Why Ayers Matters (Guest Voice)
Republican presidential candidate Sen John McCain is getting a lot of criticism from many pundits in many news organizations and on many sites (such as this one) for raising the “Ayers” issue. In this Guest Voice column, Michael Reagan, the popular talk show host and son of former President of Ronald Reagan, argues that the issue does matter. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
Why Ayers Matters
by Michael Reagan
To listen to the Obama spin-masters you’d think that the McCain campaign’s questioning of their candidate’s association with unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers is a smear tactic falsely elevating a casual relationship between the two men into one where they worked together in promoting Ayers’ far-left goals.
Their reaction to the continuing revelations that disprove that claim is one of sheer panic — and they have a good reason to be scared witless that any in-depth probe of what went on between the two comrades will reveal Obama’s true colors — all of them dark red!
If the truth becomes better known — and it will if the Ayers issue is doggedly pursued — it will be clear that Obama was not only deeply immersed the fetid swamp of Chicago’s far-left political scene, but was from the very beginning of his career carefully groomed by the city’s socialist left to follow the path he’s on now in his quest for the presidency of the United States.
Giving credence to the charge that Obama was “groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the [past]” as the American Thinkers’ Thomas Lifson has written:
• Obama belonged to the socialist New Party, described by Lifson as “a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far-left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left.” A March 22, 1998 article by John Nichols in These Times revealed, “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century.”
• Obama has been allied with ACORN and their Project Vote, the radical leftist group now charged with massive vote fraud aimed at electing Barack Obama president of the United States. Obama has long been directly involved with ACORN. An article by Toni Foulkes of ACORN, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004, Foulkes revealed ACORN noticed Obama when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. Wrote Foulks: “He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois’ refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act … Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar … and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them). Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.”
• Obama and Bill Ayers were close associates for years, going back as far as 1995 if not earlier. According to CNN: “A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project. The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools… Obama was asked to serve as the board chairman in 1995… For seven years, Ayers and Obama — among many others — worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers … The board, for example, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers’ small schools project… The funding, according to records… CNN reviewed, came directly from the Annenberg foundation which Obama chaired. While working on the Annenberg project, Obama and Ayers also served together on a second charitable foundation, the Woods Fund.”
No wonder the Obama campaign wants the Ayers connection to be off-limits.
©2008 Mike Reagan. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc.
86 Responses to “Why Ayers Matters (Guest Voice)”
I think the real question here is whether (no pun intended) or not the employing of sensational adjectives injects any more (badly needed) substance into Reagans piece.
The following link contains an internal memo from ACORN's directors talking about what the organization really is, as opposed to the narrative being advanced by those who are intent on demonizing them:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20…
The market is down (READ: IT'S THE ECONOMY) 509.35 in the first half hour today and McCain and his apologists want it to be about a long debunked character attack…
Uh, if they served on the board together– obviously their paths would cross repeatedly. What is today's relevance?
And can Michael explain the fact that McCain has had repeated contact with an ex-felon and confessed Watergate conspirator who once plotted Jack Anderson's murder??? See how you can make McCain's appearance on Liddy's radio show sound ominous??? Liddy was in his own way a domestic terrorist as he operated outside of the law and was willing to use violence. Don't Americans deserve to know the real story of McCain and his pal, Gordon Liddy???
Off topic does not equal off limits. Also, exasperation does not equal panic.
It's not as if reporters haven't asked the question in recent Obama interviews. It's not as if Obama hasn't given an answer, but I'll guess this will keep on until it can be made to sound sinister. Trust me, the majority of the American public is aware that Barack Obama and William Ayers knew each other. We really, really know. It's going to take more than associations, the current polls reflect an American public that knows about the connection. There's going to need to be some sort of proof of influence. Otherwise the line of reasoning sounds like that old South Park episode, “Collect underpants … … Profit.”
For pity's sake, the house is burning down and these guys want to argue about who was the last one to clean out the fridge!
JSpencer…
ACORN is a radically dysfunctional organization…which enjoys partisan backing from those on the Left. It is, in fact, an embarrassment to the Democratic party…in much the same way as the voter-suppression groups are an embarrassment to the GOP.
When its founder's brother Dale Ratke embezelled a million dollars from the organization, it was promptly covered up by ACORN and the embezellment disguised as a loan, while the embezeller remained on ACORN's payroll.
Just Google indictments/election/fraud and you will get pages of links. If this were a GOP group, folks here would be howling in outrage. ACORN has a long long history of links to voter fraud.
True, Voter Registration fraud is not Voter Fraud. It is doubtful whether a voter with an ACORN Registration Card with Bugs Bunny would be allowed to vote. But I doubt whether Bruce Wayne or Perry White or Jame T. Kirk would raise an eyebrow…especially when IDs are not required. How many illegal voters have voted care of ACORN? ACORN's own filters are notoriously lax (cf. Bugs Bunny).
Kritt…there are obvious differences between Ayres and Liddy: Liddy served time for his crimes. Ayres walked. Liddy did not plant bombs in public places that could have killed innocents. Ayres did. Liddy is largely confined to the fringe of the Conservative right. Ayres is deep in the heart of Chicago's left-wing intellectual establishment.
The only similarity…and that is a big one…is that neither have really expressed remorse for their actions.
Janine…what you say is very true.
It is good that these questions are raised…and Obama, as opposed to his spokespeople…is now having to answer questions on the record.
The evidence suggests there was no real relationship between Obama and Ayres (I am referring to Kurtz study of the Annenberg Challenge).
Thus, I fail to see why defending or excusing Ayres is necessary.
I think Shaun Mullen actually called it right here. Ayres was/is a nasty, unrepentent domestic radical. But Obama's connection with him was largely tenuous.
Perhaps there are more secrets in the closet. But you are right, Janine…when the economy is tanking, who cares whether Obama was at one or five cocktail parties with Ayres and other people?
Kim, the statements about the number of times that Obama and Ayers were in the same room at board meetings goes to rebut the Obama campaigns assertions that they rarely crossed paths. They both served on the board of the Woods Foundation, and Obama's staff have downplayed that by saying that that board only met a few times a year so there wasn't a close working relationship. That doesn't appear to be inaccurate, but that's beside the point.
Where the two of them appear to have worked much more closely though is on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project. That program was Ayers' baby- he cowrote the grant application for the startup funds, and then when they won the grant he structured the program with several parts- one was the planning arm that he himself headed up, and the other was the CAC itself for which Obama was chosen as board chair. What Stanley Kurtz and others are questioning is how it could possibly be credible that Ayers didn't have anything to do with Obama's selection (which is what Obama's campaign and some of the CAC principles claim. There's documentary evidence showing that Ayers clearly was calling all of the shots, so it strains credibility to think that he had nothing to do with selecting a relatively unknown Harvard Law guy to head this up.)
Notice that this WaPo article quoted on Obama's fightthesmears website doesn't even mention CAC. Why would that be?
There just appears to be a massive panic over this information being exposed to daylight, and although I don't see any real fire there certainly appears to be smoke in the form of coverup and deflection from even discussing this.
And yes, I do think there are more important campaign issues right now- but unfortunately neither McCain nor Obama are saying how they'll turn the economic problems around anyway.
“Perhaps there are more secrets in the closet.”
I'm beginning to think there must not be. McCain would have pulled out new allegation already instead of going through Hillary's waste bin. You'd think he could have taken all the money he saved on Vice Presidential vetting and hired some top notch PIs.
Obama may even be a socialist. So what? I suppose I approach American politics from a different perspective. It seems very narrow to me. Socialism has some good points (not many, but some
Marlowe, with all due respect, I think your attitude from across the pond is affecting your viewpoint here.
True that socialist does not equal 'evil', but there's no doubt in most people's minds- even liberal democrats- that an avowed socialist could not win an election in the US. So, if Obama's political leanings are that far left, the voters ought to be told before the election and not after, no?
I'd feel the same way if a conservative candidate seemed to be using moderate rhetoric and claiming to run on a center-right platform but had a history of only working on ultraconservative programs and legislation- and then tried to downplay or dodge questions about working relationships with controversial figures from the fringe right.
Why would the Neoconservative son of the late great Ronald Warren Reagan cite bloggers from a known NeoConservative blog site…hmm…..wel at least he didn't cite Michael Savage or Michelle Malkin.
My question is this- what about the other folks on the board? Or were Obama and Ayers the only ones? It's not what is said or written but quite often what is not.
I guess you can throw “American” in front of anything and it's legitimate….problem is when you do that it seems to cheapen the “brand” and put false assumptions of national gravitas into the mix.
The Annenbergs officially endorsed McCain, I guess JSM is guilty by association as well.
Meanwhile, the economy is the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
Three words, in addition to what others have said, suggest that all of the rhetoric about Obama's past “Socialist” connections are irrelevant.
Luiz da Silva
As a Socialist organizer, Da Silva unapologetically advocated a far, far more leftist agenda than Obama has ever been documented (I have yet to see the views that have been assigned to him supported by anything he's actually said or written.) to support. Despite fear mongering by Brazil's right wing ruling elite, da Silva's policies have been largely centrist, cleaving to modern free market principles instead of overtly socialist ones. Brazil's economy has seen six years of stable growth that's allowed burdensome foreign debt to be repaid. At the same time, he's mostly avoided an expansion of the public sector and the grandiose projects that have crippled previous economic resurgences in Brazil and elsewhere in South America. Corruption, while not neutralized entirely as proven by the scandal that erupted at the close of da Silva's first term, has been less of a factor. Judicious investments in programs to increase productivity and self reliance amongst the poor have driven domestic economic growth that in turn has expanded the lower end of the middle class. It goes without saying that this has helped the wealthy as well. While it is true that this has been helped along by foreign investment enabled by the overvaluation of the housing market and rises in commodities, the fact of the matter is that the country has not frittered away its gains. Growth seems sustainable on the current track.
Obama, whatever one thinks about him, is no dummy. He knows he can't suddenly come out of the closet as a radical Socialist and get anything done. He knows that the poor might help him get elected, but it's the middle class that will keep him in office. He knows that if the economy thrives, there will be far more goodwill for him to get some of his social projects on track. All of the disingenuous fear mongering coming from the right ignores the very simple truth about how a government of the people functions.
CStanley said: “if Obama's political leanings are that far left, the voters ought to be told before the election and not after, no?”
CStanley, I think you make an EXCELLENT point here.
I am very puzzled by Senator Obama's actual ideology:
(1) I sometimes feel he is probably much farther to the Left than he says, and for the reasons you cite, is disguising this in order to be elected; or
(2) He is more apolitical, with amorphous politics, with a strong leavening of ambition.
It seems to me that his history and associations could be read either way.
Yes, I fully agree, the voters should know. I suppose, if he is elected, we will know then.
Yes, CStanley, my conservative viewpoint is clearly warped
I think state-run medicine is a grand thing, for example. In many ways, more efficient and less wasteful than the wacked American system.
But I am a strong believer in American exceptionalism. The City-on-the-Hill has saved the (ungrateful) free world's ass often enough to deserve its respect.
If Chicago is a hot bed of far Left politis, will someone please tell me how many Green Party and DSA Party members serve as ward captains or even dog catcher?
Bernie Sanders is a socialist, but Vermont is a long way from centrist Daleyland.
http://www.chicagodsa.org/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/Illin…
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Politi…
http://www.chicagogreens.org/index.html
http://www.lpchicago.org/
I bet the Libertarians have a bigger footprint in Chicago and Illinois.
Marlow + CStanley,
On domestic issues Obama places pretty far to the right of Clinton and Edwards just in terms of his health care proposal. His energy proposal is largely the same as McCain's without the fanaticism tied to drilling. His economic proposals (so far) are merely, “Let's do what Paulson says if enough Republicans support it to give me cover.”
On foreign policy, other than his early stance against Iraq, is largely the same as every other mainstream Democrat in the party. On record as not liking the war, but wants to fund it anyways. On Afghanistan he's doing his best to out-hawk McCain.
And yet somehow he's been painted a radical leftist? Kucinich, Nader and Chomsky would be insulted!
I notice that you are not including in your little diatribe-the same things BTW that the McCain/Palin people fail to take notice of(are you just regurgitating the rethug talking points?) several basic facts-I guess that you are hoping that no one will notice-Mr. Annenberg is a very very big Republician party supporter(I wonder what he thinks about you sliming his favorite project, hmmmm) the Gov of Illinois at that time- a republician- also served on that board. And the most important item you left off of your Obama smear-aside from the fact that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was doing his bombings(I have no idea if you are old enough, but I am and I remember that there were many many violent protests- bombings-against the Vietnam war)the Wx underground was formed to protest against that war and when Obama met Ayres he was a respected University professor(Q; is Obama supposed to get a background check on everyone he meets? That seems to be where you are going with this) is that over the 6 years that they were both on the board of this Annenberg project, Mr Ayers only attended 6 meetings. You are copying your parties smears without having the slightest thought about if they are actually true or not. You are a sad sad person as would anyone be who would take such a smear at face value. Shame on you.
Chris, I can't speak for Marlowe but what I'm questioning is why Obama's platform is so much farther to the center than his record. I can understand some degree of moving to the center, having come from a heavily blue state where he was representing the interests of that state. But since he came to the Senate he's still shown no sign of moderating (though I realize his excuse for that is that he voted against Bush- but his voting record is even to the left of most of his party.)
CStanley,
Alright then… what legislation has he supported that makes you think he's a socialist? I'm seeing a lot of labels and very little substance with charges like “his voting record is even to the left of most of his party.”
“Their reaction to the continuing revelations that disprove that claim is one of sheer panic”
This statement is so far off it's almost funny. Obama very publically practically DARED McCain to bring it up at the next debate. Biden's saying the same thing (“a man says it to his face”…). How is this “panic”?
I was thinking about this story in terms of the people I work with, at my job and as part of various charity organizations. I have to admit, I haven't googled them, or done a thorogh vetting on each and every one of them, even those I've worked with closely and have known for a few years. I'm just out there trying to get some good work done. Do you google every person you work with?
roro80,
Good point. That's why guilt by association attacks are nothing but a giant waste of time. Unless we work in a convent, most of us deal with people we don't like or wouldn't approve of if we knew their views/history on a daily basis.
Now if someone can find proof that Obama supports bombing the Pentagon, rather than proof he can stomach sitting in the same room with someone who wanted to, then I'd like to see it. Not that it'd make me vote for McCain, but Nader is a possibility.
timr: Should I assume that comment was directed toward me? (Say it to my face, lol!)
Despite your claim that I'm spouting talking points, it's your comment about Annenberg that displays that and also displays your complete ignorance of the grantmaking process by foundations. Here's some information if you are actually interested, and this link for example shows the grant application for the Annenberg Challenge- you'll see that it was directed to Dr. Varnan Gregorian who was (is?) the president of Brown University and was apparently the contact person for those seeking the funds. It's highly likely that Annenberg never even saw these applications or had any idea of the individuals who were involved in winning the grants for their city's schools.
Chris: some people would use a similar criteria regarding a candidate who'd associated with pro-life organizers (“If there were proof that he actually supported the bombing of abortion clinics rather than that he could stomach sitting in the same room with someone who may have wanted to….) while others might feel that even associating with a strong prolife leader (perhaps someone who supported the right of prolifers to demonstrate near abortion clinics) would be disqualifying. Is there something wrong, in your opinion, in asking a candidate to clarify exactly what those kinds of relationships meant to him, so that the voter can decide how the candidate's associations rate according to the voter's criteria?
CStanley,
Obama during a primary debate:
Feel better now?
BTW,
CStanley, I appreciate you coming here and making these arguments. It's gotta be tough when the party you feel loyal to has practically forced you to defend the indefensible. But at least you do it without resorting to name-calling or anything like that.
Chris: You may not have seen my comment in the other thread yet, but as I said there, actions speak louder than words. The quote you provided is actually outrageous as far as I'm concerned and makes Obama look far worse, not better. His words said that he had little or nothing to do with this person, yet the record says otherwise. What is he hiding?
Actually if he (and his campaign staff, and the media) wasn't being so secretive about all of this, I'd be much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. His “nothing to see here, folks” or “they're just trying to scare you about me” (deflecting by accusing the opponent of being dishonest) make it seem far more fishy to me.
chris: I don't feel loyal to any party, just to my own principles. Does that mean that I think McCain has run a completely clean and honorable campaign? Of course not (I don't think we've ever had one of those in our history, nor will we ever.) But I will defend my own opinions and defend the candidate I'm voting for against over the top accusations.
Actually I think the worst part about all of this is that if McCain starts to catch up or pull ahead, you guys will all feel that it's all because of 'swiftboating' tactics rather than anything positive about McCain- and personally I feel that he's the better candidate and can be supported on a positive basis.
I guess what's confounding me about this entire link-Obama-to-the-Socialists tactic is that nobody seems to be giving examples of Obama policies that support the conclusions we're supposed to draw.
Polimom, I've simply asked people to look at the evidence, not told them what conclusions they're supposed to draw.
The negative conclusions that I draw personally are more along the lines of an established pattern of working (by choice) with individuals who hold far left views- and a lack of real explanation from Obama as to why that is, and where his views differ from those individuals. Some voters (you may be one of them) don't find anything wrong with working with people who are from the political extremes, because those people also hold some views that are reasonable and they may have some good ideas. That's fine if that's your opinion, but surely you can see that some voters don't feel the same way, and Obama appears to want to avoid explanations until he's forced to talk about these things.
I'll also say that part of my objection to the CAC project is that the money appears to have not only been squandered, but also given out to organizations that I find completely unworthy and suspect of inappropriate activity (ACORN, TUCC, etc.) If that's an indication of how Obama will direct federal funds, I'd like to know about it in advance.
Slightly off topic but related to your point, Polimom, I just saw this:
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203
Doesn't it seem like there's an awful lot of sleight of hand regarding Obama's history, and lots of articles and websites being scrubbed? The transparency issue alone is enough to trouble me; I don't know what to make of how far to the left it means Obama's politics are, but it certainly makes it seem like the new politics is more of the same old, what is that again, hoodwinkin'?
Polimom – That I think is the most salient point. Playing six degrees of political separation can allow a cynical operative to paint virtually any politician any way they wish. The only way the paint sticks is to layer it over a canvas of actual votes, statements and writings. So far, I've not seen anything written or said by Obama that mirrors the opinions of his alleged “comrades”. Considering his resume as a legislator, lawyer, professor, and activist, this is a pretty remarkable dearth of evidence in the public record.
jkarczek- since everything that you mentioned in Obama's resume is quite a bit more left leaning than his current platform, how is a centrist or more conservative voter supposed to reconcile the difference?
I saw that same article a bit ago. Not sure what to make of it, exactly. I went to Obama's site (or rather, the fightthesmears.org site) and yes, they deny it altogether.
I also share your general feeling about ACORN, though not 100% across the board. Post-Katrina, for instance, they were instrumental in trying to get buses together to get New Orleanians to voting places (though they were unfortunately doing that for the wrong reason).
But the clear goal, it seems to me, is to suggest that Obama, by these associations, will be socialist — or even, in some examples, a terrorist.
There's another side to Obama, of course: he has long associations with people who are not at all radically left — who are (in the case of economics, for instance) even fairly conservative. Of course, there's no political purpose to pointing out these associations for the McCain campaign, is there. But the far left has been yelping about Obama's connections on the other side of the ideological fence for quite some time.
Added: I heard a lot of unhappiness from the left during the primaries. Not so much these days, but I'm not following that angle much anymore.
CS
I would look at his voting record in the State Senate and the US Senate. That is the best way to tell what he will do. While he definitely votes in a liberal pattern, there is nothing that marks him as a far-left radical.
I believe that the right is trying to taint him as an unamerican terrorist-leaning socialist by emphasizing this association, his middle name (how many times has the Obama campaign used Sidney??) and his early days as a community organizer.
If he wasn't honest about the association that's one thing- but keep in mind there are a slew of issues that McCain and Palin have not been honest about– things are often said in the heat of a campaign that are distorted, spun or downright false.
Palin hasn't wanted to talk about her association with far right groups like AIP when she was running for mayor. Does that make you suspect that she may be a secessionist?
BTW- I think Obama's pick of Joe Biden, a centrist Democrat, was meant to calm fears that he would go off in a far left direction. His advisors are mostly ex-Clinton people and he has indicated that he would be willing to put Republicans in his cabinet. Why? Because he realizes that the uber-partisanship that both sides have fostered is hindering us in taking any steps forward in facing our problems as a nation.
Kim, he's as far left as you possibly can get (the farthest left in his party) on abortion.
Economically I don't think he's as liberal as some (which is why I don't think the socialist accusations are apt) and I guess that gets to Polimom's point about more conservative associates. I do still feel that he's not going to reign in spending the way McCain will attempt to do, and I reallly do feel that that's the single most important thing to do right now.
Palin has answered questions about AIP in a forthright manner, so I don't think that's a valid comparison. If anything, dishonesty from them has been in the form of denying flip flopping on issues (like the Bridge to Nowhere) but that's so common in campaigns, and pretty easy to see through and then decide if you still agree with the candidate on balance. Actually scrubbing websites is a lot more troubling to me, because then you're denied access to information that would help you know what to make of it.
I do agree with your last comment about Biden and potential cabinet members, though, Kim.
Yes, CStanley, he's liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal. Left, even. And we're supposed to care because…?
Frankly, it's about time we had an honest-to-god, pragmatic liberal in office. What's refreshing about Obama is how any idealism he may have is tempered by pragmatic reality. He's willing to compromise and negotiate as long as the process moves forward. This is good for America.
If that's your opinion, davigoli, I have no problem with it though I strongly dsagree.
What concerns me is the number of centrist voters who don't think that a liberal prescription is what we need (particularly one that comes with an enlargement of the federal government, dealing out taxpayer dollars to corrupt organizations, stifling economic growth with a punitive tax policy, etc.) but who seem to believe that Obama will work across the aisle with conservatives on true centrist policy.
I suppose it's the mirror of how you'd probably feel if you believed that McCain was a far right Christian conservative or neocon, and centrists were voting for him without realizing what they were getting.
CStanley: Left leaning is a world apart from “socialist” or the dreaded “c” word. On the flip side of your argument, should I never consider voting for a candidate who may have entered his career by working as an investment banker, who pushed to privatize or eliminate a range of vital public services, and worked as a board member for a corporation that outsourced jobs? What if that candidate has since moderated their views and is running against another candidate with whom I agree even less?
Further, the same lot that calls Obama a far left wing socialist ideologue one day label him a slick political animal without any firm agenda the next day. So which is it? If he's the former, he'll never get anything through even a Democrat controlled Congress. If he's the latter, then he's clearly astute enough to read the prevailing political breeze and recognize what he needs to do in order to stay in office. Presidential campaigns always force candidates to hew to the center. When the election is won, Presidents that deviate from the center soon find themselves losing broad support. Sexual dalliances aside, public perception between Clinton and Bush at the end of their respective terms couldn't be much more different. Looking again at Brazil, if even a PROVEN leftist idealogue recognizes the wisdom of moving to the center, why wouldn't one whose leftist links are less firm?
The right has unfairly slandered and maligned what the left has been selling. What the American left actually represents is much closer to what a moderate would recognize as common decency: environmental stewardship, a balanced budget, fair tax policy (cf. Obama's tax plan), and a sensible foreign policy. You can only attack the left in generalities, not in specifics, because the specifics are actually pretty reasonable when you get down to it. That's why you've stopped trying.
Rein in spending!!!
McCain's first proposal to end the mortgage mess during the last debate amounted to a new entitlement. He thoroughly annoyed his conservative colleagues, and many economists predicted his plan would be much more expensive than he admitted.Of course the cost would be passed on to the taxpayers! Plus, he wants to expand military spending. Yes, he'd cut back on earmarks but those are not all evil, and they don't amount to a large percentage of the overall budget.
Do you even realize that this type of attitude is what made the Great Depression as bad as it was? Tightening of the financial system and cutting back on everything was part and parcel of the Hoover philosophy. It was a disaster.
Really?
Here's a post on a blog of the Miami New Times. Read it if you want. But you really should watch the video.
hmmmm the real question is why was Sarah Palin paling around with secessionist, antiamerican radical Mark Chryson? And apparently allowing him valuable access to power when she was mayor of Wasilla??
Unless there is evidence of wrongdoing on his part, or some sort of plan to destroy America Ayers style, then perhaps you should take him at his word.
And Obama has never said he's had nothing to do with Ayers. He simply said that he doesn't exchange ideas with him, or sympathize with them.
CS
Where is the proof that Obama lied about it?Do you have two indie sources that claim that outside of the McCain campaign?
I saw that he admitted that he served on two boards with the man, and that Ayers held a fundraiser for him. He stated that he thought that Ayers who was at the time a professor of English had been rehabilitated.
BTW, the rest of both boards the two men served on were conservatives. Why did they not rise up in protest and quit their positions rather than serve with this dangerous antiwar radical???
On the flip side of your argument, should I never consider voting for a candidate who may have entered his career by working as an investment banker, who pushed to privatize or eliminate a range of vital public services, and worked as a board member for a corporation that outsourced jobs? What if that candidate has since moderated their views and is running against another candidate with whom I agree even less?
If you see those things as radical right wing, I think that says a lot about how far to the left you are, but that's your prerogative. If those things in someone's past are offensive to you, then by all means vote against someone for those reasons. And if a candidate did have that history but attempted to prevent the public from knowing about it, I'd sure wonder why, wouldn't you?
Kim, I've posted links to primary source documents about the CAC repeatedly in this and other threads. What sources are you getting your information from? Where did you hear that the other board members were all conservative???
Kim: McCain didn't propose any new spending on the mortgage buyouts- he was just addressing how he'd direct the treasury to handle it (I don't agree with his proposal, BTW- but it's not new spending.) He also says that he'll cut waste in military spending (and has a track record of fighting the cost plus estimate process in contracts.) I strongly support his stance on earmark reform, not just because of the amount of money involved but because of the lack of transparency and the corruption that that allows.
Jim: I don't have time to debate the Great Depression comparison right now but there are elements of Obama's economic plans that are far more similar to Hoover's than are McCain's.
I looked at Jim's link about Chryson- the guy sounds like a nutjob, and if Sarah Palin having any relationship with him bothers you guys, then by all means dig into it. I don't get the concern, but I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning political associations if you find them troubling (the attacks against Palin concerning her family were beyond the pale though.) I'm not aware of Palin saying anything that contradicted what was written in that article, and my guess is that Chryson thinks their relationship was a lot more significant than it really was- but again, go for it if you think there's something there.
Just a short comment here, this usage of “socialist” as a pejorative is rapidly losing it's effect in the wake of both the Iraq War and the Wall Street “rescue”. Maybe this is an opportunity for some folks to get a little education about why a balance between socialism and capitalism us desirable, and why either on it's own is an unworkable system, at least in a democracy.
“If you see those things as radical right wing, I think that says a lot about how far to the left you are, but that's your prerogative. If those things in someone's past are offensive to you, then by all means vote against someone for those reasons. And if a candidate did have that history but attempted to prevent the public from knowing about it, I'd sure wonder why, wouldn't you?”
Your earlier question referenced Obama's ACTUAL resume, correct? I wouldn't say that the organizations he has ACTUALLY worked for are far left wing. For comparison sake, I grabbed a few examples from the top of my head that might seem to characterize a theoretical candidate as “right leaning” to a typically left leaning voter, not “far right wing”.
As for what level of obfuscation has taken place, I don't know how it's at all clear that Obama or his campaign has directly asked for materials to be removed or altered, nor have I seen anything that's exactly compelling for the purposes of proving his pinko/radical status, whether it was hidden or not. To date, it's been one vague, second hand attribution after another. One could argue that Obama's supporters took down materials because they were wary of them being used out of context in exactly the kind of smear campaign that's going down right now. Again, I still haven't seen anything ACTUALLY written or said by Obama that aligns closely with the individuals associated with him.