Obama's bad judgment

Indeed!

And let's not forget something from Obama's more recent legislative past: The Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act that he voted against. And for what reason(s)? There are so many:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html

In my mind, I have a problem with anyone who cannot see that a child, under any circumstances, born breathing, with brainwaves, and a beating heart should not be afforded whatever medical measures necessary to afford him/her a chance at survival. Abortion is one thing, but infanticide is something else.

This pales in comparison with the Keating Five (which I actually remember...).

Hell, Bill Ayers isn't the worst of it. His lovely wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is stone evil. She was, if you recall, all excited about the Charlie Manson-inspired murders back in the day. She seemed to think that slaughter was, in that case, a groovy revolutionary act. There can be no greater indication of the corrupt state of Chicago politics than the fact that these two are respected members of the Hyde Park community. The only reason that they and their little band of Maoist pranksters did not rack up a death toll equivalent to Timothy MacVeigh is that they were laughably incompetent at the making and firing of infernal machines. Not that any of this matters at this point. The tanking economy probably is sufficient to assure Obama's election.

"One crow does not peck out another's eyes."
This, and the involvement of 4 democrats ( making it a bipartisan scandal) are the only reasons that McCain got away with a reprimand in the Keating Five case. Under slightly different circumstances he would have been sentenced for corruption for exactly the same actions ( that did cost the taxpayer billions, btw.).

I don't think this election should turn on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright

As they say in New England: "Yeah, yeah, yeah."

But you DO obviously see this issue as more integral to the political discussion than 'things this election should turn on'.

I've been reading your blogs for years now, and virtually each and every time this kind of issue surfaces, your reaction is akin to a little boy's discovery of a shiny new toy! Sometimes you manage to be even-handed on the issue, but those are the exceptions -- and seldom occurs in the runup to an election. This is the part of the 'character' of the modern conservative movement that I wish you'd put behind you. (Breath not being held.)

Just sayin'. (sic)

No, I don't say "Keating Five! Keating Five!" In fact, I think it was a bit of a mistake for the Obama campaign to play tit for tat, because (as David Frum said) this charge has no emotional weight. It's whiffleball politics: an attempt to strike fear into our hearts with a empty insult.

As Mr. Dreher said yesterday, if this is the best conservatives can offer, they deserve defeat. But the McCain campaign has thrown all the other mud at Obama, so after calling him an airhead celebrity, a radical black man, a tax-and-spend liberal, a defeatist, and so on, it's inevitable that they will try to call him a terrorist. It's a sign of rank desperation. It'll be interesting to see if McCain goes this route in front of his formidable opponent -- my guess he won't dare.

It doesn't matter that this all happened when Obama was 8. Obama cultivated Ayers friendship as an adult when Ayers was still notorious for his involvement with the Weathermen, having written a book about it.

Ayers says to this day that he regrets nothing. It doesn't matter that Ayers surrendered or that charges were dropped due to a technicality. He tried to kill people, fellow citizens, on our own soil, and didn't do so only due to his incompetence.

Also, the Keating 5 was mainly a Democrat scandal. McCain was the only Republican in there; the other four were all Democrats, and his link to Keating was the most tenuous of the 5. The reason the Democrat-controlled committee charged him was to manufacture a spurious bipartisan scandal. to Keating.

Steph.. I guess it is all in how you define hanging out, and what your value system is.

I'm no fan of bombs, but ayers bombs DID NOT destroy tens of thousands of peoples finaincial lives to be destoryed WITH INTENT and leave the taxpayer a 1.3 trillion dollar debt. It was real, it was intentional, and McCain was amongst his biggest friends (talk about hanging out) and his wifes family adored keeting and if it was Obama in ths same category I tend to think many more would be crying foul.

I guess it also depends on how you define 'terrorisim'.

Keeting was the ring leader of the some of the largest domestic terrorisim in my lifetime. It was real, it happened. I guess if bilking 21,000 seniors out of their life savings with predatory bankers intentionaly targeting them and lying that the junk they were investing in was government insured, and then leaving you with a 1.3 trillion dollar debt seems some how more pallatable than setting off a bomb that didn't hurt anyone, we see thinks totaly different.

Rod,

Thanks for your perspective. What's really troubling is the lying by B.O. and his Chicago operatives that smells a lot like a cover-up. Perhaps B.O. has an innocent explanation for all this, but it is the outright lying about this that rightly causes suspicion.

I have no concern that conservativism will survive an Obama term in the WH. The country will be hurt undoubtedly, and that is tragic. But the bigger loser if B.O. gets elected is the Democratic Party. Had there been full disclosure about the Reverend Wright BEFORE the Iowa caucuses, Hillary would be the nominee (and most likely enjoying a far greater lead against Johnny Mac than B.O. currently enjoys). Anc certainly if the country had been told the full story about Obama and Ayers in 2007, Obama would have been gone early in this race.

This guy is "The Perfect Stranger" (to borrow the phrase from Charles Krauthammer). Companies know more about their management trainees than the country knows about B.O. A lot of people will vote for this guy because he's promising them (at least 95% of us) a tax cut. The joke will be on these poor chumps if this guy hypes his way into the Oval Office. Forget about the tax cut for 95% of Americans. That will be just a part of the disillusionment that will set in if B.O. gets elected and ends up as another Jimmy Carter (who also got elected on a lie and ended up laying an egg in office).

Ayers, on the other hand, plotted to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix and bombed the pentagon.

I've got no love for "O" but if his buddy Ayers plotted to kill American soldiers and bomb the Pentagon is that significantly worse than a sitting senator and former POW actively campaigning to quash investigation as to the fate of remaining servicemen held by the Vietnamese?

http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

More grist for the mill, from Tigerhawk:

"Barack Obama's campaign, via David Axelrod, is claiming that Barack Obama did not know that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn had belonged to the Weathermen and set bombs.

Sad to say, I believe that this is a rank lie.

I was a corporate lawyer in Chicago in the 1980s and 1990s, just like the Obamas. I was far less interested in local politics than the Obamas, who were building a career based on it, but even I knew of Ayers and Dohrn -- Dohrn, mostly -- and that they were fixtures in Hyde Park. Indeed, one of the partners in my firm -- a sort of contrary guy who liked saying edgy things to provoke a response -- made a point of talking about what nice people they were now that they had stopped blowing stuff up. To me it is literally inconceivable that a politically active lawyer living in Hyde Park in the 1980s and 1990s would not have known who Dohrn and Ayers were. Even if Barack was too not-of-the-world to have noticed, it is unfathomable to me that Michelle would not have known. There is therefore virtually no chance that neither Barack or Michelle knew who Ayers and Dohrn were when they were invited over to their house.

Either Barack Obama is, through Axelrod, lying about when he learned that Ayers and Dohrn were bomb-setters, or he was blinkered to the point of pathology."

According to Chas, it's okay to set off bombs in public buildings just as long as no one gets hurt. So Chas obviously would be fine being robbed at gun-point as long as his robber didn't shoot him. The mind boggles at the stupidity of that logic.

See Steve Chapman's Tribune column at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column for a candidate who has gone much further in befriending terrorists. That would be John McCain with respect to Gordon Liddy. Also unrepentant for his actions during the '70s, actions which did more to undermine democracy than anything Ayers did and someone who in the 1990s was advising his radio listeners that it was best to shoot federal agents in the head. In 1998, Liddy hosted a fundraiser for McCain and has given him $5,000 over the years. McCain repaid the favor by going on his radio show and telling him "I'm proud of you ... congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Talk about bad judgment in the pursuit of power.

Substantive or not, Keating is new to the discussion and is much more damaging to Oldster McCrankypants than either Ayers or Wright will be to Obama - I don't despise Mc, but I love that moniker.

Posted by: J Dave G | October 7, 2008 1:17 PM

Geeze, I'd hate to hear what you'd call McCain if you DID despise him. I thought that sort of talk was reserved for "mean-streak-a-mile-wide" Republicans.

I don't understand all the umbrage and outrage over this line of questioning. Did you SEE the mug shots (and scary video) of Ayers and Dohrn? They look like something out of Helter Skelter. The fact that they have risen so high in the Chicago establishment makes one wonder about that establishment.... the one in which our young candidate also rose to power. I understand why Obama's lying about his association with those two! (And yes, his campaign has made several statements that Obama "didn't know" they were domestic terrorists... a statement which simply can't be true.) Seriously, do YOU associate with people like this? Do your parents? Your friends? Is this really not worth looking into? I guess I'm not sophisticated enough to get it.

It's always the coverup -- the attempt to deny the wrong doing or the nefarious association -- that does someone in.

McCain has been an open book about Keating 5 -- and was exonerated. There's no mystery either about Gordon Liddy, who it should be pointed out did his time (for his role in Watergate).

Obama needs to come clean on Ayres. This persistent lying and denial is part of a broader pattern with B.O.. First he denies knowing a person, then he admits to some acquaintance, and finally he condemns his former associate and expresses disappointment that the former associate has turned out to be different than the first impression. It happened with Rezko and Wright. It even happened with Grandma!

They taught B.O. all the sharp tricks at Harvard Law. He was a good student.

Maybe it's time for McCain to come clean on his connection to mafia boss Joe Bonnano.

Why would a sitting Senator get invited to the birthday of one of the most noted Mafia figures in Arizona?

ktracy.com/?p=868

What is the relationship between this crime boss and the GOP candidate for office? McCain needs to come clean on this.

"Did anyone notice the lather both McCain and Palin are stirring up? When Palin mentioned Obama, someone shouted "Kill him!" loud enough to make the tape. When McCain mentioned Obama, someone shouted "Terrorist!" loud enough to make McCain wince - proving perhaps that McCain hasn't completely killed his conscience on the way to the bottom. Palin strikes me as one of those Christians so certain of everything that she no longer needs a conscience - sort of like W in that regard."

This. Rod, what is your take on this? And the lack of verbal response by Palin and McCain to these calls? It's now ok to accuse a candidate of terrorism and treason (the newest call) because of someone they have associated with professionally?

I'd really like to see you address the style with which this is being "discussed" by the McCain campaign, and the crowd reactions.

J Dave G: The point is McCain is not George W. Bush but the Obamamessiah crowd acts as if they make a mantra ("W!") whenever the discussion gets too hard then it and McCain will go away.

Lisa:

Do you know any rapists? Have you worked closely for several years with any? Have you been a guest in their houses? Have you provided any rapists a job recommendation? Just curious, because apparently hanging out with criminals doesn't bother you.

Reaganite, if J Dave G's parents are embarrassed by the whole "Oldster McCrankypants" deal, just imagine how Rufus Thomas' parents must feel with the whole "Reverend Lightworker" shtick.

As for the whole Ayers thing, and most of the other dookey flying around nowadays, let's just say that the entire Conservative movement is beginning to reek of the thick air of desperation generally found at 2 AM in a dive singles bar.

Face it, stick a fork in you, you're done. You had your shot in Congress for the last 20 years or so, and in the White House for the last 8, and you've been deeply complicit, at least, in the ruin of our national reputation, military, and economy. Your presidential choice, who promised to return dignity and values to the White House, has made a mockery of this nation to a degree that Bill Clinton's pants-dropping tendencies couldn't have equalled even if they occurred in front of the podium at the U.N. on the day the Pope was asked to give the opening prayer.

The Republican machine has nothing left to offer but guilt by association, pointless character assassination and of course, Sarah Palin, to provide a winning smile and folksy charm while she spews the conservative venom. Even once honorable men like McCain have sold their souls for power, and place competence in the backseat to ambition.

Do yourselves, and the rest of the nation a favor. Spend the next four years repenting, rethinking, retrenching. Develop some truly new and valuable approaches, or revamp some old and valuable ones for the 21st Century, and bring them to the table in 2012. I suspect we're going to need them.

If we are only going to have two parties, it would be helpful if at least ONE of them were capable. Right now, the Democrats are at about 25%, and the Republicans are at 0%.

serious concerns about his judgment

Not about his judgment.

It's about his proclivities.

I think it fair to say that Obama is a liberal. One assumes that he would appoint liberals to governmental

To me guilt-by-association is a slippery slope, as it mandates us all to only associate with people who are just like us. It's even a step removed from circumstantial evidence, as it offers no evidence of anything other than association.

I attend a church in which there are several immigrants who are rabidly anti-semitic. I disagree with their views on Jews, but on most other things they are charming and polite, fun at feasts and hard-working when it comes to volunteering for the church. Does it show my bad judgement that I haven't renounced the Holy Orthodox Church because of their views?

We should all be spared the strict standards which we allow political partisans to demand of their opponents.

Elmo: "JPL: Everything you wrote applies to the Democratic party equally as much as the Republicans."

Except for one thing. The GOP has been in power since 1994 in at least one of three branches of government (and for many of those years, two branches). We've lived under Republican policy since 1994.

Look where it has got us.

You are right, Elmo, in that both the Democrats and the GOP are equally bad choices. But we've given it to the GOP since 1994.

It's time to give the Dems a shot. They can't do any worse.

The Ayers flap should have as much traction as the Bonnano flap. If it was wrong for Obama to associate with Ayers, it was also wrong for McCain to associate with Bonnano.

While our country goes to hell in a handbasket we hear the GOP raise concerns about who Obama sat on a board with. While the stock market drops like a rock we hear Palin blabbing about Obama being a terrorist.

The GOP can't run on any kind of economic policy because they are the ones who put us where we are...in a handbasket heading downhill to the gates of hell.

All of this BS is simply static. The issue should be the economy. Let's get the GOP focused on what matters to the people of this nation, not a meaningless sideshow led by a lipsticked pig.

MarcM, If I was 9% down in a 2 horse race and people were thinking 24/7 about something they didn't think I was the best person to handle then a meaningless sideshow would be exactly what I would be distracting people with.

elmo - you are right about that. I really liked McCain in 2000. I actually thought this might be the first time I ever voted Republican, but his saber rattling this yr has convinced me otherwise. I think I'll still like him in the Senate where an erratic maverick can't do much harm on his own.

MargaretE - Gee, isn't McCain known for his temper? and he would be the oldest president. Still, if it offends you so, I'll restrain myself. BTW, when I despise someone as I do W, I do not dilute it with humor.

All - preferring to think that his tone was playful, I like what JPL said and would add only this. For heaven's sakes, what is it with the Republicans and their adoration of amiable dunces (Palin being the most recent example)? While they are retrenching, maybe they can look around for smarts too.

The "That's not the Bill Ayers I knew" press briefing is but days away.

As someone who's father and father-in-law(Who I didn't know at the time, since like Obama I was but a tyke in 1970)could've easily been killed when Ayers bombed NYPD HQ, IT'S ABOUT TIME. NO ONE running for office should have any association with a piece of garbage like Ayers.

And Obama has to get his story straight; which of the 3 proffered excuses(so far) will he go with, since they're mutually exclusive-
1. Obama was 8 years old a the time of the bombings(though he was 19 at the time of the Nanuet Brinks job in 1980 carried out by this gang of scum, so the statute of limitations excuse seems pretty thin);
2. Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist(meaning that Mr. Good Judgment is the dumbest man in Chicago, since Ayers has never hidden his avocation);
or-
3. What Ayers did was acceptable in America.

PICK ONE, Mr. Obama. Though they all stink.

JPL,

You've once again given the lie to how indifferent you claim to be to me and to what I have to say.

Reverend. Reverend. Reverend.

Grate. Grate. Grate.

Please call me feces again so Rod can again take down your post doing so.

How about this? Anyone around here care to look at FACTS, instead of ridiculous hate-mongering and guilt-by-association nonsense? How about a REPUBLICAN in Chicago saying Ayers sits on a number of charitable boards, and everyone in politics in Chicago, Democrat and Republican, has a passing acquaintance with him.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95442902

I know it's inconvenient to interrupt your desperate narrative that would install another loser Republican on the strength of low-information, low-intelligence voters' biases and fears, but try looking at the facts.

Regardless of his background, it was never a problem for anyone — including Republicans and Chicago's most powerful business leaders — to work with Ayers on Chicago's public schools. In fact, Ayers is widely respected in the field of urban education.

(quote from the above article):
"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

Nelson says her fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life ... but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought."
(end quote)

Sorry, there's no "there" there. Tee up your next smear, get more bigoted people to scream "terrorist!" and "kill him!" at the Palin brown-shirt rallies. Don't you get it? America is sick of your right-wing lies, smears, incompetence and corruption. Thank God a majority of this country is returning to sanity.

MarcM: We have had Democratic majorities in the times that you have cited and things didn't get any better under their policies. I suspect that if O. becomes president with a Democrat-run Congress that we can expect things to remain just about the same.

I wish this wasn't so as this scenario seems pretty likely given the poll numbers, but history says otherwise.

Ayers' notion of "education" is little more than the indoctrination of impressionable children into a radical and militant mindset of hatred against their own country.

Indoctrination is what all institutional education is about, whether you try to turn children into radicals or "good Americans", who salute the flag on command and learn to go along with a dehumanizing system even while that same systems is grinding them up.

Actually, I'd like to retract my defending of Obama on Ayers. Swing away. Since the Republicans started talking about it, Obama has gained a point each day. McCain made the mistake of announcing that he was going to smear Obama's character to distract Americans from the financial meltdown. So the more you talk about it, the more reasonable people get disgusted with the right-wing slime machine, at a time when problems need addressing, and when McCain looks more and more erratic, and even George Will says Obama is acting presidential and McCain is...not. I'd feel more comfortable with Obama having a 15 point advantage going into the election, so another week of Ayers should do it. Maybe you can convince Sean Hannity to make another "docudrama" on the subject. He's such a trusted journalist and all.

Turmarion: Interesting. Isn't secession treasonous? And she does more than sit on the same board with him.

Rufus: It's too bad really; if you could just drop the schtick, some folks might listen. I tuned you out a long time ago and I'm probably not alone.

Thanks Tumarion, I had almost forgotten about that one. It makes me sad that this is the game we feel we have to continue to play. And once Obama is elected (which he will), what we saw on the right during the Clinton era will be nothing compared to it. If it makes anyone feel better, check out Cracked's list of Five Presidential elections even dumber than this one (somehow): http://tiny.cc/im2sX
It shows that nothin's really changed.

Oh, Ayers is a tenured professor? I didn't realize that. That makes the whole issue go away.

Congratulations for making the least convincing argument I've ever read in one of these comboxes. You really owe it to the fine old Whig to pick a new nom de blog. Pathetic!

J Dave G:

Obama's connections to Ayers were anything but "trivial, minute, and laughable"

Kurtz does a good job of debunking that one here:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWI0MjY3NzMyODgxZGM2ZjUwNTE1MmEzOGRiZmFkNWE=

As I see it, Ayers was so central to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, especially in the beginning, that he would not have approved Obama to head up the other division unless he believed that they shared a certain basic political outlook and philosophy - and it's not like Obama's Annenberg experience was tangential to his political rise. He cited his work at Annenberg as one of his PRIME qualification for public office (along with the work he did in advocating for affordable housing. Heh.):

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-admits-his-work-with-terrorist.html

(The relevant video segment starts about 30 seconds in.)

For anyone interested, this is probably the most complete run down of Obama's "troubling associations." Here's the verdict:

"Barack Obama appears to sit on a nexus between Marxist revolutionary activists, unrepentant former terrorists, Black Power racists, Chicago mobsters – oh, and a Saudi who is trying to buy up America. If you were to turn up at US immigration control with a background of such associates, it’s a fair bet they wouldn’t let you off the air-bridge. . . "

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2178136/subversives-for-obama.thtml

Palin Blasts Obama's Ties to Weather Channel
‘Palling Around with Meteorologists,' Guv Claims

Alaska governor Sarah Palin went on the attack today, claiming that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama had longstanding ties to The Weather Channel.

"What does it say about our opponent that he thinks this nation's weather is so imperfect that he needs to be allied with The Weather Channel?" she asked a crowd in Tampa, Florida. "There's a fine line between hating America's weather and hating America herself."

Gov. Palin said that she learned about Sen. Obama's ties to The Weather Channel last week "when I was trying hard to read The New York Times."

"They said that Sen. Obama was hanging out with weathermen," she said. "Do we really want to elect someone who has been palling around with meteorologists?"

Gov. Palin's latest attacks came on the heels of a new poll showing that the only demographic group that still support her are morons, sometimes referred to by political insiders as "no-information voters."

"It may sound like she spouting idiocy, but there's a method to her madness," said Tracy Klugian, a Republican strategist. "She's speaking to her base."

Elsewhere, Sen. John McCain's practice session for the second presidential debate was cut short when his pants burst into flame.

--Andy Borowitz

If we are going to use guilt by association can we do the same for McCain? Working with a child molester? (Republican Congressman Mark Foley) A man caught using prostitutes? (Republican Senator David Vitter) How about a man who has been associated with a major prostitution ring? (Republican Senator David Vitter) I'm sure during republican strategy sessions, policy meeting, or retreats McCain had associations with those men, should McCain have quit the Republican Party in protest of them being members?
How about McCain's son being on the board of a recently failed bank or W.'s brother's involvement in the S&L scandal?
My point is this; if Obama's interactions with Ayers are being at the same university or sitting on the same board then there is no "there" there. Saying he was a part of Obama's "coming out party" is no different that Sarah Palin saying "he's paling around," they're vague statement that don't actually show a connection between the two men? Yes it is ok to judge someone by the people they surround themselves by but to judge a person because they know or worked with is simply wrong. Obama is not endorsing Ayers' views anymore than I think McCain should be associated with war criminal Kissinger or Bush with Saddam via Rumsfeld or Bin Laden via the Carlyle Group.

"After all, one does not generally hire a bank robber to guard a bank." That's why I don't trust McCain with the Federal Budget!

C'mon, among those here who are seriously worried about the Ayers thing - is there even one of you who had a slim chance of voting for Obama before McCain dredged up this old story yesterday?

Almost everyone who is still undecided is much more likely to see the Ayers connection as very thin and inconsequential, and much more likely to see McCran.... I mean McCain, as desparate and low.

You know, technically speaking, Ayers and his organization killed far fewer innocent civilians during the Vietnam years than did McCain.

What about the judgment before going to war in Iraq? Obama said it was stupid.
The costs of the Iraq adventure, which McCain supported and Obama didn't, are now approaching the recent bailout levels of $700B. What do we have to show for in Iraq if we can't set a time-line for exiting at this point? Are we using troops lives to stick fingers in a leaky cracked damn?

Yeah, Bill Ayers is controversial; but, we could bring up folks like the pastors that John McCain has actively courted and with whom he has had to cut ties. We can bring up the Keating Five.

We can talk about how McCain flip-flopped on torture out of expediency to win the hard right base.

Actually, Sarah Palin has some pretty colorful associations as well. Her husband was part of a secessionist party in Alaska whose founder hated the lower 48. There's also a very interesting Youtube video of her church in which an African pastor is laying hands on her to protect her from witches.

The generational lurch toward liberalism is particularly pronounced among young whites. There is a convergence among the races under 30 toward Obama-style progressivism. I put it down to Bush: he simultaneously legitimized the therapeutic liberal state while his incompetence and social reactionaryism made conservatism toxic among the young. The damage Bush and Cheney and Rove have done to conservative arguments, principles and appeal will take at least a generation to repair. -- Andrew Sullivan

Instead of grandstand guilt-by-association, why doncha (sic) get started on revitalizing the GOP?

Just askin'. (sic)

I think the fact that Barack is black has a lot to do with the confusion about the Wright and Ayers thing. He was trying to find himself and fit in in a racist, white society. He gained his credibilty with the black community by hanging at a black, inner-city (albeit racist) church and gained his radical credibility by chillin' with a domestic terrorist and his hot, equally evil wife. I don't think Barack should be blamed for his associations with these people at that time in his life. I imagine he doesn't really believe in their ideals, esp. at this point.

If he weren't black (ok, half black), he wouldn't have been forced by this society to make this choices.

But I think his position on abortion is evil and inconsistent with being concerned about the plight of blacks in this society.

Just sayin'.

Peace. Out.

Oh, and to Elmo: It's true that everything I said about Republicans can apply equally to Democrats.

Except the part where they're finished, they're done, they're out of there.

And the part were they're centrally to blame for the mess.

Outside of these small admissions, you're correct.

Brian: I don't watch tv and I'm not a Republican. Why did it take Sarah Palin to get the topic acknowledged at all? And what I mean by covered is investigated, not mentioned and dismissed in the same report by an anchor repeating Obama's talking points.

JPL: If you think the Dems are coming out of this unscathed you are delusional. As for the Rs, if they lose this election, they'll be back in the midterms. They are not going anywhere. Look for Palin and Jindal to be huge players in 2012 and beyond.

J Dave G,

Congratulations.

You have committed the JPL fallacy -- the fallacy of thinking that acknowledging someone's post is a sign that you have (in your words) "tuned out" that post.

Keep it up if you would like more replies like this one from me.

Mr. Saul Menowitz at 6:26:

It's hysterical, or rather, you are hysterical, but not the funny kind. Like too many in this country, you are making excuses for Senator Obama. He hasn't even made some of these excuses himself! It' still at the staff level for him on some of this. Give him time though. There will be accounting.

If one were to read Senator Obama's biography, excuse me, biographies, and I caution anyone actually intending to do so to double up on the scotch (but nothing dear - stick with some Johnny Red), one will hear an earnest, but sincerely pathetic, attempt to create a black Holden Caufield, albeit without the expulsion from Percey Prep. He's cynical, he's smoking, he wearing black leather jackets, and having nicotine infused bull sessions with other elite students, all oppressed and kept down by the man. Nevertheless, despite poor Barry Obama's efforts, he continues to be advanced up the chain of our most elite educational and legal institutions. Try as he may by surrounding himself with, what I believe can be charitably called wackjobs, Mr. Obama blooms into Senator Obama.

And you, Saul, would have me believe that Mr. Obama is simply an unwilling participant in his radicalism and his radical associations and his radical acceptance of arugula as a fit for human consumption.

Saul, you say Senator Obama is now mature and has cast off his radical associations. As you say, Senator Obama certainly has matured. He has matured into a fully seasoned, radical Marxist, who uses the system and its pop culture weaknesses to coopt it, and once coopted, he will bring it down.

JPL,

I *am* Christian.

I am *not* a Republican.

I do *not* approve of waterboarding.

But, again, if imagining that I am a Republican waterboarder helps you dull your pain, then be my guest.

Just do so on in your mind and not on this blog, where I have a right not to be misrepresented by you.

Rufus,

JPL,

I *am* Christian.

I am *not* a Republican.

I do *not* approve of waterboarding.

But, again, if imagining that I am a Republican waterboarder helps you dull your pain, then be my guest.

Just do so on in your mind and not on this blog, where I have a right not to be misrepresented by you.

After your vileness in this thread, you've forfeited the assumption of good faith for reasons independent of your party affiliation.

Rufus, I'll tell you what I tell the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door Saturday morning. If you really loved me, you'd go away.

As for misrepresenting you, there's no need. The completely honest representation you give of yourself here, in multiple threads, is more than enough.

This will be my last in this thread. I look forward to your loving me somewhere else another day.

cirdan,

The thread to which you refer concerned Rod's having received e-mail from one of the Reverend's supporters making threats against Sarah Palin and against her family, including -- if memory serves -- her infant child. Rod received this e-mail at a time when Palin was with regularity being compared to various ungulates -- Horses, Moose -- in "mainstream" and supposedly respectable publications, and when malicious rumors about her and her family -- almost all of them false -- were being spread by the Reverend's supporters in the same sorts of "mainstream" publications. On the thread itself, concerning these matters, certain of the Reverend's supporters were vitrolic to a frightening degree, which -- along with the aforementioned rumors and threats -- prompted me to suggest that the Reverend should call on his supporters to restrain themselves and that he should likewise deliver a "major" address on misogyny and on class-and-religion-based bigotry -- addresses on the model of his "great" address on race in Philadelphia. I still stand by all of that today and I see nothing the least bit "vile" about anything I wrote on that thread. If you find my posts "vile" nonetheless, then you are free to ignore them.

Can you believe the Holy Father visited New York earlier this year? What would he think about how New York Catholics profess October as Respect Life Month:

Senator Infanticide is an invited guest speaker at the Al Smith Dinner on October 16

and

on October 29 Supreme Court Justice Breyer will Receive Fordham-Stein Ethics Prize

Then in November, we will go to the polls and vote ... and of course we will use our Catholic Voter Guides to help us decide how to vote.

By the time Obama made it to Chicago, Ayers was a respected member of the community. If Obama knew anything about his past, he might have been puzzled that this character was so well received among both liberals and conservatives. Still it was reasonable for him to assume that Ayers was rehabilitated. Remember that Ayers unrepentant stance did not become public until 2001.

The bigger issue here is why it is OK to associate Obama with terrorism, and for Sarah Palin to suggest that "we don't know him". This is blatant racism, and the best you can do is say you "don't think this election should turn on Bill Ayers"????