Obama a Terrorist! McCain a Crook!

We’ve reached the seemingly inevitable part of the campaign where the trailing candidates start hurling charges out of desperation and the leader responds in kind. In the closing days of 1992, President George H.W. Bush, ordinarily among the most decent, genteel fellows you’d ever meet, was running around calling Bill Clinton and Al Gore “bozos.” He simply couldn’t believe that he, a war hero, seasoned public servant, and recent winner of the Gulf War, was losing to a draft dodging, dope smoking hick from Arkansas.

It appears that John McCain has reached that point. During the primaries, he merely shook his head and noted that “Life’s not fair” when guys like Mitt Romney and even Mike Huckabee were outpolling him. But he kept plugging away and ultimately won the nomination easily. It looked like he was going to do the same thing in the general election, even taking a small lead after connecting on the Sarah Palin Hail Mary. But, alas, life’s not fair and the financial crisis seems to have stopped his campaign in its tracks. (It’s been noted before that this campaign has eerie similarities to the Santos-Vinick race during the last season of “West Wing.” The financial crisis is apparently the real world’s answer to the nuclear plant disaster on the show.)

Howard Wolfson is almost surely right that “Bill Ayers Won’t Save John McCain.”  Unless there’s far, far more to the association than we’ve seen, it’s a non-story that’s already been absorbed into the current polls.  And this is right, too:

This dynamic is very unlikely to change. John McCain’s goal in the first debate was to discredit Senator Obama as a credible Commander in Chief and elevate the issue of foreign policy and national security. He didn’t come close. Absent a domestic terror attack the economy will remain the number one issue in the race, and there is little Senator McCain can do to make up his gap with Senator Obama on it. Oh, Senator McCain will try to make issues of Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko and Rev. Wright, and that might hurt Senator Obama around the margins — but it will not prevent him from winning.  The economy is simply bigger than the rogues gallery that John McCain is conjuring up.

Palin kicked it up a notch yesterday with this nonsense: “Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who target their own country.”  To put it in a vernacular Palin might understand, that dog won’t hunt.  (One presumes dogs are involved in moose hunting, although my expertise is limited.)   It just comes across as a pathetic, desperate charge.

The foreign campaign contributions charge that’s been floated over the weekend is much more reasonable.  Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to work.   I seem to recall proof positive that Clinton was taking money from Red Chinese nationals in 1996 not having much, if any, impact on the race.

Ironically, Obama’s planned countercharges involving the twenty-year-old Keating Five scandal are more likely to have an impact because they go against McCain’s cultivated anti-corruption “maverick” image and most people have forgotten about that scandal.

Barring a catastrophic event like a terrorist attack, I’m not sure what happens over the next four weeks to turn this thing around for McCain.  It strikes me that his best course is to run an honorable, dignified campaign and simply sell himself.   Who knows, if he doesn’t win maybe Obama will offer to make him Secretary of State.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2008, US Politics, , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Who knows, if he doesn’t win maybe Obama will offer to make him Secretary of State.

    James,

    Was that a reference to the concluding episodes of ‘The West Wing’?

    Bill

  2. sam says:

    It strikes me that his best course is to run an honorable, dignified campaign and simply sell himself.

    I don’t think he knows what “himself” is any longer.

  3. Michael says:

    (One presumes dogs are involved in moose hunting, although my expertise is limited.)

    I think they use Helicopters.

  4. James Joyner says:

    Was that a reference to the concluding episodes of ‘The West Wing’?

    Yup

  5. Ottovbvs says:

    McCain isn’t a crook but he’s a guy of somewhat erratic judgement which has involved him with some shady characterss from time to time. And they don’t come more shady than the people he’s surrounded himself with on this campaign. Think Schmidt, Palin, Davis, Black. The combination has proved toxic for the McCain campaign. His chances of winning were always slight but a combination of three factors are turning this from what was probably going to be a narrow dem win into a probable landslide. Bush and the Republican record over the past eight years which is one of the worst in US history. One of the most incompetent Republican campaigns I can remember, it’s worse than Dole’s. And finally the nature of his opponent who it is hard to deny is one of the most talented people to ever appear on the political stage. He seems to combine the personal presence of Paul Robeson and Tiger Woods with the judgement of FDR and Oliver Wendell Holmes. In all honesty it’s hard to evade the reality that the American people are going to pick the most qualified guy.

  6. Pug says:

    The Dow is down by over 300 points right now, representing probably $500 billion in market value or some such astronomical number. I’m not sure how many Americans realize how devastating that is to their retirement plans just yet, but they will.

    Sure, John and Sarah, let’s talk about William Ayers. Sure, Bill Kristol, let’s talk about Jeremiah Wright. Then let’s all talk about Charles Keating for a while.

    The McCain campaign is pathetic.

  7. The Other Ed says:

    I couldn’t say it any better myself, so here is Steve Benen from The Washington Monthly on guilt by association:

    “Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever befriended a convicted felon who advised his supporters on how best to shoot federal officials in the head. John McCain has.

    Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever used the money of a convicted criminal to help them buy their house. John McCain has.

    Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever befriended a radical televangelist who has lashed out at the Roman Catholic Church, calling it, among other things, “the great whore” and “a false cult system.” John McCain has.

    Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever sought economic advice from a far-right former lawmaker who “has diminished American solvency and power beyond the wildest dreams of anti-American terrorists.” John McCain has.

    Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever befriended a radical televangelist who blamed the attacks of Sept. 11 on Americans. John McCain has.

    My point isn’t that the presidential campaign should be based on who the candidates have met; my point is that we could probably play this foolish game all day long. And on balance, McCain’s ties to a pretty motley crew are far more direct and meaningful than Obama’s. So maybe we can just skip it and debate substance for the next month?”

    http://washingtonmonthly.com/

  8. anjin-san says:

    Its telling that the McCain campaign has not been able to successfully articulate a single reason why they deserve our votes, and is now left with nothing but trying to slime Obama just as McCain was himself once slimed by his friend GW Bush. Hardly the act of a “Maverick”.

    McCain has walked away from everything that once made him a compelling political figure.

  9. Derrick says:

    The sentiments expressed before hand are pretty spot on. If who you know is how we are going to judge our candidates, why not have Jeremiah Wright square-off against Hagee and Palin’s witchdoctor to see who is more repulsive to middle America. This is the kind of politics that makes people hate politicians. Instead of McCain dealing with how he is going to win the war or fix the economy, he’d rather engage in some street fight about whose momma is uglier.

  10. Steve Plunk says:

    Fact is Obama associated with leftist unrepentant terrorists. The other fact is McCain was innocent in respect to the Keating 5. If you can’t use facts in a political campaign what can you use?

    Character is the issue in the last days before the election. This strategy is as good as any other.

  11. Don says:

    Blame it on the Repubs, the economy, the tornadoes, the hurricanes, if anything
    else just fill in the blank and get a little more money for Barney, Schumer and Dodd’s campaigns. They are totally innocent in this economic fiasco. Oh yes we do need to default to our socialist friends in Europe such as Germany, France and yes the UN, what a world wind tour. Andrea and her unbiased networks like to throw out names like rednecks to label the south, really high class and it also helps bring us together. We like giving her and her friends heartburn from the heartland. Instead of outside the beltway it sounds like you are inside Hollywood.

  12. DMan says:

    Fact is Obama associated with leftist unrepentant terrorists. The other fact is McCain was innocent in respect to the Keating 5.

    You can’t have it both ways. If you think Obama’s association with Ayers is a story, than McCain’s association with Keating is also a story. Personally, I think both are distractions from the real issues, and don’t reflect upon either candidates character in any substantial way. James is one of the few conservative bloggers I read lately that has enough intellectual honesty to admit this.

  13. Bithead says:

    Fact is Obama associated with leftist unrepentant terrorists. The other fact is McCain was innocent in respect to the Keating 5. If you can’t use facts in a political campaign what can you use?

    (Shrug)
    Steve; I dunno. I mean, one can understand why Obama is responding this way. He has little to defend himself from such charges, so he frantically drags up stuff upon which McCain’s involvement has already been judged. McCain, even at the time, was quite open about the Keating affair, even putting it in his book, unlike Obama, who is still doing anything and everything he can do to bury reports of his relationship with Ayers.

    Given that rather obvious difference, you know as well as I do Obama wouldn’t be bringing this up, absent a certain level of desperation. And he is desperate, because he knows this stuff will cost him if he doesn’t keep a lid on it.

    Two more factoids that damage Obama:

    * Three of McCain’s fellow members of the Keating Five have endorsed Obama: Former senators Dennis DeConcini. John Glenn, and Donald W. Riegle. All three are Democrats — McCain was the only Republican in the group — and DeConcini and Riegle were among the more deeply implicated officials.

    Oops, huh? It appears brining this up now wasn’t the smartest thing to do… unless he knew he was going to be attacked on the point.

    I wonder now if Obama will reject those endorsements, given their involvement, eh?

    * Obama’s peple registered the Keating site they’re running, back on the 25th of last month. They knew this was going to come up.

  14. Grewgills says:

    Fact is Obama associated with leftist unrepentant terrorists.

    Now its terrorists? I guess by next week the charge will be that 8 year old Obama was building bombs.
    Obama’s association to Ayers is far less close than McCain’s ties to Liddy and Liddy is every bit as shady as Ayers. Is McCain’s association with the unrepentant Liddy reason to vote against him? If not, why not?

  15. Bithead says:

    Obama’s association to Ayers is far less close than McCain’s ties to Liddy and Liddy is every bit as shady as Ayers.

    Nice try. C for effort, and all that. But.. actually, no…

  16. Michael says:

    Nice try. C for effort, and all that. But.. actually, no…

    So, because Obama worked with Ayers to do what he thought was good for juvenile offenders, that means he’s associating with terrorists?

    Your implication, Bithead, is that a good person should not work with a bad person to accomplish something good.

  17. Sauce for the Goose says:

    Bithead,

    How do you explain the fact that John McCain is a proud friend of right-wing terrorist and convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy?

    How about Sarah Palin? Her husband, Todd, is an self-professed traitor to the United States by being a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.

    And back to McCain, how do you account for the fact that his father-in-law was a convicted felon and made his money with the help of local organized crime?

    When will you complain about that?

  18. Bithead says:

    So, because Obama worked with Ayers to do what he thought was good for juvenile offenders, that means he’s associating with terrorists?

    No, my implication, obviously, is that Obama is a bald faced liar.

    And is the position you expressed unique to Ayers, or are there others that Obama might have entagled himself with to the stated goal?

    At every turn, Obama has chose to allign himself with anti-Americansim. his wife…Wright, Ayers, Dorn, etc. As Berstien says this monring:

    But what is interesting to me is that not only did Obama not personally find anything especially obnoxious about Wright’s radicalism, anti-Americanism, ties to Farrakahn, and so on, or Ayers’ lack of regret for his terrorist past, he apparently didn’t expect that much of anyone else would care, either. How else do you explain why he didn’t jettison these individuals from his life before they could damage his presidential ambitions?

    There’s only one reason. He finds nothing wrong with, and agrees with the anti-American attitudes projected by the individuals we’ve listed here.

    Nor is this dscussion a diversion. As Boortz notes this morning:

    A presidential candidate who befriends or is befriended by an unrepentant terrorist is a real problem in my eye … though perhaps not in the eyes of those who hate America.

  19. davod says:

    “So, because Obama worked with Ayers to do what he thought was good for juvenile offenders, that means he’s associating with terrorists?”

    Actually,Sauce, Obama’s work with Ayers on education is much closer to terrorism than you might think. Ayer’s philosophy is to use the education system to change the country. He has been doing this for many years and it shows.

    The Chicago education project spent $160 million to change the education system. It failed to improve education in Chicago. What they did was funnel the money to activist organizations like ACORN.

    Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, discussed this in a 1985 interview:

    http://www.bafweb.com/2007/09/26/yuri-bezmenov-les-idiots-utiles-du-socialisme/

  20. Bithead says:

    When will you complain about that?

    You really don’t see any difference between the intentions of the people you list, and someone trying to eliminate the US as a country, outright? Because if THAT’s the case, your argument is not based in logic and thereby cannot be argued so.

    Not unlike support of Obama, itself.

  21. cian says:

    At this stage in the McCain campaign anything is worth a try. The ‘Celebrity’ ads seemed to work for a while and pushed the polls in his direction, so they’d be crazy not to try again.

    My sense is, if the polls don’t change in the next week or so, they’ll drop the negative stuff. If they do change, well, hold on to your hat.

  22. Michael says:

    How do you explain the fact that John McCain is a proud friend of right-wing terrorist and convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy?

    Liddy was a terrorist? Please explain.

    How about Sarah Palin? Her husband, Todd, is an self-professed traitor to the United States by being a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.

    I don’t think membership in the AIP is, by itself, enough to qualify as treason.

  23. Anon says:

    Bithead,

    So, in your mind, someone circumventing the constitution and advocating the shooting of ATF agents is somehow less dangerous than Ayers? Why can’t you just admit that they are both scum? Or, maybe you think head shots are more humane than bombings?

  24. Sauce for the Goose says:

    Bithead,

    You really don’t see any difference between the intentions of the people you list, and someone trying to eliminate the US as a country, outright?

    The Alaskan Independence party DOES want to destory the United States as we see it today. They want the Federal Government out of Alaska. That’s treason. And Sarah Palin’s husband is okay with that.

    G. Gordon Liddy actively worked to undermine a free and fair election process, plotted to have a member of the Democratic party assassinated, and plotted to plant a bomb in the Brookings Institute because they spoke out against the President. He has also advocated violence against members of Federal law enforcement. This is also working to destroy the United Stats by employing terrorist tacticts to ensure the victory of the Republican party. Widespread adoption of Liddy’s tactics would almost certainly resulted in civil war. You don’t have a problem with that?

    Organized crime, by definition, works to undermine the United States as a country by installing a “shadow government” in the neighborhoods it controls. Organized criminals actively work against the FBI and other members of law enforcement and are more than happy to kill any government official who gets in their way.

    Tell me again how any of them are different from Ayers?

  25. Michael says:

    No, my implication, obviously, is that Obama is a bald faced liar.

    Did he ever deny his involvement in the Wood Fund, or in pressing for legislation to have juveniles tried as juveniles? Where is the lie?

    And is the position you expressed unique to Ayers, or are there others that Obama might have entagled himself with to the stated goal?

    Nice try, but that’s a “When did you stop beating your wife” question if ever there was one.

    Look, here’s a hypothetical for you: Imagine an orphanage is on fire, and Bill Ayers is trying to get as many kids out as he can. He can’t save them all without your help, so what do you do Bithead? Do you associate with a terrorist, or let little orphan Annie burn?

    There’s only one reason. He finds nothing wrong with, and agrees with the anti-American attitudes projected by the individuals we’ve listed here.

    So an honest man would divorce his wife and let juveniles die? Maybe there’s more than one reason, Bithead.

  26. Sauce for the Goose says:

    I don’t think membership in the AIP is, by itself, enough to qualify as treason.

    Not under the Constitution, no. But the AIP itself certainly has treasonous goals.

  27. Concerned in Florida says:

    Would you hire a teacher if he/she launched their campaign for city council at Bill Ayers’ home? Would you even hire a person as a babysitter for your children if that person hung out in the home of a well-known, unrepentant terrorist who targeted your local police and the Pentagon – a man who to this day thinks he did the right thing and takes pictures of himself grinding his feet in the American flag? Yet, Obama is on the record as having called Bill Ayers a friend in the past (then Obama said uhhhh, he meant Ayers was just a business associate…. then he said uh… he meant Ayers was only an aquaintance.)

    Obama also says it’s not a big deal because the Pentagon part happened when he was eight. This makes it worse because that means Obama KNEW. It wasn’t like a long time friend just suddenly went off the deep end. Obama CHOSE Ayers to launch his political career in Chicago – the same Ayers who “coincidentally” was Obama’s neighbor when Obama was a student at Columbia University.

    There are already enough terrorists out to get us. We don’t need a President who will invite them directly into the White House for dinner.

  28. Sauce for the Goose says:

    Actually,Sauce, Obama’s work with Ayers on education is much closer to terrorism than you might think. Ayer’s philosophy is to use the education system to change the country. He has been doing this for many years and it shows.

    Working to change the political system through peaceful means is terrorism? Maybe I don’t know the meaning of the word, then…

  29. Michael says:

    Not under the Constitution, no. But the AIP itself certainly has treasonous goals.

    I guess it depends on your definition of “treason”, and how you view the Union. Do you consider the Southern secession as treason?

  30. davod says:

    Maybe subversion is a better word.

  31. Michael says:

    Obama also says it’s not a big deal because the Pentagon part happened when he was eight. This makes it worse because that means Obama KNEW. It wasn’t like a long time friend just suddenly went off the deep end. Obama CHOSE Ayers to launch his political career in Chicago – the same Ayers who “coincidentally” was Obama’s neighbor when Obama was a student at Columbia University.

    You do realize that Ayers is not some criminal on the run, right? He’s a distinguished professor at a well known university, he’s an active and respected member of his community. Obama isn’t the only person who’s association with him in that respect, would you similarly condemn every person that has a similar relationship with Ayers?

  32. Michael says:

    Maybe subversion is a better word.

    I think secessionist or independence would be the appropriate words.

  33. Michael says:

    Actually,Sauce, Obama’s work with Ayers on education is much closer to terrorism than you might think. Ayer’s philosophy is to use the education system to change the country. He has been doing this for many years and it shows.

    Yes, we can’t just let people go around teaching our kids things. Why, a nation of educated citizens would be terrible!

  34. davod says:

    “Look, here’s a hypothetical for you: Imagine an orphanage is on fire, and Bill Ayers is trying to get as many kids out as he can. He can’t save them all without your help, so what do you do Bithead? Do you associate with a terrorist, or let little orphan Annie burn?” Sorry Mate. hypotheticals don’t matter. Obama and Ayers, please in pod – fact not hypothetical. Obama is just the front man.

  35. Bithead says:

    The Alaskan Independence party DOES want to destory the United States as we see it today.

    Not particularly.
    They simply want to withdraw from it. That strikes me as aquite a bit different.

    Nice try, but that’s a “When did you stop beating your wife” question if ever there was one.

    So, you’re saying that the people involved in a cause don’t sully that cause if their history is questionable? Should we, as a hypothetical example, allow members of the American Nazi party to run the FRA, since they’re so good at keeping the trains on time?

    Working to change the political system through peaceful means is terrorism?

    Bombs are needed for this?

    So an honest man would divorce his wife

    Or else not marry her in the first place. Of course, that negtaes the idea that those positions are what helped to attract her to him in the first place, much like the others we’ve been pointing out.

    and let juveniles die

    Are you seriously suggesting that this is strictly and either/or? Come on…. And Davod answers this one correctly, as well.

    And before we go too far down the road of ‘those positions are not illegal’… I will suggest that misses the point. The whole point of exposing the relationship is the exposre of Obama’s anti-Americanism… and exposure which he knows his campaign will simply not survive.

  36. Bithead says:

    Why, a nation of educated citizens would be terrible!

    Kinda depends what they’re taught, huh?

  37. Michael says:

    Sorry Mate. hypotheticals don’t matter.

    They don’t matter, of you can’t answer it without either admitting that Obama did the right thing, or admitting that you’re a horrible human being.

  38. Michael says:

    So, you’re saying that the people involved in a cause don’t sully that cause if their history is questionable?

    Oh no, Ayers’s past definitely tainted the organizations he was a part of, but that doesn’t mean they it would be wrong for other people to be a part of that organization. I’m saying that it’s better to associate with a bad person to do the right thing, then to no associate with them and do the wrong thing. Things are right or wrong, good or bad, regardless of what William Ayers is doing.

    Are you seriously suggesting that this is strictly and either/or? Come on….

    You are saying that Obama was wrong to try and protect Juveniles, not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because Ayers was trying to accomplish the same thing. If that is your position, then evidently it is an either/or thing for you.

    Kinda depends what they’re taught, huh?

    No, it only depends on what you’re not taught.

  39. Anderson says:

    G. Gordon Liddy actively worked to undermine a free and fair election process, plotted to have a member of the Democratic party assassinated, and plotted to plant a bomb in the Brookings Institute because they spoke out against the President. He has also advocated violence against members of Federal law enforcement.

    Flying monkeys, why are you not refuting this?

    All that Obama needs is a TV spot quoting Liddy on how to kill a federal agent, and then McCain on how great Liddy is and how pleased he is to be on Liddy’s show.

    I mean, just imagine if Ayres had a left-wing talk radio show describing how to kill the feds, and Obama had appeared on it to say how he agrees with Ayres’s ideas. Y’all would be going BONKERS over that.

    But Liddy’s a Republican, so that doesn’t matter. Grow up.

  40. Bithead says:

    “Look, here’s a hypothetical for you: Imagine an orphanage is on fire, and Bill Ayers is trying to get as many kids out as he can. He can’t save them all without your help, so what do you do Bithead? Do you associate with a terrorist, or let little orphan Annie burn?”

    LOL… That’s not nearly the situation, now, is it?

    You are saying that Obama was wrong to try and protect Juveniles, not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because Ayers was trying to accomplish the same thing. If that is your position, then evidently it is an either/or thing for you.

    Talk about miscasting.

    No, it only depends on what you’re not taught

    Ah, so being taught in Obama’s former church… you know, the one he attended extra ‘black’ credit,until he saw it was a roadblock to his attaining power, teaching “America is the greatest sin against …” doesn’t matter.

    Right. Got it.

  41. Bithead says:

    They don’t matter, of you can’t answer it without either admitting that Obama did the right thing, or admitting that you’re a horrible human being.

    Oh, good show… A modern day “When did you stop being your wife” paradox.

    [ 50 100]
    Cred Meter

    Hmmm. Thought so.

  42. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    For any of you here to compare G. Gordon Liddy to William Ayers is sick. My suggestion, to settle the matter is to put Liddy and Ayers in the same room shut the door. Wait and see who comes out. Why cannot you lefties answer a question? Obama lies, you know it and you are willing to let a man who studies Alinsky, associated with Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, and Rezko. Was indoctinated early in life by Frank Davis, a communist. Those are the referrences in Obama’s resume. Where are his college records? Where are his list of achievements? If Obama wins, who will pay the price for this change he has yet to define? [Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.]

  43. Billy says:

    [Refers to since-deleted comment]

  44. Michael says:

    Oh, good show… A modern day “When did you stop being your wife” paradox.

    Not quite. The wife beating question is based on a false assumption, and either answer only validates the assumption.

    My hypothetical is different because there _is_ a good answer and a bad answer. The problem you and davod have is that the good answer undermines your justification for believing that Obama was wrong to work with Ayers.

    If you approach my hypothetical without the need to defend a pre-existing position, then the appropriate answer is easy and straight forward. For proof, take the above hypothetical and replace Ayers with somebody you don’t know, then answer if you work with them to save the poor kids or not. It’s much easier now, isn’t it? For all you know that person could be a serial killer, or working for al-Qaeda, but the fact that you don’t know means you don’t have to defend any pre-existing position held against them, making the answer easy.

    But the thing is, if the possibility that the unknown person was bad isn’t enough to stop you from acting correctly, then a certain knowledge that the person is bad shouldn’t stop you from acting correctly. Like I said before, the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of what William Ayers is doing.

  45. anjin-san says:

    If there is a single prominent politician at the national level who does not have a few questionable associations, I would love to know who they are…

  46. Bryan says:

    Nobody is calling Obama a terrorist. Sarah Palin said he pals around with terrorists. That’s different. It’s also true. He climbed the ladder of political success by embracing these kinds of people. It doesn’t matter that Ayers bombed places when Obama was 8, but it does matter that Ayers is unrepentent and shared a lot of time with Obama in intimate settings as an adult.

  47. Bithead says:

    Not quite. The wife beating question is based on a false assumption, and either answer only validates the assumption.

    No, that’s exactly my point. Yours is a false assumption.

    If there is a single prominent politician at the national level who does not have a few questionable associations

    Ah, yes, the ‘they all do it’ defense. How Clintonseque.

    Nobody is calling Obama a terrorist. Sarah Palin said he pals around with terrorists. That’s different. It’s also true.

    Correct. Anything that doesn’t directly address that point is a diversion.

  48. Michael says:

    No, that’s exactly my point. Yours is a false assumption.

    Which assumption, and how?

    Correct. Anything that doesn’t directly address that point is a diversion.

    The point I was making is that labeling Ayers as a “terrorist” and his association with Obama as “palling around with terrorists” is just an attempt to hide the fact that Ayers is trying to do good things, and Obama was trying to help him do them. That’s not a diversion, it’s perspective.

  49. G.A.Phillips says:

    I think you should probably prepare for a visit from the secret service.

    lol why?

    And seeing liberals worrying about people who actively worked to undermine a free and fair election process is just funny.

    damn I wish my vote counted, but you can wish in one hand and have a Democrats poop out illegal votes in the other and see witch one gets filled first.

  50. anjin-san says:

    Today’s polling numbers indicate that The VP debate did serious damage to McCain & he is now tanking nationwide. He appears to be in freefall in a number of key battleground states.

    I expect the howls of desperation from the right to get a lot louder. Its not hard to see why they don’t want to discuss the economy.

  51. Continuum says:

    Be on the lookout for the Bush Administration to create some kind of false flag operation in order to enhance McCain’s chances.

  52. Bithead says:

    Which assumption, and how?

    That Ayers was trying to ‘do good’

    That what Ayers was trying to do objectivly WAS good, or at least that most people would agree it was good, regardless of how you attempt to recast it.

    Ask any terrorist if what they’re doing is an ultimate good, and see what answer you get. They’ll invariably tell you what they’re doing is good and right.

    That, I suppose to be the largest part of the objection, to opponants of Obama brining this up; most people won’t think so.

  53. anjin-san says:

    Interesting to note that Palin is talking about Wright despite McCain’s having taken that subject off the table.

    Apparently McCain is no longer in control of his own campaign…

  54. Michael says:

    That Ayers was trying to ‘do good’

    That what Ayers was trying to do objectivly WAS good, or at least that most people would agree it was good, regardless of how you attempt to recast it.

    Well the article you linked had him fighting to have juveniles tried as juveniles instead of as adults, and his work on the Woods Fund was about reducing poverty.

    If you want to argue that one of both were “not good”, and argue that Obama’s involvement in them was therefore “not good”, be my guest. But don’t argue that Obama’s involvement was “not good” simply because William Ayers was also involved.

  55. madawaskan says:

    If you know about Quebec and it having a lot of the relative wealth and resources, hydropower, and threatening Canada- particularly the Maritime provinces then the Alaska secessionist stuff doesn’t look as “pretty” or “quaint”.

    America is fighting two wars, Palin spouts off about the vulnerability of America being held hostage by oil rich nations but she sees no problem with the fact that she is married to someone who belongs to that party and participated herself in a secessionist party. a party that wants to take the oil and run for their own selfish reasons and profit. The only reason they have that optin is because the Feds whom she derides are the very reason the oil is still there, and who has protected them.

    But ya she “cares” about the troops….

    It’s as if she couldn’t get far by staying with them but she couldn’t do it without them so keep the husband in the party to reap the benefits of belonging without tearning any of the direct stigma.

  56. madawaskan says:

    McCain probably should back off with the Ayers tie ins because the Democrats will fire right back wit something akin to that-which given the current conditions and crisis is a lot more relevant and a more direct association.

  57. Calvin B says:

    OMG! McCain and SARAH PALIN GET A LIFE! I will personally make sure that people in my surrounding area will not vote for you! This is utterly ridiculous how you both play politics!

    SARAH! you are supposed to be a washington “Outsider” yet you are acting like the biggest political Jerk there is!

    Also you NEED to stay away from the church issues! Becuase you are no clean birdie yourself!

    Both of you are silly! Running out ideas, advice and time!

    LOL!

  58. Grewgills says:

    Nice try. C for effort, and all that. But.. actually, no…

    If Ayers does matter, why doesn’t Liddy?

    For the record I don’t think either should, but if one does I don’t see how both don’t.

  59. John425 says:

    Seems like Joyner has thrown in the towel and joined the nutroots crowd. Some of their postings above border on the ridiculous.

    McCain should be on the attack all the time. The MSM won’t do the investigative job for him , so he has no choice.

    Obama HAS befriended domestic terrorists; Fannie Mae and other disgraced financial executives ARE in the inner circles of his campaign and Obama has been a Senatorial dilletante who rarely bothers to attend. The nation needs a President who won’t just ‘phone it in.

  60. Alex Knapp says:

    I wasn’t really anxious to weigh in here, but:

    Obama HAS befriended domestic terrorists; Fannie Mae and other disgraced financial executives ARE in the inner circles of his campaign and Obama has been a Senatorial dilletante who rarely bothers to attend. The nation needs a President who won’t just ‘phone it in.

    With the exact same quality of evidence being used to smear Obama, you could replace “Obama” in that sentence with “McCain” very easily.

    Perhaps instead of using the classic logical fallacy of guilt by association, we could instead focus on actual issues, actual experience, and actual voting records.

    By the standards people on the left and right are using, John425, you and I have identical political philosophies. It’s silly, and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

    The fact of the matter is that when a person is in politics, he has to deal with scumbags to get things does. That’s the long and short of it. Obama is no more “tied” to domestic terrorism and radicalism because he worked to keep juveniles out of prison with Ayres than John McCain is “tied” to segreation and Jim Crow because he worked on bills with Strom Thurmond when they were both in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It’s stupid. Let’s get to issues, shall we?

  61. Bithead says:

    Today’s polling numbers indicate

    … nothing whatever, other than some people’s willingness to spin any snippet of data they can get their hands on. Any poll out today is still dealing with pre-debate inputs.

    Wait a week and get back to us.

  62. Bithead says:

    why doesn’t Liddy?

    Because your spin not withstanding, Liddy wasn’t trying to kill the country.

  63. od says:

    The funny part is that most potential voters will agree with both charges, and half of them won’t bother voting at all, since they figure all the charges are true on all sides. Given a choice between two undesirables, close to 50% of the population will say “who cares?”.

  64. sam says:

    why doesn’t Liddy?

    Because your spin not withstanding, Liddy wasn’t trying to kill the country.

    Nah, just the Constitution.

  65. Obama44thpres says:

    No weapon forged against you [ Barack Obama] will prevail, and you [ Barack Obama] will refute every tongue that accuses you [ Barack Obama] . This is the heritage of the servants [ Barack Obama] of the LORD, and this is their [ Barack Obama] vindication from me,” declares the LORD. – Isaiah 54:17

    ” I [ God ] will send my terror ahead of you [ Barack Obama] and throw into confusion every nation you [ Barack Obama] encounter. I [ God ] will make all your [ Barack Obama] enemies turn their backs and run.” – Exodus 23:27

    The Lord will rescue me [ Barack Obama] from every evil attack and will bring me [ Barack Obama] safely to his heavenly kingdom. – 2 Timothy 4:18

    11 For he will command his angels concerning you [ Barack Obama] to guard you [ Barack Obama ] in all your ways; 12 they will lift you [ Barack Obama ] up in their hands, so that you [ Barack Obama ] will not strike your [his] foot against a stone. 13 You [ Barack Obama ] will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you [ Barack Obama ] will trample the great lion and the serpent. – Psalm 91:11-13

    I have given you [ Barack Obama ] authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you [ Barack Obama ]. – Luke 10:19

    It’s time for the American people to get it right and NOT vote for McCain-Palin, instead vote for change. It’s time for this country to turn the page and seek a new and better future for ourselves and our children.It’s time for REAL change in Washington, it’s time to elect Barack Obama for president !

    Obama-Biden are the wiser and stronger team to solve the crucial challenges we have in this nation and abroad !

    Amen.

  66. Grewgills says:

    Because your spin not withstanding, Liddy wasn’t trying to kill the country.

    1) No, just half of it.
    2) That does not answer the question.

    You may feel that Liddy is a less odious person than Ayers, but that doesn’t explain why McCain’s close relationship with an unrepentant felon that planned for the murder of opposing party operatives and the bombing of the Brookings Institute and later advocated the murder of ATF agents and a sitting president and first lady on his radio show matter?
    Is it because of the R?

  67. G.A.Phillips says:

    Obama-Biden are the wiser and stronger team to solve the crucial challenges we have in this nation and abroad !

    they are Abortionists you idiot, were do you people come from stupid land?

    man I’m sick of fools using the Bible they don’t understand.

  68. anjin-san says:

    Watching clips of McCain on the stump today. He looks like a man who is within shouting distance of completely losing it. Will he get even more erratic as we get closer to the election?

  69. davod says:

    “With the exact same quality of evidence being used to smear Obama, you could replace “Obama” in that sentence with “McCain” very easily.”

    A smear is something that is not true?

    What is not true about the Ayers/Obama connection or for that matter Obama’s connection to the Fannie May people and their money?

  70. rodney dill says:

    About time McCain called Obumble on his Lies

  71. G.A.Phillips says:

    Watching clips of McCain on the stump today. He looks like a man who is within shouting distance of completely losing it. Will he get even more erratic as we get closer to the election?

    lol why dude?

  72. rpkinmd says:

    The key issue with Ayers is not he was a terrorist but a 1960s Marxist radical. He is symbolic of Obama’s immersion in and with the sixties radical element to the point you must conclude he shares that world view.
    Here are a few of those:
    Jeremiah Wright
    Father Fleger
    Jodi Evans
    Mike Klonsly
    Several ACORM operative
    Endorsement by the New Party three times

    This is why he should be forced to talk about his associations, the extent of his involvement in radical Marxist activities is frightening.