Democrats & Liberals Archives

You're Not My Friend, And I'm Not Yours

Senator John McCain used the term ‘my friends’ more times than I care to mention during tonight’s debate. If he was trying to be ‘folksy’, he failed. And if he thought that tossing a thumb toward Barack Obama and calling him ‘that one’ was acceptable, he was wrong.

The fact is that McCain is trying to emulate George Bush, but doesn’t have the ‘charisma’, while Palin is trying to de-intellectualize the Presidency, much as the Republicans have managed to do the last two times.

McCain thinks that patting sailors on the back is appropriate behavior during a debate in which each participant has declared themselves neutral. It’s the same clunky and forced attempt at suggesting a close relationship as Bush himself managed while stroking Angela Merkel’s back, much to her horror.

Palin’s ‘debate’ felt more like a commercial for laundry liquid. Palin dripped over her podium time and time again, a wink here, a nod there, and a goddammit-I’m-not-answering-your-stupid-questions everywhere. She tried to soften up the American people with her constant referrals to her small town, showing that she has nothing to offer but something she thinks is charm.

They are essentially trying to appear cute, cuddly and friendly. But there are reasons why McCain is not my friend, and never will be.

His complete lack of understanding of the economy. I’ve seen estimates of $300 billion to buy up failed loans – on top of the $700 billion just wasted, that’s a trillion bucks. Where does this come from, exactly?

He also wants to deregulate healthcare – because the same thing definitely worked on Wall St . , right?

He wants to freeze all government spending except defense. As Obama said, a hatchet where a scalpel is needed.

He wants to stay in Iraq , despite the clear and present danger in Afghanistan.

He has a startlingly obvious disdain for his rival, refusing even to call him by name at times, instead referring to him as 'that one', which has racial overtones.

She wants to reverse Roe vs. Wade, even for victims of incestual rape.

McCain and Palin’s policies are anti-American – pretending he’s my friend or that she ‘understands’ Joe Sixpack doesn’t change that fact.

Posted by Jon Rice at October 8, 2008 11:13 AM
Comments
Comment #266172

From War Hero?…to coward. If John McCain really had concerns about Barack Obama’s character, he could have raised them last night. And, he could have raised them to his face. Instead, he sends Palin out to shout that crud, while he stands above the fray…what cowardly bullsh*t!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 8, 2008 12:00 PM
Comment #266174

Ayers, ACORN OBama

$50 million to groups for Chicago Schools to teach radicalism, math/reading programs not important. Hmmmm Way to go Obama.

Change your “Crud” to Creed by Obama Radicals. Anarchy will reign! Welcome to Cuba’s big brother

Posted by: nora j at October 8, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #266175

I’m glad to hear that others have a problem with McCain’s assumption that we’re all his friends. Not me…..and I wouldn’t even want his as a neighbor!
Both he and Palin severely lack substance in their arguments. They have their little cutesy “catch phrases”, and they throw them out in one appearance after the other. Both of them are starting to wear on people, and their rhetoric is old. They have their marching orders and they’re feuled by desperation.

Posted by: janedoe at October 8, 2008 12:29 PM
Comment #266181

Nora j,
The Annenberg Foundation had a board which included Obama, Ayers, and other Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The source of funding, Annenberg, was a Republican, and the program was hardly radical. You are being misled by some sleazy people attempting to play ‘guilt by association.’ McCain will not sink that low. Why should you?

Posted by: phx8 at October 8, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment #266182

Its time to FIGHT! Strike back against these media weapons of mass distortion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K50TS0UZE7w

THIS IS THE VIDEO THEY DONT WANT YOU TO SEE

Posted by: Titor at October 8, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #266184

In addition, the “coffee” that Ayers allegedly threw for Barack Obama was really for Alice Palmer and Obama was introduced as her handpicked successor. Ayers gave Obama $200 for his campaign and that was about the limit of their interaction. It is ludicrous to say they were “pallin’ around” as Palin said. Besides, it’s not very legitimate for Palin to be tossing out accusations she doesn’t even understand. I can guarantee that she had never heard of Ayers or the Weather Underground, The Weathermen, or even the SDS. I doubt that she has any comprehension of what the anti-Vietnam movement was about. She was simply reading a line fed to her by a speech writer.

Posted by: tcsned at October 8, 2008 1:08 PM
Comment #266185

Titor-
Things didn’t start with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If you can remember past the last month or so, you’ll recall this has been going on for over a year, and they are only a most recent casualty.

It’s funny you should be waving the flag of revolutionary redemption, since this is basically the spin and propaganda employed by the folks whose legislation actually made the problem possible. Without a particular act written by Phil Gramm, McCain’s economic advisor, the kind of derivatives and securities used in the problematic markets might have been better regulated, preventing the uncertainty that now has Wall Street paralyzed and uncertain.

So, essentially, your slogan’s hidden premise is: “We must fight! To avoid putting blame on the people who put us in this mess!”

Nora J-
It’s amazing how many people will repeat such an accusation if you attach the right adjectives and name-calling to them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2008 1:21 PM
Comment #266187

Stephen: I don’t understand a word of what Nora J. wrote. I’m glad someone on here did, and as able to rebut whatever it was. Incomprehensible to me, anyway…

Posted by: Jon R at October 8, 2008 1:34 PM
Comment #266189

“McCain and Palin’s policies are anti-American – pretending he’s my friend or that she ‘understands’ Joe Sixpack doesn’t change that fact.”
Posted by Jon Rice at October 8, 2008 11:13 AM

Jon, I wouldn’t expect a supporter of new-American socialism to expresss anything else. And, I wouldn’t want Obama anywhere near enough to me to pat my shoulder as he would have his other hand in my pocket.

Brokaw made certain there were no questions related to guns, abortion, supreme court nominees, individual rights and responsibility or religion…all loosing issues for socialists.

Posted by: Jim M at October 8, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #266191

Jim, am I a new American Socialist when I stand firm against bailing out Wall St? It’s their mess, let them go down the tubes! Perhaps when our society really sees what deregulation means - ie, no convenient $700 billion bailout - then we’ll force regulation on these institutions. That’s not socialist, that’s plain sense.

Posted by: Jon R at October 8, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #266197

Jon R-
Her argument was the usual “Obama is teh skerry” argument, that he shared Ayer’s radical politics.

Trick is, it’s an argument mostly made on the arguer’s whim. What’s socialist? What’s radical? I’m sure she would define it, if I asked, but such labels are flexible, and can be stretched over just about anything. That’s how even mild government programs get called socialism. The people who make these arguments are not even concerned about what the right description of these programs are. They are Democratic programs, and therefore suspect. They call it socialism and other things, because that sounds scary.

Others simply pick up on those buzzwords and pass them on uncritically. That’s part of the point of referencing enemy-related philosophies and groups. Attach a stigma, get people angry and bitter over those stigmas, then start putting out attacks which gain acceptance based on their reference to those stigmas.

Jim M.-
And here you show up with some perfect examples. Imply that Obama is a metaphorical pickpocket. Talk about new-american socialism Make sure that somebody who doesn’t agree with you gets the right stigmas attached.

Attack the moderator for being in the tank. Lament the lack of your hot button issues, issues that were designed to wedge similar people apart based on issues. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

The trouble with this is that the world doesn’t fit well into broad categorical thought. It bleeds around the edges, and before you know it, it gets more complicated than whether you support abortion, gun control, supreme court nominees of one kind or another, and this and that. (besides, we know practically everything about their positions on these issues.)

America needs better leadership. It needs people who take care of business, instead of thinking up new scare tactics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2008 2:53 PM
Comment #266202

The nice lady who funded the Annenberg Foundation when Obama and Ayers where on the board is donating to the McCain campaign…

Does that mean, since she supports a board that Ayers sat on, that Palin should attack McCain? He is taking money from someone who thought enough of Ayers to trust him with money from her foundation…

That has to be as serious as sitting on the same charity board with him???

Posted by: Marysdude at October 8, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #266203

Oh, Yeah…forgot the link for that last post…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/mccains-trumpets-endorsem_n_132954.html

Posted by: Marysdude at October 8, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #266205

Stephen Daugherty writes; “They are Democratic programs, and therefore suspect. They call it socialism and other things, because that sounds scary.”

Stephen, when liberals point to semi-socialist Europe as their guiding example why would I call them something else? If it smells and looks like socialism why call it by a different name? Liberal dems have finally found the gonads to embrace the liberal label, how long before they embrace the socialist label? Today they admit that the word “socialism” is scary, but in actuality it perfectly describes their intentions and they will come out of the closet when they have produced enough brain-dead and government-dependent voters.

Stephen says; “abortion, gun control, supreme court nominees of one kind or another, and this and that. (besides, we know practically everything about their positions on these issues.)” as though they are non-issues as we know the candidates stance. Are you actually saying that last nights debate centered on topics that are new issues? Get real here Stephen, the candidates shouldn’t discuss “hot-button” issues because Obama will surely loose votes.

Would a moderator who concentrated only on the issues of abortion, gun control, supreme court nominees, gay rights and individual rights and responsibility be considered fair by you???

Jon Rice…calling McCain and Palin unAmerican in my opinion places you in the Obama camp which I call socialists. Sleeping with these dogs will give you fleas.

Posted by: Jim M at October 8, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #266207

>calling McCain and Palin unAmerican in my opinion places you in the Obama camp which I call socialists. Sleeping with these dogs will give you fleas.
Posted by: Jim M at October 8, 2008 03:51 PM

Jim M,

Sticks and stones….whee, let’s do this again sometime…let’s see…Calling me a Socialist puts you in the McCain camp, which I call Naziism…when you sleep with them dogs, you might wake up…with fleas???

Posted by: Marysdude at October 8, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #266210

Jim - read my words carefully. I said that McCain and Palin’s POLICIES were anti-America, not them personally. I think both have huge admiration for the flag, but are out of touch with real people and real America.

Posted by: Jon R at October 8, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #266214

Jim M, attaching labels like ‘socialist’ to participants at WatchBlog is a form of flame baiting, which is not permitted by our Rules. Critique what participants say, not the participants.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at October 8, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #266219

Jim M-
The socialism you mean, and that practiced in Europe are two different things. You mean something that’s essentially one step away from communism, the feared marxism of yesteryear.

You further invoke the notion that Democrats are really sleeper Marxists, prepared to sucker the proles into goose-stepping communism. Give me a break.

As for the moderator, let me be blunt: two things are at work: one, nobody wants to look like they’re in the tank for the Republicans, which is the only reason they’d bring up your pet issues with such frequency, and two, they’re a dead horse that’s been beaten all too much. At this point most people care about other things, and the reporters know it. Social issues like you’re interested in rank last in terms of what people are concerned about.

As for calling them un-American, though I wouldn’t use such terms lightly myself, I have to laugh a little at how sensitive you are to that term. You would think, that Republicans having used that term and implied what it means on a frequent basis, should have been expecting that one day folks like Jon Rice would start doing their own defining of that term. Republicans should not dish what they cannot take.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #266226

Lets compare Obama’s friend Ayres with McCains friend Keating.
1. Which one is a convicted felon? Keating
2. Which one is not a convicted felon? Ayers
3. Which one committed his crimes while partying with the Senator. Keating
4. Which one committed his crimes while the Senator was 8 years old? Ayres

Posted by: j2t2 at October 8, 2008 8:28 PM
Comment #266244

… and we have seen the results of this lame smear campaign - he is behind in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina. It’s working so well that Obama will win over 350 electoral votes. He’s holding every state that Kerry won so all he needs to do is win one of the above states he is currently winning today to be our next president. Great strategy!

Posted by: tcsned at October 8, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #266247
Lets compare Obama’s friend Ayres with McCains friend Keating. 1. Which one is a convicted felon? Keating 2. Which one is not a convicted felon? Ayers 3. Which one committed his crimes while partying with the Senator. Keating 4. Which one committed his crimes while the Senator was 8 years old? Ayres

Let’s compare some more!

5. Which one ended their relationship the instant their illegal behavior was discovered? McCain
6. Which one attempted to kill and/or maim others and in the case of his girlfriend succeeded? Ayers

This is fun, j2t2, let’s play some more.

7. Which one is unrepentant and is attempting to make money off of their actions? Ayers
8. Which one launched a Senator’s campaign from their own house? Ayers
9. Which one told regulators that he wanted to make sure no special treatment was given to anyone before he was told about the investigations? McCain
10. Which one was absolved of any wrongdoing? McCain

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 9, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #266248

I watched the last 2 debates (VP’s amd Pres)closely. I had the eerie feeling that I was watching a rerun of Leave-it-to-Beaver. The Beaver was played by Senator Obama, Wally was played by Senator Biden, Eddie Haskill was represented accurately by Senator McCain, and of course Governor Palin played Lumpy. I never really like Eddie or Lumpy, and do not think I would like to call them my friends.

Posted by: Dean Robinson at October 9, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #266253

“5. Which one ended their relationship the instant their illegal behavior was discovered? McCain”

Rhinehold, I’m glad you view McCain’s behavior as illegal. It certainly was sleazy. Interestingly enough, Ayers has never been convicted of anything.

“6. Which one attempted to kill and/or maim others and in the case of his girlfriend succeeded? Ayers”

Whoops! McCain was an Air Force pilot in Viet Nam. I think he crashed on his first mission, but he certainly meant to kill people. Since McCain wanted to kill Vietnamese human beings, I suppose that doesn’t count.

“7. Which one is unrepentant and is attempting to make money off of their actions? Ayers”

Last I checked, McCain seemed to think the Vietnam War was a just war, and has certainly benefited.

“8. Which one launched a Senator’s campaign from their own house? Ayers”

Uncler. Keating played a crucial role in McCain’s early career. Keating was certainly one of his earliest sponsors, although I do not know if McCain announced the beginning of his career from Keating’s house. It might have been on his private jet. Or perhaps on one of the nine vacations Keating treated McCain to in the Bahamas. If you’d like to read about just what a sleazebag John McCain was at that time, don’t take my word for it, google it.

“10. Which one was absolved of any wrongdoing? McCain”

No. He was reprimaded by the Ethics Committee. His behavior was shameful. Ayers was neither reprimanded by a professional organization, nor convicted in a court of law.

Game, set, match.

Posted by: phx8 at October 9, 2008 12:55 AM
Comment #266255

Ayers did not kill anyone…I did…Viet Nam, like Iraq was a dishonorable, unjust conflict…Ayers was right and I was wrong…that makes him a hero and me a murderer…he protested an a dishonorable war, and I fought in it…no contest.

I don’t view Obama’s associations with Ayers more than Obama says they were, but assuming the worst, it would still be okay…

Can you say the same thing about McCain’s relationship with Keating? Assuming the worst, would it still be okay?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 2:02 AM
Comment #266256

Does Ayers walk around with a shirt on that says ‘I am a weatherman’? If any of us got to know him a month ago we would have no idea we were suddenly guilty of palling around with terrorists.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 9, 2008 7:29 AM
Comment #266334

Friends, huh? The biggest friend to BHO, the Democratic party, and myself as well, in this instance, is Rezko, who is now playing Let’s Make A Deal. He will apparently give them everything they need to destroy Gov Blagojevich’s career, if he doesn’t have to go into anything on BHO.

JMcC looks old enough to make Sarah Palin POTUS, giving Tina Fey the best job in the world.

Ayers is part of the bittergate aspect of BHO’s candidacy. He’s Patty Hearst with less money.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2008 4:59 PM
Comment #266353

Marysdude wrote; “Ayers was right and I was wrong…that makes him a hero and me a murderer…he protested an a dishonorable war, and I fought in it…no contest.”

It is difficult for me to understand anyone being a citizen of the U.S. who condones terrorists acts against their own people. Ayers as a hero…much like Jane Fonda I suppose. Marysdude, should Obama reward Ayers “heroic” acts with suggestions of some sort of congressional or freedom metal of honor should he become CIC? Or better yet, select Ayers for a cabinet position.

Posted by: Jim M at October 9, 2008 6:25 PM
Comment #266360

Jim M,

Obama has condemned Ayers’s actions in the sixties, was never a friend, and only communicated directly with him on a few occasions. I have never met him, but think I might have joined him if I’d had the guts. I knew the war was started on a lie, and that thousands of people were being killed and maimed un-necessarily, but stayed there anyway…what a chickensh*t I turned out to be…Fonda? Her problem was the gun emplacement, not her protests…she was also more brave than I.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #266406

“5. Which one ended their relationship the instant their illegal behavior was discovered? McCain”

Which one dodn’t have a relationship until 20 + years after the illegal activity was committed and not while se4ving in the senate.? Obama

“6. Which one attempted to kill and/or maim others and in the case of his girlfriend succeeded? Ayers”

Rhinehold is this guilt by guilt by association? How many levels deep must we go with this ridiculous attempt to find Obama guilty. Afterall McCain is at this level as guilty of association with domestic terrorist as he is endorsed by the Annenberg’s who put Ayers on the board to begin with.

“This is fun, j2t2, let’s play some more.”
OK

“7. Which one is unrepentant and is attempting to make money off of their actions? Ayers”

Wrong he was only unrepentant about not doing enough to stop the war. Not about the bombings.

“8. Which one launched a Senator’s campaign from their own house? Ayers”

Participating in Democracy is not a bad thing where I come from.

“9. Which one told regulators that he wanted to make sure no special treatment was given to anyone before he was told about the investigations? McCain”

Which one didn’t need to talk with regulators as he didn’t steal millions of other people money? Obama

“10. Which one was absolved of any wrongdoing? McCain”

Which one didn’t have any wrongdoings to be absolved of? Obama

next question
Which one served on a board with nazi sympathisers? McCain

Which one went on to become a distinguished professor when the senator meant him? Ayers

Posted by: j2t2 at October 10, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #266442

Marysdude, thank you for confirming your views that the ends justify the means.

In some societies the killing of one’s neighbors is frowned upon and the ballot box is still used to express disagreement with government. For some, the use of violence is condoned providing the perps believe they have a just reason. The use of violence should then be considered a “right” if one is so disposed.

Posted by: Jim M at October 10, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #266461

Jim M,

Who’s definition of killing/violence?

I said I was responsible for deaths of innocents because I participated in an unwarranted war. As far as I know Ayers was not responsible, at least directly, for the death of anyone. Do you know of his trial and the finding of Guilt?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 10, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #266475

Marysdude asks; “Who’s definition of killing/violence?”

Now there’s a tough question I’ll take a stab at answering. In a country with our elected legislators making the laws we live under and courts that interpret and enforce those laws, I would go with the rule of established law and its definition.

As a member of the Armed Forces of the U.S. you do not have the option or right to decide whether a war is warranted or unwarranted.

Why would one bother to vote if one was not prepared to abide by the rules and laws established by those elected to office. When one takes it upon themselves to determine who lives and who dies, it is called vigilantism or anarchy.

Marysdude, it may help your conscious to know that there is a huge difference between killing and murder which can be found in both our man-made laws and in the bible. God’s commandment was to do no murder. Killing someone by accident, in self-defense, or in war-time is much different than murder.

Posted by: Jim M at October 10, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #266484

Jim M,

It did not take a genius to determine that there had actually been no naval attack on our forces in the Tonkin. It was common knowledge up and down the fighting area. Nazis used the same justification you just presented…here is the difference:

Germans took orders, did not look into the truth of the situation, so most were held innocent of murder. However, that was the last time such an excuse was acceptable. From that moment on military folks are also supposed to pay attention and when their leaders are obviously breaking the law or being stupid, and should report such to superiors. And when superiors do not react, should quit the field. That is what separates us from the animals who played the games Hitler invented.

I’m going to repeat this…and, I hate to repeat:

I killed innocent people in a dishonorable action. I knew at the time that the excuses for entering the conflict were based on a lie. Ayers saw the injustice of it and protested. I saw it and did not quit the field. That makes him more brave than me. We will NOT discuss this matter again, period.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 10, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #266495

Marysdude wrote; “Ayers saw the injustice of it and protested.”

I witness injustice quite frequently. Does that give me permission to kill and maim and be held blameless? Our courts and ballot boxes are where civilized folks register their complaints. Thank God that most protesters in the country are still not capable of murder.

The 9/11 terrorists saw an injustice also and acted as Ayers did.

Posted by: Jim M at October 10, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #266601

Jim M,

The law had their chances at Ayers…had he been tried and convicted, we would not now be having this conversation…but, he was not. In my book that makes him innocent of the crimes of which you mention. If you know of anyone who was killed as a result of Ayers’ action, please report it to the police, as there is no statute of limitations for murder. He can still be charged. If you don’t know of such a thing, just continue to act like a right wing jerk, who will do and say anything to further mccain’s vendetta against Obama.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 11, 2008 9:28 PM
Comment #266636

Marysdude wrote of me, “If you don’t know of such a thing, just continue to act like a right wing jerk”

Marysdude, It is unfortunate that civilized discourse sometimes turns to name calling. I will ignore your name calling as did the WatchBlog censors.

Posted by: Jim M at October 12, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #266643

Jim M,

Merely a continuation of discourse…you say I must not be a citizen if I think one way…I say you must be a right wing jerk if you think another…

I apologize for my part…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 12, 2008 3:14 PM
Comment #266708

Jim M wrote; “It is difficult for me to understand anyone being a citizen of the U.S. who condones terrorists acts against their own people.”

In her response to me being upset at her calling me a “jerk” she justifies her name-calling by the statement below.

“Merely a continuation of discourse…you say I must not be a citizen if I think one way…I say you must be a right wing jerk if you think another…”

Apology not accepted as it is obviously insincere since she does it again. And, once again I will ignore her name-calling as do the WatchBlog censors.

Posted by: Jim M at October 13, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment #266713

Marysdude and Jim M.

With the greatest respect, your interchanges are becoming increasingly personal and unrelated to my post. I am all for discourse, disagreement and the disbursement of ideas; however, I feel that since the topic seems to have become irrelevant, my blog has become a conduit for a fight.

I do not hesitate to encourage you to comment, and I hope this request to stay at least vaguely on the subjects I write about will not have the opposite effect, but I wonder if it’s time to take your disagreements offline?

Once again, I truly value your input but I’m asking politely to see it used more constructively on my posts.

Thanks to both of you.

Jon

Posted by: Jon Rice at October 13, 2008 1:18 PM
Post a comment