17 October 2008

Some Fodder For Anglave


Read, enjoy, pick-apart.

By they way, Mr Menzel, you could post this to YOUR live journal and not be limited by the word count. Hey, post the McLame tear down there! I'll link my other reader to it for you!

If what his replies say is true, there's much ado about nothing with Bill Ayers. The problem I have trouble articulating is there is a pattern with Mr Obama and the persons he associates with. It's never anything overt, but there's always something unsavory about the people he's been rubbing shoulders with. Oh, it's innocent enough, now, but he sure doesn't seem to know anyone that doesn't have a major skeleton.

I have to keep repeating it; I DO NOT LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH! I only voted for him in 2000 because I was voting against Al "ozone" Gore, and again against John "Three Purple Hearts" Kerry.

I DO NOT LIKE JOHN McCAIN! but I end up defending him (and Bush) because I am always being assaulted by people who know I am "the conservative" about the latest evil of the "Rethuglicans". If the media spent as much time on the effects of George Soros as they did on Karl Rove, I think I could seriously look at both parties.

Comments Below

18th-Oct-2008 04:03 pm (local)


[My response ended up 11903 characters, while Livejournal only allows 4300. So it's going to appear as multiple responses.]

Obama's "terrorist" "pal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

McCain's confirmed transition team leader, should he win the 2008 presidential election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Timmons

More about Timmons (from a radically left source, I admit)

Confirmation of Timmons's appointment as McCain's transition chief:


I hadn't heard anything about Tony Rezko before reading the article you linked. He certainly doesn't sound like a good guy. He was in fact found guilty of several nasty crimes. And it does seem that Obama has had at least some contact with him.
But to call Rezko Obama's "financial mentor" or to say that "Obama demanded the indicted Rezko help him buy a new house" are certainly exaggerations. And while Rezko is certainly not the kind of man I'd want our next president to have close ties to, the article you linked doesn't really make any discreet and clear charges that the men are connected. Rather, it spends several paragraphs on hypobole about how terrible a person Tony Rezko is.

22nd-Oct-2008 01:53 am (local)


If this is so much nothing, why are they hiding stuff?


22nd-Oct-2008 04:48 pm (local)


Oh my good God. I just read the responses to that post. All 737 (at the moment) of them.

I want six hours of my life back. What an example of foul-mouthed children with firmly held preconceptions bickering and name calling... sheesh.

The article quotes a personal blog entry (since pulled) of Maria Warren. Apparently she said:

When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His “bright eyes and easy smile” struck me as contrived and calculated–maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I’ve never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race–because his opponent was a pinhead. And I’ve been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that’s changing.”

Yes, there was "coffee" at the Ayers living room (and many more, in many other living rooms) early in Obama's first Senatorial campaign, to introduce him to the community. Yes, Maria Warren referred to that event as "launching".

And somehow the fact that, though the blog post was publicly available since 2005, she pulled it recently, is evidence of an Obama cover up?

She's a private citizen (and apparently not even an Obama supporter). She's allowed to pull a personal blog post for any reason or none. But apparently (in response to repeated attacks and questions regarding the event) she's made a public statement regarding her actions.

Jeez! The howls of indignation. Grow up, people. Yes, it’s gone; that oh-so-exciting post that people can’t seem to get enough of. We know deleting doesn’t erase it from memory. Like so much urine in a swimming pool, trace elements will remain.

For those of you trolling this site for dirt on Obama and Ayers, please look elsewhere. Red Rabbit and the rest of us have said our piece which doesn’t amount to much beyond that yes there was an event which we attended and which has been part of public record for years. If you want to have a serious debate on how progressive Obama truly is then we can talk. But judging from the traffic stats and the comments I doubt that’s what you’re looking for.

This site has been pretty hard on Obama but has always criticized him from a progressive standpoint. Quite frankly the accusation that Obama would have a terrorist agenda is laughable considering what a cautious politician he is. Nor should Ayers be tried anew for his weather underground activities. His radical bonafides are so outdated, calling him a terrorist is giving him way too much credit.

My feeling is that the association with Ayers is, in fact, "so much nothing" and that the only people still beating this dead horse are those seeking an excuse to dislike Obama.

When independent (but obviously biased) sources continue to raise the issue and respond to anyone who tries to call for reason with personal attacks, and then screamWhy does Obama feel the need to tell so many lies about it? And why are so many of his supporters helping to cover it up? (Claims which are entirely unsubstantiated. Show me where Obama lied. Show me where his supporters are engaged in a cover up)... well, claiming a cover up still doesn't make their point valid.
Obama publicly denouncing Ayers's actions, declaring that the man doesn't advise him now nor will he in the future, and declaring (truthfully) during a presidential debate that they knew each other because both were members of the boards of some local charity and non-profit organizations sounds more like refuting a personal attack than "trying to sanitize the historical record."

Exaggerating a connection to a man who's evils have been exaggerated ("terrorist", "murderer", "wanted to overthrow the government"), responding to any rational position with personal attacks, and then demanding that the person you're attacking "come clean" and that "Obama and his people making efforts to sanitize the historical record" might be a good way to incite a mob. But it's neither a great way to establish an argument nor win a debate.

22nd-Oct-2008 06:18 pm (local)


Granted, but WHY hide it?

22nd-Oct-2008 10:40 pm (local)


Who is hiding?

Do you mean to say that it was senator Obama's duty, the moment he declared his candidacy, to stand up and proclaim that he once worked (along with many others) with a man who has a radical history?

Ok, I'll grant that his first answers about Ayers were pretty dismissive. I'd probably have been pretty dismissive too, if asked about someone I had very tenuous contact with, but who might be a bomb for my campaign if cast in the wrong light.

Since then, specifically in person, in the third Presidential debate, Obama clearly and directly addressed his relationship with Ayers, and once again denounced the man's actions. What more do you want?

I'm not sure where the continued accusation of "hiding" is coming from. Honestly, clue me in?

22nd-Oct-2008 11:21 pm (local)


I've been watching news articles changing on CNN, MSNBC, AP and the NYT when unfavorable reaction occurs.

I have seen changes happen for no apparent reason, but in a less confrontational tone. As if they were hiding their more radical position when someone is referred to the article.

Now, I am primed to expect it. When someone deletes a post about something I am talking about, especially after a lot of people have linked to it, I don't think charitable thoughts.

Obama's reaction to questions about Bill Ayers, as I saw them in real time, were (roughly in order) Who? Oh, some guy who goes to the same PTA meetings as I do. Someone I worked with briefly. The story about launching his senate campaign in Ayer's living room broke somewhere between "Who?" and "PTA". The real core of the issue is the shifting story, especially when we know that a Republican candidate would never be allowed to change his position so many times.

I can't link to what I saw, because all I have is my own lying eyes.

18th-Oct-2008 04:03 pm (local)


From the wikipedia article:
In 1990, after Barack Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezmar Corp. offered him a job, which Obama turned down. Obama did end up taking a job with law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland,[27] which primarily worked civil rights cases, but also represented Rezmar and helped the company get more than $43 million in government funding and whose former senior partner, Allison S. Davis, later went into business with Rezko and, in 2003, was appointed to Illinois State Board of Investment by Governor Blagojevich at Rezko's request.[7][28] On July 31, 1995 the first ever political contributions to Obama were $300 from a lawyer, a $5,000 loan from a car dealer, and $2,000 from two food companies owned by Rezko.[29] Starting in 2003, Rezko was one of the people on Obama's U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million.[7] Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama, which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with seed money for his U.S. Senate race.[1] Obama has since identified over $250,000 in campaign contributions to various Obama campaigns as coming from Rezko or close associates, and has claimed to have donated almost two thirds of that amount to unspecified nonprofit groups.[30][31]

Also, in 2005 Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (which was $300,000 below the asking price but represented the highest offer on the property) on the same day that Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, purchased the adjoining empty lot from the same sellers for the full asking price.[32] Obama acknowledged bringing his interest in the property to Rezko's attention,[33] but denied any coordination of offers. According to Obama, while the properties had originally been a single property, the previous owners decided to sell the land as two separate lots, but made it a condition of the sales that they be closed on the same date. Obama also claimed that the properties had been on the market for months, that his offer was the best of two bids, and that Ms. Rezko's bid was matched by another offer, also of $625,000, so that she could not have purchased the property for less.[34] Obama's description of the purchase was later confirmed by the previous owner of the house.[35]

After it had been reported in 2006 that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling, Obama purchased a 10 foot (3.0 m) wide strip of Ms. Rezko's property for $104,500, $60,000 above the assessed value.[32][7] According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Mark Brown, "Rezko definitely did Obama a favor by selling him the 10-foot strip of land, making his own parcel less attractive for development."[36] Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have created the appearance of impropriety, and stated "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."[34]

In the South Carolina Democratic Party presidential debate on January 21, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Obama had represented Rezko, who she referred to as a slum landlord.[41] Obama responded that he had never represented Rezko and had done only about five hours work, indirectly, for Rezko's firm.[citation needed] Within days of the debate, a photo of Rezko posing with Bill and Hillary Clinton surfaced. When asked about the photo Hillary Clinton commented "I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door."[42]

18th-Oct-2008 04:04 pm (local)


from factcheck.org:

Obama did have a past relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, but he is no longer Obama's "money man." Obama hasn't been associated with him since his indictment for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion, and Obama donated all of the disgraced businessman's previous campaign contributions to charity.

Ok, I see that there are some ties. And that Rezko is scum. I don't see strong and close ties (from this information), certainly no stronger than the good senator McCain's ties to, apparently, every lobbyist in Washington:

from that article:
• One: Campaign manager Rick Davis is a major telecommunications lobbyist.

• Two: Senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann recently faced scrutiny over his foreign lobbying on behalf of the Republic of Georgia, which has been embroiled in a military conflict with Russia.

• Three: Senior adviser Charlie Black was a foreign lobbyist for dictators in Zaire and Angola in the 1980s, fodder for the liberal group MoveOn.org.

• Four: Frank Donatelli, the Republican National Committee's liaison to the McCain campaign, has had clients including Exxon Mobil.

• Five: Economic adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer has lobbied for corporate giants like Koch Industries.

• The final two lobbyists are McCain's congressional liaison, John Green, and national finance Co-chairman Wayne Berman. They both lobbied for Fannie Mae, the troubled mortgage giant.

Yeah, there's a "leader we can believe in", who promises that "change is coming"
(two of McCain's recent slogans)

Regarding the Jerimiah Wright "God damn America" quote:
Also, a person's preacher is allowed to say just about anything. If he were calling for the congregation to start murdering children or eating puppies or something, that would be pretty disturbing. Exclaiming his sentiment that America's ham-handed foreign policies and low worldwide approval rating are returning to harm her is a different story.
Yes, he's inflammatory. No, he's not an America hater or unpatriotic. Many people, patriotic heroes, have expressed distaste for elements of America, her actions or policies. And they strive to change these things.

18th-Oct-2008 04:05 pm (local)


The Ayers "Guilty as sin -- free as a bird" quote needs some context as well. How about directly from the 2001 Chicago Magazine article in which the quote originally appeared?

Between 1970 and 1974, the Weatherman took credit for 12 bombings, including one of the United States Capitol and another involving several police cars. The group always emphasized that their targets were property, not people. And, in fact, no one was injured—except, of course, some of the Weatherman's own.

In 1970, a bomb that was apparently being built in a Greenwich Village townhouse, occupied by at least five members of the Weatherman, accidentally exploded—killing three of the group, including Ayers's beloved Diana Oughton. In Fugitive Days, Ayers tries to imagine what happened. Maybe Diana tried to stop the others from their path? Maybe they all drank too much coffee and smoked too many cigarettes?

Maybe Diana saw that this bomb, packed with nails and screws, would have exacted a heavy human toll if it had ever reached its destination—a New Jersey military base. Could she have, in a gesture of sacrifice, crossed the wires herself? "I'll never know what happened," he says. "That's the price I have to pay."

The deaths—and two federal indictments—sent Ayers and his remaining comrades underground. The fugitives eluded the FBI for ten years through a series of constantly changing identities and locations. In one of the most haunting scenes in Fugitive Days, Ayers wanders through remote Midwestern cemeteries, looking for the gravestones of babies who, like them, had been born between 1940 and 1950 but had died shortly thereafter. It was from those headstones that the fugitives would build their new identities. Overall, Ayers figures, he had at least 12 separate aliases while living in 15 different states. The one he used most often was "Joe." Bernardine's favorite was "Rose," and to honor her, Ayers got the rose tattoo he now sports on his forearm.

In 1980, Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in. (The first words Ayers's father said to him were, "You need a haircut.") By then they had had two children together, and the bombing conspiracy charge against the couple had been dismissed due to government misconduct.

Dohrn plea-bargained to charges of inciting to mob action and resisting police officers. She was sentenced to three years' probation and a $1,500 fine. Ayers was not charged. Even then he showed a way with words: "Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country," he said.


Taken together and out of context, the three quotes leading the article you linked make Obama's "pals" seem pretty terrible. But the article stretches the most to exaggerate and distort the worst of their acts, and reaches to make ties to the worst of the three appear much stronger than they are.
But you'll notice that, much like the recent McCain campaign, the article is long on venom but short on facts.

18th-Oct-2008 05:28 pm (local)


My point here isn't that these three men are saints, far from it. But lets look at their actions and connections to Obama in context.

Obama's senatorial campaign took some donations from a prominent and well-to-do democrat (Rezko) who turned out to be a bad guy. Obama also bought property next to property Rezko also bought (but no longer owns), closing on the same day (as a condition of the seller's).

Rezko certainly appears to be a genuine sleaze. But his connection to Obama seems to be pretty tenuous. Are you telling me McCain's campaign never took money from anyone who turned out to be a sleaze?
In 1998 Liddy hosted a fundraiser at his house for John McCain's re-election campaign at which guests could have their pictures taken with McCain and Liddy.[6] Over the years, Liddy, who has referred to McCain as "an old friend," has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2008.


Reverend Wright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright was in fact senator Obama's pastor for many years. He's harsh, opinionated, perhaps firebrand preacher. And he's said some things in his sermons that, especially when taken out of context, sound pretty critical of America.

Wright seems to me to be someone with strong opinions, who voices his opinion, and who has in fact advocated change for America (along with several other, more religious themes) in several of his sermons.
Because Obama's former preacher wants to see change in America, and occasionally says some things that get him in trouble, we're supposed to be scared of senator Obama? Because Wright apparently feels that America's foreign policies and "world police" actions have garnered negative sentiment and even terrorist attacks against us, he must be anti-American?


Bill Ayers was once a radical activist who committed violent crimes (including bombings) in protest of the Vietnam war. Right or wrong, he believed in changing the course America was set on, and he believed strongly enough to put his liberty in jeopardy. Notably, the Weathermen emphasized that their targets were property, not people. They were violent (and illegal) protesters, not terrorists.

I'm not condoning his actions, but I am saying that he spent a decade as a fugitive from the FBI because of his personal convictions, yet he has since become a professor (University of Illinois at Chicago), and in 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award. Calling the man "a terrorist" in 2008 is a bit far fetched.

And the connection between Obama and Ayers appears to be entirely legitimate. For the McCain campaign to continually imply that Obama is hiding something about their relationship, to accuse him of lying about it, and openly state that Obama "pals around with terrorists" is appalling.

from the wikipedia article:
Bill Ayers and Barack Obama at one time lived in the same neighborhood in the city of Chicago, and both had worked on education reform in the state of Illinois. The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform." Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office." The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002. In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate. Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.
CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the non-profit projects in which the two men were involved. Internal reviews by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic "have said that their reporting does not support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship". William C. Ibershof, the lead federal prosecutor of the Weather Underground case noted, "I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago."

20th-Oct-2008 02:47 am (local)


I feel that now might be a good time to mention that Wikipedia can be unreliable about controversial subjects. Because anyone can edit, you'll get editing from most anyone.

Too many times have the supporting footnotes lead to dead links that I don't wholly trust it as a resource.

That said, they do trend towards fact over hyperbole.

Bill Ayers is, by today's definition, a terrorist. In the exact same way as Timothy McVeigh is called a terrorist. McVeigh wanted to kill ATF agents, not scare people. Ayers has been pretty damn proud of his actions until the disclosure starting giving his associates some heat.

By the way, here in America when we have a problem with our government, we get to writing letters to our congress-things and vote. We don't blow up people's houses or places of work. Please note that _I_ am posting my opinions and voting. I have blown up nothing, or shot any one of these despicable weasels who would be facing a gallows if the founders were somehow brought back to see what their republic had become. Bill Ayers had a hissy and got together with his buddies and attempted murder.

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK HOW LONG AGO HE TRIED TO KILL SOMEONE! There's no statute of limitations on that, and he's free for the same damn reason OJ was. Incompetent government (I repeat myself) prosecutors.

Their wives have a longer association than they do. That might be the more meaningful connection to make about how long and how well they know each other.

While we're on the topic of Michelle Obama, I want to make it clear that I am really sick of the "first whatever" acting like it's a real live cabinet level position. Mrs Clinton cured me forever of the novelty of that. It's been a refreshing 8 years of, "What the hell is W's wife's name again?"

22nd-Oct-2008 05:53 pm (local)


First, I want to make it clear that in broad strokes I agree with you. The actions of Bill Ayers in association with the Weather Underground were criminal.

I don't think the comparison to Timothy McVeigh is well founded. Ayers and the Weathermen conducted an anti-property campaign (with no intent to injure anyone) in protest of a war they thought was unjust. Yes, they did bomb the pentagon. With a bomb weighing less than 2 pounds. No one was injured.

McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building in an act of revenge for the Waco Siege. He used a 5,000lb bomb, killing 168 people.

It's true that both used bombs. It may also be true that neither one was semantically a "terrorist", as their goals did not include inciting fear in the enemy.
Beyond that, I'm not seeing much connection, and I don't see how this relates to Ayers being a "terrorist" or not.

But that's really an academic, semantics argument. I'm willing to concede that as recently as 1972, Ayers was a violent and radical criminal.

Your statement "I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK HOW LONG AGO HE TRIED TO KILL SOMEONE! " certainly does imply attempted murder. As do many of the posters on the patterico.com article you've linked above.
Could you substantiate that accusation, please?
[I swear, I'm not trolling a flame war. Just show me a link to a factual article or interview where Ayers is accused of murder or attempted murder.]

Ok, though we may dispute the severity and semantics, we agree that until at least 1972, Ayers was an active criminal, and until 1980 a federal fugitive.

As of their first recorded meeting in 1995 (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html), Ayers was a professor at the University of Illinois, a member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors, and an influential community organizer and school reformer.
Obama was running for his first senatorial position in 1996 to take the seat of Alice Palmer, and at the request of Alice Palmer. After the official campaign announcement, there were a series of coffees held around the neighborhood to introduce the young Obama to the community. Ayers hosted one of these coffees.

Do you suppose the young senatorial candidate should have walked into the home of an influential (and well respected) Democratic community organizer, university professor, and education charity board member, who was hosting an event to help introduce him to the community (because he was a respected organizer of the community) and said "So, what's this I hear about your terrorist activities of twenty-five years ago?"

Can you imagine the silence in that living room?

I'm not trying to excuse Ayers's past. But you can see how inappropriate it would be to broach the topic? The man won Chicago's "citizen of the year award". I'm assuming his domestic terrorist history is taboo at dinner!

And now we're attacking Obama for having been in the man's presence? He was on the board of the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Fund.

Did all of the members of those boards "pal around with terrorists."?

18th-Oct-2008 05:30 pm (local)


So in total we have a tenuous connection to a genuine sleaze, a firebrand pastor who sometimes speaks rashly, and a completely legitimate but coincidental overlap in board memberships with a man who was a criminal anti-war activist in the '60s and early '70s.

For the far right to continue to pound on these "scary relationships" as though they made senator Obama a criminal, a terrorist, and anti-American is, I think, more a revelation of their character, than of Mr. Obama's.

Tune in next week when we pick through senator McCain's 26 years of congressional experience with the same fine-toothed comb. I can't wait to discover what filthy connections we can imply.
18th-Oct-2008 11:46 pm (local)


Do you feel better?

I want a "None Of The Above" choice. If NOTA wins the election, no one on the ballot may run, return to primaries.

Barry is a gun grabber. Barry is at very least, a Marxist.

The rest of it makes me uncomfortable, because these "tenuous" associates tend to get cabinet positions.

Johnny is not my favorite. He trends better on guns and communism than Barry. Yippie, skippy.

Another reason I cannot stand to let the Dems win has been the constant barrage of what is known as "Bush Derangement Syndrome", look it up. That's been going on since some morons in Palm Beach decided that they were too stupid to vote once Bush pulled ahead in the count. They have to cut those morons loose before I will consider them as well.

Weather underground's main trials were in the '80s, not the sixties. Not 40 years ago.
20th-Oct-2008 02:33 am (local)


I am going to posit that you will not find a great deal of this sort of dirt on McCain because the media would be all over it by now if there was much.

His voting record is miserable enough though.

22nd-Oct-2008 06:51 pm (local)


Ok, you linked patterico.com above, in support of a question about Obama's truthfulness regarding the Ayers connection. I'm going to take this as a signal that it's acceptable to link biased sources.
[I don't mean this as an attack on you or your statement, I just want to answer your challenge in kind.]

Note: I don't necessarily agree with, vouch for, or even believe the charges leveled in the links that follow. My point is that there is dirt, or at least dirty accusations, about McCain.
From what I've seen, the Obama campaign has stayed away from personal attacks and tried to focus on the issues. When they are negative, they're attacking McCain's policies and the veracity of his statements.

But here's some of what they could have been saying.

McCain sealed his own POW records, as well the records of all POW's, so he could continue lying about his POW experience.

McCain cheated on his first wife after she'd been disfigured in a car accident, and divorced her to marry a wealthy woman 17 years his junior.

McCain was no war hero. He was, rather, a coward, an incompetent, a collaborator and a traitor.

It seems that in 1993, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a fundraising banquet for the Oregon Citizens Alliance, the notorious anti-gay organization that was causing all sorts of trouble in Oregon in the 1990s.

McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord “for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.”

Let’s check that again. Marilyn Shannon praises a terrorist who shot a doctor while introducing John McCain, and not only does he stay, he stands up and gives a fundraising address for these terrorist-lovers?

22nd-Oct-2008 10:21 pm (local)


I was relaying the link from Patterico because things disappearing down the memory hole is quite common. Fucking figures I pick this one example. Back when the Dan Rather story was breaking, lots of stuff was disappearing just like this, and they were trying to hide that they'd staked a position. I think people are assuming the same motive now.

I do believe that I have expressed that I will oppose gay rights organizations as long as they support gun control. If McCain pisses off gayrightsmarch, that's aFEATURE not a bug. McCain pissing off the Pink Pistols, not so much.

The Pro-Lifers gave up the moral high ground big time when they murdered that doctor.

22nd-Oct-2008 06:52 pm (local)


McCain said, I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I’m not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy.


Liddy urges his listeners to show similar 'strength' in their own lives. He was condemned even by most of the American right in 1994 when he advised his listeners to deal with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (a strange, obsessive focus of hate on the American right) with "head shots, head shots... Kill the sons of bitches... Shoot twice to the belly and if the does not work, shoot to the groin area. Arm yourself. Get instructed in how to shoot straight. And don't register [your weapons] either." His caller replied, "And I'm aiming between their eyes." Liddy replied, "There you go. That way their flak jackets won't protect them."

McCain's Kremlin ties

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. "McCain was a new guy on the block learning the ropes," Singlaub told The Associated Press in an interview. "I think I met him in the Washington area when he was just a new congressman. We had McCain on the board to make him feel like he wasn't left out.

McCain a war criminal

And this list compiled by another poster:
McCain lives with a drug addict.

McCain was brought up on profanity charges for shouting obscenities at women who refused to date him.

McCain crashed numerous navy planes during his lackluster military career—all paid for by Joe the taxpayer—but was allowed to keep flying because of his Admiral father.

McCain was passed over for promotion—despite his father’s connections—because he was so incompetent an officer the Navy could not risk putting him in charge of more servicemen.

McCain fled the scene of his greatest naval disaster, the explosion of his plane on the deck of the carrier U.S.S. Forrestal, doing nothing to fight the fire, which eventually claimed the lives of 134 brave servicemen and injured 161 more. He did not even remain on board to help mourn the loss of his fallen comrades but headed off to Saigon for R & R and quickly asked for a transfer to another carrier—but not before holidaying in the South of France to show his patriotism.

McCain revealed more than name, rank and serial number at his interrogations, giving the North Vietnamese detailed information which helped them shoot down additional American pilots and damage the overall mission.

McCain contributed directly to the death of more American servicemen than enemy combatants during his entire military career.

McCain’s years in solitary confinement as a prisoner of war fostered a dangerous instability and paranoia in the man.

McCain is an adulterer, carrying on a lengthy affair with the wealthy daughter of a convicted felon before finally abandoning his wife and three children—prompting President Reagan and his wife Nancy to publicly side with his abused spouse.

McCain’s philandering ways have continued—lobbyist Vicki Iseman the latest notch on his belt—whose campaign contributions (via her clients) to the McCain campaign could make her one of the Highest Paid Whores in History.


Next week, Palin:
Ted Stevens, the Bridge to Nowhere, planes on ebay, Russia from her house, and the AIP.

23rd-Oct-2008 10:25 pm (local)


or at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvcuEqGUwmc if the embedded link doesn't work.

Here's McCain, smoking a cigarette and relating the events leading up to his capture.

I notice that he mentions he was taken to a hospital almost immediately after having been shot down. Which is not the order of events I've seen reported (something about "five days of torture before he cracked and begged for medical treatment.")

I also notice him telling details about his ship, mission, service mates, and admiral father. To the enemy. While a P.O.W.
20th-Oct-2008 02:49 am (local)


Firebrand RACIST pastor. Who recorded his racism for anyone to buy on DVD. Who went off like that far more than "sometimes". Who was the one of Barry's most respected mentors UNTIL SOMEONE NOTICED THE DVDS!

23rd-Oct-2008 07:45 pm (local) - Who is William Ayers?


I think that is well answered here. Whatever you may think of zombietime, he's supporting his case with plenty of quotes from Ayers himself. In particular, he has scans from a book cowritten by Ayers, a book containing among other things advocacy of (and I quote) "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie".

The Weathermen were not against the Vietnam War; they were against American victory in that war. Ayers was and is a communist and a traitor.

Oh, and that bit about them only destroying property, and thus not being terrorists? I have yet to find any dispute of the widespread claim that their one known lethal bomb was meant to be used on a dance at Fort Dix. Specifically bombing a dance, even if soldiers will be there, is enough all by itself to make everybody1 involved a terrorist. Failing to do so only through lethal incompetence, while hilarious, is not any sort of excuse.

1: Especially the leaders. That's why Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden are mass murderers, even though as far as I know neither one personally killed anybody.

23rd-Oct-2008 10:20 pm (local) - Re: Who is William Ayers?



That certainly puts Ayers in a different light. And he's got lots of evidence. It's going to be hard to dodge or refute.

And if Ayers were running for President, there's no way I'd vote for him.

In fact, though it's not directly incriminating, it does make me question Obama's beliefs and intentions. How much did he listen to Ayers propound his beliefs, and how much was he influenced by them?

I consider myself pretty open minded. I'm not ready to disqualify senator Obama because he once associated with the man. But it is worrying, yes. And potentially quite damaging to his campaign, it would appear. There are lots of people out there who wouldn't wonder how much of Ayers's ideology Obama had absorbed. They'd just condemn him.

24th-Oct-2008 01:35 am (local) - Re: Who is William Ayers?


For all I can prove, Obama's association with Ayers might be an innocent mistake. Maybe he really did believe that Ayers must have been rehabilitated because he was out in public.

Likewise, for all I can prove, Obama might really be telling the truth when he says that he didn't notice how vile Reverend Wright was until he saw the same reports I did.

It's even possible he also only learned about Rezko's criminality on the news.

It's even possible that all of those are true. I'm not buying it, but it is technically possible. If he's lying, the implications are too obvious to belabor (fuck him, barbed wire dildo, etc., etc.). So let's assume that he's telling the truth, that bad people keep tricking him. Several of them, independently. For years at a time. On that basis, I'd like to leave you with one question:

Is Barack Obama smart enough to be president?

24th-Oct-2008 02:46 pm (local) - Re: Who is William Ayers?


I'm starting to really desire the NOTA option. How do we get an election reset so that there can be candidates I might want to vote for? Honestly, even if I vote for neither, one of them is going to win. Tragic.

There's no way I can stomach McCain. I wouldn't trust him half as far as I could throw him. After watching the debates and some footage of his rallies, I get the impression that when he's not spouting pure hate or implying the worst sort of accusations, he's pretty damn incoherent.

McCain continues to come across as impotent and angry about it, and his campaign has spiraled into a hyperbole of sensationalistic personal attacks and vitriolic implications.
His campaign seems to focus on who he's not. He's not Bush. He's certainly not Obama. And since those people are bad, I should vote for him. Great logic, John.

People say again and again how little we know about Obama. Well, I for one would love to know more about McCain. Dear John McCain, next time you run for office, you might want to spend five minutes at some point while addressing the public, to mention even one specific, concrete, and positive thing about yourself or your plan.

And people have raised in me some pretty deep concerns about Obama. If nothing else, I'd want more time to learn about his beliefs and his history before I'd be comfortable supporting him for President. It's true, he has been in the same room with some pretty unsavory people.

I'm growing more and more worried (as I read rabid and fevered blog posts from both sides, all across the internet) that no matter which of the candidates wins, this nation is setting itself up for a world of hurt.

McCain is (my observations and opinion, I'm not citing fact) hateful, violent, self-serving at any cost, erratic, a self-admitted liar, and fostering of the most small-minded of the radical conservative viewpoints (in order to "appeal to his base", the only supports he seems to have left.)
McCain was one of the Keating Five, a personal friend of G. Gordon Liddy, and was on the board of The U.S. Council for World Freedom (which is not nearly so good as it sounds).

Obama has among his supporters one who was (is?) a self-described communist, violent criminal, and revolutionary, who personally donated $200 to Obama's first senatorial campaign.

Obama did once, while working for the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, represent Rezmar Corp., owned by Tony Rezko, who was later indicted for several crimes.

<sensationalist exaggeration, please disregard>
Since Obama's clearly a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, an America-hating racist, an Arab who wasn't born in the country, displaying a forged birth certificate on his website for all to see, and intent on taking all of everyone's money and handing it out to the poor and the unemployed, I'm going to have trouble voting for him either.

25th-Oct-2008 11:00 am (local) - Which is it?


Here, you say that Obama once represented Rezko as part of his duties as a lawyer in a law firm, clearly implying that you do not believe their connection is any more than that. I fail to see how you could possibly believe that, for you yourself approvingly quoted this from factcheck.org:

Obama did have a past relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, but he is no longer Obama's "money man."
If Rezko is no longer Obama's "money man", he must have been exactly that at some earlier time.

I have other objections, but I need this contradiction resolved before I will deal with them.

25th-Oct-2008 01:15 pm (local) - Re: Which is it?


I suppose I did imply that their relationship was limited to that one incident, by not mentioning any others.

I found a timeline.

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.

2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp. was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm.

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000.

5. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

6. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

7. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

8. Rezko was convicted on June 4, 2008, of federal charges of fraud and money laundering. The day of the conviction, the Republican National Committee shot off a news release titled “Rezko: Obama’s longtime friend and money man.” The next morning, it sent one titled: “Obama Must Answer Questions so the American People Can Decide.”

9. In the wake of Rezko’s indictment and conviction, the Obama campaign took all campaign contributions tied to Rezko -- $160,000 as of January 2008 -- and donated them to charity.

10. Obama said that if elected president, he would not pardon Rezko for his corruption convictions or reduce his prison time. Any implication that Obama actively continues to maintain a friendship with Rezko -- getting together, even speaking on the phone -- is misleading.


I'm guessing factcheck referred to Rezko as having been Obama's "money man" because he was a member of the senator's finance committee. A phrase possibly influenced by the GOP press release. I'm not sure just how damning that connection is, but you're right, there's at least some more to it than Obama having once represented Rezmar Corp.

24th-Oct-2008 02:47 pm (local) - Re: Who is William Ayers?


But seriously, there are people who will vote for Obama because of his skin. There are people who will vote against him because of his skin. There are people who will vote for him out of hope. There are those who will vote against him out of fear. I would like to be someone who votes based on the best facts available to me.

But leaving my support for one candidate or another aside, I'm afraid now of either one winning.

If McCain wins, the lower and middle classes, minorities, and people jazzed up on hope and change are going to feel very disenfranchised. It will be a blow to the morale of the country. Not to mention that there could well be riots and protests that would make Rodney King seem like a pleasant afternoon stroll.
Also, as I understand it, much of the rest of the world is likely to take a McCain victory as the final sign that America has finally lost it for good.

If Obama wins, there will be a sizable minority of people who believe we're being led by a radical terrorist loving, America-hating communist liar who will, within his first two years, turn America into a completely socialist nation, and who plans to "change the national language to Muslim".

Meanwhile there's almost certain to be another terror attack on America in the next four years (My opinion. And it may be more likely if Obama becomes President. Not because his policies would make it easier to achieve, but because the terrorists want us involved in an expensive, unpopular war), there's the issue of being involved in two wars in the middle east, our economy is doing a dance of death, the national debt is at a record level, (if you believe the science) global warming looms as a major threat, fresh water shortages at home and abroad are a growing concern, and we may already have reached peak oil.

Even in an ideal leadership and national unity situation, the near future looks pretty dire. Will either of these two men have the judgement, charisma, popular support, and perseverance to see us through?
24th-Oct-2008 08:01 pm (local) - Re: Who is William Ayers?


Considering that identity politics has been the name of the game for a long time; you are not going to find unity in "divide and conquer".

The Dems have been openly socialist for a while. Can't support that.

The Republicans have been replaced with moderate Democrats. Still progressing to socialism, but slower. Yay.

I've dug around a bit, try finding a pro-McCain site to see his sound bites. Find a place that is self-identifying themselves as in the tank for McCain and watch the vids there. He comes across as a lot less bitter and evil when you get to see the entire speech.

Seeking the entire speech is one of the reasons I really worry about Obama, when he is extemporaneous, he's saying um more than a Buddhist meditating. That's not what I want the president saying on the hotline at 3am.

I agree, I want NOTA! Since they want to start the next campaign as soon as a winner is declared, let's go with that and let the NOTAs pile up, at the end of 4 years I'll bet we can find ONE person who can do the job.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.