Annenberg


Now that reporters have had time to pore over the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (background here), its details are emerging - both of Barack Obama and terrorist William Ayers’s involvement and of the CAC’s operations and goals. Stanley Kurtz finds the CAC a disturbingly radical organization.

[T]he Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda...

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)...

CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.
Kurtz paints a picture of an ideologically centered organization, seeking not to improve the education of city students but to educate them in "political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism". These goals may or may not be invidious, but they are certainly not ones I would want promulgated across the land (at the expense, as noted above, of math and science). In a position to do good in his community, Mr. Obama chose instead to push a political agenda. Why would he do differently as president?

When in control of grant money, Mr. Obama chose not to give the money to public schools, but rather to private groups. But now as a politician he opposes school choice because money would be leaving public schools. Is this a principled position, or just leftodoxy?

The CAC history also provides further evidence that Mr. Ayers launched Barack Obama's rise from ineffectual community organizer.
One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.
Mr. Obama has displayed a consistently leftist ideology in his decisions throughout life. It's only in his rhetoric that the "one America" emerges.

Posted by Chops at September 23, 2008 3:45 PM
Comments
Comment #264024

Go find me the radical legislation that Obama was supposedly turned on to by this former terrorist and current radical.

All he’s managed to find here is more of what he went looking for: that Obama is liberal and has associated with the man.

Have they established a pattern of policy throughout his political career that indicates this influence? No. Have they established a pattern of rhetoric anywhere that confirms a picture of far left behavior? No.

He is a centrist, which is only a leftist for those who are so far to the right that they can’t tell the difference.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #264034

Once those 40 Dem attorneys are done in Alaska, perhaps the Reps can hire them to go to Chicago?

There is a big difference here between what BHO calls an association and what this really amounts to as a participative, working relationship where they shared ideas and then actively implemented them.

Posted by: Honest at September 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #264037


Stephen is right. Obama is a centrist. His liberal voting record proves that without doubt.

Sure, Obama might slip away for a little trist with his radical buddy on occasion but, that is the equivalent of a conservative homophobe doing an occasional public restroom foot tapping. Obama always makes it back home to the family, the corporate family that is.

A liberal is a corporate centrist that uses power to the people language to fool progressives and workers. It rarely works unless times are tough and worrisome.

Posted by: jlw at September 23, 2008 5:21 PM
Comment #264039

I’ve got a good friend who’s a hardcore conservative - such as no abortion even in cases of rape or incest, no matter what.

Does that mean I’m conservative like him?

How about if I had a Muslim friend? Am I a terrorist supporter, then?

Or how about a racist friend (growing up down South, I had many racist friends). Am I then racist?

How about President George H.W. Bush? His DAD was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

So was President Bush a Nazi?

Chops, who a man has as his friends is of some import, but it is a MISTAKE to make concrete assumptions of a man because of someone he knows. FAR more important are that man’s ACTIONS. “By his works shall ye know him”.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 23, 2008 5:45 PM
Comment #264041

“FAR more important are that man’s ACTIONS. “By his works shall ye know him”.”

Except when it comes to Gov. Palin.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2008 5:58 PM
Comment #264054

“By his works shall ye know him”.
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 23, 2008 05:45 PM

Glenn, I found in Chops expose, examples of Barry’s “works”. That he is a liberal is hardly news. That he used public money to advance private causes is something else. I believe there is much more to come. Thanks Chops.

Posted by: Jim M at September 23, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #264059

Actions…Hmmm… like a steady association, purchases, etc. with Tony Rezko after more than 100 articles concerning Rezko’s defrauding of the government, not to mention the damage to neighborhoods in which he built? Obama said of him that Rezko had always been “honest and above board” with him.

Yeah. Centrist all the way.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 23, 2008 8:45 PM
Comment #264060

Stanley Kurtz is hardly a reputable source. When someone honest and without an ax to grind has something to say then I’ll listen. He begins his article with “The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away.” Duh - because you keep writing garbage about it. He is a dirt digger and not a journalist. I read his article and there wasn’t anything in it that was very convincing. Much of what this article was contains is pure conjecture such as this journalistic nugget: “Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers.” No evidence, just “almost certainly.”

As to a conservative whining about the restriction of information I say to Mr. Kurtz - boo hoo! We on the left have had to endure more than our fair share of information hiding in the last 8 years. SO no sympathy from me.

Posted by: tcsned at September 23, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #264064

Obama, the most liberal voting member of the senate, a centrist? What news are you guys listening to?

Here are the facts about Obama’s voting record and positions. Obama is a phenominal orator with pretty rhetoric, and he’s black. Don’t be fooled into letting these two likable aspects of his persona convince you that he’s even remotely centrist.

Posted by: Gandhi at September 23, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #264065

And you guys on the left always use reputable sources. YEA RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at September 23, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #264066

Chops, you can check this out…might save you from writing another article….

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/guilt_and_associations.html

Posted by: janedoe at September 23, 2008 9:08 PM
Comment #264067

KAP - So you are admitting Kurtz isn’t reputable? Just because some on the left use less than reputable sources doesn’t make the Kurtz article dubious. That’s really taking a stand for journalistic integrity. The right has made a cottage industry out of phony journalism - we have had to endure 8 years of swiftboat liars and their ilk. I’m just calling this guy what he is a writer of opinion and rumor not fact.

Posted by: tcsned at September 23, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #264069

tcsned
Both sides have used less than reputable sources. It ain’t only the right making a cottage industry out of phony journalism. Every journalist has an opinion and maybe he did check out the rumor. I’ve read a few articles about BHO that have me wondering about him.

Posted by: KAP at September 23, 2008 10:18 PM
Comment #264070

I should have said “doesn’t make the Kurtz article ANY LESS dubious.” I accidentally gave Kurtz credit. My bad.

Posted by: tcsned at September 23, 2008 10:20 PM
Comment #264073

Chops: Is it such a great suprise that a liberal politician will cheat for a cause he believes in or a business associate in need? I thought that it was a well established fact that most politicians, conservative and liberal, do these sorts of things? Of course, they don’t call it cheating or stealing, they call it appropriation of tax dollars. The one friend that liberal and conservative politicians have in common is Wall Street.

The CEO of a corporation once was accused of buying politicians. Her response was that if she didn’t buy them someone else would and that politicians come with strings already attached.

Posted by: jlw at September 24, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #264084

Here’s the thing. What did Kurtz come up with?

Would it have required a big, high-profile investigation to essentially conclude what we already knew?

Let me tell you what would be in this report if Kurtz either knew what he was doing, or had a real story: a narrative.

He could get beyond these generalities and lay down a set of facts that could speak for themselves. With Sarah Palin, for example, people can say, well, in the current campaign she has said this, but in fact she did this and this in office. We can point to the earmarks she aggressively pursued for her city, one which had gotten on fine without them before.

Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. I know that for Republicans mere association with Radicals for people on the left makes them automatically radicals. By this logic, John McCain is a Convicted felon and Right Wing Fanatic.

Come back to me when you dig up Obama saying something truly controversial. Come back to me when you can present a scenario where Obama has been acting the radical himself. Don’t just invoke ideological contamination by magic means. Politics isn’t like cooties.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2008 7:07 AM
Comment #264088

Like being more pro-choice than NARAL?

Ever heard of the Induced Infant Liability Act? In the Illinois legislature he killed it in committee-it would have provided equal protection for babies that survived late-term abortions. Barack was afraid it would put one more limit on the woman.

A nearly identical bill passed the US Congress with only 15 votes against and was passed unanimously by the Senate. NARAL supported it.

At Saddleback, he said when life begins is “above my pay grade.” His actions say he doesn’t care when life begins.

Posted by: Silima at September 24, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #264089

At Saddleback, he said when life begins is “above my pay grade.” His actions say he doesn’t care when life begins.

Please disregard this sentence. I do not believe it, and am sure that Obama does, in fact, approach the issue with some thought. Forgive my exageration, er, falsehood.

That said, I still detest his actions in this case.

Posted by: Silima at September 24, 2008 9:32 AM
Comment #264092

Silima-
Let me ask you some questions.

How have you determined his mindset?

Can we have some quotes to back that determination?

What else in your exhaustive search of his record (I sure hope you didn’t come to this conclusion from a lone source, a single vote) backs this designation of being more pro-choice than NARAL?

Were you not aware that the law in Illinois already required aid to be given to babies that survived attempted abortions, and in fact have a doctor on hand to make that determination?

Have you any solid evidence he ever opposed THAT practice, or the law it was based upon?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #264093

So much hate among the Republicans and conservatives.

It DOES NOT MATTER to them that they do NOT hold either of their own candidates to the SAME standards they expect Obama to meet.

Why? POWER.

Remember how they howled about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? All because a guy let his libido get the best of him and then lied about it.

But do the Republicans and conservatives howl about America being lied into a war? Do they howl about the thousands of American dead, about the blood and treasure wasted because Bush and Cheney LIED in order to get us into a war?

No, they don’t. The TRUTH does not matter to them. The TRUTH, like lies, like their false allegiance to democracy, are only tools to them to gain POWER, to give them the chance to wrap themselves in the flag as if that POWER somehow proves the flag is something holy.

The most telling fact is their ongoing support of the endemic election fraud by their party…while there is NO such ongoing election fraud by the Democratic party. If they truly believed in DEMOCRACY, this would not be the case.

So much hate…and the Republicans and conservatives don’t see what’s wrong with that.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 24, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #264094

Mindset? On abortion, yes-far left.

This by itself does not make him farther left than NARAL-but it does put him over the top-NARAL says he voted right on 13 of 13 abortion bills in the Senate. With this, yes, he does become more pro-choice.

I don’t care if it was already law, he still opposed it.

I was planning on voting for him, since McCain’s warmongering is also detestable. I would vote for a less rigid pro-choice candidate, or one with a position I thought better thought out-like Biden’s. But Obama’s voted positions on this issue are an absolute deal-breaker for me.

Posted by: Silima at September 24, 2008 10:12 AM
Comment #264095

There is another interesting article by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review Online. I realize this may be hard for the left to understand, but there is something called “Logic”. Most from the left are motivated by “emotion” and not “reason”. When a lawyer presents a case, he makes a point and ties it to another point and then comes to a logical conclusion. Kurtz presents points of discussion and then comes to a logical conclusion. To attack the conclusion without understanding or even reading the points is the result of being led by emotion.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM4ZmU1NGFkODJlMjhmYjkxMjg4Y2Q0NTVlYjAzMmY=

Founding Brothers
What’s behind Obama’s early rise?

I wonder, is it possible for the left to actually discuss (what I believe to be important facts about BHO), without bringing Bush, Palin, McCain, or anyone else into the discussion?

Posted by: Oldguy at September 24, 2008 10:17 AM
Comment #264096

Glenn

“But do the Republicans and conservatives howl about America being lied into a war? Do they howl about the thousands of American dead, about the blood and treasure wasted because Bush and Cheney LIED in order to get us into a war?”

Yes, I do. Those reasons are precisely why I registered as a Democrat. And I was nine years old when Bill Clinton was impeached. Can’t say I cared much, or that I knew what “having an affair” even meant.

Posted by: Silima at September 24, 2008 10:19 AM
Comment #264098

Silima

Since you are so young and never knew what it was all about, let me bring you up to par. It was never about sex, although what he did in the Oval Office was disgusting. It was about lying under oath. If you were brought before a grand jury and questioned while under oath, and you lied, you would be guilty of lying under oath. The left wants to change history and make what Clinton did to be nothing more than sex. I suggest you google the articles of impeachment of Bill Clinton and see if it was about sex.

If I loathed the military and cared nothing about the enemies of freedom loving people, and if I wanted to try to negotiate with radicals who view negotiation as weakness. If I wanted to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a bunch of weak cowardly Europeans, and place my trust in an organization called the UN, who takes pleasure in allowing and agreeing with that peanut brained leader of Iran. Then I would also register as a democrat.


I was like you about 50 years ago, then I woke up to reality. I realized the unions, who were telling me who to vote for, didn’t care about anything except the dues I paid each month.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 24, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #264100

Old Guy - I read that Kurtz article too and it was more of the same from the last one I read. He has written at least two articles with the same premise - that he doesn’t have any facts and since no one will share the information with him he concludes that Obama is in league with Bill Ayers and his ideology. While I agree that the information should be made public reaching conclusions with an absence of evidence is not “logic” as you put it. This guy seems obsessed with Bill Ayers and obsessed with smearing Obama. When he gets some actual facts I’ll listen to what he has to say.

See - I responded without mentioning McCain, Palin, or Bush. OOOPS! I just did it. Sorry :)

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 11:27 AM
Comment #264102

Old Guy - It isn’t the Democratic Party that “loathes the military.”

Was it the Democratic Party that lied us into a stupid, illegal war, breaking the back of the military, then cutting veterans benefits? Don’t think so.

Was it the Democratic Party that is turning over military operations to a bunch of mercenaries (Blackwater) who work side-by-side with our brave soldiers who make about as much in a month as the mercenaries do in a week? Don’t think so.

McCain has among the worst records in Congress on veterans issues and it’s the Democrats that loathe the military?

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #264103

Oldguy -

So it’s GOOD and RIGHT to be morally indignant about Clinton’s lying under oath…but NOT about Bush and Cheney lying to the American people (and even to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey!) to drag us into an illegal war that has cost America so much?!?!?!?!?

DO YOU NOT SEE the difference in the DEGREE of harm done to America as a whole????

How many people died, how many servicemembers were killed or wounded when Clinton lied under oath? How can you POSSIBLY claim to care about the military and freedom-loving people if you do NOT stand against those two who LIED us into a war, who sent our young men and women to DIE because of a LIE?

How can you support a party that pretends that the VP isn’t part of the Executive Branch, KIDNAPS (and calls it ‘rendition’), holds people (even American citizens) without trial or access to legal counsel for YEARS, and TORTURES (which WWII interrogators pointed out was NOT an effective way to get intel)?

In my 20 years in the military, I thought we were AGAINST those governments who kidnapped, wrongfully imprisoned, and tortured. Now my government DOES these.

THESE, Oldguy, if you truly be a patriot, are what should infuriate you: that America - AMERICA! - kidnaps, wrongfully imprisons, and TORTURES…and all justified by LIES told by the President and Vice President.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 24, 2008 12:01 PM
Comment #264105

tcsned -

“McCain has among the worst records in Congress on veterans issues and it’s the Democrats that loathe the military?”

Well said!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 24, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #264107

Glenn -

You seem to think I’m judging Obama by his associations alone. That’s not the case. In my post I wrote:

Mr. Obama chose instead to push a political agenda. Why would he do differently as president?

…Mr. Obama chose not to give the money to public schools, but rather to private groups. But now as a politician he opposes school choice because money would be leaving public schools.

…Mr. Obama has displayed a consistently leftist ideology in his decisions throughout life.

Are you saying that Ayers, not Obama, is responsible for these decisions? I’m not saying that - but it would be even more troubling!

What I’m saying is that the CAC documents reveal a pattern of decision-making by Obama that is troubling to me. Mr. Ayers’ ideology and decisions are also troubling to me, but Ayers is not running for office, so my critical eye falls squarely on Mr. Obama, who is responsible for his own decisions as CAC Chairman. Those decisions were ideologically driven and the results were largely ineffective at improving educational outcomes. This is not a man I want running the U.S. Dept of Education.

Posted by: Chops at September 24, 2008 12:06 PM
Comment #264108

Stephen -

Same response as above goes to your objections. I’m not pretending that Obama’s CAC years are the only period that matters, but he’s got a short record in public service, and several years at the helm of an education grant initiative gives us a window on his policymaking in substance and style.

If that’s not a fair way to evaluate a candidate, please tell me what is!

Posted by: Chops at September 24, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #264110

Glenn,

Hey, bro. I had decided that I wouldn’t post here any more, as I have a ton of work to do and posting took my time away from that.

But I couldn’t just sit by and let false…or half true…statements go unchallenged.

Let me look at what you posted…and complete the half truths that you have posted here.

(All my comments will be in bold.)

You wrote:

“It DOES NOT MATTER to them that they do NOT hold either of their own candidates to the SAME standards they expect Obama to meet.”

Let me show everyone the opposite, but equally true statement.

“It DOES NOT MATTER to liberals and democrats that they do NOT hold either of their own candidates to the SAME standards they expect Palin to meet.”

As for your statement…

“Remember how they howled about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? All because a guy let his libido get the best of him and then lied about it…to a grand jury.

And how about this one…

“…Do they howl about the thousands of American dead, about the blood and treasure wasted because Bush and Cheney LIED in order to get us into a war…as did Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and all the others that based their vote for the war on the same exact intelligence that Bush and Cheney had?”

Remember that a “half-truth” or an “omission to enhance one’s version of the truth” is as bad as an outright lie.

Now, let’s talk about abortion.

In California, if I were to kill a woman, I’d be charged with murder…rightly so.

If I kill a pregnant woman, I can be charged with 2 counts of murder.

Huh? Did I just hear that California has determined that life begins at conception? That at conception, that “mass of tissue and nothing more” has the right NOT to be murdered? It has the right to life??? Huh???

Of course, abortion in California is legal…and therein lies the conundrum.

Which law is right?

If I kill a baby (by killing its mother) I can be charged with the murder of a human being. If its mother kills it, it is “business as usual”.

Which law is right? Is either law right?

Opinions, please.


Posted by: Jim T at September 24, 2008 12:19 PM
Comment #264112

Chops
It doesn’t matter that he was ineffective, he is a far-left Democrat so he gets a pass on everything.
That is why his negatives are ignored or defended and that is why they believe in all these “LIES,” even though they cannot prove them.

The info in your post is just more reason for everybody, left-middle-right, to question if Obama is really the moderate representitive for ALL of us, that he has been made out to be by the left and in the media.

Posted by: kctim at September 24, 2008 12:21 PM
Comment #264114

Jim T
Typical typical typical
Instead of answering the question you do a “but they did it too” answer
so is either right?
Re: the “the dems voted for the war too”
That vote has been so misrepresented as to be laughable (and the Dems allow the right to frame the discussion — that ends now)

The Resolution was pushed by Bush and Cheney as necessary to give them some negotiation power,Bush and Slimey assured Congress that the war powers portion would only be used when ALL ELSE FAILED
Does that sound like “voting for the war”??
Once again, after passage Bush and Cheney demonstrated that they LIED by not persuing all other avenues prior to launching the war.
It has subsequently been shown (but conveniently forgotten) that all that intel was bogus, known to be bogus, and cherry picked for their purposes

Congress did NOT see the same intel that Bush Cheney had access to — Congress saw what Bush Cheney ALLOWED them to see.


Bush/Cheney and this administration has FULL responsiblity for going into an unnecessary, costly and fruitless war — Surge worked? (not really) but that isn’t the point — There shouldn’t have needed to be a surge in the first place
Secondly — even after going into war, we still wouldn’t have needed a Surge (after 5 years into the dang thing) if they had LISTENED to people who knew better — so after 5 years of mismanagement it is unreasonable for people to support “trust us” one more time??
BS

Re: holding Palin to the same standard??
I love the MANUFACTURED outrage
Palin accused Hillary of whining about tougher treatment than what Palin has been actually exposed to.
The reason the right is so (overly) sensitive to ANY mention of Palin Must be because they are aware of her weakness and respond so defensively because of it.
Its human nature that you can’t hide!!


Posted by: Russ at September 24, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #264115

correction to previous post
so after 5 years of mismanagement it is unreasonable for people to support “trust us” one more time??
BS

Should be
so after 5 years of mismanagement it is unreasonable for people to NOT support “trust us” one more time??
BS


Posted by: Russ at September 24, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #264116

Silima-
I would weigh things like this, on election day. The likelihood of most candidates to rollback Roe v. Wade is small. It is the law of the land, an something profound would have to occur to allow that decision to be fall.

Electing Obama would hardly change that.

McCain, however, should be taken at his word on his warmongering, and there he does have the ability to implement policy to great effect.

A vote for Obama will change things, concerning the issue of the war. It will bring about a result. A vote for McCain or a failure to vote for him will change the landscape on Abortion very little.

If you want your vote to matter for what matters to you, vote for Obama.

Oldguy-
Somebody did a poll a while back of people from political parties. You know what the consistent result was? They would say that they and their party came to their conclusions via reason and logic, and the other side believed what they did because they were going off of feelings.

Also, even if somebody is logical and rational, ignorance and a lack of comprehension can undermine their conclusion.

New evidence strongly suggests that Barack Obama has been less than forthcoming about the role that unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers may have played in choosing him to lead the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

That’s his lead. “Strongly suggests” is weasel wordage. The weaseling will be necessary.

Rolling also appears to prime Chapman and Hallett to avoid telling the press the whole story of how Obama was chosen, and provides them with an apparently incomplete story to use instead. Although it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions from this evidence, it does raise serious questions about Barack Obama’s own account of the process by which he was chosen as CAC board chair.

Words like those pervade the article, and they are the mark of somebody trying to make an allegation knowing they don’t have the evidence to back the conclusions they want to make.

If he had the evidence, things wouldn’t appear to be anything. It wouldn’t be too early to draw definitive conclusions, and serious questions would have greater credibility if they were supported by more than less than definitive conclusions and appearances from an author’s point of view.

As for discussing facts about Obama without referencing Bush or the McCain-Ticket? We’re in the midst of a campaign, and charges of exactly these kinds are being made by them, with exactly the same kind of evidence: thin.

Given that, It would be rather artificial to exclude them from the discussion, as we have to consider the source of the charges being made, the motivation.

On the subject of the perjury mess with Bill Clinton, it might have been easier to convince people that it wasn’t about puritanical moralism if the whole affair hadn’t been the result of a near continuous Independent Counsel investigation that pulled the neat trick of turning into an investigation into that perjury after having focused on Lewinsky first, and before that having dealt with an obscure land deal.

He was an idiot to have tried to split hairs as thinly as he did; had he just told the truth you could have heard the thud of the Independent Counsel investigation collapsing an ocean away. But Congress had better things to do than to wage a perpetual campaign to unseat the president in revenge for Watergate.

If I loathed the military and cared nothing about the enemies of freedom loving people, and if I wanted to try to negotiate with radicals who view negotiation as weakness. If I wanted to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a bunch of weak cowardly Europeans, and place my trust in an organization called the UN, who takes pleasure in allowing and agreeing with that peanut brained leader of Iran. Then I would also register as a democrat.

If, if, if, if. If wishes were trees, the trees would be falling. I don’t loath the military. I admire it. I would negotiate with radicals, but they wouldn’t get far with me if they didn’t compromise in return.

As far as sovereignty goes, you have to give a little to get a little from them. We run military bases off of European soil. They back us in NATO, mutually obliged with us to act in mutual defense. You can claim that it’s un-American to become so obliged, but that’s how we won the cold war. More to the point, how do you think we’re going to win a war on terrorist, without such mutual understandings? These countries have their sovereignty too, and Americans are fools to believe that they would give these things up for nothing in return.

As for that Peanut Brained leader? He’s a response to our president, a blustering figure head backed by older, somewhat wiser hardline conservatives who don’t want anything to change.

Might their be a better approach than going purely through the UN? Bill Clinton answered that question. He employed the UN, but he didn’t necessarily give up when they didn’t sign the permission slip.

But it helps to calm nerves and provide cover for our actions. It helps delegitimize interlopers, and arrange for material support for our efforts. The UN can be useful.

But you folks just won’t have that. Everything has to be force or the threat of force. Fear and loathing is not a foreign policy, it’s a recipe for weakness and error.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #264117

Oldguy
Given the frequency with which the Lewinsky scandal is brought up, I have since looked into it. I think Clinton deserved to be impeached for perjury, but I do not believe Republican motives were doing so were as pure as you think.

I don’t loathe the military and care a great deal for the oppressed. I just don’t think cluster bombs are a fabulous way to liberate people. To paraphrase Ghandi, most people don’t care whether they’re killed in the name of democracy or the name of tyranny.

I believe Obama has since “clarified” his views on negotiating with Ahmedinajad and his ilk. As for Europeans, if I’d seen my continent get beaten into a bloody pulp twice in 40 years, I don’t think I’d be a huge fan of wars either. Robert E Lee said that it’s good war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it. America hasn’t seen war on a massive scale since he said those words. Maybe the right wouldn’t be so fond of military intervention if it happened to us every once in a while.

And before you shoot back with Pearl Harbor and 9/11, those were isolated incidents, not massive destruction on the scale France or England or Germany witnessed. When was the last time an American city was carpet bombed?

As for unions, I’m from California. I’m not a huge fan of the nurses, teachers, or correctional officers unions.

Posted by: Silima at September 24, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #264121

Jim T -

I was wondering what was up since I hadn’t seen you in a while here - but I understand.

Bro, I will answer your challenges.

“It DOES NOT MATTER to liberals and democrats that they do NOT hold either of their own candidates to the SAME standards they expect Palin to meet.”

Jim, do you not remember the Republican firestorm over Michelle Obama’s ‘proud of America’ debacle? Over her ONE statement? Then WHY are they not outraged by Palin’s husband being a voluntary MEMBER for five years (till ‘02) of a political party that advocated for SECESSION FROM AMERICA? “I will not be buried under that damn flag”. That was from the party’s founder back in ‘91, referring to the American flag.

Same standards?

Has Obama abuse the power of his position to ruin the careers of others? Check Troopergate. Check the threat Palin made to the librarian who didn’t want certain books to be banned.

Same standards?

How about foreign policy experience? Palin never left North America till last year. Obama, OTOH, has been there, done that.

I could go on, bro, but that would make this post too long. But there’s more.

“Remember how they howled about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? All because a guy let his libido get the best of him and then lied about it…to a grand jury.”

And how about this one…

“…Do they howl about the thousands of American dead, about the blood and treasure wasted because Bush and Cheney LIED in order to get us into a war…as did Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and all the others that based their vote for the war on the same exact intelligence that Bush and Cheney had?”

The two are together because they illustrate the hypocrisy of the Republican party…and here’s your misunderstanding: Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, COLIN POWELL, AND DICK ARMEY all did NOT have the ‘same exact intelligence that Bush and Cheney had’.

Why? Because Cheney lied to Dick Armey (who, as Speaker of the House, was the next guy in line for the presidency after Cheney, remember)

The Bush administration lied us into war - they try to blame false intel…but when the intel showed what Bush and Cheney didn’t like, well, ask Valerie Plame what happened.

And what Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid knew was based ONLY on the intelligence the CIA was PERMITTED to give by Bush and Cheney.

We all believed it, bro. I did, too.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 24, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #264122

Chops-
What decisions? That’s the crux of the matter. What kind of programs did he set up?

Kurtz had the opportunity to go through all kinds of stuff, to search through all kinds of details. Does he detail the radical programs? No. Practically fails to mention them.

The best he can do is say that Ayers was one of five people who made the decsion to hire him. But he didn’t even nominate him, according to an e-mail that Kurtz himself quotes.

You folks throw around words like “leftist” and “radical”, but without detailing actual events, and what these people were really saying, it becomes a labels game where an ounce of critical thought would lead people to wonder whether your labels for what’s leftist and radical would fit the average person’s notion of what’s leftist and radical.

While you may not want Obama running the Department of Education, that may not be a judgment shared by some, if they were to see the programs, or have the chance to appreciate what Obama talked about during the meetings.

Instead, we get Kurtz more or less repeating a basic partisan interpretation of what the purpose of these programs was. He reports, we decide, right?

I think we need more than what he’s reported here to decide.

I’m not pretending that Obama’s CAC years are the only period that matters, but he’s got a short record in public service, and several years at the helm of an education grant initiative gives us a window on his policymaking in substance and style.

Obama was a pretty busy man, even before becoming a State Senator. The CAC is a small part of his early career.

More to the point, The article you provided, and much of the Republican coverage of the incident in question focus more on the association and on trying to connect the two than on any particular policy or thing that Obama said. That’s where the real meat of what you say you’re after would be, not in the suspicions and innuendos of an acknowledged culture war partisan like Kurtz.

You folks need somebody like Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo, somebody who digs up the hard facts, finds the substance in a matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #264126

Stephen,

Noting that Obama was chairman of the board (in charge of finances), this isn’t specific enough for you:

Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

Remember, the issue that I’m bringing up in this post isn’t one of scandal but one of decision-making, policy choices, and executive effectiveness. There’s no single “smoking gun” memo to be plastered all over the internet.

What can be found is a long (boring) paper trail that shows a record of Mr Obama using his power to support leftist (not centrist) goals, denying money to math/science education at the expense of leftist ideology, and having little to no effect on the educational outcomes of the program’s target population.

That’s not exciting or sensational, but it says a lot about what his personal priorities are. Again, is this not a fair way to evaluate a candidate?

Posted by: Chops at September 24, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #264129

To recapitulate: I’m not saying Obama is a stalking horse for Ayers or Acorn or anyone, or guilty for working with them. But he used his power to fund Acorn programs and didn’t turn CAC away from Ayers’ intended (leftist) goals.

This is all about Obama’s actions, and his actions are leftist.

Posted by: Chops at September 24, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #264135

OK, let’s talk about Troopergate.

Sure, she wanted him fired. This is a state trooper that tasered his own son…made death threats toward Palin…beat up his wife…and has been stopped for driving under the influence more than one time.

And you’re DEFENDING this bozo? Is this the kind of state trooper you want on the force? This guy needed to be fired a LONG time ago. But he wasn’t and hasn’t been fired as of yet. Why? The state trooper’s (DPS) union. This out-of-control jerk shouldn’t even be allowed to pick up trash on the side of the highway…much less enforce laws on that highway.

My take? Fire his ass…yesterday!

I’m really glad you mentioned “truth” and “lies” and the people who tell them earlier.

Let’s take a look at the Daily Kos…Moveon…Huffington Post…NY Times…MSNBC attempts to “swift skirt” Palin, shall we?

1.) Palin Slashed spending for teen moms from $5 million dollars to $3.9 million in the Alaska state budget.

Debunked.

2.) Palin belonged to the Alaska Independence Party, a group that wants Alaska to secede from the United States.

Debunked.

3.) Palin was so mired in controversy as a mayor that she was almost recalled while mayor of Wasilla.

Debunked.

4.) Palin cheated on her husband with her husband’s former business partner. This man had his divorce papers sealed to hide Palin’s affair.

Debunked.

5.) Palin faked her recent pregnancy to cover for an out-of-wedlock birth of her teenaged daughter.

Debunked.

6.) Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan when he ran for president in 1999.

Debunked.

7.) Palin wanted a long, long list of books to be banned in the Wassilla library.

Debunked. (Palin did ask the library about what the process might be to ban a book, but the long list of books being circulated to “prove” she wanted books banned is really a list of all the books that have been banned at one time or another over the last 100 years. In fact, as far as the Harry Potter Books on that list goes, some of them came out after Palin left the office of Mayor of Wasilla.)

8.) Palin is lying when she says she sold the state’s jet plane on ebay.

Debunked. She said she put it on eBay and she did. But the state sold it in a private sale to one Larry Reynolds.

9.) She’s anti-semitic.

Debunked. In fact, she had an Israeli flag in her office.

10.) Her daughter actually had the Down’s Syndrome baby…not Sarah.

Debunked.

Any other lies about Sarah Palin that we need to debunk? Don’t answer that. As long as Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, MSNBC and the NY Times are still in business, the slime machine won’t slow down and won’t stop attempting to “swift skirt” her.


PS…

I forgot to mention Obama’s P.R. firm “astroturfing” Palin. Does Winner & Associates ring a bell? How about if I link to their astroturfing on behalf of Obama?

Astroturfing Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Jim T at September 24, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #264140

Chops -

I would agree that Obama is certainly left of center. I have been somewhat disappointed in some of the more centrist positions he has taken - supporting that awful FISA reform bill for one thing. After 8 years of just being a little to the left of Mussolini, I welcome a swing to the left - obviously you do not :)

All candidates play the left/right/center swing game when running for office. They run to the extremes to appeal to their base and to the middle to appeal to the independents. Obama has certainly done this on certain issues. Over the last few years John McCain has sold out almost everything he has stood for or everything he has proclaimed that he stood for to appease the far right of his party to get the nomination. He even chose the most unqualified, moronic candidate for VP because a couple of years of pandering to these folks still wasn’t getting the job done.

This stuff from both sides is pretty transparent to anyone who is paying attention. Any good president, once they win the office will govern for all the people not just the people in their party and this has a moderating influence - current bozo-in-chief excepted.

McCain has shown a serious lack of good judgment in his first executive decision by choosing perhaps the worst VP candidate in my lifetime. Before everyone starts screaming sexism, stop. I don’t care what her gender is - she just isn’t very bright, very honest, or very knowledgeable. Kind of like the current occupant of the White House.

Obama’s first executive decision was much better that McCain’s. He chose someone who is knowledgeable, capable, and experienced. Someone who can give good advice when asked unlike the GOPs #2 choice.

These two choices are very telling about the candidates beside their ideology. I want GOP to field their best possible candidates on the off chance that they might win. We have had enough of a disastrous, incompetent, idiotic president to last several lifetimes. When I looked at the field of GOP candidates that were running McCain was probably the best of the serious contenders. But his choice of Palin turned my thinking around 180 degrees. Choosing someone who is so obviously a bad choice shows that he really doesn’t care about the country. He cares about winning. That is a serious lack of good judgment and kind of unpatriotic.

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 3:22 PM
Comment #264142

When one has as thin and ethereal a resume as Barach Obama, with his only real achievements having been writing a couple of books about himself, then one must examine who Obama associates with if only to gain some insight into the man’s real history. Obama is not now, nor has he ever been, anything even remotely resembling a leader — he is a self-promoting pitchman who leaves it to his lackies (and blog reps) to howl in righteous indignity when anyone discusses Obama for what he is.

For this whole campaign, Obama has made the claim that he brings good judgment and “change,” saying this often enough and loud enough for people to buy his spiel in the absence of any substantial record. Then he has the cojones to castigate McCain for his record, making statements to prove that he possesses amazing 20-20 hindsight on issues that others took action on. What is most telling about Obama, however, is the fact that away from a teleprompter and forced to think on his feet, he tends to stumble about and lose his poise and articulation. He comes off as indecisive and vague.

Finally, about McCain’s record, as distorted in the Obama commercials: In the extreme partisan Senate, good legislation is regularly shackled to pork-filled riders of dubious merit, often to the point that senators cannot in good conscience vote for bills whose components they might otherwise support. Before one jumps to the conclusion that McCain voted against all sorts of wonderful things, keep in mind that accompanying those wonderful things were probably legislation that was better flushed down a toilet.

Posted by: Goombah at September 24, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #264144

Jim T - None of that garbage about Sarah Palin really matters - she still isn’t very bright, doesn’t understand the issues domestic and international, and operates with a certitude that is unwarranted by her lack of understanding of the issues. She won’t talk to the press because the few times she has she has been an embarrassment - even with GOP operative Sean Hannity. She really is George W. Bush II.

Even George Will thinks she is a bad choice.

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment #264148

tcsned,

So if none of that stuff really matters…why are y’all still trying to push it on the American public? Huh?

Posted by: Jim T at September 24, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #264159

Oh, and though she may not be too bright…she at least knows that FDR didn’t get on the TV during the Great Depression (Thank you, Joe Biden). I guess if she’s smarter than him…that would make Joe Biden nut veary edukkated, huh?

And he wants to be Vice President????

Posted by: Jim T at September 24, 2008 4:39 PM
Comment #264160

Chops-
You talk of a pattern of decision making, but what we have is a partisan critique of the broad outlines, with plenty of “leftist” references to make it sound sinister.

Where are the specific decisions? Where are the programs described in more details? If he’s on to something, really on to something, he’s not doing himself favors by being so vague. If he’s not, then such vagueness is the inevitable consequence of trying to push a partisan argument without conclusive evidence, which he doesn’t seem to think is necessary for a hard-hitting news story. Funny. I’d think if you were really hard hitting, you’d be digging up the facts, to make it difficult to deny the conclusions the story draws.

That’s what’s lacking: heavy on opinion and analysis, light on evidence.

As for Obama’s career? He’s been a busy man, working on other foundations, holding down a job as a State Senator and a Constitutional Law Professor at the same time. The only reason this rises above inattention in the media is that one of his fellow board members was once a sixties radical and, yes, a terrorist.

If we wanted to guage the degree to which Obama’s political sensibilities gravitated towards Ayers, we’d have to determine a number of things.

1) How much was Ayers actually responsible for policy overall?

2) How radical were those policies in relation to other reform efforts, in terms of what the average American considers acceptable?

3) How much did Obama actually agree with Ayers?

4) How intense was their collaboration?

5) Was there any noticeable trend in Obama’s politics?

Kurtz doesn’t go deep into this, and given his culture war sensibilites and Partisan attitudes, People like me have good reason to dismiss this as a non-starter:

So Kurtz spends days wading through 70 linear feet of material, suffers lord knows how many paper cuts, and the best he can come up with is that Ayers was part of a five-person “working group” that signed off on Obama joining CAC’s board? That’s pretty weak.

Jim T-
1) Sort of Debunked. Money was compensated for by grants. However, she did cut a line item in the budget for it, and that’s where it probably started.

2) Palin did not belong, but her husband did, and she did attend conventions of the group and record a special greeting for their convention.

3) She was almost recalled, with a administrator stuck under her for the remainder of her term doing most of the dirty work of governance. That’s rare for a town as small as Wasilla.

4) You should provide a link, explaining that, because I understand they failed to get those papers sealed.

5) Debunked, totally. However, it was debunked by the revelation that Bristol Palin actually was five months pregnant. Since the point was that the governor was hiding her daughters out-of-wedlock pregnancy by such a deception, Palin can’t win for losing here.

Essentially, She debunked that she was hiding a preganancy of her daughter from the media by revealing that she had been hiding another, separate pregnancy instead.

6) No, she supported Steve Forbes, the billionaire flat taxer. who flip-flopped on social issues trying to make himself more attractive to Republican values voters. BIG improvement.

7) Debunked. But she did ask about it, and given her cultural conservative sentiments, that’s justifiably alarming for those who don’t like the notion of banning books.

8) She lied by omission. The whole point of saying, “I put it on e-bay” is the site’s aura of egalitarianianism. She deliberately left out the part where she had to sell it at a loss to a private dealer, because that would have projected a different image altogether, of an unsuccessful political stunt, which is what it was.

9) Debunked, but with reservations. The trick is that there are those who don’t support Judaism, and support Israel merely because it plays a part in the “Late, Great, Planet Earth” scenarios that folks who believe in the Rapture see as reliable guides to the end-times. Her pastor did talk about the Israelis getting blown up by suicide bombers as punishment for not converting. With friends like those, who needs enemies?

10)I believe you covered that on #5.

Meanwhile, these remain true:

1) Was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, and only killed it after Congress killed the earmark. Still pushing for the access road, which no longer has a bridge to run to, still pushing for the Knik Arm Bridge, which was part of the Alaska delegation’s pork.

2) Gave the town its first lobbyist, made lobbying for earmarkes a regular occurance.

3) Left the town twenty million dollars in debt when she left it.

4) Took travel money for staying at home, legal because of the technicality of Palin operating from Wasilla.

5) Alaska remains leader in per capital pork, with Palin asking for hundreds of millions of dollars this year.

6) The Cook her children sadly had to say goodbye to remained her cook in all but name, her position shuffled around the Alaska Payroll.

7) Headed up a 527 for now-indicted Senator Ted Stevens.

8) Accepted an endorsement and filmed a commercial with said Senator.

9) Has proceeded to go back on her pledge to remain open to the investigation, bringing all sorts of partisan rancor to the proceedings, despite the fact that the panel that brought it along was mostly Republican and unanimous on the question.

10) Do you want me to go on?

Goombah-
The fact is, McCain didn’t vote against all that wonderful spending. He hasn’t voted much against other people’s earmarks in this fashion. He’s approved most of the spending that’s gone into the bills, in addition to plenty of wasteful appropriations that weren’t earmarks. McCain is a showman who’s spent the better part of a decade building himself a sterling reputation on a government gimmick.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2008 4:43 PM
Comment #264161

tcsned

“This guy seems obsessed with Bill Ayers and obsessed with smearing Obama”

Do you agree that we can say the same of many more in the media, concerning Sarah Palin?

I refuse to discuss yours and GC comments about our involvement in the war. It is a moot issue because it involved not only the president, but also by-partisan agreement to go to war. It has been discussed many times on these pages that all involved saw the same intelligence reports.

Jim T

You must understand that abortion and the sacrificing of infants is part of the Godless religion of the left. It is the icon of their beliefs.

To all on the left:

“Me thinks thou dost protest to much”, whenever the left’s view of the military is mentioned, there is a holy cry of how patriotic they are. I don’t think so. Let me repeat, the left has no use for the military. If I told a school teacher that I supported and respected them as a teacher and then said I disagreed with every lie they taught their students and if I said they were corrupting the students minds by teaching them anti-God, secular-humanistic doctrine. Would anyone believe I actually supported and respected him or her?

You say you respect and support the troops and in the same breath accuse them of murder, of rape, of torture, and a dozen other atrocities.

I agree with Jim T, the left has done their best to smear Sarah Palin. The media has quoted the left on web sites as truth and yet never researching anything. All these things have been proven to be lies. Yet when questions are brought out about the history of BHO, you are the first to scream “unjust lies”. This man (BHO) could possibly be the next president and I for one want to know whom he is associated with and what part the Chicago machine played in his rise to power.

Finally, tcsned said:

“Jim T - None of that garbage about Sarah Palin really matters - she still isn’t very bright, doesn’t understand the issues domestic and international, and operates with a certitude that is unwarranted by her lack of understanding of the issues. She won’t talk to the press because the few times she has she has been an embarrassment…”

All of you on the left have made statements that Stanley Kurtz based his conclusions on conjecture and not on logic. Tcsned, on what do you base your conclusions in the statement above?

Posted by: Oldguy at September 24, 2008 4:43 PM
Comment #264162

I am not “pushing it on the public.” She is a liar, she is ignorant, and she is wrong on the issues. She is afraid to be questioned by the press because she doesn’t understand the issues and will be called out for being a liar. That is all I need to know.

All that other garbage can be saved for the Jerry Springer show.

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 4:46 PM
Comment #264164

Oldguy - I am basing my comments on Palin from the few things she has said in public not from what is reported by media commentators left or right.

All she does is give bumper sticker slogans that seem to be written by someone else. The few follow up questions Charlie Gibson asked got the same canned response (i.e. “I don’t want to second guess Israel).

If she was so sharp on the issues why not go in front of the press? The VP debate will be interesting.

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #264167

oldguy-
You know, you can respect the troops in general, and believe that a few have let down the rest in their behavior, especially in a difficult war like this.

As far as Palin goes, McCain sprung her on us like a blank slate, and wrote all these claims on her about what a reformer and maverick she was. Do you seriously expect that Democrats in a heated presidential campaign would just concede all these claims without question?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #264183

tcsned:

When you report on this site, you are reporting to the public. Your goal is to convince others, therefore back up the statements with hard proof and not personal beliefs or opinions.

SD:

I don’t expect democrats to do anything with Palin, she is the candidate of the republican party. The left has their hands full with BHO and his loose cannon, Biden.

It doesn’t matter who runs on the republican ticket, the left won’t vote for them. So I say, make the right happy!!!

Posted by: Oldguy at September 24, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #264206

Ayers comes from a prosperous background, and had family connnections to foundations. His father endowed a college at Northwestern. He lives near the U of Chicago, but teaches at the UIChicago. He’s a pretty suspicious character, but probably just a wannabee. I am wondering if Ayers knew Kaczynski through groups at the U of Michigan.

The National Review is looking for a left wing conspiracy of some kind. I don’t see it.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 24, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #264207

OK Oldguy -
“They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” from the Charles Gibson interview. What the hell does this have to do with understanding Russia. Stupid.

“We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.” From the same interview. What?!?! What an orator. She’s no Daniel Webster.

And another gem from the hannity “interview”:
“That’s a great question, and being an optimist I see our role in the world as one of being a force for good, and one of being the leader of the world when it comes to the values that — it seems that just human kind embraces the values that — encompass life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that’s just — not just in America, that is in our world.

And America is in a position because we care for so many people to be able to lead and to be able to have a strong diplomacy and a strong military also at the same time to defend not only our freedoms, but to help these rising smaller democratic countries that are just — you know, they’re putting themselves on the map right now, and they’re going to be looking to America as that leader.

We being used as a force for good is how I see our country.” Yikes.

Posted by: tcsned at September 24, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #264243

Jim T -

Bro, no offense, but other than troopergate and the books you addressed NONE of what I raised. As Stephen pointed out, the very fact that she was inquiring about banning books should give you pause, for I know how well-read you are. Furthermore, when it comes to troopergate, the guy she fired is NOT head of the union. She violated the rule of LAW, Bro. As governor, she is SUPPOSED to work WITHIN the boundaries of law, not ignore the law to do what she thought was right.

And do you want to see where you’re being used to spread disinformation? I NEVER said that SHE was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party…but you replied as if I did. The Vice Chair of the AIP said she was…but that’s not the issue. Her HUSBAND is.

I said her HUSBAND was a member of the AIP…and I asked WHY, when the Republicans and conservatives were SO outraged at Michelle Obama’s ‘proud of America’ debacle (that ONE statement, mind you), they are NOT AT ALL outraged about Palin’s HUSBAND belonging for FIVE YEARS (ending in 2002) to a party that wanted Alaska to secede from the Union…and whose founder cursed the flag.

WHY, bro? WHY are the Republicans and conservatives not pouncing all over Todd Palin’s FIVE YEARS of voluntary action, yet howled to the rooftops about Michelle Obama’s ONE statement?

You know why. You see the hypocrisy. We ALL do. It has NOTHING to do with moral indignation over a perceived lack of patriotism…and EVERYTHING to do with the desire for power.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 24, 2008 10:19 PM
Comment #264332

Oldguy - I missed one - her interview with Katie Couric yesterday:

Couric: You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that’s paramount. That’s more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He’s also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he’s been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I’m just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to you.

Nice, “I’ll try to find some …” what a horrible response. This really demonstrates her monster intellect and command of the issues. Not ready for prime-time player (and not in the same way Belushi and Akroyd were when they earned this title).

Posted by: tcsned at September 25, 2008 8:43 AM
Comment #264348

oldguy-
Actually, they didn’t. The Bush Administration yanked clearances from most members of Congress, only maintaining them for the leaders of the intelligence committees. Only eight people saw what Bush saw, and they were sworn to secrecy.

Everybody else got a declassified version, which had many of the dissenting views, questions, caveats and qualifications edited out of it.

There are things people in Washington say, just so people like you will repeat them to others.

The irony here is that Palin and the Iraq war are both being promoted with the same sort of bad information approach. You start with an clear, convincing case, but as you look closer at it, the truth systematically contradicts the presented claims.

I’ve not always been this partisan. I was a Clinton Democrat, fine with compromises, as long as they were not total capitulations. But what I see here, I can’t compromise with. There’s nothing good that can come from letting outright lies go unexamined. I don’t care whether it gets her a little sympathy in the short term, anybody who has the temerity to be so deceptive deserves a beating from their politicasl rivals and the press. It’s what we’re supposed to do, part of our duty to check and balance the other side. The problem comes in trying to keep honest a group of people who have so whole-heartedly given themselves over to saying whatever is expedient to say to win. I mean, even Republican observers like Karl Rove have been taken aback by the level of dishonesty, though Rove, I think, mainly has a problem with the obviousness of the lies.

The problem is, Republicans think they can keep on sending one message with their lips without the one they send with their actions catching up. Actions, though, have always spoken louder than words.

Let me repeat, the left has no use for the military.

The Republicans seem to have plenty of uses for the military. They use them as human shields for the same policies that get them unnecessarily killed. They use them in two wars at the same time, wars that never had to be fought that way. They use them to back their own opinion, usually without asking their opinion to start with, just assuming that all soldiers are good conservatives.

As a registered Democrat, let me put this plainly: I got this involved because of my respect for the military. I saw good soldiers dying for bad policy, I saw a situation that should have been under our control, slipping steadily out of it, with the Republican invoking the soldiers to stave off criticism of that very developing crisis.

Support from your side of the aisle doesn’t seem to include getting supplies, armor, medical care at home, therapy for PTSD or any other help to the soldiers, nor making a big ruckus about it. If anything, it seems to be about keeping quiet about problems until they escalate to crisises and disasters. That includes putting our soldiers through two wars, extending their tours, calling them back for more, all so that you don’t have to deal with the underlying problem of lacking manpower. And not having dealt with that, you’ve weakened our military to the point where they might not even be able to confront any other threat to our interests.

The right has used the military plenty. I think they’re pretty tired by now of being used.

Regarding Barack Obama, we don’t have our hands full. We find him quite capable of running his own campaign. That’s the value of picking a candidate who has good judgment, who doesn’t pull stunts to make up for bad polling numbers and negative impressions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #264357

Now Talibani is saying that Bush wants to keep the troops in Iraq till 2011 not 2010 for US domestic political reasons. That’s really supporting the troops. Let’s keep them in harms way to help the GOP politically. Way to go W.

Posted by: tcsned at September 25, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #264371
As Stephen pointed out, the very fact that she was inquiring about banning books should give you pause, for I know how well-read you are.

Wrong. The incident was this:

Palin is at a library with the librarian when a Patron asked about a certain book being banned. Palin turns to the librarian and asks “What would you do if I came to you with a request to ban a book?” The librarian answered appropriately and that was the end of the exchange.

There is NO way to infer from that exchange that she is ‘wanting to ban books’.

Furthermore, when it comes to troopergate, the guy she fired is NOT head of the union. She violated the rule of LAW, Bro.

Excuse me, what law did she violate? She fired someone in her command because he continued to push for programs that she said were not going to be in the budget. Please detail to me the law that she violated?

As governor, she is SUPPOSED to work WITHIN the boundaries of law, not ignore the law to do what she thought was right.

Again, what law did she violate?


Posted by: Rhinehold at September 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #264376

I believe the guy who was fired, Walter Monegan, is claiming that Palin, her husband, and her administration made a bunch of calls to tell him what a bad guy the trooper was and how he didn’t deserve his job, and how can you keep this guy employed?

While they were careful not to say “you need to fire him or we’ll fire you” why not? If it is legal to do it why the subterfuge? The were engaging in CYA because they knew it was at least inappropriate.

I’m not defending this trooper. He may be the slimeball that he has been portrayed as. It doesn’t mean that there still aren’t appropriate procedures to follow.

Posted by: tcsned at September 25, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #264381

Glenn,

OK…here we go.

You said:

“As Stephen pointed out, the very fact that she was inquiring about banning books should give you pause, for I know how well-read you are.”

So, we are NEVER to even ASK what the process of banning books involves? Ever hear of the 1st Amendment? Oh, that’s right. The 1st Amendment only applies to subjects that are politically correct. I’m sorry. I forgot.
I would never ban books, as you well know. But I will also NEVER abridge or demean the right to ask about it. The 1st Amendment is, in my opinion absolute…like it or not.

You said:

“Furthermore, when it comes to troopergate, the guy she fired is NOT head of the union. She violated the rule of LAW, Bro. As governor, she is SUPPOSED to work WITHIN the boundaries of law, not ignore the law to do what she thought was right.”

The guy she “fired” was the Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. A man who wrote that he “…was an at-will employee and knew his dismissal was “a possibility ever present,”. Palin not only had the power within the law to dismiss him, she used it and offered him the head of the Alcohol Beverage Control board…which he turned down. Never did I say that he was the head of any union. The only guy that was even a “part” of the union was Mike Wooten, Sarah Palin’s ex-brother in law.
The contention is whether Palin misused her power to pressure the firing of Wooten…a real redneck jerk if there ever was one.
This is all documented at this link.

You wrote:

“I NEVER said that SHE was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party…but you replied as if I did. The Vice Chair of the AIP said she was…but that’s not the issue. Her HUSBAND is.”

Actually, no he isn’t a member of the AIP. He WAS…until 2002. Also, you should understand the separatist feelings of this group, as you used to live in an area of California that had distinct interest in seceding from the rest of the state of California, making the separate state of Northern California. As you know, politically speaking, Northern California is conservative, while the area with the distinct majority of the representation in the state legislature (Southern California) is, generally speaking, liberal.
The difference is that the AIP wants to secede from the US and Northern California just wants to secede from California.
Yes…I grew up being pissed off at Southern California.

You then wrote:

“…and I asked WHY, when the Republicans and conservatives were SO outraged at Michelle Obama’s ‘proud of America’ debacle (that ONE statement, mind you), they are NOT AT ALL outraged about Palin’s HUSBAND belonging for FIVE YEARS (ending in 2002) to a party that wanted Alaska to secede from the Union…and whose founder cursed the flag.”

For the same reason that conservatives are outraged that Barak and Michelle spent 20 YEARS in a church with a leader that not only cursed America, but blamed white people for AIDS and crack…and all the other ills that beset the African American community. Of course, Barak never, never heard ANY of these rants. Sure. I have some beachfront property in Florida to sell you. Michelle has yet to comment on her 20 years listening to the hate speech every Sunday…and probably won’t. To my knowledge, no one has asked her about it, and, once again, probably won’t.

Nobody’s asked Todd Palin…and nobody’s asked Michelle. I agree that they both are not running for elected office…but they should both smile, look good and shut the hell up unless they want to be criticized. If they make public political speeches, they should be held accountable for what they say.

As far as Todd Palin and Michelle Obama are concerned, what they say or do…if they are not public about it…should be strictly off-limits.

Stephen,

You are correct that the divorce papers were not sealed. My bad. Here’s the link that sets the record straight…

Not sealed.

Posted by: Jim T at September 25, 2008 12:09 PM
Comment #264392

Jim T - You said “Michelle has yet to comment on her 20 years listening to the hate speech every Sunday” Do you have any proof that Wright made “hate speech” as you call it in his church every Sunday as you assert. I have seen a few minutes of soundbites from a handful of sermons but you seem to be saying this was a weekly occurrence.

There have been equally disturbing soundbites from Palin’s church and the witch hunter, Pastor Muthee who Palin gives partial credit to for her successful gubernatorial campaign. Witch hunting? This is a problem in Kenya, where Muthee has done this on at least one occasion, where it has dire consequences for the innocent women accused of such outrageous nonsense. She not only sat and listened to this guy but she went to the alter and let him lay hands and pray over her.

While I don’t think this stuff should be part of the discourse, if you are going to bring it up about the wife of a candidate then the actual VP candidate from the other party is fair game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ccmRuCpFjY

Posted by: tcsned at September 25, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #264466

Jim T -

Bro - on Palin’s husband, the ‘is’ is a typo, because I’ve posted several times his membership ended in 2002.

Your comment concerning Wright is an ASSUMPTION that ALL his sermons were such. You know better than that.

Concerning your comment that politics should leave the spouses of candidates should be off-limits. In fact, I have NO personal problem with Todd Palin belonging to the AIP…just like I didn’t have a problem with the Hawaiians selling “The Free Nation of Hawaii” shirts.

What I DO have a problem with, is the utter hypocrisy of Republi-neo-con “patriotic” moral outrage over ONE statement by Michelle Obama and complete silence over Palin’s five years of belonging to a party whose founder cursed the American flag.

Bro, it’s hypocrisy I despise…and everyone who ‘patriotically’ castigated Ms. Obama about her statement and were silent about Mr. Palin’s membership are hypocrites in the purest sense of the word.

======================

Concerning the librarian - while I am concerned about Palin inquiring about banning books (keeping her neo-con evangelical philosophy in mind), I am alarmed at her threat against the librarian’s career.

Bro, put this together with ‘troopergate’, because they are at root the SAME thing - a vindictive politician who has NO problem with ending the careers of those who say or do what she doesn’t like even when the ones in question are fulfilling their duties in complete accordance with the law!

This is the SAME personality flaw that led the Bush administration to fire the attorneys general for refusing to prosecute spurious cases that had NO evidence.

This is the SAME personality flaw that led Bush and Cheney to expose Valerie Plame…and at the same time expose the entire network of American spies who worked with her.

============================

And check out one more thing, Bro - McCain’s left eyelid has recently begun to droop. You know as well as I do that’s usually (though not always) indicative of a mild stroke. Do you REALLY want McCain to win? Do you REALLY want Sarah Palin as your President when McCain is incapacitated by a stroke? She never even left North America till last year. Come to think of it, that’s almost precisely the same as Mr. Katrina/Iraq/econo-meltdown Bush was when he first ran.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 25, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #264467

Well, I guess he question would be, does Sarah Palin allow her children to read Harry Potter books and go to Harry Potter movies? How about Tolkein?

On Michelle O, most of the decisions related to their living arrangements in Chicago have been her choices. As a teenager, she was a babysitter for Jesse Jackson’s children, who lived near where they live now. Jesse Jackson Sr does not seem to like BHO very much, which is out of character for him.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 25, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #264468

Jim T -

If Palin’s ex-in-law is a real redneck jerk (and I am inclined to agree that he is), then what does that make McCain, who publicly said to his wife, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t.”

Bro, that was in PUBLIC. Having a temper is one thing. Allowing one’s temper to show in public to the point of shaming family is another. Sure, other politicians have deeply ashamed their spouses (Clinton comes to mind, of course), but was ANY of them due to the president’s inability to keep his temper even to his own wife in public?

You REALLY want this guy to have access to the nuclear button?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 25, 2008 5:05 PM
Post a comment