Democrats & Liberals Archives

Right's Politics of Division

Believably, the far right is attacking Obama because he is black. Unbelievably, the far right says that the only reason such a candidate may win is because he is black. In other words, there is no discrimination against blacks. The discrimination is against whites!

I was blown away when I read the following:

Limbaugh on Obama: His "only chance of winning is that he's black" Summary: On his radio program, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, Rush Limbaugh asserted that the Democratic Party was "go[ing] with a veritable rookie whose only chance of winning is that he's black."

On another occasion Limbaugh said:

Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate if Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago.

I remember that in my youth, during and after the depression, signs were everywhere barring me from entry or from jobs because I'm Jewish. Even then I could see that discrimination against blacks was much, much worse. Since then, there has been great improvement. However, despite many years of affirmative action, everybody knows that discrimination against blacks remains in many places.

Exit polls quoted people as saying they would never vote for a black presidential candidate. This is one reason that Clinton did better than Obama in several states. And the far right has the gall to say that Obama has the advantage because he is black!

Of course it isn't so. And Russ Limbaugh knows it. He is merely trying to stir up controversy between whites and blacks. Since the Republicans know they cannot win on the issues, they plot controversies. Any controversy that divides the country is food for the Republican Smear Machine. This is how they used abortion and gay marriage. Since these issues are losing their potency, Republicans are pouncing on race.

This is the politics of division, the politics Obama is complaining about. By winning the nomination as the Democratic candidate for president, Obama has demonstrated that the politics of unity can win. After facing the division tactics of the Republicans, he will show in November that the politics of unity is more effective.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 3, 2008 5:36 PM
Comments
Comment #254332

Barack Obama is just as white as he is black. Have we all forgotten that. We can only be so fortunate, as a country, to elect an inexperienced, unjaded, intelligent (for a change)
man (of any color) to lead us into the next decade.
The world is just beginning, in my humble estimation, to live through extremely hard times. Times that will change the way we have all lived for the last 50 years. I don’t envy Barack the job, he will need the support of all the American people to survive and prosper once more.

Posted by: Maz at June 3, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #254335

Paul,,

If you dont think that there are alot of democrats, especially black democrats, who are voing for Obama because he is black, YOU ARE BLIND.
If you do not know that there are a bunch of southern democrats who are prejudiced and will not vote for the man because he is black, then your years have not been spent looking at current events. Remember the election of 68? Nixon won because the liberal racist ran as an independent and split the democratic vote.

I do not care what color he is. The democratic party has never won an election with a far left candidate. He has no experience. He cannot survive the general election. (Especially with what is coming out tomorrow about Michelle Obama. That you will have to wait for. But I will be sure to be back and apologize if I am wrong.)

A large portion of Hillarys suporters will not vote for him. They have already stated that boldly. Yes Paul, those are those FAR RIGHT Hillary supporters.

I know those of you on the far left view anyone who is conservative as Far Right. But what would be considered out of touch far right is a much smaller portion then the democrats out of touch Far left. Thats why the last in the two elections the higher ups have kept Moore, Streisand, and bunch quiet. Thats also why the far left quit claiming victory when the figured out all those seats in congress were picked up by conservative democrats.

Posted by: scottie1321 at June 3, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #254336

paul

“everybody knows that discrimination against blacks remains in many places.”

you can’t change whats in someones heart by passing law. there will always be bigots. they come in all colors, shapes, and sizes.

“And the far right has the gall to say that Obama has the advantage because he is black!”

i listened to that show, and it was rush that made that comment, not EVERYONE on the right. you also don’t understand the context of the statement. he’s was reffering to the democrat primary, not the the election in general. he never stated obama had an advantage in the general election because he is black.

“He is merely trying to stir up controversy between whites and blacks. Since the Republicans know they cannot win on the issues,”

no actually he is just trying to entertain his audience. BTW it is the democrats that can’t win on the issues. why do you suppose you spent 10yrs as the minority party ? it’ll happen again if you go back to doing business like you did before you lost the majority last time, raising taxes, gun control, and so on. wasn’t it the democrats that tried to deny equal rights to black americans lead by albert gore sr. ?

another conspiracy that only exists in your mind.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2008 6:22 PM
Comment #254338

Paul
I don’t care if the man is red,black,green or purple, I just don’t think the man has the experience to be POTUS. I don’t know what he is about except the fact that he is a far left liberal and he wants change BUT WHAT DOES HE WANT TO CHANGE. And as far as racism goes,IMO him and his wife are the racist.

Posted by: KAP at June 3, 2008 6:33 PM
Comment #254339

riddle me this paul: which of the two major parties currently has a sitting US senator that is a former member of the KKK ?

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2008 6:35 PM
Comment #254341

Paul says, “This is how they used abortion and gay marriage. Since these issues are losing their potency, Republicans are pouncing on race.”

Paul, you may be interested in knowing that conservatives actually believe their position in favor of the right to life and the sanctity of marriage. No conspiracy here, just a moral position whether potent or not.

I wonder if Paul is aware of how the democrat party has used race as an election issue for decades.

As for Obama being black, as you well know Barack Hussein Obama is not even half black and If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President.

Posted by: Jim M at June 3, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #254342

Well, that’s really odd. I thought scottie and dbs were the same person, but posting 5 minutes apart, now I’m not sure.

It is an unfortunate fact that much of the optimism about BHO comes from polls. People are being asked if they will vote for him, and they are saying yes. People with experience are questioning whether those yesses are actually going to materialize in November, where most of us only get to vote once. The post-mortem on the HRC campaign is going to spend a lot of time pointing fingers at Howard Dean and the internet, where you can’t acurately quantify the actual numbers of people.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 3, 2008 6:45 PM
Comment #254346

ohrealy

“Well, that’s really odd. I thought scottie and dbs were the same person, but posting 5 minutes apart, now I’m not sure.”

nope, we’re not.

from what i hear hillary now wants to work some things out with obama before she officialy exits the race. rumor has it she’s now willing to consider the second seat. of course this is just the babble in the news, so who really knows.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2008 7:14 PM
Comment #254347

Yes, most Blacks will vote for Obama because he is half-black. Yes, many women would vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

Yes, many white males will vote for McCain simply because he is a white male.

None of this is news.

Nor is it news about the Right’s politics of division. This was a brainchild of Rove, who espoused his belief that all they had to do to steamroll all Neo-Con legislation through Congress was to have at least 51% of the vote. On its surface, his logic is impeccable.

But when it comes to dealing with Senators and Representatives on vote after vote, such a strategy falters, because congressmen will not always stay in lockstep with Neo-Con values…which is why of Bush’s goals when he first took office - Social Security privatization, welfare reform, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, No-Child-Left-Behind, and a couple of others that I can’t remember offhand - only NCLB passed…and it will likely not survive the decade.

The politics of division work…but only temporarily, and never over the long term (except in dictatorships (hope Bush doesn’t read this)). The politics of inclusion work over a far longer period. Obama - and Democrats in general - know this. That’s why we will win this election.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 3, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #254350

Paul:

And you can prove the left is color blind by the black vote. They voted almost overwelmingly for Obama because race is only a factor on the right. Blacks do not factor in race at all.

You are the ones who just had a big fight over race and gender. Take the rod out of your own eye before you look at the speck in ours.

This article is just plane hypocrisy.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 3, 2008 7:55 PM
Comment #254352

dbs, what are you going to do when you don’t have Big Daddy Byrd to pick on anymore. He’s 90, which qualifies as old old. Please don’t watch this video of Byrd crying over Teddy’s brain tumor, you might have a stroke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwwCCQozPM

Posted by: ohrealy at June 3, 2008 8:32 PM
Comment #254353

Paul

It is well known that Limbaugh is the epitome of divisive politics. He relies on such tactics to rally those who are so easily managed. I contend that he will be in essence mostly a non factor in this general election. Given the transparency of the modern day GOP and its follies I can not imagine that a serious percentage of voters will take anything he has to say seriously. It is well known that his party has squandered the majority of credibility it once held. Their utter lack of accountability and denial of failed policy all but insures a dismal year at the polling booths. The failed policies of our current executive branch and its lockstep legislature shines brightly in the face of all Americans. They really have nothing in the way of legitimate claims of policy making to base their campaign on. Most Americans quite simply rate their past efforts as poor at best. As a result they must rely on as you say smear tactics. I prefer to call it hate and fear mongering. It is a tactic the American people are disgusted with, no matter the party of origin.

Posted by: RickIL at June 3, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #254356

ohrealy

thanks for the link. i forgot how old he was. looks like sen byrd will be in joining his buddy strom thurmond soon eh. while i’de never wish on kennedy what he has, ( even as much as i can’t stand him ) i don’t feel sorry for him either. that guy’s lived quite a good life considering what he got away way at chapaquidick.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #254357

RickIL

since when was rush limbaugh the leader of the republican party ? you guys sure concern yourself with him an awful lot considering you thing he is of no consequence.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2008 9:00 PM
Comment #254358

YOu on the left are so funny. You talk about Republicans being divisive. Look in the mirror. Just tonight you are finishing a primary season as a divided party!!! Obama can’t even unify his own party much less america.

Then of course you accuse the right as being racist. WOW!!! Who are you to be the judge of that? Look at the racism in your own party!!
You are the party dealing with division and racism. Clean your own house first before looking right.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 3, 2008 9:16 PM
Comment #254359

dbs, et.al.,

Paul never said that racism did not exist in the Democratic Party. It is concentrated in the Republican Party, but of course it also exists even in the Democratic Party - I know some. I think this will drive those DINOs to the Repubs where racists belong and we will win without them and, win, lose, or draw, we will become a stronger Party. The fact that racism exists even in the Democratic Party just reinforces Paul’s point that Obama is disadvantaged by racism, and that fact, reinforces his point that the “darling” of the right, (Rush), is a divisive loud mouthed lying blowhard who is explicitly trying to welcome home the DINO racists…

Of course black folks are going to be excited about coming out of the shadows. For my part, I am going to be excited when we finally elect a trans-sized tall man trapped in a short fat middle aged man’s body.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 3, 2008 9:48 PM
Comment #254360

ray

it more than just exists in the democrat party, it thrives there. the democrats are the original racist. albert gore sr and his buddies tried to block equal rights for black americans, and you still have one of them as a sitting senator even as old and feeble as he is. you need a reality check my friend.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #254362

dbs

since when was rush limbaugh the leader of the republican party ? you guys sure concern yourself with him an awful lot considering you thing he is of no consequence.

I am not one of “you guys”, just like you I am a citizen of this country with the right to express my opinion. You speak as though you and I are of different species with little in common. We are all in the same boat here.

I think what I wrote above makes it apparent that Limbaugh really is of no concern as I see it. Paul wrote the article, I merely expressed to Paul why I see him and his views of no legitimate concern. His tactics are old, tired, outdated and mostly inconsequential as is old school GOP campaign tactics. I hold no particular disdain for the GOP, conservatives or republicans. I just believe their ways have lost effectiveness and they must find a way to rebuild credibility and integrity within the party. That will take time and serious reform. IMO these are obvious weaknesses. Applied logic says that such weaknesses are not easily overcome in light of perceived failed republican policy in general.

Posted by: RickIL at June 3, 2008 11:01 PM
Comment #254370

Excellant and informative. Obama’s management is a process of aligning people and getting them committed to work for a common goal to the maximum social benefit - in search of excellence. Major functions of a manager are planning, organizing, leading and coordinating activities — they put different emphasis and suggest different natures of activities in the following four major functions..
The critical question in all managers’ minds is how to be effective in their job. The answer to this fundamental question is found in the Bhagavad-Gita, which repeatedly proclaims that “you must try to manage yourself.” The reason is that unless a manager reaches a level of excellence and effectiveness, he or she will be merely a face in the crowd. Wish him a great victory. Let Boby Jindal be the vice president.

Posted by: bhattathiri at June 4, 2008 12:22 AM
Comment #254373

As much as these are tired old tactics, I suspect we’ll see a lot of them to come.

Barack’s candidacy is historic. I believe he has already out foxed this tactic. I’m hoping he can stay the course.

Assuming he wins, it will be a great victory in the defeat of these previously successful tactics. Hope describes it perfectly.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 4, 2008 1:20 AM
Comment #254374

Give the man his Due for cripes sake regardless of your political leanings, i am undecided and will decide this fall and i think Obama should pick his own vice president.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 4, 2008 1:34 AM
Comment #254402

Paul Siegal, the news this morning had a Clinton supporter being asked if Hillary asked her to support Obama, would she? She answered no.

Perhaps his being Black is not just an invalidation of the far right, but, for many on the Left as well. I would go so far as to say many of the Reagan Democrats would not vote for Obama for no other reason than he is Black, or mixed race to be accurate.

Sometimes Democrats like to play ostrich and refuse to acknowledge that race in discriminating AGAINST a candidate with a vote is just as easily found in the Democratic Party as the Republican Party’s constituents. Neither Party rejects supporters who discriminate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #254403

Craig Holmes said: “YOu on the left are so funny. You talk about Republicans being divisive. Look in the mirror. Just tonight you are finishing a primary season as a divided party!!! Obama can’t even unify his own party much less america.”

What a red herring that is.

It is NOT up to Obama to unite the Democratic Party. His job was and is to unite his supporter voter base. His job is to be the best person for the job that his education, experience, and wisdom will permit.

It is up to the DNC, Hillary, and the Democratic Party leadership to unite their Party. Obama is not the head of the Democratic Party. He is just a Senator candidate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #254413

dbs, David,

I think that it is a matter of degree. There are plenty racists in the Democratic Party but the Dems attract the support of most blacks by representing the interest of blacks. This tends to make racists uncomfortable in the Democratic Party and so more of them are driven to the Republican Party which has a platform that is more acceptable to racist although still undesirable. Some hold their noses and stay with the Dems because they are liberal on other issues or are more concerned about bread and butter. Driving some of these to the Repubs will have the effect of moderating the Republicans as racist, but otherwise moderate liberal centrist join their ranks. This cement the black constituency to the Dems but as David says, drive at least some Reagan DINOs to the Repubs.

I think that we will pull non racist moderate Repubs in the other direction as the Dems come to be seen as the Party of true American values and ideals. I also believe that this will pull Hispanics to the Dems as they come to see the Dems as being more accepting of diversity / true American values. All in all, this is terrible news for the Repubs.

You poor chaps are left stuck representing the most un-American and idiotic among us. Good luck with that constituency. Good news for Rush though. His job is secure.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 4, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #254417

Yes, there is racism in the Democratic Party. It’s obvious from the exit polls. What makes the Democratic Party different from the Republican Pary is that Democrats are doing something about it.

And Obama is the one that started the ball rolling. With his candidacy he is shoving some racists out of the party. During the coming presidential campaign he will attract decent Republicans and Independents to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 4, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #254424

As a conservative I have no problem voting for an Arab-American such as Obama or any other hyphenated American for any office.

My vote reflects my political philosophy of limited government, the freedoms of all people as outlined in our constitution, and a judiciary that follows the law, not make law.

According to Paul, I guess that makes me indecent as I won’t be voting for any democrat on my local, state or national ballot.

I believe the Dems missed a chance to have a winner when they choose Barry over Hillary. My estimation of Hillary has changed over this primary season and while I wouldn’t necessarily vote for her, I might have been persuaded if she moved a little more to the middle-right and if McCain continues to move left.

Posted by: Jim M at June 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Comment #254434

Paul
I vote for who I think can do the best job be it Democrat, or Republican, or independent, black,white, purple or green I don’t care but BHO IMO is not qualified to be POTUS and IMO HIM AND HIS WIFE ARE THE RACISTS and IMO I think his wife is a SNOB.

Posted by: KAP at June 4, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #254445

dbs, Byrd, “the longest serving Senator in the history of the country”, was hospitalized yesterday, “I feel compelled to address head on the news stories in recent weeks that have pointed out the shocking discovery that I am growing older…The newspaper offered as proof the signatures on my Senate financial disclosure forms from last year and this year. It is true that this year’s signature looks like I signed it in a moving car. Some days, the benign essential tremor that I have had for years now is worse than on other days…I still look out for West Virginia. I still zealously guard the welfare of this nation and its Constitution. I still work, every day, to move the business of this nation forward, to end this reckless adventure in Iraq, and to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution against those who would reshape it to suit partisan agenda. And I will continue to do this work until this old body gives out.” from http://byrd.senate.gov/

I don’t know if this is clearly understood by people outside of the south, but on racial issues, it was more of an old regime/new regime dichotomy than anything more sinister. The people who stayed with the Democratic party accepted the new regime. Those that did not, or wanted to delay it to whatever extent possible, became Rpblcns.

The electoral college maps for most of American history look like we fought the Civil War for 100 years. A Few Democrats have transcended that, Cleveland, Wilson, FDR/Truman, JFK/LBJ, Carter and Clinton. Many other very good candidates failed, WJ Bryan, Al Smith, Stevenson, Gore, and Kerry. There is a third category of Democratic candidates that I think BHO fits into, which include McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. The Democrats did not nominate these people in order to lose those elections, and give us more Nixon, Reagan and Bush, but it happened.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 4, 2008 6:03 PM
Comment #254471

paul

“And Obama is the one that started the ball rolling. With his candidacy he is shoving some racists out of the party. During the coming presidential campaign he will attract decent Republicans and Independents to the Democratic Party.”

thats a pipe dream paul. he’ll change nothing, it will be business as usual. he will not attract the repub base, or independants that lean conservative. if anything he’ll lose the votes in states like ohio, that hillary could have gotten. he is as liberal as the day is long, and that doesn’t sell well among blue dog democrats in the heartland, or in the south. he is an exellent speaker, but lacks real depth. he hasn’t done much in his 3 or so years in the senate, so all he really has is his record on the state level. i think when we finally peel away a couple layers of the onion we’ll find there’s not much there.

Posted by: dbs at June 4, 2008 8:21 PM
Comment #254472

Let’s imagine a debate between Obama and McCain.
McCain: So tell me about this Tony Resco character.
Obama: O.K. I was friends with Jack Aber, er, I mean Duke Cunning, er, I mean… Let me get the logistics in order. There are a lot of logistics, you know. Lots. Way lots.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at June 4, 2008 8:22 PM
Comment #254490

Stephen Hines,

While we are fantasizing, lets imagine McCain talking about the Keating five… or the lobbyists that he has sold out to in order to get them to work cheaply on his underfunded campaign… or how he was against Christian extremist before he was for them… or how he was against Bush’s tax cuts before he was for them… or how the Straight Talk Express released thousands of pages of medical records only for a couple of hours on a holiday weekend… or how he doesn’t know the difference between the Sunni and Shia but wants to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” (Shia Iran) for what the Sunni are doing… em…


Posted by: Ray Guest at June 5, 2008 12:54 AM
Comment #254560

It would be interesting to see people who actually know anything about the Keating 5 talk about it, instead of the partisanship that abounds these days…

I especially love the fact that it was a democrat scandal, McCain getting caught up in it because he worked with Democrats, which should be seen as a positive by those calling for unity.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #254590

Rhinehold,

“I especially love the fact that it was a democrat scandal, McCain getting caught up in it because he worked with Democrats, which should be seen as a positive by those calling for unity.

How’s that again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#Corruption_allegations

“Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $300,000 (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating’s relatives and employees to McCain’s Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators. [1] In September 1987 National Thrift News was the first media outlet to break the story.[2] In October 1989 The Arizona Republic reported that in addition to campaign contributions, McCain’s wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. [3] Lincoln Savings and Loan’s collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion [4].

I have lived in Arizona since 1974.
Keating was an arrogant fool that used other people’s money to support an ostentatious lifestyle.
He built a “grand luxury” hotel called the “Phoenician” and named the upscale restaurant “Elaine’s” located there for his wife.

To this day Keating proclaims his innocence (other than admitting to Bankruptcy fraud, and wire fraud), and blames the collapse of his empire on Federal regulators.

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2008 2:13 PM
Comment #254613

I’m sorry Rocky, but you seem to have missed the more salient points…

1) He recieved donations from someone that, at the time, was not known to have done anything wrong.

2) When it was discovered that he was under suspicion, McCain cut ties and make sure any possible ‘gift’ was paid back.

3) Was found guilty of nothing.

Let’s quote the person who led the investigation:

Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of “no evidence against him.”
In August 1991, the committee concluded that Cranston’s, DeConcini’s, and Riegle’s conduct constituted substantial interference with the FHLBB’s enforcement efforts and that they had interfered at the behest of Charles Keating. The Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn’s and McCain’s involvement in the scheme was minimal.

Basically, he did nothing wrong, but because of how he got caught up in the mess become even more certain that there needed to be campaign finance reform and led to his actions on the matter.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #254623

Rhinehold,

He pled guilty of Bankruptcy fraud and Wire fraud.
How is that not being guilty?
He also was found guilty of plenty of other things, but those convictions were overturned.

“1) He recieved donations from someone that, at the time, was not known to have done anything wrong.

2) When it was discovered that he was under suspicion, McCain cut ties and make sure any possible “gift” was paid back.”

How convenient.
This ain’t my first rodeo pal.
Remember I live in Arizona, and McCain is one of my Senators.
McCain didn’t pay back all of the travel expenses that he accrued.
Oh, and BTW, this all happened after he married the rich wife. He could have afforded the vacations himself, and he should have known damn well that these vacations were improper, and not taken these gifts in the first place.

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2008 6:59 PM
Comment #254632

I think you are missing what I am saying…

I never said Keating wasn’t in the wrong. He was guilty as sin.

McCain did nothing wrong. There was an investigation and the person who investigated him said then, and again this year, that they found no wrong doing by him.

He has also, because of this incident, led the charge for the past 20 years for campaign finance reform.

But, I guess that doesn’t matter much…

Lots of things go on what candidates don’t know are going on, it’s being human. Obama was similarly involved with a guy who was found guilty of similar things, yet I don’t think you are saying that he is wrong for that either, is he? There were loans and money involved in that instance too, but just like with McCain, nothing unethical or illegal.

I have never suggested that he was a criminal and similarly I don’t think that of McCain. And most people, I think, are on my side on this one…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #254635

Rhinehold,

I don’t think McCain is a criminal, but I do think he is guilty of questionable judgement at the time, as was Obama. I also don’t think that it makes either one of them less worthy of being President.

BTW,
I don’t think McCain got into trouble by “working with the Democrats” as you suggested. American Continental had corporate offices in Phoenix, and I am sure that McCain knew Keating from here.

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #254702

McCain did appear, emphasis on “appear,” to have used poor judgment. But there was and is a lot of smoke - especially his wife’s business dealings with Keating and her refusal to release all of her income tax records. There is at least as much smoke there as there was at white water. Let’s have the same kind of an investigation. Add to that, he takes a public stand against lobbyist and then gets his gets his campaign staffed by them - something smells fishy to me - it ain’t fresh fish. Of course at his age it is to be expected that he smell a little unusual…

See:But McCain made a critical error.

He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.

Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.

On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain’s wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.

When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself.

“You’re a liar,” McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.

“That’s the spouse’s involvement, you idiot,” McCain said later in the same conversation. “You do understand English, don’t you?”

He also belittled reporters when they asked about his wife’s ties to Keating.

“It’s up to you to find that out, kids.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 6, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #254719

P.S. The quote on my last comment seems to be messed up. Everything after: “See:But McCain made a critical error.” was a quote from that link.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 6, 2008 3:24 PM
Comment #254871

Obama preaches to the left about the bitter, gun owning, Chrisitans on the right and you are worried about the “rights politics of division”…even while your parties candidate “Mr Unity” puts forward his hate propaganda about those who do not support him?

Left vs right, right vs left…..when will your man put forward a balanced budget bill? Why hasn’t he already? When will he put forward a medicare fix? Why as senator hasn’t he already? When will he put forward a social security fix? Why hasn’t he already?

Left vs right, right vs left. Nothing gets fixed, not even from the man on the left who promises us unity wile worshiping at the feet of racist right and calling the “average white person” names.

Same old politics. Nothing changes.

Posted by: StephenL at June 7, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #254872

I meant racist Wright not Right but perhaps they can both fit. Far left meet far right. Same hate, same radicalization, same politics. Nothing changes much.

Posted by: stephenl at June 7, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #254884
when will your man put forward a balanced budget bill? Why hasn’t he already?

Well, while I agree that balancing the budget is imperitive, those come from the House of Representatives, and he is in the Senate. So he really don’t have much of a chance…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 10:58 PM
Post a comment