any articles saying that the McCain campaign has sought to change the debate subject matter.
And there is quite a difference in scale between accepting an endorsement from a man (North) who gave weapons and support to terrorists - resulting ultimately in tens of thousands of deaths - and rebuking the actions of a man (Ayers) who was involved in domestic terrorism insofar as he blew up buildings and perhaps talked of harming a few individuals.
BOTH actions are terrorism, to be sure, but the difference is, Obama has repudiated Ayers' actions - which were terrorism on a much, much much less deadly scale by a factor of thousands - while McCain has accepted the endorsement of his terrorist pal.
Yes, there's quite a difference between the Ayers "association" and the Keating 5.
Ayers did his deeds when Obama was what, 8 years old?
8 years old.
Years later Ayers served on the same anti-poverty board that Obama worked on, which met 12 times over 2 years. Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1995. And Ayers contributed a whopping $200 to Obama's state senate campaign.
Wow. So, two guys active in Chicago politics, it turns out, actually knew each other.
Shocking!
Remember, that Ayers is apparently so dangerous that he isn't in even in prison! BTW, does this mean that anyone who knows Ayers, who is now a university professor, is a terrorist? Are his students terrorists? Is his mailman? Exactly what association does one have to have with someone before their crimes rub off?
McCain however, was actually one of the Keating 5, not just someone who came to know Keating years and years after the scandal. Without McCain it would have been the Keating 4. LOL There's not just an association here, there's actual involvement.
But the Six Degrees of Separation game is fun. I wonder what other random associations people can dig up. Maybe conservatives can find a guy who worked at a Starbucks that Obama used to get his lattes, who has a criminal record.
And please, let's argue about this while the economy continues to tank. Karl Rovian Weapons of Mass Distraction, or as the Republicans call it, "business as usual."
"Although I've not seen any articles saying that the McCain campaign has sought to change the debate subject matter."
This has been everywhere in the last few days, I'm surprised you haven't seen it, John:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_adviser_ap
More on the problems with "Guilt by association" -
"John McCain sat on the board of...the U.S. Council for World Freedom," said Begala, "The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League - the parent organization - which ADL said 'has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.'"
If McCain wants to start the guilt-by-association game, he's going to have a lot more to lose.
McCain advisors who lobbied for Freddie Mac:
Chief of Staff Mark Buse, Charles Black, Carlos Bonilla, Al D’Amato, Juleanna Glover Weiss, Susan Molinari.
McCain advisors who lobbied for Fannie Mae: McCain’s Congressional Liaison John Green, Head of VP Search Team AB Culvahouse, Wayne Berman, Kirk Blalock, Alberto Cardenas, Kirsten Chadwick, Richard Holht, Kate Hull, Aleix Jarvis, Tom Loeffler, Peter Madigan, Allison McSlarrow, Aquiles Suarez.
McCain accepted $2,300, the maximum allowed by law, from porn king Jonathan Crutchley, who ran a gay sex & gay porn website. McCain has claimed that he's returned the money, but campaign records indicate that's a lie.
Yay! This is fun! I'm sure we can find something about McCain's meter-readers. After all, with all those houses, it seems like at least one of them should have a shady past. :)
Thanks for the info and jokes, Alan. But your link to the McCain story is broken and I still can't find any online info about the change of topic - do you have another source?
And who's joking? If Obama's local Starbucks barrista has been arrested for shoplifting, the world has a right to know that Obama uses this kind of bad judgement in picking folks who make his lattes. ;)
And one of BHO's econimic advisors is a guy who raked in almost $100,000,000 in bonuses from F/F while overseening accounting practices described as Enron like. These accounting practices directlt resulted in said bonuses. This also is a significant contributer to our current economic situation.
And who would that be, Craig? Raines? He is not/was not an economic adviser to Obama.
source
Or do you have someone else in mind?
The source for this is the Washington Post. From what I've seen there is significant doubt as to Raines connection with BHO. If in fact the Times report os shown to be incorrect I will go with the facts.
I assume you are jazzed about BHO's plans to take the govt into private buisness.
No, why would I be jazzed?
And what plans do you speak of? His health care is a free market solution, not a gov't solution. It's gov't assistance with a free market solution and I have no strong opinion one way or the other on it.
"I assume you are jazzed about BHO's plans to take the govt into private buisness."
vs. McCain's new government pander to get into the private home ownership business? ;)
How are real conservatives not losing their minds over this guy they nominated? He's clearly just as much of a big government spender as any other politician in the last 50 years and he probably hasn't set foot in a church since the Reformation. If he were running as a Democrat, the Republicans would be warning us about the coming communist zombie apocalypse if he were elected President.
I guess you go to war with the army you've got, not the army you want. ;)
Dan wrote:
BOTH actions are terrorism, to be sure, but the difference is, Obama has repudiated Ayers' actions - which were terrorism on a much, much much less deadly scale by a factor of thousands - while McCain has accepted the endorsement of his terrorist pal.
Obama only repudiated Ayers after he started running for President and he was challenged for working so closely with Ayers. Like his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright, Obama only ditches radical allies when they become inconvenient for him, not when he realized that they're nutjobs.
Alan wrote:
Ayers did his deeds when Obama was what, 8 years old?
Does it matter how old Obama was when Ayers went on his bombing spree? The man was a terrorist, and he is unapologetic about it. Obama chose to work with him.
And I'll hold conservatives to the same standard.
Yay! This is fun! I'm sure we can find something about McCain's meter-readers. After all, with all those houses, it seems like at least one of them should have a shady past. :)
How many of these people are terrorists?
And:
And who's joking? If Obama's local Starbucks barrista has been arrested for shoplifting, the world has a right to know that Obama uses this kind of bad judgement in picking folks who make his lattes. ;)
This isn't just some guy who lives in Obama's neighborhood; this is a close political ally of Obama's for years.
And:
How are real conservatives not losing their minds over this guy they nominated? He's clearly just as much of a big government spender as any other politician in the last 50 years and he probably hasn't set foot in a church since the Reformation.
Pretty much. McCain has no small government instincts, just as Bush has none.
If he were running as a Democrat, the Republicans would be warning us about the coming communist zombie apocalypse if he were elected President.
Zombies tend to vote Libertarian, in my experience.
Obama only repudiated Ayers after he started running for President and he was challenged for working so closely with Ayers.
You mean to say that you're unhappy that Obama didn't go on the record as opposed to Ayers' bombing BEFORE he was ever asked about it?
You know, John, I didn't go on record as being opposed to Ayers' terrorism until after Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm not opposed to it.
Do you really think Obama supports bombing US buildings, as Ayers did?
The man was a terrorist, and he is unapologetic about it. Obama chose to work with him.
And I'll hold conservatives to the same standard.
Then, will you condemn McCain for accepting the endorsement of Oliver North - a man whose involvement in supporting terrorism came at the cost of tens of thousands of lives (as opposed to zero lives for Ayers' terrorism)?
Dan,
Are you reallt unaware of the fact that BHO is advocating the following;
a) Provide funding for automakers to retool their plants to build different types of vehicles
b) Fund R&D for automakers and other private (publicly owned) businesses
c) lower capitol gains taxes on small businesses (apparently it will be good for small business, but not good for large ones, which seems to be govt discrimination)
d) open plants to produce ???
This does not include his promise to spend $150 million on funding r&d for companies involved in wind, solar, biofuels.
To "pick up the tab" for people with serious illness.
To hire and increase pay for an unspecified number of teachers.
Force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions in all cases. Which will increase insurance rates.
I can't wait to see the tab.
BTW, BHO said that he "wrote two letters" when he decided that there was a mortgage crisis, is he unaware that as a sitting senator he could have authored legislation to correct the problem he identified. I guess the F/F money bought something.
Feel free to provide a source for those and I'll check them out.
Dan,
Could there be a beter source than listening to BHO's speeches. All of this came from his speech on Monday Oct. 2 in MI. This was all withing 10-15 minutes. I took notes, (if there are quotes, it's because I wrote down what he said). As for the campaign "contributions" there are a number of groups that put out that information. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, in that when he said "we" are going to do these things, he could have been talking about himself and some freinds. But, I think he really meant you.
"The man was a terrorist, and he is unapologetic about it. Obama chose to work with him.
And I'll hold conservatives to the same standard."
Right. Sure. ROFL. Why is it whenever people say that, they never actually do so?
For example, both Obama and Ayers worked for a foundation funded by the Annenberg Foundation, and Annenberg was ambassador to the UK, under Nixon and a close friend of Reagan's, I guess you'll be able to show me exactly where you have similarly criticized Annenberg, John. Or where you've criticized every other member of the board, including the Republicans.
Please give me a link, John, and clearly show me where you've criticized former Illinois state Representative, Diana Nelson, Republican, who has worked with both Ayers and Obama.
Should be easy enough, what with you holding conservatives to the same standard. ;)
"Obama chose to work with him."
Uh. No, Obama was asked to serve on a board.
BTW, you still haven't explained who else we should be criticizing. Are his students "pallin'" around with a terrorist now? Should his dean and/or president be fired? How about his Starbucks barrista? Should he or she be fired for serving him a latte?
And when will we start criticizing Palin for pallin' around with Alaskan secessionists?
And meanwhile, the Dow continues to tank.
"Pretty much. McCain has no small government instincts, just as Bush has none."
And yet you all elected Bush twice, and have now nominated McCain. And you actually think someone would take your party seriously when you talk about judgement? Sorta makes one wonder about your own judgement, doesn't it? No, probably not, unfortunately.
Seriously, you all deserve McCain/Palin. They're absolutely the right people for the Republican party these days: Mr. no ideas, no leadership, and no ethics McCain who is losing and determined to go out in a Karl Rovian blaze of gory, and the Alaskan Airhead. It's really too bad. I wish we had some real choices in this election.
I feel even worse that I've voted for McCain twice. I guess he snowed me too. Except the difference is that I eventually realized it. ;)
Dan wrote:
You mean to say that you're unhappy that Obama didn't go on the record as opposed to Ayers' bombing BEFORE he was ever asked about it?
You know, John, I didn't go on record as being opposed to Ayers' terrorism until after Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm not opposed to it.
Do you really think Obama supports bombing US buildings, as Ayers did?
It's not enough that Obama bowed to public pressure to disavow Ayers. He should never have associated with Ayers in the first place. That Obama decided to do so only after going to the national political scene shows a lack of sincerity.
If a Republican politician had worked with David Duke for twenty years, and then only repudiated him after facing public pressure, he, too, should be considered an insincere opportunist.
So, why did it take Obama 20 years to realize that terrorists are bad?
Then, will you condemn McCain for accepting the endorsement of Oliver North - a man whose involvement in supporting terrorism came at the cost of tens of thousands of lives (as opposed to zero lives for Ayers' terrorism)?
I understand the argument that the U.S. is a terrorist state and that various U.S. wars or insurgencies supported by the U.S. constitute terrorism. But as North was working for the U.S. government and with a foreign insurgency supported by the U.S., the notion that he is a terrorist is not plausible. At least, it's not as remotely plausible as calling Ayers a terrorist, since Ayers founded a terrorist group whose explicit purpose was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.
Alan wrote:
Right. Sure. ROFL. Why is it whenever people say that, they never actually do so?
For example, both Obama and Ayers worked for a foundation funded by the Annenberg Foundation, and Annenberg was ambassador to the UK, under Nixon and a close friend of Reagan's, I guess you'll be able to show me exactly where you have similarly criticized Annenberg, John. Or where you've criticized every other member of the board, including the Republicans.
Please give me a link, John, and clearly show me where you've criticized former Illinois state Representative, Diana Nelson, Republican, who has worked with both Ayers and Obama.
I've never heard of Diane Nelson. Fill me in.
Uh. No, Obama was asked to serve on a board.
BTW, you still haven't explained who else we should be criticizing. Are his students "pallin'" around with a terrorist now? Should his dean and/or president be fired? How about his Starbucks barrista? Should he or she be fired for serving him a latte?
Ayers was far more to Obama than the local Starbucks barrista.
Obama launched is state senate campaign from Ayers' living room.
Ayers led the effort to form the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and hired Obama to chair the board of directors.
And when will we start criticizing Palin for pallin' around with Alaskan secessionists?
How exactly did she "pal around" with secessionists?
By the way, isn't there a difference between people who advocate peaceful succession and those who not only advocate but use bombs in order to overthrow a democratically elected government?
And yet you all elected Bush twice, and have now nominated McCain. And you actually think someone would take your party seriously when you talk about judgement? Sorta makes one wonder about your own judgement, doesn't it? No, probably not, unfortunately.
Don't blame me. I voted for Harry Browne.
Seriously, you all deserve McCain/Palin. They're absolutely the right people for the Republican party these days: Mr. no ideas, no leadership, and no ethics McCain who is losing and determined to go out in a Karl Rovian blaze of gory, and the Alaskan Airhead. It's really too bad. I wish we had some real choices in this election.
Me too. Times like this remind me of the old G.I. Joe episode where the senior officers of Cobra get so fed up with Cobra Commander's incompetence that they overthrow him and decide to clone a leader from the genetic material of great generals of the past, such as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon. This creation is named "Serpentor", and he proves to be a better leader than Cobra Commander, even if his pride is ultimately his undoing. Still, maybe we could clone a President from the genetic material of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Maybe throw in some Hayek and Locke, too.
But as North was working for the U.S. government and with a foreign insurgency supported by the U.S., the notion that he is a terrorist is not plausible.
? Why? You're not saying that if the US gov't does it, it's not terrorism, are you? That's not a morally tenable position and I'm sure you couldn't be suggesting that. So perhaps you could explain what you mean.
Beyond that, North was not working FOR the US gov't. He was working against the US gov't. One can't illegally (ie, in opposition to US law) sell weapons to a rogue nation and then take the money and give support illegally (again, by US law) to a terrorist organization that is working to overthrow a democratically elected gov't and claim to be working FOR the US.
North was working contrary to stated US law in support of terrorism. In my mind, that makes him a terrorist.
If bin Laden had never fired the first weapon or exploded the first bomb, but merely organized and support those who did, he would still be a terrorist. Same thing with North, at least in my mind.
"I've never heard of Diane Nelson. Fill me in."
What?! You said you'd treat all conservatives the same. Seems that you haven't. Don't tell me you've never heard of Annenberg, too. LOL
Hypocrisy, thy name is John.
"How exactly did she "pal around" with secessionists?"
LOL. I repeat, hypocrisy thy name is John.
What?! You said you'd treat all conservatives the same. Seems that you haven't. Don't tell me you've never heard of Annenberg, too. LOL
I do. By all means inform me of this Diane Nelson person. If she has behaved wrongly, I shall say so.
LOL. I repeat, hypocrisy thy name is John.
If you have a case to make, make it.
? Why? You're not saying that if the US gov't does it, it's not terrorism, are you? That's not a morally tenable position and I'm sure you couldn't be suggesting that. So perhaps you could explain what you mean.
Beyond that, North was not working FOR the US gov't. He was working against the US gov't. One can't illegally (ie, in opposition to US law) sell weapons to a rogue nation and then take the money and give support illegally (again, by US law) to a terrorist organization that is working to overthrow a democratically elected gov't and claim to be working FOR the US.
North was working contrary to stated US law in support of terrorism. In my mind, that makes him a terrorist.
If bin Laden had never fired the first weapon or exploded the first bomb, but merely organized and support those who did, he would still be a terrorist. Same thing with North, at least in my mind.
I see your point. Let me clarify: the problem with Ayers is who he terrorized. He declared war upon the United States, and carried out such activities. He took up arms against the U.S. Ayers is, by definition, a traitor. He should be, as such, permanently beyond the realm of acceptable public discourse, unless he did some major-league recanting and repenting. But he hasn't. And that Obama finds him an acceptable political ally calls into question his own loyalty to the U.S.
Dan,
While you dillegently do research to aswer my previous questions, enjoy this.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20081014/Voter.Fraud/&cvqh=itn_acorn/
And you can add Hennipen Co MN to the list. They really registers Mickey Mouse in Fl and the Dallas Coyboys in Nevada. Not only are the sleazy, they're appearantlt stupid as well
John said:
He took up arms against the U.S. Ayers is, by definition, a traitor.
I suppose you would agree, John, that a person who betrays a country's wrong policies may be a traitor in the technical sense but a hero in the larger sense?
Germans who betrayed Hitler were perhaps traitors, but they were also heroes.
Americans who betrayed their states in the South to help free slaves may have been traitors to their homeland, but they were heroes in the greater sense.
I disagree with Ayers' actions. They fit generally in the category of terrorism, as far as I'm concerned. But he was fighting against an unjust war so I both condemn his actions and praise his concern. He has moved on from those more violent days to be involved in other social justice issues without engaging in violence and that's a good thing.
Have you ever answered the North question? If you believe a person engages in violent acts against their country (as North did by supporting terrorism elsewhere in our name and on our dime), ought he be shunned by McCain? Oughtn't his endorsement be rejected by McCain?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"If you have a case to make, make it."
You just made it for me.
How many comments now and you still can't bring yourself to condemn Republicans who worked on that board and similar ones with Ayers? Still can't bring yourself to tell us just how far the Ayers six-degrees-of-separation game should go? Still can't be honest and call his students or others at his university terrorist sympathizers?
You said you'd treat them the same. So I'm sure you can provide one quote, one link from the past several years where you've condemned these folks.
No? Didn't think so. I believe the phrase you folks like to use is "in the tank."
Yeah, like I said, you've already made it for me. ;)
Post a Comment