So Abbas is threatening to quit – again? It’s unclear, however, whether he will keep his promise if the talks fail because of his own walkout.
So the courts can mind their own business (and leave it to the democratic process)? “Forty-two percent of respondents said they favor same-sex marriage, up 5 percentage points from 2009 and the highest number registered since Pew began asking the question in 1996. Forty-eight percent of those surveyed opposed same-sex marriage, 6 percentage points lower than in 2009 and the lowest total measure by Pew.”
So the national parties are irrelevant? “When comparing the RNC to the Democratic National Committee, the 93 GOP Insiders who responded to the poll this week were withering in their assessment and 73% said that the DNC was out-performing the RNC. Only 15% said that the RNC was besting the DNC and 12% said neither committee had stood out.” Maybe, but Michael Steele is still going to get fired after the midterms.
So another Democrat with a shaky record on Israel is in danger? Rep. Jim Himes is in a statistical tie with his GOP challenger in the CT-4.
So the swamp is still full? “Most voters think Congress’s ethics have gotten worse in the past two years, according to a new poll in key battleground districts. … The Hill/ANGA 2010 Midterm Election Poll finds that 57 percent of likely voters in 12 competitive districts believe that the ethical situation on Capitol Hill has deteriorated since President Obama took office.”
So now liberals are reduced to hunting for silver linings in expectation of a drubbing? “It would raise the profile of the party’s legislative leadership, particularly would-be Speaker John Boehner and would-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. I don’t have specific polling information on either man’s popularity. [So why is he writing on this?] But I feel pretty comfortable suggesting that neither man is a great party spokesman.” OK, it’s a rationalization in progress. I feel comfortable suggesting they’ll come up with better ones than that.
So maybe he shouldn’t have voted with them on ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus bill? “The combination of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama is casting a colossal shadow over Democrat John Spratt’s reelection campaign, and the 28-year House veteran all but acknowledges that, as a result, he is facing the toughest election test of his career.”
So a 38 percent approval in a poll of random adults (not even registered voters) is like 20 percent among likely voters? “The public is divided on the overall job he is doing now: 44 percent say they approve, while 45 percent disapprove in a new CBS News poll — virtually unchanged from last month. The president’s rating on the economy, however, has taken a further plunge in the poll. Now, only 38 percent say they approve of the job he is doing handling the issue – which has been the problem weighing most heavily on the nation’s collective mind for months. Half of those questioned (50 percent) say they disapprove of his work on the economy.”
Abe, who’s side are you on. Enough of the hand wringing…. why don’t you just calm down, be quiet and vote for Obama who’s campaign you seem to adore. It’s clear you don’t like John McCain or Sarah Palin. Some of you guys live in the insulated city of Manhattan… which is an alternative space to the rest of the United States. You all need to come to grips with the fact that everyone hasn’t been brainwashed by the Ivy League.
“Now, I want to acknowledge that Senator McCain tried to tone down the rhetoric yesterday, and I appreciated his reminder that we can disagree while still being respectful of each other. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – Senator McCain has served this country with honor, and he deserves our thanks for that.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-remarks-in-philadelphia-pennsylvania/
Nice try, Abe. But dishonest. Obama thanked McCain for the the change in rhetoric you cite. What choice did McCain have? He had no plausible deniability. He was confronted with an untruth and the cameras were rolling.
Per ABC:
“This morning in Philly, Obama thanked McCain.
“I want to acknowledge that Senator McCain tried to tone down the rhetoric yesterday at his town hall yesterday,” Obama said, “and I appreciate his reminder that we can disagree while still being respectful of each other. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – Senator McCain has served this country with honor, he deserves our thanks for that.”
From the same article: “They’re kind of in a weird place, let’s say. They want to keep attacking Obama on these “associations,” but they don’t want to be held responsible for the kinds of ugly reactions these attacks find on the trail from McCain-Palin supporters.”
Was my attempt at sarcasm that weak?
Not weak, Abe — just insincere.
Perhaps your man Billy Bob above is also taking a stab at sarcasm?
Want sarcasm?
Gosh, if we start hearing bigoted remarks about rural whites from Obama’s supporters, this campaign season will have really sunk low.
I got it. Sometimes you have to use /s after satire which sort of ruins it.
American Thinker posted a video that has Philip Berg talking about his lawsuit over Obama’s birth certificate. I know about Berg’s history, but this seems like a simple yes or no issue.
Abe:
I got it; #1 didn’t but #2 are comments by an Obama supporter.
I believe that’s not an accurate transcription of what the women said. She never used the word “terrorist”.
She said: “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him, and he’s not he’s not he’s a uh he’s an Arab.”
Immediately after that, McCain took the microphone and make his remarks.
Time magazine (Ann-Marie Cox) is not accurate.
How do we know that these “angry, bigoted” audience members aren’t media plants? MSNBC gave entry to Code Pinkers at the Republican convention in Denver. If it looks like Code Pink, and it stinks like Code Pink . . .?
#11 is absolutely right. If you listen to the clip, she does not say terrorist.
Senator McCain made a classy move in cutting off her off (it was also politically savvy).
This action should not, however, stop him from going after Senator Obama regarding his actual associations at the final debate (and thereafter), namely: ACORN, Tony Rezko, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Rashid Khalidi, and yes, Jeremiah Wright. Forget the “guilt by association” nonsense — these ties by Senator Obama reflect a true lack of judgment on his part. The old saying rings true: if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
And don’t forget Bill Ayers, either!
Where were all these political Miss Manners when Bush Derangement Syndrome was in full cry? Are hangings and burnings in effigy not also hateful? Is it not hateful to compare men elected by our countrymen to Hitler? Where was the outcry when a film was presented that fantasized about Bush’s assassination.
I don’t recall CNN and ABC calling it a national “anger” crisis when protesters and netroots types went utterly over the top in viciousness and vileness against Bush/Cheney and Petraeus. You don’t have to be a Bush fan — and I’m not — to find that kind of stuff disturbing. But if you didn’t like it, if you thought it was toxic for the country, you were attacked for “questioning their patriotism.”
I’m sure the virtue of uniting behind the only president we have, setting aside politics, etc. is about to be rediscovered. In fact, it already has been. Two sickos at a Palin rally has led to a national rethinking of political discourse, in which an entire political party that will, even at worst, win the votes of 40 percent, is held responsible for their actions as if they were a bunch of dangerous radicals. However, it’ll be a big “never-mind” if MCain manages to win.
He’s not an Arab, but may well be either a Kenyan or an Indonesian…by way of the American Thinker blog…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/this_could_be_the_game_changer.html
Yes, McCain, after he and Palin have spent weeks convincing their voters that Obama is secretly a terrorist Manchurian candidate, finally has to (reluctantly) point out that Obama is not in fact the devil incarnate when it becomes clear that his supporters are a complete embarrassment. Honorable!
And of course, BDS never approached the current ODS. Bush-haters attacked Bush for stuff he’d actually done, like invading Iraq. Obama-phobes are convinced that underneath the record of a conventional center-left Democrat lurks an evil terrorist who is plotting to take over and rob us of our freedoms. It’s paranoid lunacy, and McCain has encouraged this lunacy because he can’t win against Obama on the issues (so McCain thought the “surge” would win him the election, but turns out most Americans would rather leave Iraq rather than “win”), so his only hope is to convince people that this very boring, conventional Democratic Senator is really plotting to bomb us and kill us all.
It’s evil, and it’s dangerous, since he has effectively been encouraging supporters to hate and maybe even use violent resistance against Obama if he becomes President. But McCain would rather sell out America than try to run on actual issues.
Abe Greenwald has never been pro-Obama. That’s not the problem. Abe was, however, for far too long hesitant about taking to task a “man of color.” He would have done so if the “Messiah” had blue eyes and blond hair.
#17: siempre por nada, y nada no es nada, y nada es todo lo que tiene entre las orejas.
BDS is still going strong and is as close as your nearest Target.
In the Halloween greetings section there are political, humor? cards for sale. There is one about Bush that shows 16 little photos with Bush having different monkey faces. It’s from Recycled Paper Greetings.
That’s an old theme, but if anyone would make an Obama as monkey photo, you would be arrested for hate crimes.
No business that sells in target, would ever be that stupid or disrespectful of Obama.
Alexander: so your answer to the question “what in Obama’s actual record in politics or the positions he has taken on any issue, leads you to believe he is a bomb-throwing America-hating terrorist radical” is… nada.
Thought so.
The funny thing is that many of these same people a few months ago were noticing that Obama is, and has been for his whole political career, a very conventional orthodox Democrat. The McCain campaign even tried to make that point, with some success, to combat Obama’s vague “change” mantra. But suddenly the Limbaugh Politburo decides that Obama is actually, secretly, despite his totally orthodox Clintonite Democratic positions, a Muslim terrorist who will enslave us all. Gullible.
“Obama-phobes are convinced that underneath the record of a conventional center-left Democrat”
So “conventional center-left Democrats” these days go to an America hating church, hang out with a terrorist who tries to inflict a communist education on America’s children, cuts deals with a convicted felon, and has no paper trial. Sounds about right.
“Yes, McCain, after he and Palin have spent weeks convincing their voters that Obama is secretly a terrorist Manchurian candidate, finally has to (reluctantly) point out that Obama
not in fact the devil incarnate ”
That is, “point out” something he does not know!
Whether or not Obama agreed with his terrorist and anti-American entourage of
20 years, in both cases he is a chameleon and a stealth candidate.
Either he deceived all those people for all those years,
or he is deceiving the rest of us now – or both.
In any of these cases, his candidacy is a terrible risk.
And then there is something that is not a suspicion, but a fact: the
fascistic style that Obama and his campaign have introduced into American
politics. That may be more dangerous than his personal anti-patriotic
associations and views. If he is elected, this may prove to have been the last free
election for decades to come.
McCain is wrong, terribly wrong, morally wrong, to vouch for this dishonest
dangerous man’s integrity. And politically, that gains
nothing for McCain and may lose him most of his remaining chances.
So “conventional center-left Democrats” these days go to an America hating church, hang out with a terrorist who tries to inflict a communist education on America’s children, cuts deals with a convicted felon, and has no paper trial. Sounds about right.
Obama does of course have a paper trail, though you’re right that he doesn’t have a “paper trial.” But anyway, thanks for proving my point: you can’t deny that Obama’s position on every issue is totally within the American mainstream (he represents the majority position on Iraq and Roe v. Wade, and is well to the right of, say, Harry Truman on economic issues), so you raise the issue of his associations, some relevant (the church) some not (serving on a Republican-created board with someone who has been accepted by American society as a respected college professor and citizen) and darkly hint that underneath all those boring mainstream positions he’s a Manchurian candidate who has just been pretending to be a conventional politician all these years.
Like McCain, you have admitted that Obama is closer to the mainstream than the Republican party, so you’re trying to find ways to pretend that maybe, secretly, deep down, he’s plotting to sell us all out. Ooh. Scary.
It’s all very depressing, to say the least. Individuals on both sides, and in large numbers, use the vilest possible language and make the vilest possible insinuations and outright accusations, mostly concerning the other side’s use of vile language, insinuations, and accusations.
McCain had good reason – morally and politically – to tamp down the rage arising at his events, but he idea that there’s been more of it from Republicans and fellow travelers than from Democrats and their fellow travelers over the last days, weeks, months, years is absurd. (Just to pick one of many, many examples, when was the last time a Republican comedian suggested that Michelle Obama might want to worry about gang rape?) Today, John Lewis accused McCain-Palin directly of adopting the tactics of George Wallace! Even Obama, no stranger to race-baiting, as Hillary Democrats know well, felt compelled to disavow the remarks. Tomorrow, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd will publish op-eds apparently aimed at further inflaming anti-Republican emotions.
We regularly at this blog’s comment threads receive visitors whose main interest appears to be to insult and taunt us, often at a schoolyard level, and to denigrate and demonize conservatives as a class. This is hardly the only place where to proclaim conservative views – on the war, on global warming, on life/choice, on the economy, on immigration – is to find oneself subjected to the harshest imaginable denunciations. If you haven’t been called a Nazi, a bigot, a devil, a racist, a KKK member, a murderer, a war criminal, and so on merely for failing to agree with left-liberal orthodoxy on these issues, or for suggesting that Barack Obama has not been entirely forthcoming on a series of questionable associations, then you have not been participating much in public discussion.
It’s hard not to expect that the endpoint of this kind of strife and name-calling can be anything other than violence – which, of course, is not an endpoint at all, but a stage: When words cease to function except as proxy weapons, the continuation of politics by means other than discourse is all that’s left.
At the same time that I applaud John McCain’s gestures against unreasoning rage and fear, I feel it’s important for him and his running mate not to be bullied into silence about legitimate issues, even if they happen to reflect upon the character of Barack Obama. It’s important not because it may or may not be a winning strategy, but, first, because giving in to bullies merely encourages them, and, second, because the rage and fear are very real, and, if not channeled, will sooner or later explode.
Washington Monthly:
The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election.
“you can’t deny that Obama’s position on every issue is totally within the American mainstream (he represents the majority position on Iraq and Roe v. Wade,”
Yes I Can. Obama is for infanticide. That position is not ” within the American mainstream”.
“The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election.”
by Democrat politicians.
I’ve been calling Jewish voters in Pennsylvania all week. Those few that were undecided before are now firmly pro-Obama thanks to the hate and smears they’ve seen and heard at McCain-Palin rallies.
Nice work Commentary, looks like your Ayers meshugas has totally backfired: you incited the base but you turned off independents. How smart is that? The base was yours already, they have nowhere to go no matter how many time Jennifer Rubin spreads nasty lies. McCain can’t win Pennsylvania without at least 40% of suburban Philly, and Commentary neo-con types wafted those votes to Obama on a talis of gold.
ein sof todot!
“I’ve been calling Jewish voters in Pennsylvania all week. Those few that were undecided before are now firmly pro-Obama thanks to the hate and smears they’ve seen and heard at McCain-Palin rallies.”
You Liberal Fascists will Lie ACORN, cheat ACORN, and steal ACORN this election.
The Obama bubble bursts —
At what point will the true Obama come forward? Will the American public know before or after the election? I think Obama’s bubble is very similar to the economic bubble that burst only 3 weeks ago. Analysts were warning us for years that the economy was built on a house of cards. People were living on credit, receiving mortgages beyond their means, and the slightest downturn in the economy would trigger a meltdown.
Obama is living off the MSM and the rage of the Left. Both systems protect Obama from true vetting. However, when any new evidence will come forward, look for the trigger to a meltdown.
If we Obama supporters are (according to Menchik) the Shabbateans, what happens to Menchik the anti-Shabbetean on Nov. 5?
Hard to imagine why any of the persons who provide entries on Contentions continue to do so, in light of the abysmally low level of intellect and culture demonstrated by the great majority of commenters.
Eric-
The anti-Sabbateans became generally anti-Jewish (except in Lithuania) and then they assimilated and disappeared from the flock. Though you wouldn’t know it unless you’ve read Scholem’s definitive study, the term “Sabbatean” in its day referred to 90% of Jews in Europe and the Middle East. Only much later did it become a misapplied, ignorance-revealing pejorative used by those who are ashamed of their ancestry (that is to say, a perfect definition of neo-con ignoramuses.)
CK MacLeod. You make some valid points. But note that the left has been enraged for 8 years about the policies of the Bush administration, some of which we consider to be unconstitutional, and most of which we consider detrimental to American interests. Nevertheless, you never heard anyone on our side warn of a potential violent explosion if we did not get our way. We worked and waited for an election to break our way. Why is it that conservatives, who claim to revere democracy and constitution, are apt to “explode” when they lose?
Top Five Excuses for a McCain Loss in 2008:
1) ACORN
2) MSM
3) White guilt
4) George Soros
5) Palin Derangement Syndrome
“Why is it that conservatives, who claim to revere democracy and constitution, are apt to “explode” when they lose?”
Obamatons were the first to raise riots if their boy loses. I choose my words deliberately for PC folks looking racism in the black community,
John McCain has put this all to rest: Obama is a decent family man who you don’t have to be afraid of. Those who say otherwise are wrong, according to your candidate.
“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,” McCain told a supporter at a town hall meeting in Minnesota who said he was “scared” of the prospect of an Obama presidency and of who the Democrat would appoint to the Supreme Court.
McCain passed his wireless microphone to one woman who said, “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him and he’s not, he’s not uh — he’s an Arab. He’s not — ” before McCain retook the microphone and replied:
“No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign’s all about.”
Charles: add Jenny Rubin. Abe Greenwald and the rest of the echo chamber dittoheads as tied for #6 on the list of REAL reasons why McCain is about to lose. #1 Bush, #2-4 the Economy, #5 bimbolina Palin won’t sell in the suburbs. I almost feel sorry for the guy, first Bush slimes him in 2000, then the redneck cracker GOP base–plus neo-con enablers–sink his candidacy in 2008. Calling all Ayers, paging Mr. Ayers!
===
From the oh-so-not-liberal Wall Street Journal:
Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, addressing reporters while he campaigned in Philadelphia with Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, said the intensified attack strategy used this week by Palin and presidential running mate John McCain is “stupid.”
“I mean, when people are facing the challenges in their own lives they are facing, no one wants to hear that stuff. It’s dumb,” Rendell said.”
There no stupid like neo-con stupid, ask Dougie Feith.
Thanks, Alex M.
If I’m not misremembering, hasn’t Tu B’Shvat been identified as Shabbatean in origin?
There’s no stupid like neo-con stupid, indeed.
The Pegler-loving Hooter’s governor from Wasilla was handpicked by none other than Bill Kristol.
Charles, you misstate my argument. I nowhere suggested that a violent explosion would result from conservatives not “getting our way.” When you “got your way” in 2006, no one threatened violence. No one threatened to riot when John Kerry looked like a winner. No one that I know of has threatened to respond to an Obama victory with insurrection. I aso don’t accept for a moment that freedom of speech on the left has been significantly curtailed over the period of the Bush Presidency, to the contrary. From the President on down, conservatives have been vilified in the strongest and ugliest terms, across popular and political culture, for most of those 8 years.
Violent emotions are now arising not because this election may be lost, but because of how many perceive it is being fought. Too many of Obama’s supporters, and Obama himself in his general failure to denounce them, are fighting this election and every struggle within it as though the aim is to proscribe conservatism – to deny conservatives even the right to voice their opinions. We are not to be allowed, it seems, to explore the biography of our opponent. We’re not allowed to be disturbed, and to make our disturbance known, when he obfuscates or dissembles over associations with radical leftists who were known terrorists. When we question his ties to a radical organization engaged in electoral fraud and connected to the economic crisis by way of its housing activism, we’re accused of racism – a charge intended to foreclose discussion – just as we were accused of racism when we referred to other questionable associates who happened to be of color.
I could go on, as I think you know. My point was that violence is what people resort to when they are prevented from speaking at all – when they are shouted down and viciously insulted, when their concerns are pre-emptively declared irrelevant and not fit for discussion, and when the response to their protests at the treatment is to be shouted at even louder, insulted and attacked even more viciously and peremptorily, and finally shunted aside. The very circumstances of this campaign, on the other hand, with the Democrats seemingly on the verge of ascendancy, can be taken as proof that they were never treated that way. Their behavior to this point, and the terms under which they are content to seize power, give us no reason for confidence or trust, and no reason to believe any assurances – should anyone ever stoop to make them to us.
Abe, it’s about fear of the unknown.
There are so many aspects of Obama that are yet unknown to the American people:
1. His place of birth – there is a law suit underway and Obama has refused to produce a valid birth certificate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs&eurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/this_could_be_the_game_changer.html
2. His true relationship with Ayers, Rev. Wright, Rezko, etc.
3. His future plans (even politico says he is “vague”
You can’t blame people for being fearful. Especially the elderly.
Eric R,
I take it you didn’t think that the disruptive Code Pink spokeswomen at the RNC convention were liberal stupid? Nor the antiwar protesters who called John McCain stupid in Iowa today?
Eric R,
..who called John McCain a liar..
If Obama is a just a man with whom McCain has some disagreements with then why bring up Ayers at all? Why bring up ACORN?
McCain said he didn’t give a whit about Ayers the “washed up terrorist,” he was just concerned about Obama’s judgment. What kind of half-baked rationale is that? You bring it up, it’s the kind of thing that can justifiably make a person very nervous about Obama, but if Ayers past terrorism and his lack of repentence doesn’t matter then why even bother bringing it up and unnerving people?
Obama dergangement syndrome is obviously alive and well, yet it exists alongside the vile and subhuman waste that they’ve been throwing at Palin. Sullivan is still demanding proof that she gave birth to Trig. And he’s writing this swill in a respectable magazine.
The uspeakably ugly Sandra Bernhardt was disinvited from an annual event hosted for women who have been abused because of her “Palin will be raped by Black brothers” comment.
We have lost the honorable use of words, and our recompense has been coming for a long time.
I’m not sure I can vote for McCain any longer. I didn’t think Palin and suspending his campaign were tactics but they must have been. And if I’m right they represent something that isn’t honorable at all, and does speak to a potential erractic way of governing. In other words, he’s a loose cannon. Not that I didn’t know that before, it’s just that now I’m not so sure that he’s any better for the Country than Obama.
Read Michael Barone’s column today on the coming Obama Thugocracy. You won’t find a more fair and measured thinker than Michael Barone. You just won’t.
Here’s the link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUwZWIwZTNhY2Y0YTFkYzFmZTIyZWUwZWNkYjk4ZGM=
I’ll sign off with two quotes from the English Historian, Paul Johnson and his book the Enemies of Society:
Captain A.,
I did find stupid the tactics of the disruptive protesters at the RNC and today in Iowa.
I have no problem with those calling John McCain a liar; indeed, I join them — John McCain is a liar.
Well, Eric, your half right then.
Selective indignation is unbecoming, don’t you agree? It voids any pretense of your credibility.
And of course, BDS never approached the current ODS. Bush-haters attacked Bush for stuff he’d actually done, like invading Iraq.
No, the Bush haters made all sorts of outrageous statements that he was lying about issues that Clinton had expressed himself about two years before. You have actual elected Congressmen threatening criminal hearings over policy differences. I fully expect to see nancy Pelosi, the worst Speaker of the House in American history holding hearings trying to create criminal charges against Bush and others if Obama is president. That is the sort of thing they do in Pakistan or Venezuela. BDS goes beyond anything in our history since the Civil War.
Obama-phobes are convinced that underneath the record of a conventional center-left Democrat lurks an evil terrorist who is plotting to take over and rob us of our freedoms.
No, I think he is a socialist who associates with terrorists like Ayres and Dohrn, knowing full well their agenda, and lies about it. He is also allied with the most corrupt political machine in the US. His allies try to harass political opponents, threatening prosecution of people who funded a political ad. They resemble the “civil rights” kangaroo courts of Canada, which tried to prosecute Mark Steyn and have harassed other who criticized Islamic groups.
If he is elected, it will be a tough time for anyone who disagrees with him as I expect him to use the legal machinery of government to attack opponents. Free speech will be threatened as long as he is in power.
You seem like a very intelligent person, Mary, so I have trouble understanding why this is so difficult for you. Ayers in his own person is obviously not the issue. John McCain isn’t campaigning to see Ayers punished, and neither is McCain claiming that Barack Obama shares Ayers’ extremist views.
I do think that McCain’s word choice is weak, and that he has a set of much more specific claims to make against Obama with reference to the Ayers association than “judgment,” but I think that the term is intended to refer to a complex of ideas – leadership, honesty, moral character, etc. I’m not sure which specific exchange you’re referring to, but when McCain has spoken on the issue, he has sought to avoid inflammatory language: Instead of calling Obama a “liar,” he’s described Obama’s lies, for instance. He’s made it clear, in short, that Obama’s own behavior demonstrates that Obama is embarrassed about Ayers, that there’s something there to be embarrassed about, and that Obama did, in fact, show poor judgment both in maintaining the association and in subsequently dissembling about it.
Many conservatives are going to hate Obama whatever McCain or Palin say, just like many leftists hate Bush. Obama’s radical leftist associations make him anathema to many of these people. And, yeah, “Hussein” doesn’t help either.
Selective indignation is very unbecoming, I agree.
I try to be forgiving of you guys for it though; it is only human and can be very hard to guard against. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of it at times myself.
As to McCain’s history of lying, I’m of the view that he spoke the truth today when he said Americans should not be fearful of an Obama presidency. Per #43, you seem to be on the pro-fear end of things — do I misread the comment, or are we in agreement (for different reasons) that your candidate lies?
Mary,
Let me answer your thoughtful questions:
A. Bill Ayers -
The reason for bringing up Ayers is because Sen. Obama has chosen to obfuscate his answers each time the alliance with him is raised.
1. we are neighbors (incidentally, so is Louis Fara khan a Hyde Park neighbor)
2. I was 8 years old when Ayers committed his terrorist acts
3. Most recently, I thought he was rehabilitated
Check out the CNN Special Investigation Unit report by Drew Giffin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs&eurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/this_could_be_the_game_changer.html
You will learn that the alliance between Obama and Ayers is much more extensive than he professes.
B – ACORN
Here again the alliance between Obama and ACORN is much more substantial than Obama and his campaign wish to portray. Again, let’s go to the CNN Special Investigation video tape…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbiDVY2GD7I
It is no coincidence that Obama and ACORN are linked. Obama has been extensively involved with ACORN from Project Vote to training ACORN leaders in social activism threatening bank officials and customers by sitting in their lobbies and entering into board meetings to obtain affirmative action home mortgages.
The supposed nonpartisan ACORN has endorsed Barack Obama and Obama donated $850,000 to ACORN.
Many of the Bush haters have attacked him for things he didn’t do, like blow up the WTC.
Cap’n America, my comment in 52 responds to your comment in 48.
Eric R,
I’m sure Sen McCain will be thrilled to learn that you thought he was telling the truth today.
As for #43, you obviously have a reading comprehension issue for which I can offer you no help.
CK, thanks for the kind words and taking the time to respond.
I’ll try to explain.
The exchange I was referring to was his exchange with Charlie Gibson. And I think it’s more than just a matter of weak phrasing. I think his argument is undercut by his summary dismissal of Ayers. He isn’t just a washed up terrorist. He’s a man who on 9/11 said he was sorry he didn’t do more damage to the Country.
I wish I could maintain confidence in McCain. The confidence that I have is slowly ebbing away because I’m beginning to remember that he doesn’t care much for Conservatives like myself. And I’m growing tired of his brand of populism.
Between being nearly terrorized by the proponents of the bailout and worrying that the worst is yet to come anyway, I don’t know who or what to believe.
I do understand the point(s) you are making and I also see that my emotions may be clouding my judgment so I’ll step back a bit and try a calmer approach.
Captain, thanks for the links.
I know that Obama’s unsavory connections to Ayers and ACORN are serious business. It just seems to me that McCain wants to go after these connections and yet he doesn’t.
But as I wrote to CK, my emotions are running high and a lot of that has to do with CK’s excellent thoughts on the Left’s desire to proscribe Conservatism and reduce Conservatives to taxpaying mutes.
Mary,
I have mentioned previously that this is a choice between two flawed presidential candidates.
But, I know McCain and I know he has national security right. I consider McCain the 60% candidate. Obama is an incomplete candidate because of his unwillingness to adequately address the vast holes and inconsistencies in his resume.
Moreover, Obama’s instincts are just plain horrible. Case in point, when he was asked during a primary debate what he would do in the event that we were attacked by nuclear explosion, his answer (paraphrase) “I would make sure the first responders were ready.”
When Hillary was asked that question she responded (again, paraphrase) “I would hunt down the perpetrators.” This is the same answer I would expect from McCain.
Mary, I honestly believe that McCain is pursuing a strategy that was probably planned out at least as far back as March, with room for adjustments according to events and the state of the race. I’m sure he anticipated a hostile media environment, for instance, but I doubt that he thought that almost the entire impetus for “vetting” Obama would depend on his campaign, with major news organizations only beginning to investigate Obama’s background in the very final weeks of the campaign.
As we all know, the financial meltdown complicated things tremendously for McCain campaign, just as a different set of surprises might have made things much easier. The effect has been to put him almost in the position that Hillary was in last Spring, when going as negative as she needed to still might not have worked, and, even it had worked, would have torn her party apart. For McCain, I’m sure the plan was always to withhold the opposition reasearch material until October, and to let it out only to the extent deemed necessary. As things appear to have turned out – if we can trust the public polls, or, even without them, trust the sense that the meltdown has tipped the board toward Obama – McCain is in the position where going negative enough to win on that basis alone risks tearing the country apart, and, again, might not even work.
You might ask yourself whether McCain could govern effectively as a conservative, or at all really, if he gained the presidency solely on the basis of character assassination, even while Republicans nationwide were being blown out in Congress. Even if you believe that Obama is in effect a democratic socialist who rubs elbows with unsavory characters, that’s not quite the same as arguing that he must be stopped at all costs, by any means necessary. I take McCain at his word that he does not consider Obama a monster and a mortal threat to democracy. Part of living in a democracy like ours is that the other side gets to take its turn screwing things up royally. We don’t expect or even try to get perfect outcomes in our system of government.
None of that means that McCain has no path to a worthwhile victory available, but it probably does mean that he will advance the case against Obama more conservatively than some conservatives would like. There’s so much anger and fear around right now – quite apart from Obama and his advocates – that it’s always on the verge of boiling over, with no way to predict who will get scalded the worst. I expect the negative case to be put together piece by piece – thus contact sheet the motif in McCain’s negative ads, suggesting evidence being assembled by an investigator – but always with an eye to where it joins to legitimate ideological or policy questions, including but not limited to qualifications or fitness.
All along the way, Democratic partisans and amateur conservative haters will call the approach character assassination or racism, while conservative partisans will deem it insufficiently lethal. The main objective is to be ahead on election day, but an equally important objective is to preserve victory as something worth having – which also happens to equate with making defeat survivable for him, his allies, and the country as we know it. It’s a tall order, subject to miscalculation and hazard, but, if you think about it and the hand McCain’s been dealt, there may be no other way he could go about it, and it’s hard to imagine any other candidate the Republicans had this year in a better position.
Most conservatives are armed. Most liberals aren’t. The military is overwhelmingly against Obama. If we keep our cool, there won’t be a Stalinist coup.
I think I speak for many conservatives when I find the latest flare-up is that McCain/Palin are being TOO HARD on Obama absolutely the most ridiculous thing in this most ridiculous campaign yet.
Are you kidding me? This is the presidency they are fighting over. Not some tea party at a country club.
The Dems are masters of playing the race card, spouting fascist/Christianist/Nazi rhetoric, calling any conservative a heartless, moneyed pig, and now they are offended when people go after Ayers/Dorhn/Wright?? These are the same people who have wished death, assassination on Bush, called him every name in the book, and attributed animalistic, vulturistic and devilish characteristics on Bush.
If anything, McCain has played the Dole/Bush I 1992 campaign act to perfection. You know, the graceful, no fire in the belly LOSER. When will the Repubs stop nominating over the hill, fearful, verbally zombied, and petrified candidates and expect them to win?
Reagan was an exception, no doubt, but the last 16 years should have given the Republican party pause about McCain. Bush 43, while no hero as President, did run two efficient, hard-hitting, ruthless campaigns and did not give a whit what any MSM station complained about in the least. No one had to worry about Bush’s campaign losing a cycle, holding back, or not fighting hard.
McCain’s faults, while many, boil down to perhaps one. His unnatural and almost canine desire to please the MSM. It is in his DNA, the air that he breathes, and as needed as most of us need water.
A couple of editorials from the NY Times, a couple of 2 minutes scoldings from MSNBC or CNN has him cowering and “apologizing” for the people at his rallies who are justifiably mad that such an unqualified socialist is about to be Prez #44?
Has Obama, and indeed any Dem, ever, EVER, criticized the long list of fellow compatriots in the party, in the MSM or in the general public who have gone after Repubs or Bush in a mostly vile and disgusting way? Does the messiah want booing his name outlawed?
I like my leaders to fight fair, and fight hard down to the very last hour of the very last day, and use ALL the opponents legitimate weaknesses and faults against him. If we lose, we lose. But McCain’s feeble antics and his lecturing of his base is intolerable.
Goodbye and good riddance to the maverick. Don’t worry, Senator, the people will send you packing with a stern whipping on November 4th. The sound you here is conservatives all getting off his now derailed straight-talk express in droves. You will be lucky to get to 185 electoral votes, and lucky to keep Obama from 350. That is only question now.
Eric and Alex M,
Menchik stays Menchik on Nov. 5th. Who will Obama be after Nov 5th remains to be seen.
Also Alex M, the anti-Sabbeatians were Rabbinic leaders that warned the Jewish people about the false messianic movement. After that horrendous episode, they attempted to lead the people back to everyday life. I have no idea were you are getting your facts from. Please cite Sholem if you are going to refer to him.
No one person or philosophy can solve all of the worlds problems, and the attempts to do so have been a disaster.
“‘In Pennsylvania, Robert A. Gleason Jr., the state Republican chairman, said he was concerned that Mr. McCain’s increasingly aggressive tone was not working with moderate voters and women in the important southeastern part of a state that is at the top of Mr. McCain’s must-win list.
“They’re not as susceptible to attack ads,” Mr. Gleason said. “I worry about the southeast. Obama is making inroads.’”
—–
There is no stupid like neo-con stupid. They brought out this Ayers™ product at exactly the wrong moment. People got their 401k quarterly statements this week, they could care less what Commentary dittoheads think about the detritus of Vietnam-era culture wars.
The central fact of this campaign is that a massive financial panic occurred a month before the election. Despite the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and having historically taken positions that should make them vulnerable on this issue, the Republicans are considered the “in” party and it seems likely that they are going to take the brunt of it. Timing is everything. Had this panic occurred a few months earlier it may have consolidated into an anti-incumbent sentiment that may have cost the Democrats in Congress. Yet that doesn’t seem evident at the moment. And while Obama is a questionable candidate, something shown even during the Democratic primaries, he will likely ride the wave into the White House. That said, I have always believed that presidents govern based on their core values. That Obama, despite campaign mainstreaming, seems at home along the far left of his party (a fact seen even if not admitted in the vocal support he gets by the party’s far left elements) would normally be an important factor, and as one who intimately recalls the Carter adminstration, not one to be so easily discarded. But the stars have aligned in such a way that probably won’t matter.
When we have some more distance, ian, there will be much thought given as to why exactly now. this month, the financial panic occurred.
Part of what’s scaring conservatives about Obama and the other Democrats’ rhetoric is their pitching it as a “final verdict” not just on a set of specific policies, and not just on the stewardship of George W Bush, but on virtually the entirety of the conservative economic agenda – in effect as the end of Reaganism. (They don’t really mean it, yet, but language like that can take on a life of its own.) At the same time, part of what’s disappointing conservatives is the seeming inability of McCain or any other leading conservative politician to push back on that claim articulately.
The ideological push, the accompanying attacks on conservative ideology that has nothing to do with, the timing – it’s all rather frighteningly neat. It’s already led a few to propose some rather strange conspiracy theories. I tend to think it’s more a phenomenon of overdetermination than conspiratorial agency, but I wonder how much a kind of socially unconscious recognition of the end of the Bush years helped to precipitate the “loss of confidence.” Such events always come too late and too soon, at just the right wrong time.
Sigh. Ian,
Jimmy Carter was spectacularly incompetent in foreign policy precisely because Carter was guided by religion rather than reason, just like George Bush. Jimmy Carter was a socially conservative pro-life democrat who deregulated the airlines, the freight trains, the pension funds and began the telecoms deregulation. He was defeated by an optimist Reagan, who knew how to inspire, and was not derailed by media slurs that Reagan had John Bircher associates, etc. Obama is more like Reagan in talent and temperament than he is like Carter.
You may not like Obama or his politics, but he is smarter than Jimmy Carter by several orders of magnitude. Barack was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, by secret ballot, after gaining membership through an anonymous writing competition. Ask any lawyer how impressive that is, how smart someone needs to be to achieve such status.
Obama is not to neo-con liking, but he will be our next president precisely because of that and not despite of it.
שבתי צבי והתנועה השבתאית בימי חייו, גרשם שלום, תל אביב תשי”ז
Sigh. People that use terms like “neo-con” so repetitively tend to discredit themselves. Carter was a media star when he was elected, also supposedly brilliant, and also despite your characterizations, quite to the left of his party. And sorry but law is not rocket science. Some of the most inept people I know went to some very good law schools, had their share of distinctions, and yet this alone does not make them a good presidential candidate. From what I recall Obama produced exactly one case comment during his tenure. Anyway, maybe he is brilliant (lawyers tend to be bright, not brilliant). Yet somehow I question the Reagan analogy. It’s his values that I worry about.
Obama is bright, no doubt, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he’s anything other than an economic ignoramus (of course, the same can be said of McCain). I actually wish him well, because my investments will now depend on him (and Nancy Pelosi, dear God!), but he appears to be by association a reflexive leftist, which is very worrying.
Is it true Obama won’t relaease his LSAT score? Seems odd, that. I will let people know mine if they they are interested.
#61, Set Halpern: “If we keep our cool, there won’t be a Stalinist coup”
What about a slide into a “guided democracy”, in which a one-party
government uses its “administrative resources” (as they call it in Russia)
and a network of government-sponsored “community organizers” to organize
the voting, the media, the courts, the corporations.
Arms would not be a sufficient defense against such a creeping coup.
The critical time, if Obama is elected, should be his first two years.
Given the recession and other economic troubles, he and his
party must normally become very unpopular and lose the Congress
in 2010. If they do, their hands will be tied after that. To prevent such
an outcome, they would have to change the de facto rules of the game in
these 2 years. That would be impossible, by traditional standards –
but would an election of somebody like Obama be possible?
Expect DC statehood shortly. Heck, why not make NYC, Philly, Chicago and LA states too?
Neo-cons delenda est!
Never hold someone’s lsat score against them.
OT: An archive story of Biden’s hypocrisy and betrayal of Soviet dissidents.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=FAFBC6E1-E810-4A0B-9011-C6825DCCCB45
McCain is trying to have it both ways: be still seen as the nice guy and having others do the attacking for him. For a guy who’s obviously got a lot of courage, it’s a thoroughly gutless campaign strategy.
@73:
“Neo-cons delenda est!”
(1)
Plural “neocons”, singular “est”:
Rotten grammar, it must be confessed.
(2)
“Neocons” are used, when the Jews are meant,
By Jew-haters of the euphemistic bent.
Alex M,
no, the quote that supports your statement that anti-Sabbatians became anti-Jewish, and I would suggest English for all viewers to be able to read. Its not that hard to translate.
@77:
“Neocons” are used, when the Jews are meant,
By Jew-haters of the euphemistic bent.
…And they flock to this blog, where they hope to find
So many folks of the hated kind.
You might ask yourself whether McCain could govern effectively as a conservative, or at all really, if he gained the presidency solely on the basis of character assassination, even while Republicans nationwide were being blown out in Congress. Even if you believe that Obama is in effect a democratic socialist who rubs elbows with unsavory characters, that’s not quite the same as arguing that he must be stopped at all costs, by any means necessary. I take McCain at his word that he does not consider Obama a monster and a mortal threat to democracy. Part of living in a democracy like ours is that the other side gets to take its turn screwing things up royally. We don’t expect or even try to get perfect outcomes in our system of government.
I’ve written poorly in my posts here. I don’t want McCain to gain the presidency on the basis of character assassination. I don’t think Obama must be stopped at all costs.
If he becomes president I wish him well. I wish the Country well. And the reason that I said I’m not sure now if McCain would be any worse for the Country than Obama would be is because that’s the conclusion I’m coming to. I’ll take Senator McCain at his word that I have nothing to fear in an Obama presidency.
Your comments are so well thought out, expressed and solid. I learn from them.
CK MacLeod’s comments are smart and deep and balanced — the best I’ve seen anywhere on the internet. And Mary’s are maybe the second-best. The two of you set a high standard. Thank you both for raising the level of discourse. Your kind of thinking is a kind of salvation at a time like this.
CK Macleod,
Regarding your #66 comment, I agree that Democrats are using this opportunistically to attack the Reagan era. However people do remember the years before Reagan, which has shaped public perceptions for decades. I agree there has to be an ideological defense of that legacy, but I’m not sure beyond the short term how deep attacking the Reagan legacy will resonate after the immediate crisis ends. It is something to worry about.
I will say also that the financial crisis hit this month is a phenomenon that seems on the surface just a bit too convenient. I despise conspiracy theories. I argue against time and again. I always say that you need to have evidence, and I certainly have none. But it is suspicious. Now maybe its nothing. Maybe its one of those weird coincidences such as what is alleged to have happened to airline stocks before 9/11. On the other hand people believe the Bear Stearns, for example, was taken down by a massive “bear” attack where malacious rumors were spread about the company causing a run. Vanity Fair even had an article about it in August, 2008. The seductiveness of conspiracy theories is that they are plausible and that they provide order in chaos. This type of panic happening for the first time in several decades right before a major US election is definitely something that warrants investigation.
What did people think of Rick Davis on today’s Fox News Sunday? He finally mentioned ACORN, Rezko and Ayers (and “others” I think), though he wouldn’t commit to Senator McCain bringing it up at the update. Interestingly, later on the show, Bill Kristol hammered the McCain campaign for doing so in a halfway fashion — he said either Senator McCain does it too, or they shouldn’t bother at all.
Thinking about this, this conspiracy theory rings a hell of a lot truer than the 9/11 “we attacked ourselves for no conceivable reason” conspiracies. I mean there were people and nations that had a huge incentive to get Obama elected. Who cares if I have no evidence. That’s it. I’m quiting my job. I’m starting my on website. I’m going to produce shirts that say “The Panic was an Inside Job”. I’m going to to place stickers all over town saying “Investigate the Panic” because enough stickers on enough phone booths can change the world. I’m going to write a book without footnotes detailing the conspiracy (Barnes and Nobles will carry it anyway) and produce a web film which I have already titled “Why Don’t I Have Spare Change”. Then I’m going to heckle Obama at media events. Actually this could be a fun four years.