Yeah.

Consider, the Dems want to condemn McCain for his association with Bush, and McCain opposed Bush.

So, yeah, that makes Obama relative to a terrorist, just like Ayres.

My Mother always told me I would be known by the company I keep. She was right. Pundits keep excusing Obama's associations as ticket punching on his way up the political ladder. That in itself speaks volumes about Obama, and it needs to be made public and discussed.

Mark 

Quien,

Obama & Ayers is a non-story. So what if Obama happens to know the guy - they are not, nor have they ever been good buds. This did serve on the board of a charitable foundation together, but so what!!! They even live in the same part of town. So what!!!

There are morons in the media who keep trying to spin a story out of this and people out there who simply aren't very bright and are gullible enough to eat this crap up.  Why don't you just criticize the entire faculty of the University of Illinois, where Ayers is a faculty member.

What Ayers was involved with in the 60s was disgusting. Obama was not involved in any of this. Even Ayers has publicly stated that to equate Obama's political views with his is ludicrous. You are trying to establish guilt by association, the same way Joe McCarthy tried to do in the 50s. He was exposed as scum and has ended up as one of the most reviled political figures in American history. If you admire McCarthy's style, give it a shot. Most readers of P* will get your number, if they haven't already.

George Bush has the lowest public approval rating of any modern day president and this is because of his general incompetence, his policies and his actions.  McCain, who I happen to like and admire as a person, has been a strong supporter of many, but not all of Bush's policies and decisions.

McCain is trying to distance himself from the Bush debacle, but I don't think he'll have much success.

 

McCain doesn't have to distance himself.  Every time that Obama distances himself from Ayres, he does the same for McCane with Bush.

 You can't have it both ways.

No, Quien.

If we try to do make the logical connection (and "good buds" might indeed be a very apt description, considering their couples dinners together) - if we try to make the connection, it means we are racists.

MWL

Sensei, Obama did go to his home for a fund raiser (a fund raiser for Obama) when he was beginning his political career.  So it's a bit more than "they just live in the same neighborhood".

It's a bit more than "they just live in the same neighborhood." Ayers gave a dinner at his home to raise funds for Obama. So what? Obama was eight years old when Ayers did the dumb things he did. That was about 40 years ago. I would guess that Ayers, now a faculty member at UI, has evolved over the years into someething most people would recognize as reasonably respectable. You know, like all liberals, he's "flip flopped." There's nothing wrong with criticizing Obama's policies -- and you don't have to be a racist to do it -- but trying to make something out of nothing involves the kind of gossip that belongs on a grade-school playground.

Kind of like McCain and Bush being connected, eh?  Just grade school playground BS, right?

"So what? Obama was eight years old when Ayers did the dumb things he did. That was about 40 years ago."

The issue at hand is not what Obama did when he was 8 years old, it's what he did when he was 38 years old.

Mark 

I did many dumb things 40 years ago. Some I'm regretful of, most I've forgotten. Never bombed anyone or anything. I believe that goes beyond what one of us considers simply "dumb".

Of course, the guy apologized, right?

Wrong. On 9/11, as published in the NY Times, he regretted he didn't do more. 9/11 2001, not 40 years ago.

Radicals seem to be attracted to Obama. I'm wondering what their big attraction is. 

To my knowledge Bill Ayres has never been convicted or gone to prison for any act of domestic terrorism.

Am I correct in this?  If so, how come he never went to prison?

~Mr. Purrington 

 

 

[quote user="Mr. Purrington"]

To my knowledge Bill Ayres has never been convicted or gone to prison for any act of domestic terrorism.

Am I correct in this?  If so, how come he never went to prison?

~Mr. Purrington

[/quote]

Good lawyer, poor prosecutor, radical judge. And no double jeopardy.

How can anyone deny that the phrase "McCain-Bush" or "Bush-McCain" is not guilt by association? That has been used over and over again in the Obama campaign and has been for months. I consider it the first volley in a negative political campaign that we were all hoping would not happpen. If I were looking for a text-book example of of guilt by association, "McCain-Bush" would be it along with the abbreviated  "McBush" that Howard Dean used a couple of weeks ago on Meet The Press.

I don't think you can argue "McCain-Bush" is not guilt by association because McCain has strongly supported Bush policies, if anything, it is Bush that has come around to supporting McCain's positions, and it has been that way since the firing of Rumsfeld.

-dale 

 

 

 

[quote user="dreemer"]

How can anyone deny that the phrase "McCain-Bush" or "Bush-McCain" is not guilt by association? That has been used over and over again in the Obama campaign and has been for months. I consider it the first volley in a negative political campaign that we were all hoping would not happpen. If I were looking for a text-book example of of guilt by association, "McCain-Bush" would be it along with the abbreviated  "McBush" that Howard Dean used a couple of weeks ago on Meet The Press.

I don't think you can argue "McCain-Bush" is not guilt by association because McCain has strongly supported Bush policies, if anything, it is Bush that has come around to supporting McCain's positions, and it has been that way since the firing of Rumsfeld.

-dale 

[/quote]

Dale,

The phrase "guilt by association" is used improperly in discussing any relationship between Bush and McCain. What is beng criticized and will continue to ne criticized, has been McCain's voting record with respect to Bush's policies and initiatives. By the way, these criticisms could also be leveled against any congressman who has voted lock-step in support of Bush, which IMO, is the primary reason for all of the Republican losses in 2006 and will be the reasons behind their losses in 2008.

Guilt by association implies there's a transferance of ideals, beliefs, or actions from one person to another, based on nothing more than the fact that two people happen to know each other.

 

Ayers gave a dinner at his home to raise funds for Obama. So what? Obama was eight years old when Ayers did the dumb things he did. That was about 40 years ago. I would guess that Ayers, now a faculty member at UI, has evolved over the years into someething most people would recognize as reasonably respectable.

RMax - think about it.  Ayers is unrepentent to this day.  It is about the same thing as if OJ admitted he had done the crime, stated that the "she got what she deserved", and continued being unrepentent.  Same, same.

If Ayers had evolved into a responsible mainstream liberal, who now said something  to the effect that he still stood by his opposition to the Vietnam war, but that he went about that opposition wrong and in his youthful exuberance admitted he had acted wrong, that would be one thing. 

But he did not.  Instead his only official position is to admit regret that he did not plant MORE bombs.

Obama has attracted that this sort hard left anti-war radical fringe all of his political career.  He either approves or disapproves of them.  Logically, that would mean he would have to either endorse them or repudiate them - though I suspect when push comes to shove in the fall campaign, Obama will try to split the difference and do neither. 

Kind of like all those votes "present" when he was in the Illinois legislature.

MWL

Sensei, you are probably correct that I am thinking about guilt by association the wrong way. Maybe the Bush-McCain phrase is more a rhetorical device. Whatever it is, it never struck me as being an above the belt punch.

Obama is as close to Carter in policies as Bush is to McCain, maybe even closer. In the future, perhaps McCain should use the phrase Carter-Obama everytime he speaks of Obama. 

-dale 

 

 

 

 

 

[quote user="mwleach"]

Ayers gave a dinner at his home to raise funds for Obama. So what? Obama was eight years old when Ayers did the dumb things he did. That was about 40 years ago. I would guess that Ayers, now a faculty member at UI, has evolved over the years into someething most people would recognize as reasonably respectable.

RMax - think about it.  Ayers is unrepentent to this day.  It is about the same thing as if OJ admitted he had done the crime, stated that the "she got what she deserved", and continued being unrepentent.  Same, same.

If Ayers had evolved into a responsible mainstream liberal, who now said something  to the effect that he still stood by his opposition to the Vietnam war, but that he went about that opposition wrong and in his youthful exuberance admitted he had acted wrong, that would be one thing. 

But he did not.  Instead his only official position is to admit regret that he did not plant MORE bombs.

Obama has attracted that this sort hard left anti-war radical fringe all of his political career.  He either approves or disapproves of them.  Logically, that would mean he would have to either endorse them or repudiate them - though I suspect when push comes to shove in the fall campaign, Obama will try to split the difference and do neither. 

Kind of like all those votes "present" when he was in the Illinois legislature.

MWL

[/quote]

Just a quick comment regarding the statements made by Ayers and published in the media. The statement he made regarding having no regret for making bombs is accurate. The companion statement regarding his regret for not doing "more" has been distorted. In the companion statement Ayers was not referencing his regret for making more bombs. but rather a regret for not doing more to end the war.

My clarification of his comments should not be construed as a personal attempt to defend this guy.:)

"My clarification of his comments should not be construed as a personal attempt to defend this guy.:)"

There is no excuse for this guy, and there is no excuse for Obama sitting at his table.

Mark 

 

Maybe Dreemer is right.  In the past, the libs have complain when Oama's full name "Barack Hussien Obama" is used.  Yet we have the leader of the DNC going on a leftist program and referring to McCain as McBush.

OK.  Then we should be referring to WrightousHussien. 

ABO

The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy.  The attempted connection between Obama and Ayers is based on an implied agreement in domestic terrorism.  The latter connection, however, is faulty insofar as there is no evidence that Obama supports domestic terrorism.

While it is certainly legitimate to look at the personal relationships of a political candidate, we should be very careful about guilt by association.  As Obama said, he is also very friendly with Tom Coburn, a very conservative U.S. senator.  In fact, Obama has worked much more closely with Coburn than Ayers.   So is Obama then responsible for all of Coburn's positions and choices in life as well?

If we truly care about this issue, then we ought to ask for Obama to provide his viewpoint on domestic terrorism and the cultural environment of the 1960's.  Unfortunately, in today's political environment, that is not likely because the truth is that is not why this issue is being brought up.  It is being brought up to tear down Obama on a personal basis--and any response he gives about the actual issues will only be used as a basis for personal attacks.   See Obama's speech on race as an example.

 

 

"The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy." 

I beg to differ. Obama sought out Ayers for political support in his run for Chicago politics. There would have been no association without agreement. 

Mark 

[quote user="Mark49"]

"The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy." 

I beg to differ. Obama sought out Ayers for political support in his run for Chicago politics. There would have been no association without agreement. 

Mark 

[/quote]

 

But, they don't agree on what you are trying to tie Obama to.  That is, bombing the American government.

McCain sought out the political support of Jerry Falwell before he ran for President.   Does that mean McCain agrees with Falwell that 9/11 was due to America's descent into homosexuality?

We should hold these people to their own positions and actions.  If it bothers you that Obama has a marginal relationship with a University of Illinois Chicago Professor who is a fixture in Chicago liberal politics and was involved in a radical group 40 years ago, then that is your perogative.

To me, this seems a very very small footnote in Obama's biography which is about a rather remarkable journey to come to terms with his multi-cultural identity, an impressive record of achievement, and a consistent record of public service.

For me, I prefer to have something to vote for.  But it seems others are fixated on finding something to vote against. 

 

 

[quote user="oxymoron"][quote user="Mark49"]

"The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy." 

I beg to differ. Obama sought out Ayers for political support in his run for Chicago politics. There would have been no association without agreement. 

Mark 

[/quote]

 

But, they don't agree on what you are trying to tie Obama to.  That is, bombing the American government.

McCain sought out the political support of Jerry Falwell before he ran for President.   Does that mean McCain agrees with Falwell that 9/11 was due to America's descent into homosexuality?

We should hold these people to their own positions and actions.  If it bothers you that Obama has a marginal relationship with a University of Illinois Chicago Professor who is a fixture in Chicago liberal politics and was involved in a radical group 40 years ago, then that is your perogative.

To me, this seems a very very small footnote in Obama's biography which is about a rather remarkable journey to come to terms with his multi-cultural identity, an impressive record of achievement, and a consistent record of public service.

For me, I prefer to have something to vote for.  But it seems others are fixated on finding something to vote against. 

 

 

[/quote]

If you wish to describe any relationship with an admitted, unrepentant terrorist as a very very small footnote, that is your prerogative. I have never heard anyone accuse Obama as being complicit in the bombings, and that is not the issue. The issue is Obama's relationship with this man. He sought this man out to get his approval and support. A footnote for you is a major issue for me.

Mark 

No one knows the inner workings of the relationship between Obama and Wright, Ayres or Rezko.  And that is part of the problem. 

The Dems would condemn him as a guilty liar, as they did with Rove and bush, with no proof.

Obama first said he didn't hear Wright, then said it was just a typical black preacher and then he denounced him.  Kind of like Peter in the square with Jesus.

Obama has had a tight relationship with socialist.  Why would he deny that, it he believes in Socialism?  Is it because he wants to get elected as a Dem and then announce that he is a Socialist?

Why can't Obama, just one time, be honest about his afilliations and he connections?

It would be nice if all politicians were honest. Obama's just a typical politician. A little better speaker than most, but up to his large ears in loose associations with some deviant characters.

[quote user="oxymoron"]

The difference is that the McCain-Bush association is based on their agreements in policy.  The attempted connection between Obama and Ayers is based on an implied agreement in domestic terrorism.  The latter connection, however, is faulty insofar as there is no evidence that Obama supports domestic terrorism.

While it is certainly legitimate to look at the personal relationships of a political candidate, we should be very careful about guilt by association.  As Obama said, he is also very friendly with Tom Coburn, a very conservative U.S. senator.  In fact, Obama has worked much more closely with Coburn than Ayers.   So is Obama then responsible for all of Coburn's positions and choices in life as well?

If we truly care about this issue, then we ought to ask for Obama to provide his viewpoint on domestic terrorism and the cultural environment of the 1960's.  Unfortunately, in today's political environment, that is not likely because the truth is that is not why this issue is being brought up.  It is being brought up to tear down Obama on a personal basis--and any response he gives about the actual issues will only be used as a basis for personal attacks.   See Obama's speech on race as an example.

 [/quote]

Nice summation that gets to the heart of the matter.
 

can someone find a photo of that notorious appeaser Dick Cheney smiling and shaking hands with Saddam?  jonmaxapple, does Saddam qualify as The Islamofascist?

[quote user="pudman"]can someone find a photo of that notorious appeaser Dick Cheney smiling and shaking hands with Saddam?  jonmaxapple, does Saddam qualify as The Islamofascist?[/quote]

Did Cheney go to Saddam to ask for his political and financial support to win his (Cheney's) next election?  I don't think Obama was on an official State visit to the terrorist's house. It was sharp of you, however, to recognize that Saddam and Ayers are somewhat comparable.

Mark 

 

I'd say that, yes, it is OK to consider Obama's associations. When you look at the whole puzzle and not just one piece, it portrays a scary scenerio.

Yes, he admits to being " friends" with a known terrorist, who bombed our own country for crying out loud.

He refuses to wear a flag pin because he doesn't want to be seen as taking sides- Excuse me?  I want my President to take sides.

He spent 20 years listening to a radical, America hating, rascist Pastor.- Who does that if you do not believe in what the Pastor is saying?

His wife has never been proud of her country - Uhh, I prefer a President that loves his country and a tear of pride comes to his eye during the National Anthem, rather than someone who turns away from the flag.

Thank god for George Bush!!

The scary part is that there are enough ignorant fools in this country that the guy might just get elected.  God help us.

"Thank god for George Bush!"

Here in white, Christian America we capitalize "God" to recognize Him as Saviour. If you can remember to honour  His servant, President Bush, you can pay Him due respect by employing a capital "G". Unless you are on the side of The Leftist or The Islamofascist. Thank you and have a nice day. 

"The scary part is that there are enough ignorant fools in this country that the guy might just get elected.  God help us."

This is what a lot of Americans thought when George Bush was running for office and our suspicions were confirmed over and over. You guys really know how to pick 'em. I think the conservatives will be sucking hind t** for years to come. :)

[quote user="dreemer"]

Sensei, you are probably correct that I am thinking about guilt by association the wrong way. Maybe the Bush-McCain phrase is more a rhetorical device. Whatever it is, it never struck me as being an above the belt punch.

Obama is as close to Carter in policies as Bush is to McCain, maybe even closer. In the future, perhaps McCain should use the phrase Carter-Obama everytime he speaks of Obama. 

-dale 

[/quote]

Excellent point dale.   The Repubs should be referring to Obama as "Carbama".  I'm sure that O would take "offense".   Seems he plans to take "offense" at everything, 24/7.

Hmmm.

No terrorist attacks since 9/11- understanding of the threat we face

Lower taxes - which stimulated long term economic growth

Great Supreme Court nominations

 

Yes, I voted for George Bush. You can thank me. Makes me proud to be an American.

 

Now lets talk about your Socialist candidate.

Wealth re-distribution. - Take from those who earn it and give to those who didn't

Appoint activist judges to Supreme Court - Legislate from the bench

Everything is America's fault

Surrender in Iraq

Ruin the worlds best health care

 

uhhh....  No thanks

Its boring, having a debate about ideas, with the unarmed.

Careful, you don't want to offend anyone.

Leach: You have a point, as usual. What Ayers did was more despicable than "dumb." And he never did show any remorse, and still doesn't. Some people seem to find it harder than others to admit that they've made mistakes. Whether this shows that a guy is "resolute" or just "pig-headed" depends on who the guy is and whether you approve of him or not. Whatever Ayers says or doesn't say, his behavior obviously has changed since he hasn't planted bombs for some years now and is a stable enough personality to have earned a place on the UI faculty. I can't think of a single argument that would justify what Ayers was doing in 1968. What I DO think is that Ayers is not a very important person on Obama's campaign. And I strongly doubt that Ayers' radical opinions of the 1960s have influenced Obama's positions. It doesn't bother me much that Obama has, as you claim, attracted hard-left anti-war radicals all of his political career. (I wonder what hard-left anti-war radicals you had in mind.) He doesn't seem to have filled his staff with them, the way Bush surrounded himself with charter members of the Project for a New American Century, whose stated goal was practically to conquer the world, impose democracy on everybody, and promote Israel's interests. Nobody can be held responsible for the approval of others. If it were that simple, the USA would be run by its own enemies. Because all our adversaries would have to do is make public their approval of the candidate they liked least, who would then be defeated by the candidate they liked most.

I don't know why Obama cannot just be honest about it and announce that he is a Socialist.  He will make that announcement if he is elected.

[quote user="Maxim"]I don't know why Obama cannot just be honest about it and announce that he is a Socialist.  He will make that announcement if he is elected.[/quote]

I believe you're wrong, Maxim. Not about him being a Socialist, but that he will announce it. The closest most American Socialist get to admitting it is calling themselves "Progressives". Socialism still has a bad name with the overwhelming majority of Americans, even among those who tend to vote for Socialists.

It would be more constructive if we could avoid name calling -- "socialist", "radical far-;eft , and the rest. The names are an imprecise substitute for thought. Pure "Socialism" is generally defined as an economy in which the state owns the producer's goods -- factories, transportation, and so forth. By that standard, the USA is, in fact, slightly socialist and always has been. It will in fact not become purely "capitalist" untile we privatize all the government services, like the army and the postal service and the schools. We've already begun privatization with of the army, with KBR doing its laundry and serving its meals, and with civilian defense contractors (half of whom are in combatant roles) doing jobs the Marines used to do. Nancy Pelosi was routinely referred to by conservative commentators as representing "the far-left wing of the Democratic party." A look at her voting record in California shows she supported such far-left wing policies as a tightening of gun control laws and a rise in the federal minimum wage. Evidently you don't have to do much to get assigned to the far-left radical wing of the Democratic party -- just stand a little to the left of Attila the Hun. Neither Obama nor Clinton are socialists by any sane definition, anymore than McCain is a fascist. If we could manage to use common sense instead of hatred as the basis for our reasoning, we'd be able to avoid the epithets we hear every day -- "hypocrite," "socialist," "flip flopper", "general betray-us" -- and start thinking like grown ups.

Good points RMAX.  I especially agree with your comment that "name calling" or shorthand labeling are substitutes for thought.

[quote user="RMax304823"]It would be more constructive if we could avoid name calling -- "socialist", "radical far-;eft , and the rest. The names are an imprecise substitute for thought. Pure "Socialism" is generally defined as an economy in which the state owns the producer's goods -- factories, transportation, and so forth. By that standard, the USA is, in fact, slightly socialist and always has been. It will in fact not become purely "capitalist" untile we privatize all the government services, like the army and the postal service and the schools. We've already begun privatization with of the army, with KBR doing its laundry and serving its meals, and with civilian defense contractors (half of whom are in combatant roles) doing jobs the Marines used to do. Nancy Pelosi was routinely referred to by conservative commentators as representing "the far-left wing of the Democratic party." A look at her voting record in California shows she supported such far-left wing policies as a tightening of gun control laws and a rise in the federal minimum wage. Evidently you don't have to do much to get assigned to the far-left radical wing of the Democratic party -- just stand a little to the left of Attila the Hun. Neither Obama nor Clinton are socialists by any sane definition, anymore than McCain is a fascist. If we could manage to use common sense instead of hatred as the basis for our reasoning, we'd be able to avoid the epithets we hear every day -- "hypocrite," "socialist," "flip flopper", "general betray-us" -- and start thinking like grown ups.[/quote]

 

I suppose Maxine Waters is another "imprecise substitute for thought". Sorry, but these people are socialists, but it's also clear they don't want you to know it.

http://goatsbarnyard.blogspot.com/2008/05/maxine-waters-nationalize-our-oil.html

Mark 

Name calling like; Republican, radical far right, neo-conservatives?

Those aren't names, like "Socialist", "radical left", etc, they are descriptions of an ideology.

When you try to cut off all criticism, it just makes you look desperate.

"Republican" doesn't carry the same quite anti-American sting as "socialist," does it?

A "neoconservative" is, as you say, a widely recognized ideology promoted by members of the Project for a New American Century, whose signers include Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and the like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

If you want some idea of who's doing the name calling, you might go through this thread (or any other) and count the number of times someone is called a Democrat (or Dem) and how many time someone is called a Republican (or Repub). 

I agree that criticism is necessary to a democracy.  But it should be allowed from both sides, without one side being dismissed as "whiners."  And the criticism should be directed at proposals or policies, and not at an individual politician because he has "large ears" (Obama) or because he "looks like a pig" (Rove). 

The country was built on a constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives.  I note a recent degrading of that dialog.

Of course it OK to condemn Sen. Obama for his connection with Ayers.  If it were Sen. McCain who had the connection to Ayers, Obama would be talking about it in every speech he makes and it would be on every network news program every day. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC would be having a field day. It is another item to put on the pile that will become a mountain by November.