The McCain campaign has gone into full on negative smear mode, with Governor Sarah Palin playing the traditional attack role of the Vice-Presidential candidate.
Apparently Obama has been consorting with terrorists, because he once knew a member of the Weathermen (long afterwards and when Bill Ayers had become an educator and a Distinguished Professor at the University of Chicago). All these allegations were aired during the primaries - and no doubt the Rev. Wright stuff is being readied for an encore. Reading this article on the campaign in Florida really does show how much dissemination the loathsome “Muslim sleeper” stuff is getting as well, and Palin’s attack on Obama as some sort of terrorist sympathiser will reinforce that theme among those disposed to believe it, or to have doubts.
The flick to a negative posture on the part of McCain’s campaign is a sign of desperation - with the polls consistently showing Obama with a winning lead. By contrast with John Kerry, Obama has been ahead most of the time, with only the most spectacular “game changers” from McCain giving him temporary momentum (Kerry trailed Bush for most of the campaign). With the economy tanking in the wake of the Wall Street crises - and this piece from Robert Reich [via Terry Flew] really spells out what’s going on - we’re about to see whether culture wars really do trump economic issues. This article in The Guardian from the distinguished sociologist Richard Sennett is an intriguing answer to why the culture wars card can still be played.
A friend brought me back a terrific T-shirt from the US today.
It has a 19th Century photo of four Sioux warriors with guns, and says:
“Homeland Security: Fighting terrorism since 1492″
And yes, it is hilarious that the only shot left in the Republican locker is postmodern vogueing with scare bears.
I give them Buckley’s chance. McCain is goin’ down! The only upside to the financial crisis is that it really caps off what a compete disaster the GW Bush presidency was. Turned the US into a debt-ridden, global standing joke in 8 years flat.
“once met”, Mark?
Ayers put him on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and they served on the Woods Fund board together for a number of years.
Ayers also launched Obama’s Chicago political career by introducing him to Democrat power brokers at a party in Ayers’ living room.
That’s more substantial than ‘once met’, and it goes to Obama’s judgment as to how he chooses who he consorts with.
If McCain’s poor judgment in choosing his friends vis-a-vis the Keating Five is a legitimate issue, then so is this. McCain admitted it was poor judgment on his part and used it to justify his crusade for campaign finance reform.
If you have any doubt as to the seriousness of Bill Ayers’ wrongdoing, read this.
He also stated he was not sorry, would do it again, and felt they didnt go far enough, in an interview with the Times whilst he was on the board with Obama, and most accounts are that media surrounding Ayers in Chicago at the time was at saturation point, and there is no way Obama could not have known about Ayers’ past.
Also this from the National Review:
The proper analogy is “would you be in the same room with him”. Short of refusing to help the community building organisation Obama was working for and walking away from that childhood education program, I don’t see how he could do that.
The Sunday AGE reported this GOP smear as if it was completely SRS. They really are getting worse and worse.
As Bill Clinton used to say, “that dog won’t hunt”. Obama has it sewn up tighter than a mouse’s arsehole. So much so that he is in with a real chance of taking Indiana, the heartland of the Republican heartland, where the Democrats have not won since 1964.
The Democrats are going to wipe the Republicans out. Not just in the Presidential race, but in the Senate and House as well.
Yeah, well McCain spent 5 years consorting exclusively with Communists.
Thats a FACT!, etc.
OT Mark. But what does that expression mean? Its the second time I’ve read it in as many days.
Shake hands with him, Stephen? Well, you’ve got to remember that a lot of leaders shook hands with Israel’s leaders in the first 40 years or so. Most of them were once terrorists, and none have expressed remorse. So how does Ayers differ?
Also, I believe Ayers is now a Professor of Education. So what’s the inference of that? That a dangerous terrorist is allowed to set the curriculum of American kids? At last, an explanation for Columbine? Might start a career for a new Joe McCarthy.
The Weathermen were deluded, violent, conspiratorial. Many young folk go through that kind of wild-eyed phase. Some older folk never grow out of it. The history of the 60s upheavals will continue to be rewritten, mulled over, and played out.
Once met? Ayers approved his appointment to CAC. The guy then worked with him for years. Wife knows him too.(They all had a lovely conferences together as well) Obamas know Ayers wife - and even nastier piece of wor . Share the same network of friends. Obama launched his campaign from his house. He now lives in the neighbourhood thanks to a crooked loan from the indited Rezko.
And ambigulous you really don’t know how ignorant you just made yourself sound.
“The Weathermen were deluded, violent, conspiratorial. Many young folk go through that kind of wild-eyed phase”
So these were not members of Bureau of Meteorology, inclined towards the grey cardigan and hush puppies, that we are talking about here.
Well, on the basis of some of the above statements, all Liberals (in Oz) are pro Nazi because their founder. Robert Menzies, praised Hitler in 1938 because he thought the Hitler Youth was a good way to keep young people under control.( I’ll be polite and refrain from mentioning the number of ex-Nazi war criminals Menzies let settle here post-WW2. Or for the number of ex-Nazis who actually joined the Liberal Party.
I don’t know how the Palin smears will go in America, but I hope they go down like a lead balloon.
Sure I’ll be disillusioned with Obama if he becomes President, but he’s a far better choice than McCain, who seems to be displaying signs of confused senility, or maybe just plain nastiness.
“Palin’s attack on Obama as some sort of terrorist sympathiser will reinforce that theme among those disposed to believe …”
That last phrase is exactly why, like the “muslim sleeper” one, this slur ain’t gonna swing swinging voters. Maybe its aimed instead at energising the base, but the problem for McCain is that the base is thoroughly demoralised and in any case is fully aware that he (unlike Palin) is not the sort of holy roller nutjob they like. The tactic smacks of desperation.
My money is on Obama in a landslide, as it has been from when I first saw him speak on TV last year.
Going down the tubes, Caroline. I’m not sure where I picked it up from!
Oh, and to keep Stephen and saint happy, I’ll change “once met” to “once knew”.
I don’t understand why the Dems don’t do some solid smearing themselves. For Chrissake, Palin’s husband was a long-time member of a radical Alaskan secessionist party, whose former leader was murdered and found in a barrel! Surely there’s some scope for a smear campaign based around that.
Bidding Bill Ayers? I’ll raise you G. Gordon Liddy…
…and then I’ll trump you with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who’s nastier than Ayers and Liddy put together.
Gee they really put McCain to the sword in this Rolling Stone cover story
Probably because they understand that one of the reasons for Obama’s popularity is his refusal to play vicious games.
guilt by assosiation is a very dangerous and stupid game to play. mccain is assosiated with bush, the keating 5 and if we really want to push the point, he was (unfortunatley) assosiated with the communist nva
6 degrees of separation
hi, saint at 8.32am.
Which bit(s) is(are) ignorant? I’m happy to admit ignorance, and always willing to learn.
Re the Reich article - I’ve always found the notion that excessive wealth inequalities were a major contributor to the crash that led to the Great Depression interesting, but it’s rare to find many economists agreeing with it. The only one I know of is Marriner Stoddard Eccles, who, according to the Wikipedia, did indeed believe that the lack of income/wealth available to consumers relative to that of producers was a major cause of the Depression. It’s always seems somewhat self-evident to me that there would be serious economic inefficiency and indeed instability associated with highly skewed income distributions, but do we have enough evidence now for that to be accepted as common wisdom by the powers that be?
Er, don’t suppose somebody can fix that up? The Linked Text is supposed to “wikipedia article”.
Could this smear have been any more inept?
Did Palin even know of the existence of the Weathermen before this talking point was pressed before her uncomprehending eye? I doubt it.
I suspect that some far-right aparatchik, knowing that the jig was up for the Two Mavericks, decided to purge the GOP of some enemies by supplying a convenient idiot with the Weatherman snippet.
This looks like factions in the GOP sabotaging each other.
Whatever Sarah Palin says gets reported.
Ayers’ association with Obama is hardly news, but you wouldn’t think so from the reporting the past few days.
My advice to the McCain camp would be to let Sarah Palin say lots of things, repeat every one of Joe Biden’s gaffes (without attribution) and keep on the way she is.
My advice to the Obama camp? Act Presidential. Don’t get too cranky in your responses, makes you look as guilty as Sarah Palin says you are.
Obama’s “palling around with terrorists” seems not to have convinced anyone betting on the election that he will lose it. You can now get $4.60 backing McCain.
More than likely, of course, the smears have been completely drowned out by the sounds of the plummeting stockmarket and economy.
And whatever gets said at Palin’s rallies also gets reported. Sterling advice as usual, SATP.
The whole article has to be read to savor the immaturity of the McCain/Palin campaign. As the article continued:
Actually, I made the last bit up. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
Pantomime. That’s great, Down and Out. Great work.
In 2001, Ayers said he didn’t regret setting bombs, bombs intended for civilians and members of the military for who he claimed to be supporting in his protests against Vietnam.
The only difference between Ayers & Timothy McVeigh is that McVeigh despite his low IQ knew his way around explosives.
Why does it matter? It highlights Obama’s poor judgment. If Obama is elected president, will he make the same errors in judgement.
He said Ayers is/was “mainstream”. In whose circles I ask.
“It highlights Obama’s poor judgment. If Obama is elected president, will he make the same errors in judgement”
I’d say it’s exactly the sort of mistake that a decent person probably wouldn’t make twice.
It’s only if he had a history of dealing closely with criminals and/or corrupt figures that I would be concerned.
Mistake? Poor judgment is poor judgment. Given Obama’s teflon approach to his brief political career, his “boneheaded” real estate deals with Rezko and his choice of pastor in Wright are a bit more than mistakes. All three men have been involved in Obama’s life as long as his wife, some eighteen years or so. Who is he really?
Concern troll is concerned.
Oh yes, god-fearin’ right-thinkin’ folks should feel concerned about Barack Hussein Obama, with his Muslim, African, honky-hatin’, bomb-hurlin’ ways.
What the hell are you folks doing tap-tap-tapping away at your keyboards when you should be laying down stores in the bunker and adjusting the sites on your Rugers.
Harden up! Look at the polls! The monster’s winning by the length of the straight!
Time to stop talking. Someone find a rope.
I’m concerned that McCain has knowingly associated on frequent occasions with George W. Bush.
Well, those tactics really worked a treat in Australia on Rudd in 07 with Burkegate, and Strippergate - so, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over them.
“National Review” I think Stephen cited. I read that once in the mistaken belief that it might be a reincarnation of our dear old Ferret, Nation Review. I was quickly disillusioned. I’ve rarely strayed there since - once to read an eminent Professor of Philosophy’s rationalisation of the use of torture in interrogation. Needless to say, the argument was less than compelling on logic or ethics. It might have had some value as a parody, like that Bush legal counsel describing the Geneva Convention on Prisoner Rights as “quaint”.
On that basis I’d suggest National Review is a Republican shill, but I guess most of you knew that.
North Carolina’s gone blue. That’s the third confederate state leaning to Obama.
Katz -
I think you’ve missed the point. Obama hasn’t made any noteworthy judgment calls, often electing to vote present on the sticky issues in the senate. As much as you may have the audacity to hope you cam, you can’t determine his competency from his judgment in hindsight & political rhetoric. He could be a black power radical, but that’s not anyone who understands the powers of congress to remove him from office would be worried about. It the fact that potentially an Administration could be led by him and his cronies.
Nabkow -
Isn’t everyone?
Don-
For some its about making mud stick, but for most it about discovering the real Obama, not the romanticised version in his autobiographies. (Considering up until running for president he’s done little, he found a lot to write about that tells us noting about him as a man.)I too would discard publications that lean to far in either direction, however I always keep in mind that if a something comes from such a source, it doesn’t mean its wrong.
Well, I guess you’ll find out when Obama’s elected, Nanue.
In any case, McCain **could** be a deep cover Vietnamese agent.
Which makes it a tough election for the concerned-about-silly-rumours.
Nanuestalker, because you’d like to explain how you feel an example of “poor judgement” is not an example of a “mistake”.
Any way you look at it, if this is the worst mud you can stick to Obama, he still comes out a darn sight more preferable than McCain.
Lefty -
Doesn’t that say something? People are prepared to vote for someone they don’t know anything about. We know more about Palin than we do Obama and she’s only been in the public eye a few weeks in this campaign. Obama’s cronies aren’t rumour. Seriously, who is he and what has he ever done apart from write about himself and give a few speeches.
McCain isn’t a Vietnamese agent btw, I think!
Concern troll is really concerned.
Gunna say something really relativist here. It revolves around that hoary old chestnut - one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Place the WU in context - over 1500 attacks upon military and government installations occurred in the US during the 1960s and early 1970s. The vast vast majority of these attacks were not the work of “organised” groups such as WU but quite random in nature and planning. The militancy of these acts reflected a social and political reality of a nation at war, and deeply held opposition to that reality.
Secondly, Ayers was appointed to academic positions and political appointments not by Obama, but by his peers and political leaders. It is not Obama’s question to answer as to whether Ayers should have or should now hold those roles. As to whether Obama should have not associated with Ayers AT ALL is simply naive - given his role in Chicago politics, professionally Obama could not have ignored him. As to whether he should have a personal friendship with Ayers? If he was all canny politician,then certainly not. But presumably Ayers no longer builds homemade bombs otherwise he’d be sitting in that Club Med of US Detention in sunny Cuba, so is reform then not possible? Is redemption only a GOP thing to give?
Down & out -
A rather pathetic attempt to detract from the discussion. Great contribution to a civil & rational discussion. Have you anymore or are you going to use this one liner continiously.
Bernice -
I wouldn’t give a toss about Ayers acts in the 60’s except that he expressed regret that he didn’t do more rather than regret about the bombing and those who were hurt. I think its unfortunate that because of his notoriety, he has managed to make a career out of his WU days.
I don’t think that Obama’s religious views or political views are a problem. There’s nothing new there, he’s not change, but he’s overly liberal in his choice of associates. From memory Hillary couldn’t properly challenge him about Ayers because Bill Clinton had pardoned members of the WU. Someone like Ayers should never have the ear of a president. He hasn’t redeemed himself in anyway, Cuba would be a good place for rehabilitation. Obama needs to do more than say I was eight when that happened. 9/11 was years ago too, lest we forget.
Thanks Bernice for putting some context of the 60s & WU, li’l things like the Vuetnam war, Jim Crow still rampant, anyone who wasn’t radical then was a waste of oxygen. Unfortunately most of them became Congressman (sic!).
To quote Rob Zimmerman, of aluminium walking frame fame, “You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows..”. Never mind that he had Dow Chemical shares at the time.
” Obama hasn’t made any noteworthy judgment calls, often electing to vote present on the sticky issues in the senate. As much as you may have the audacity to hope you cam, you can’t determine his competency from his judgment in hindsight & political rhetoric…”
Nanue, true we may not know enough about Obama, although first Team Clinton and then the Republican smear machine have done their best to change that.
We do, however, know several important things about him: He is not George Bush. He is not Dick Cheney. He is not John McCain and he is not Sarah Palin. After the last 8 years, that has surely got to be something desirable.
I do hope he’s a black radical, Nanue - but I suspect I’ll be disappointed.
At last. It’s time the Good Guys got back on.
.
Obama is evil. He’s got a funny name. He once caught a bus from a stop where gang members have also been known to catch a bus from!!!!!
.
He might not be a terrorist but he lives on the same planet as Osama bin Laden. And there’s only one measly letter difference in their names. What does that tell you.
.
He showers in the nude - disgusting.
Don -
That I can understand, but I do think history won’t attribute so much blame on the Bush and will be generally kinder to him. I never was in favor of the war, but I didn’t have to make the call or vote on it much like Obama, it was easy for me to sit on the fence.
I think one of the reasons the GOP struggled with finding candidates was that they knew the election was the Dems to lose, as the wartime Administrations lose following wars. {The Bush’s are the first Republician Presidents to bring their country to war I think and both involved Iraq. That every war from the civil war in the 1860’s to Vietnam in the 1960’s)
The Dems on the other hand produced a beacon, stay away from there and come here. I want to know where here & there are?
Lefty -
Could make it interesting, it really worked well elsewhere!
Adrien -
Shut up commie! Obama never caught a bus, he has been to busy throwing people under it.
Once! When he was reading the Bible - He sneezed!!!!!!!
.
Egad. He’s Satan man. He’s Beelzebub. He’s Innana’s dameonic hordes! Save America, save the military-industrial complex. Vote for the next 100 Years War. After all the last one was so much fun. Just ask Jeanne d’Arc.
Obama never caught a bus, he has been to busy throwing people under it.
.
OMG! That’s right. He kicks his grandmother too. And on the week-ends he goes to the pet stores, buys kittens and comes home and makes smoothies out of them.
He kicks his grandmother too. And on the week-ends he goes to the pet stores, buys kittens and comes home and makes smoothies out of them.
C’mon, that’s not fair he was only eight when he did that!
The point is Adrien, his message of change is proved to be bullshit, he’s a typical Chicago politician. What’s his true manifesto?
“as the wartime Administrations lose following wars”
Except of course for the War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War 2 and the Korean War. And lots and lots of minor ones.
The other theory is of course that people may just be sick and tired of eight years of Republican incompetence and corruption.
A rather pathetic attempt to detract from the discussion. Great contribution to a civil & rational discussion. Have you anymore or are you going to use this one liner continiously.
Since you ask, I have no problem with honest doubt about Obama. I have lots of doubts myself - his chronic and unsuitable attempts at bipartisanship, for one… and my suspicion that he’s a bit lacking in Oz-style “social democracy”. Other people also have doubts.
However, I have little tolerance for suspiciously persistent equivocation. “Who is he really?… [F]or most it about discovering the real Obama, not the romanticised version in his autobiographies… We know more about Palin than we do Obama and she’s only been in the public eye a few weeks in this campaign… If Obama is elected president, will he make the same errors in judgement…” Well, why don’t you Google and find our as much as you can rather than muddying the waters with a lot of half-masticated talking points and poorly researched questions?
BTW: any relation?
General Mistake -
Civil War …Dem to Rep, WW11 Korea & Vietnam likewise.
With the exception of Madison serving a second term for the “Don’t know if I’m a Rep or Dem party”, and the Spainish-American war that lasted five minutes, your point is?
Down & out -
What you have the Clinton dont as don’t tell policy in play for Obama. He might be but we’d rather not know. I suspect speaking unequivocally would be a rarity for Obama & his supporters wouldn’t it? Sounds great though.
hmmm….don’t ask, don’t tell policy
What’s his true manifesto?
.
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
.
I have my doubts that Obama’s going to be as effective as he seems to think he is. On the other hand he’s far from typical. At the very least he has the aura of Mythology about him. Like Reagan and JFK he may actually create such an aura. Probably, like those gentlemen, his reality will be somewhat more mixed and fall inevitably short.
.
Still it’d be nice if you waited ’til he was at least doing the job before you made up your mind.
“Civil War …Dem to Rep, WW11 Korea”
OK I misplaced Lincoln’s relection date. But for WW2 and Korea the governing Presidential party was relected after the war ended.
My point is that your point has as many exceptions as it does examples. So it’s not really a point at all but an attempt to spin Obama’s lead as some kind historical determinist outcome rather than the fact that a majority of voters just don’t think much of the alternative.
I have lots of doubts myself - his chronic and unsuitable attempts at bipartisanship, for one… and my suspicion that he’s a bit lacking in Oz-style “social democracy”.
.
I’m not certain his attempts at bipartisanship are unsuitable. Bipartisanship is effectively entrenched. The American system like ours shows far more continuity than otherwise in-house. The fierce partisanship is generated to shore up entrenched loyalty which does the citizenry more hard than good. Ideological conflict is an illusion. There’s only one applied ideology and it’s a technocratic corporatism.
.
The US lacks social-democracy Oz-style or any other style. They started as a Calvinist colony and a lure for get-rich adventurism. We started as a lumpenprol jail that evolved into a “Paradise of Labour”. They see their political leaders as virtuous and god-like or the other extreme. We see them as dodgy hacks who might be capable of doing a job of work once in a while.
.
Obama’s bipartisanship seems to be an attempt to glean good minds and good ideas from across the spectrum. Whether this turns out to be brilliance, effectual or otherwise, or more Clintonian triangulated Corporate felatio, well we’ll see.
“Civil War …Dem to Rep”
And Andrew Johnson wasn’t reelected after the Civil War. The first elected President after Lincoln was another Republican.
Nanue,
If you were really more concerned than you were keen to troll, you’d recognise that the problem you see brewing in the US is that American voters have bought the Obama message.
You’d act on that concern by seeking to talk to actual American voters.
Granted, the occasional American voter does chance by this site. But most of us here are Australians. Many do have a spectatorial interest in US elections. But virtually none of us are entitled to vote in the US.
Your concern would be better focussed were you to comment on some sites where US voters are not a rarity.
Or is trolling your thing?
GM-
I was mixed up as well, FDR died before the war in the pacific ended and his successor Truman was succeeded by Eisenhower who promised to end the Korean war. My point was in reference to unpopular wars anyway.
Adrien-
true manifesto an political oxymoron!
Still it’d be nice if Obama waited ’til he was at least doing the job before he made his hope & change message up.
I think they’re as bad as each other myself, the choice of candidates was pretty ordinary.
Katz-
Just answer the question rather than calling me a troll.
Besides this thread is about Ayers and Obama and the gloves being off.
The quality of discussion here invariably takes a serious dive every time Nanuestalker intervenes.
Too challenging, much easier to have a back slapping agreement I guess! LOL!
Yeah, its like a bee hive around here Nanue. You’re right - just cos something is an alleged ‘rumour’, doesnt mean we shouldnt be concerned, and seek to discover more.
And the more I think on it, the more I do think its likely Obama is a black radical Muslim, and McCain is a deep cover Communist agent; as you suggest . After all, what do we really know about either of them? Thanks for opening my eyes!
I only wish some others here weren’t so blinkered.
Don’t worry about it. McCain’s trashed his brand, run an appailin’ campaign, and the polls indicate fairly consistently he will be soundly trounced on Nov 4.
Why else does anybody think he’s gone down this road? There’s nothing left.
It seems to me that you don’t need to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Hmmm, lost that post…short post’n…..
Lefty -
I haven’t suggested anything…do you want to share?
Corn-
Where the wind blows! Your point?
To All-
So Obambi represents?????
I’ll answer if you want..change?
What’s that?
Yay! Endless repetition of Republican talking points!
Bored now.
So am I Kim,
whats the message I can believe ?!?!?
I’ll answer if you want…
Same old.same old!
Same old what, Nanuestalker? Same old grumpy white guy? Same old Republican noise machine?
Same old party politics…you must have got that! You have right?
I’ll make a deal with you Mark..introduce a thread that isn’t sound-bite leaning and I’ll do more that react to diatribe
Lefty E
“McCain is a deep cover Communist agent”
Ah, like The Manchurian Candidate. So, at some point his brainwasher master will use a cue to switch on the commie automaton. But in whose interest? The North Vietname Army (NVA)? No, they’ve gone soft, with wishy-washy economic reforms.
Chinese? Capitalist-roaders!!
Nepali Maoists? Now you’re talking, comrade.
Or dwindling Shining Path acolytes in Peru….
First armed inteventions by Pres McCain: Kathmandu, to shore up a “peoples’” putsch, and Peruvian jungles to assist cocaine-trading armed Maoists. It’ll make for an interesting 2009.
Here Nanu, for your edification:
Change
“introduce a thread that isn’t sound-bite leaning”
That’s rich! You never contribute more that 25 words and most of those a taken from the Republicans running sheet.
“You never contribute more that 25 words…”
And for that we are all eternally grateful.
Yes, I beleive McCain and Bush are part of a global conspiracy to undermine finance capitalism, and replace it with state run enterprise. I belive the last two weeks bear out my concerns, and those of you who remain blind to these deep cover Keynesians in Reaganite clothing have your heads in the sand. As Nanue rightly says, Who are these people really?
“And for that we are all eternally grateful.”
Careful, he’ll accuse you of wanting to stifle free speech.
Make up your mind, Lefty E.
Are they deep-cover Keynesians or out-and-out commies? I think Uncle Joe’s shade would be offended to be called a Keynesian. John Maynard dabbled in the stock market, after all.
Or could McCain’s Cabinet turn out to be a broad left coalition dominated by Galbraithian Keynesians, but with the Maoists in charge of the Pentagon: invading Nepal, Peru etc.? Forcing those turncoats in Beijing to roll back the capitalist tide…..
You’re onto something. Or else you’re on something.
and if I wanted to learn about the future of capitalism, Scott B would not be my first choice… http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/capitalism-in-crisis-20081007-4vt5.html
No no, I take Nanue’s point, Ambi. Its important not to let times of national crisis distract you from fully road-testing all whacky and pointless conspiracy theories.
Oh look, UFOs.
Those are not UFOs. They are streetlights. Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Yeah, Let’s get nasty.
1. Palin consorts with violent separtists. This did not happen five or ten years ago. She addressed their conference *THIS YEAR* and told them to keep up the ‘good work’. This organisation was founded by a guy who was murdered whilst he was buying plastic explosives. He was buried in Canada because he didn’t want to be buried under that “damn flag” (meaning the US flag). They are practically the definition of American traitors.
2. Mccain’s record as a navy pilot is abysmal. He only kept flying because he was the grandson of a distinguished WW2 admiral. In fact he only even managed to pass Anapolis because of his father and grandfather. He was rather less than an ordinary officer - 3rd bottom of his class. His experience as a POW is also not the wya it is celebrated in the media. The point of this, his war experience is not so exceptional as he likes to make out. He has cruised alone his entire life living off his grandfather’s reputation and his second wife’s money.
We are not talking about licit meetings on community boards or introductions to some local power-brokers. We are talking about two people with lifelong personal failings and a record of long-term consorting with known traitors and fraudsters. And then they consistently exaggerate and lie about their experiences. Neither person is of fit enough character to be allowed to run the most powerful nation ever to exist on earth.
Yeah, lets talk nasty, by all means.
Stalker - I think they’re as bad as each other myself, the choice of candidates was pretty ordinary.
.
I’m doing a little research into the Reagan myth at the moment. Along with JFK, Reagan’s the postmodern mythical prez. In both cases objective analysis is difficult because of the Cult of the President which requires that supporters raise ‘em to Demi-Gods and detractors place ‘em down with the Demon Kings. The result is that they’re over-rated as extraordinarily good or bad. Neither Reagan or Kennedy was what people say they were.
.
Except insofar as they were extraordinary, somehow.
.
Obama is likewise not ordinary. You may disagree with his views but objective indicators point to someone extraordinary. His presentation at the very least is extraoridnary. And he’s come to the presidency very quickly and in a straight line. That’s of course not necessarily a good thing.
.
I don’t think he’s capable of doing what his cult-followers seem to think he is. He does want to wean America off its addiction to oil. That’s hard enough. And needs a longer period than he’s got assuming he’s elected and re-elected. Still it’s gotta be done. Still it’s gotta be done. I’ve seen this before and it ends badly. When you get to the edge of a cliff you back off.
.
BTW I really don’t see any evidence that you’re trolling. Do people know what trolling actually means?
Get it straight people, Obama is the son of Lucifer. Here’s the proof:
.
He has gangster connections. He was seen in Little Italy once. You know what that means? And he’s got Goodfellas on DVD. The deluxe edition with the Henry Hill voice-over track. Wake up!
.
He plays golf in places with lots of small furry animals. There’s probably more to the small furry animals story. We don;t know what he g