While I agree that the Ayers stuff isn't going to defeat Obama, at this point, the GOP doesn't have that much left to try. It is certainly mobilizing their base, which I suppose they hope will salvage some closer down-ticket races, and it's probably the genesis of obstructionist tactics intended to thwart Obama's program once he's in office. Or maybe, figuring that their base is more likely to own weapons, they're getting psyched for extralegal means of winning. After all, we can't have a drug-dealing guy of the street socialist repainting the White House black.

However, you're probably giving too much credit to the anti-Obama stuff in the first place. Confederate Yankee is relying on Erick Ericson of Red State. This article misunderstands electoral fusion so badly it's almost incredible. Ericson's version.

Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let’s call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama’s New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.

It may be a simple concept, but not to Ericson. With 'fusion', which is still the practice in New York, if Obama won the Democratic nomination, and Obama won the New Party nomination, his vote total from these two lines would be totaled in comparison the the Republican nominee as well as any other minor party candidates. (Actually, in Hyde Park the GOP didn't bother and Obama won unopposed.) Fusion has nothing to do with determining the Democratic nominee. Fusion says that if Obama wins the Democratic primary (on his own) and the New Party primary, then his totals on those lines will be added. So if the general election is Republican 600, Obama as Democrat 500, Obama as New Party 101, then Obama is the winner. Ericson was probably confused because he couldn't wait to get to his perfervid ending.

What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

Now, I could see saying this about the 1960s Ayers, but to use it to describe the leftist union organizers at democratic socialists of the New Party is silly. Lapses like this make me suspect the accuracy of their investigation as a whole.

I'm surprised that you would confess, A.L. . . . to ever having that haircut. What were you thinking?!?!?!?

Really? I have the same haircut today!! ... actually, not...

A.L.

Politically, the attack is as unfocused and incoherant as the rest of the campaign. The only real weight to this is Obama's pattern of association with revolutionaries (not just radicals). But McCain had his chance months ago to mount this charge and chose not to. Now he's doing it out of desperation, and it shows.

He's already ruled out the really damaging Reverand Wright issue, and that really hurts because the list of names that Obama has shared a gunuinely significant amount of his life with is worrying.

I don't think the Ayres issue is that big a deal in and of itself, but the pattern it is a part of raises a real question of just what Obama is all about.

I agree; I think that if this had been raised in April or May by Hillary or Edwards, it would have had significant impact on the Obama "brand." But today, it's old news to most people, and I don't seeing it having a significant positive effect for McCain.

A.L.

As an observer from afar I find it unbelievable that the left in the US is so comfortable with Obama's ongoing pattern of dubious associations.

Ayers is a self confessed, unrepentant, domestic terrorist who regrets he didn't go further, Wright is the worst kind of racist preacher, whom a true Christian wouldn't even regard as a genuine churchman, Rezko is a convicted fraud, and Khalidi is a supporter of terrorist who have been attacking the USA for 30 years.

All of these long term associations argue towards Obama having, at the very least, terrible judgement, and at the worst, an agreement with at least a decent modicum of their political views.

He has played the notoriously corrupt Chicago political game, identifies himself as "Afro-American" when he is half white, three eighths Arab, and does so purely for political gain.

That is not the sort of person I would be voting for for any sort of political office, let alone that of President.

Larry, the three-eighths Arab stuff is nonsense, Protocols of the Elders of Kenya drivel. Where is "afar"—Mars? Did they mention Charles Keating out there?

A.L., your sang froid regarding Obama is a little depressing to me, but then I'm inherently more conservative than you, I think. (I would guess in non-economic Libertarian issues we're pretty much in lockstep, though).

Who Obama is, what he believes, and how he would govern are all questions that are very much in play, and there's less than a month to go until the election.

I have zero love for McCain, but at least I think I know the parameters within which he would serve. With Obama, we might get anything with regards to guiding principles. (He's basically held every possible position on the issues I care about, so it really is a crap shoot.) Personal temperament, strength under pressure, ability to make unpopular decisions, all unknowns.

That doesn't worry you?

On the other hand, I do know how his campaign has operated, and if his Administration follows suit, I'm thinking you're going to have four years of "D'oh!" coming at you, because you are a classical Liberal. Wealth of Constitutional remedies notwithstanding.

McCain has done a wonderful job over the past of proving himself not fit to be dog catcher. The Ayers thing is the topping on the cake.

Does anyone have any idea what John McCain is talking about anymore. Suspend the campaign, vote/don't vote for the bailout, bailout home mortgages, bailout mortgages and let the taxpayer pay for it, Obama is tied to the terrorist Ayers, but he doesn't bring this up at the debate?

This guy wants us to believe that he will be a steady hand at the tiller? Now, to top it off, not only does he stand behind Palin's skirts, he does the same with his wife.

I used to have a lot of admiration for this guy. He is behaving in a way that makes me think he listens to whatever the last person who got his attention says and then repeats it.

Steve Schmitt will go down as the archetype of a useless campaign strategist. He has buried his candidate.

#6 from Larry at 1:18 am on Oct 11, 2008

Larry, I do not know where you are from, but I will tell you that American politics is not and never has been gentlemen's game. This election and the candidates are not much different than a lot of campaigns.

"If Obama violates the Constitution in office, there are all kinds of remedies."

You really are naive. If Obama wins, do you seriously think a Democratic Congress is going to do anything to him? They won't even investigate Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, even though they were deeply involved in the travesty that led to the present financial crisis. Hell, Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer wasn't disciplined in any way much less thrown out of Congress as he should have been.

If Obama wins, he will be my President, even though he's a Marxist.

Sadly, the same is not true of the left. They reject anyone who is not liberal, they refuse to discipline their own and there's no way in hell they would use any "remedies" against Obama no matter what he does. If he wins, he will have free rein to implement every socialist policy his heart desires.

If America survives that (and it's highly questionable that it will), then the only recourse will be the ballot box, just as it was with the idiot savant Jimmy Carter.

"I used to have a lot of admiration for this guy."

I have never admired McCain, found his association with Keating to be a strong indicator of a poor moral compass and was thoroughly disgusted by his stances on immigration and McCain-Feingold (with which he is forever joked to his everlasting shame.) I had no intentions of voting for him for President until he selected Sarah Palin. At least, I thought, she would argue vociferously for her viewpoints, most especially on energy policy. God knows the present "policy" (if you want to call it that) is idiotic in the extreme.

Hell would freeze over before I would vote for anyone with Obama's socialist views, but that seems to be what Americans want. Apparently selling your birthright for a mess of pottage is the in thing to do now.

In the 1960's and 1970's "lots of people" didn't go around trying to blow up other people, public buildings, etc. Ayers did. I trust AL was of a different sort of protester.

Or maybe, figuring that their base is more likely to own weapons, they're getting psyched for extralegal means of winning.

I'll just let my eyebrows stay raised for a bit on that one.

I thought I didn't dream of killing anybody to my left last night, but if AJL wants to argue that I did, well, then that's probably the case. He knows the black hearts of us Obama skeptics better than we know them ourselves.

I've offered my own take on why Ayers matters on prior threads. Be that as it may, I think this issue is a case study of how politics as described in civics textbooks differs from politics as it is practiced. In my opinion, Obama knew he had a potentially fatal liability in his deep and longstanding relationship with Ayers, and it was important to manage if, how, and when the facts came out.

Would Obama have survived the primaries if Clinton had had access to the wealth of information that's now known to those who pay attention to these things?

Instead, Obama and Axelrod have brought things from "a guy who happens to live in the neighborhood" through to "eh, all that stuff is old news, spun by crazed Republicans". Here's the "Yawn, boring" interview with Charlie Gibson from earlier this week. Both Obama and the mainstream media are happy to leave it at that.

Bottom line, the economy is what turns out to matter most this time around. A majority of Americans are willing to try moving the economy farther away from laissez-faire and closer to extensive regulation under Obama's leadership, so that's what we are going to get. What McCain's alternative proposals are, I don't think I could say. Obama's heart is probably more into statist solutions, and McCain's heart less, but that's a guess.

"Obama's heart is probably more into statist solutions, and McCain's heart less, but that's a guess." McCain's sponsorship of McCain-Feingold, support for the odious amnesty "solution", his "leadership" of the 14 Senators who destroyed Bush's ability to nominate judges and his recent offer to pay off the excess value of homes purchased by people who could not afford them would argue otherwise. The only difference between McCain and a true liberal is his stances on taxes and abortion. And even some liberals would agree with him on those.

JFK would be to the right of McCain were he alive today.

That's me in February 1970 at a demonstration called "The Day After". I helped coordinate a demonstration in Westwood with the members of the RYM II - the group left behind when Ayers and Dohrn split off from the SDS. I was in high school.

Did you then go on to kill people with bombs? Did you get a Get Out of Jail Free card for those you did kill? Do you wish you had done more?

I could go on forever, but you, sir, are no Bill Ayers.

So help me understand, guys, how by painting Obama as more of a socialist - in a time when everyone is afraid of another Great Depression - buys anything in voter mindshare?

We're idiotic enough to believe people learn and adapt and don't keep ramming their heads into brick walls? You certainly have an unavoidable point that wanting Mommy to come tuck you is way more comforting than having to lay your head down on a rock. I sure wish I was ten again, with a new bike and a new BB gun and time would just freeze.

In the meantime, how do I get a jump on the WPA?

"JFK would be to the right of McCain were he alive today."

Well, d'uh.

I agree with Armed Liberal that this line of attack has no chance to succeed, because I think "It's the economy, stupid."

I don't think there's a real question whether conservatives will talk about Barack Obama's radical friends, whether anyone else is listening or not. They will talk about them. The kind of people the soon to be president likes hate people like them, and truly, deeply, murderously hate America, and have expressed these hatreds frequently, flamboyantly ("God damn America!"), persistently over long periods of time (not just in youthful phases) and with bombs and flag-stomping. That's red meat.

The real questions are only: should these things be discussed during the election or only after it, and should this "red meat" talk be part of the campaign itself or kept out of it?

Politely keeping Barack Obama's dirty secrets secret till after he's elected isn't a real option. (And yes, these things are still secret to some extent. Barack Obama lies and evades on these topics, and the mainstream media directs attention away from the key points.) Partly because conservatives find this stuff genuinely offensive, and partly because they are desperate as the election goes down the gurgler for them, and partly because the are angry because it seems to them that the economic woes being blamed on the Republican Party ought to be pinned on the Democratic Party.

But as part of the campaign itself, or only outside of it? That's the only real choice.

I think that John McCain is right about this, as is Armed Liberal, and conservative activists pressing that these political weapons now be used are wrong and in denial.

It's understandable that they are angry with John McCain, as he does not seem to be fighting all out. But the political battlefield is not what they think it is and want it to be.

Conservatives want to believe in an older, better, simpler time, that only partly ever existed in reality, and whose bones and sinews are still waiting to be stirred under the blotched and flabby skin of present day America.

They think: scratch Paris Hilton, or at least a community with too many Paris Hilton types, if not her personally, and you'll find Norman Rockwell toughness and American virtue, waiting to be roused if only the right words can be found.

By the standards of this ideal America, Barack Obama's friends are completely disqualifying in a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. Black skin isn't. (Colin Powell would have been a shoo-in, especially if he had done a Mitt Romney and suddenly discovered he was pro-life.) But kill-the-pigs flag-stomping America damning hate sure is.

In reality, it isn't.

The kind of person who provokes vomiting, head-exploding, hysterical rage and hatred just by existing is Sarah Palin, the good mother who loves her babies instead of killing them, and who took on corruption and beat it instead of joining in it, Chicago style.

Not the race hate preacher Jeremiah Wright. Not the terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. Not the criminal fixer Tony Rezko. Not any of the other friends of Barack Obama.

Conservatives are deeply in denial about that.

They keep waving the evidence of what the friends of Obama are like. But no matter how high they hold up the burned flags, no matter how angrily they shake them, no matter how loudly they shout that this is all true, they will never get an adequate political response, because the country they are appealing to does not exist.

McCain lives off the dubious business his convicted-felon father-in-law set up. I'll put that up against Obama's property deal with Rezko. His vice presidential candidate is married to an apparent secessionist, a member of a political party whose founder were murdered in what looks like some sort of arms deal gone wrong. Kind of a glass houses problem here.

Looking at the videos, I'm having a hard time deciding who is into "hating". Well. actually, I'm not.

If you need any help with that, Andrew, drop by Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. If you don't find hatred there then your standards are so screwed up that they can't be fixed.

#19 from Antimedia:

"If you need any help with that, Andrew, drop by Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. If you don't find hatred there then your standards are so screwed up that they can't be fixed."

Antimedia, one of Andrew J. Lazarus's links, in the word "videos" is to the Daily Kos.

A personal note to AL re: Hair

My Father used to say: "Let it gray--but let it stay!"

David Blue: Although I have always found your analysis of events lately to track strongly with my own beliefs, I've yet to query you directly, so here goes.

If , as you say, the country the conservatives are appealing to does not exist (a rather generalized statement to be sure, considering the almost pure 50-50 split in the last two Presidential elections) to what do you attribute it's demise? Or is it your belief that such a country never truly existed in the first place?

While "the Ayers argument" isn't an election-winner, I think this (link) should be and it could be, if the public, as indicated by Gallup polls, had not decided very simply to respond to bad economic news on a Republican president's watch by throwing the Republican bums out.

The problem is not any more that John McCain is not saying the right things. He is saying the right things. The problem is not any more that Sarah Palin was badly prepared for her first interviews and her media roll-out was botched. She was, and it was, and it was embarrassing to her fans, including me, but after her satisfactory performance in the vice-presidential debate, she's over it.

The problem is that in a grave economic crisis, it's politically fatal to get the blame for it. And Barack Obama, with an overwhelming money advantage and an even more overwhelming supportive media advantage, and his own great gifts as a communicator, has stuck his political opponents with the blame for this crisis.

There is no room to make the Republican case on energy and fighting corruption in Washington. That's not what the headlines are about, and that's not what people are thinking about. Sarah Palin could talk all day every day about energy, and in this news climate it would not be reported let alone effective. The same for John McCain and the surge.

When nobody's willing to listen to the best arguments you have, there is nothing much to be done till they are willing to listen, which might be after the election.

What kind of protester kills people? What kind of man hangs around an entire series of murderers?

This isn't a winning argument? I guess the entire character issue is dead.

Now I guess the next demo candidate can be a NAMBLA member.

The bakruptcy of the Left is on display with Obama. Each election they run a more and more degenerate candidate.

Just one question, do you think Obama could get a security clearance?

I rest my case.

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"What kind of protester kills people?"

Someone fit to direct the education of children, presumably so that more of them grow up to think more like him.

Though I would not call Ayers a killer, just a terrorist, a bomber and an enemy of America. A killer could at least teach efficiency. Ayers is not that good an example.

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"What kind of man hangs around an entire series of murderers?"

One who may subsequently be called "Mister President."

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"This isn't a winning argument? I guess the entire character issue is dead."

No, it can still be played against people like Sarah Palin.

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"Now I guess the next demo candidate can be a NAMBLA member."

It would be a moral step up from Barak Obama, legislative killer of born alive unwanted babies.

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"The bakruptcy of the Left is on display with Obama. Each election they run a more and more degenerate candidate."

Never again though. I take some small comfort from the thought that after 2009, no worse man will ever be made President, because there are no worse men.

When you elect a baby-killer as your head of government and head of state; literally, a guy who once needlessly made it his business to ensure that as far as it was within his power, not a single tiny baby should escape death, by no matter how miraculous a chance, after they were marked for extermination, you are no longer descending into moral perdition. You are there. There are no more moral steps downward to take.

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"Just one question, do you think Obama could get a security clearance?"

Yes. Some remarkably nasty people have gotten security clearances, lately, if they were on the more politically correct side of things.

#24 from ThomasJackson:

"I rest my case."

In vain, alas. The great American public does not care. Nor does the great Australian public.

#22 from virgil xenophon:

"If , as you say, the country the conservatives are appealing to does not exist (a rather generalized statement to be sure, considering the almost pure 50-50 split in the last two Presidential elections) to what do you attribute it's demise? Or is it your belief that such a country never truly existed in the first place?"

Ouch! You were right to call me on this one. Such a sweeping statement deserved a challenge.

I think that solid, clear, embodied ideals of the kind that are necessary to inspire men, women and children to the heroic efforts that the good life requires never entirely exist in the material world, nor are they myths to be debunked. (This by the way, immediately marks me out as a non-Christian, since Christians believe that there was and is only one absolutely necessary hero and ideal, and He was perfectly and entirely fact, without sins, that is without shortcomings.)

In one way, inspiring models are as real as anything can be, in another way they're totally lame and never stand up to examination.

Hmm. That requires an example. And I'm hijacking this thread. I'll provide my example in a post.

OK, posted.

So: what I'm trying to say is, the ideal will always be valid, and it will always be part of America, inspiring Americans to behave better than they would otherwise and make America achieve more than it would otherwise, so I was wrong to say unreservedly that this America does not exist; but conservatives are appealing to something that also has only so much material, political mobilizing power at any given time, and for now they are way, way off, too optimistic, in how much weight they can put on the shoulders of this ideal.

Politically, the spirit that says, gosh-darn it, you can't go to a church like that, and have friends like that, and do things like that and become president! may be an inspiring mouse, but with the demographics we have, and the changed way of life we have and the ways its changed our sense of allowable limits, it's still just a mouse.

It wasn't always. There was a time not too long ago when a man like Barack Obama could not have been elected no matter how sweet his voice was or how charming his smile and his children were, but things have changed.

I think the "read and weep" stats I quoted in another thread showing the public think that mainstream media coverage of the candidates in this election is fair shows that. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, which means as far as anyone who thinks they are being fair is concerned, Barack Obama has not stepped over any taboo lines, and anyone who suggests that he has is using racially tinged language, that is, they are revealing themselves as racist and dishonest.

I think this is politically soluble. If societies that were at war with themselves were burning up resources that were given once for all at the foundation and could never be replenished, it would be impossible to explain the career of Caesar Augustus or the Middle and New Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt.

But it's not going to be easy.

Reality check (again).

Yes. Some remarkably nasty people have gotten security clearances, lately, if they were on the more politically correct side of things.

Robert Hanssen was a conservative when he wasn't busy being a spy, as indeed were most of the recent moles. Would you care to elaborate who these nasty politically correct people are?

The level of projection here is enormous.

Kos is calling for the total defeat of the Republican Party. Your guys are setting up a lynch mob. Big difference. (What exactly is Terrorist Obama going to do, anyway? Smuggle a bomb into the White House??)

While it is probable that AL is correct in the overall point of this post, there are a few points with which I disagree strongly.

But what's important is that branding someone as a "crazy 60's radical" isn't itself a very powerful political message. Because lots of people were, and lots of people know them and know they were, and we're all pretty harmless these days (in fact, we were pretty harmless back then, as well).

I see a number of things I can disagree with in this statement, but perhaps the most alarming is the amount of growing disagreement I have heard in the last five years with the statement "and we're all pretty harmless these days". I'm in GenX, and in talking to members of the Silent, GenX and GenY generations, I have often heard the refrain "The Boomers are ruining this country." This from people who I know are strongly left, right, or center. I also think that what a lot of these people mean by Boomers are the "crazy 60's radicals," of all political persuasions, who are now consolidating power; though many have not quite drawn that connection consciously yet. So far Social Security, and to a much lesser extent foreign policy, have been the main coalescing points for this sentiment, but it is growing. That is why I think assuming that "crazy 60s radicals" should be seen as "pretty harmless these days" may be a very dangerous assumption as I believe there is growing sentiment against it.

It's a losing argument for tactical reasons - people have heard about this and largely discounted it,

I think a lot of people have heard about it, but don't know how recent and deep it is and so think this is something that happened a long while back and that Obama 'reformed' from it. It fundamentally clashes too much with the image Obama is projecting, and is generally sustained by the MSM, so it is ignored due to the evidence in front of their eyes. In this your end result is correct, though it does leave open the possibility that some new, major, piece of information could blow the whole thing back open.

that every American knows is that in the Great Depression, FDR was elected and did a bunch of stuff that was perceived as Socialist but that saved the country.

While more politically active and historically knowledgeable people may know this, I think the average American doesn't really think 'Socialist' in context with FDR unless pressed, and then they are uncomfortable with it. I think most of the more Socialistic New Deal programs are seen more as equivalent to a church soup kitchen, an organization (in this case the government) giving out a helping hand to those who need it which stopped when they didn't.

No matter who wins, he'll be my President.

I believe in this. When Clinton was President, I may have disagreed with him and privately thought him a fool, but I was never disrespectful publically. Aside from telling people he always reminded me of the stereotypical used car sales man :)

However, I think Conservatives are mad. They are mad and tired of what they perceive as abusive treatment from the other side and they are coming to the stage where they're "mad and not gonna take it any more". Most (though not all, by any means) treated Clinton in the respectful manner you advocate no matter how much they may have disagreed with him. Yet, look at how Bush has been treated in circumstances when traditionally unity could be expected in time of war. When it came time for Supreme Court picks, conservatives allowed Ginsberg and Breyer on the court with little real fight (at least in terms of modern times), even after Bork and got repaid with the fights over Alito and Roberts. I think that conservatives feel that they have been played for suckers and in the process have had the rug yanked out from under them and the country pushed in a direction they fundamentally disagree with because of it. Should Obama be elected I predict that he won't be accepted by his opponents any more than Bush has been, and quite possibly less. Worse, Obama is definitely too far to the left behind his facade to ever be perceived as a uniter.

StargazerA5

David: You end by saying "it's not going to be easy" to solve the dilemma conservatives find themselves in, but I would ask: for what exact reasons? What are the exact currents that comprise the stream against which conservatives must swim, and what are the tributaries that feed this stream? Is it not through the efforts of people like Obama and his minions in the academy, the MSM and Hollywood that the conditions have been created through a some forty year process of re-wiring the hard drive of the American public such that, as if by osmosis, the neural pathways have been conditioned to be receptive to only one set of assumptions? And does this not include the concept of "white guilt" that leads many whites to follow Obama in hopes of expiating their "sins?" All, all of this, combining with Obama's natural gifts as an orator to create the perfect storm of conditions which allows for the transcendence of a cult of personality that is almost impervious to facts?

And, in response, what sort of alternate paradigm would you construct to alter the "pictures in their heads" (to use a term first coined by the late V.O. Key) that Obamites have?

Stargazer A5: I was going to reply to AL along similar lines as yours but I see you've beaten me to the punch--eveb though I'm from the war years generation(1939-1945) that preceded the boomers--in fact when we were in our twenties we were often lumped in with the boomers in the public mind.

AJL wrote in #18 --

McCain lives off the dubious business his convicted-felon father-in-law set up. I'll put that up against Obama's property deal with Rezko. His vice presidential candidate is married to an apparent secessionist, a member of a political party whose founder were murdered in what looks like some sort of arms deal gone wrong. Kind of a glass houses problem here.

This as a follow-up to #1 and a response to #13. Glass houses problem? There's a better name; it's tu quoque. Not so effective in discovering the truth--whereever that path might lead. But tu quoque is a standard courtroom tactic, where the objectives are to (1) Divert attention from what can't be challenged, and (2) Discredit the opposition.

In that, AJL is employing the script that Axelrod's campaign and much of the mainstream media has been following for months, to great effect. And, as David Blue showed, to the approval of the American public.

I'd advise readers to follow AJL's link to page 3 of the New Republic article on Cindy McCain. (I thought it was an informative backgrouder, sharp knives aside: McCain as Michael Corleone's daughter's husband). I also benefitted from browsing the first five or so comments. They provide perspectives that TNR's editors and AJL somehow missed. For instance, the "that" in "I'll put that up against Obama's property deal with Rezko" refers to events that transpired before Cindy's birth.

Finally, per (1) and (2) above, let's put the Corleone-in-law narrative against the entire Obama-Rezko relationship and Ayers and Dohrn and Wright and Pfleger and the Black Muslims and Mayor Daley's "Combine" and Alinsky.

AJL's okay with that, and so is a majority of the American people, at least to the extent that these relationships have been exposed and explained outside of blogs.

Incidentally, I'll bet that after the Inauguration, the media will begin to wake up and follow the leads unearthed by Stanley Kurtz et al. A string of embarrassing stories will follow, as journalists prove to themselves and others that they aren't in the tank. Like Bill Clinton, Obama will come to feel deep anger about the way he's persecuted, and the unfairness of the bias against him. Any takers?

#23 David Blue

There is no room to make the Republican case on energy and fighting corruption in Washington.

The Republicans had 8 years to make their case for energy and corruption in Washington, David. And what did America get? A break with Kyoto, a war for oil, spiking energy prices, no comprehensive energy policy, Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens, Alberto Gonzalez and a 2-page list of government corruption and abuse.

You seem to be under the quaint impression that this can all be wiped away to begin at page 1 during the campaign.

One of the points you also want to ignore is that, while perhaps the economic crises has finally focused America and the media's attention on things that actually matter, this should always be the case as there are in every election issues far more important than the silly one you and others here keep on flogging.

This type of campaigning itself and the attitudes that it brings to selecting leaders has gotten us in to this very situation you blame for not allowing Republicans to employ it ONCE AGAIN for the current election.

This is a breathtakingly cynical, partisan, destructive and misguided approach that speaks to a mindset happy to make others suffer for the implementation of their own beliefs. Sounds a lot like dangerous religious zealotry to me (and your continual referral to your anti-choice views suggest it applies to you).

#28 from Andrew J. Lazarus:

"Would you care to elaborate who these nasty politically correct people are?"

Here's one: (link) (link).

That's what I mean.

#28 from Andrew J. Lazarus:

"(What exactly is Terrorist Obama going to do, anyway? Smuggle a bomb into the White House??)"

Mess up the careers of people who tell the truth and are doing good work. Set up official language rules that systematically falsely interpret what's going on. Set up artificial barriers saying A can't talk to B. Explicitly or tacitly encourage breaches of discipline, politicizing the CIA and other organizations as much as possible and not punishing those who are speaking out of turn and being blatantly political, as long as they please the President. Can ongoing operations and blame his predecessor(s) for their failure. Apologize to enemies for crimes imputed to his predecessor(s), momentarily making himself look good at the cost of making America look bad and be on the hook in moral terms and perhaps for reparations permanently, on the basis of things conservatives will not agree are true, thus lastingly inflaming domestic bitterness. Sign treaties that undermine American sovereignty. Leave allies in the lurch, making it harder to recruit local allies in future...

Mind you, I would do that last one too, because there are areas where I don't look for allies. And George W. Bush encouraged disrespect for law by not calling people on politicization in the CIA, publication of official secrets and so on. I'm not saying every abuse would be a first. I'm just pointing out that the American President has endless ways to screw things up in wartime. He doesn't need to smuggle a bomb into the White House.

Following #34: As far as domestic policy, I expect that Obama will follow Bush's lead in translating pleasant and politically-correct fantasies into policy initiatives (*). The shared notions are based on the (scientifically) discredited Blank Slate theory and its corrollary, "equal opportunities always lead to equal outcomes."

Of course, to the extent he thinks about such things, McCain seems inclined to agree with these ideas. But he lacks the fervor of Bush and the lifelong committment of Obama, and would be modestly preferable on those grounds.

---

• I misspoke. Obama has nothing in common with that goose-stepping archconservative ultrarightwing fiend W. Nothing!

#33 from Vista:

"The Republicans had 8 years to make their case for energy and corruption in Washington, David. And what did America get?"

I yield to few in my contempt for the late, unlamented bicameral Republican federal legislative majority, and high on the list of reasons I like Sarah Palin is her energy and effectiveness in taking on a corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska. I think she'd be an ideal complement to John McCain, an admirably mean old man who knows where the bodies are buried, and with his guidance I'd like her to take Walking Tall (2004) to Washington.

Sheriff Stan Watkins: [after Chris wins the election, he pulls up to address the police force] Sheriff.
Chris Vaughn: Watkins.
Sheriff Stan Watkins: You won the election. Congratulations. But we do have a tradition of professional courtesy up here. And I can personally vouch for each and every one of these men. They're good deputies.
Chris Vaughn: You're all fired.

Sarah Palin would rip into political corruption. That's what she does. Barack Obama is a creature of political corruption. He'd further it. That's what he does. I prefer her.

Re: #30 from virgil xenophon...

I don't know. I only know that these are immensely important questions.

AJL-

Looking at the videos, I'm having a hard time deciding who is into "hating". Well. actually, I'm not.

takes a look around this thread:

"Now I guess the next demo candidate can be a NAMBLA member."

It would be a moral step up from Barak Obama, legislative killer of born alive unwanted babies.

"The bakruptcy of the Left is on display with Obama. Each election they run a more and more degenerate candidate."

Never again though. I take some small comfort from the thought that after 2009, no worse man will ever be made President, because there are no worse men.

When you elect a baby-killer as your head of government and head of state; literally, a guy who once needlessly made it his business to ensure that as far as it was within his power, not a single tiny baby should escape death, by no matter how miraculous a chance, after they were marked for extermination, you are no longer descending into moral perdition. You are there. There are no more moral steps downward to take.

Yeah, I'm not having a hard time deciding who's into "hating" either, AJL. Nor am I having a hard time telling who's the "kind of person who provokes vomiting, head-exploding, hysterical rage and hatred", and who's not.

And no, it ain't Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin would rip into political corruption. That's what she does. Barack Obama is a creature of political corruption. He'd further it. That's what he does. I prefer her.

Obama is running against McCain, David. And McCain is 4 more years of the same thing that you profess to dislike about the last 8.

Nevertheless, I cannot let your misperception about Palin go unchallenged.

Palin Accepted $25,000 in Gifts, Alaska Records Show:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has made a crackdown on gift-giving to state officials a centerpiece of her ethics reform agenda, has accepted gifts valued at $25,367 from industry executives, municipalities and a cultural center whose board includes officials from some of the largest mining interests in the state, a review of state records shows.

The 41 gifts Palin accepted during her 20 months as governor include honorific tributes, expensive artwork and free travel for a family member. They also include more than $2,500 in personal items from Calista, a large Alaska native corporation with a variety of pending state regulatory and budgetary issues, and a gold-nugget pin valued at $1,200 from the city of Nome, which lobbies on municipal, local and capital budget matters, documents show.

Trooper-Gate Report Finds Palin Abused Power in Firing Monegan:

The just-released Trooper-Gate report finds that Sarah Palin abused her power in the firing of Walt Monegan, by violating an Alaska law holding that "each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

I could go on, but you are just as capable of doing something that you don't seem to have done prior to making your sweeping assertions: find plenty of evidence supporting the idea that she is no more immune to corruption than John "Keating Five" McCain.

Has the media turned their attention to McCain's connections to Abramoff yet, BTW? Perhaps that should be looked into a bit further in the next few weeks.

The latest Ayers "revelation" is that three years after Bernadine Dohrn joined a large Chicago law firm, Michelle Obama began employment at the exact same firm. Now, if I were Stanley Kurtz, I'd point out that the two women could have hatched any number nefarious plots—it would be irresponsible not to speculate. Of course, it's also possible that since the firm has over 500 lawyers and who knows how many support personnel, that they never met. But you could hardly get yahoos to the polls that way.

Like Bill Clinton, Obama will come to feel deep anger about the way he's persecuted, and the unfairness of the bias against him.

Whether Obama would feel such anger is not clear. What is clear is that during the Clinton years the Mainstream Conservative Media were featuring lurid fantasies about the Clintons' involvement in the murder [sic] of Vince Foster, and the current Republican candidate who has such high standards for Bristol Palin was telling a vicious homophobic "joke" about Chelsea Clinton.

BTW, Sarah Palin as anti-corruption Joan of Arc is yesterday's story. Today we know otherwise.

There's one additional point I'd like to make about the source of the false information that people like David Blue and many others above thread are happy to propagate about Obama.

You're presidential candidates have been lying to you through their teeth for months now.

Not only are they lying about Obama, his record and his positions, but also about their own records.

You'd think this would piss some people off, being taken for such mindless rubes who will believe any utterance that issues forth from the mouths of these towering figures of Honor and Integrity.

What is truly amazing is how even reasonably intelligent people who have access to information that provides contradictory evidence to many of their claims will dismiss it on the basis of distrust for the media or an inherent hatred for Obama.

What is also amazing is how late many people are in coming to the realization that this political model, built by Karl Rove et al., is a house of cards that has fallen. McCain/Palin being the most prominent examples of this.

If there is anything good to come out of our current mess, than the withering death of this approach to government is it.

Vista, the "they lie, we tell the truth" line is kinda dull to me. If I wanted to spend the time, I could build a fairly massive list of material misrepresentations by both sides.

And I'd find each side's advocates far more credible if they would acknowledge that; wearing partisan blinders marks you as someone whose vision is severely limited - and hence your arguments as less interesting.

A.L.

I think that people supporting a Chicago machine politician for president complaining about "abuse of power" by Sarah Palin must have had their sense of irony extracted at an early age.

You're presidential candidates have been lying to you through their teeth for months now.
...
If there is anything good to come out of our current mess, than the withering death of this approach to government is it.

You know, this kind of thing makes me really glad we keep you around here. It's so cute. Like believing in rainbow-horned unicorns that only do what's right. Good luck with all that dream implementation you're so jazzed about. Be sure to blame the other guys if it doesn't work out.

#42, and re my #44: Sorry, fighting snark with snark is not what we aim for. Too easy. Apologies.

AL-

Vista, the "they lie, we tell the truth" line is kinda dull to me. If I wanted to spend the time, I could build a fairly massive list of material misrepresentations by both sides.

Actually, AL, I'll be happy to call your bluff on that. Go ahead and put together your list - please do make sure it includes the stuff your "buddies" Patterico and Confederate Yankee have been saying about Obama - and we'll see which campaign has been more guilty of misrepresentation this cycle. Because I'm pretty sure this is one year when the "a pox on both your houses" stance doesn't really reflect the underlying truth of what's been going on.

#42 from Armed Liberal:

"Vista, the "they lie, we tell the truth" line is kinda dull to me. If I wanted to spend the time, I could build a fairly massive list of material misrepresentations by both sides."

Oh yeah. No conservative in big politics can say that, because the mainstream media will misquote them and use them in partisan attacks, the way they did to Karl Rove when he said both sides were playing too mean, and the mainstream media boys misrepresented him as saying Republicans were going over the line. But we can, so we should. Both sides now are taking unfair shots, constantly.

#42 from Armed Liberal:

"And I'd find each side's advocates far more credible if they would acknowledge that; wearing partisan blinders marks you as someone whose vision is severely limited - and hence your arguments as less interesting."

A.L. I like the idea of being above partisanship and bias, but I'm handcuffed because one side is doing stuff I consider beyond the moral pale.

The only way to be serenely balanced between both sides whatever they get into is to have no moral standard, so that you can always move to a point equidistant between the sides, no matter what the moral or practical implications of that center point are.

If you have a moral bottom line at all, it is possible that one side will start doing stuff that is off the charts, and there's your even bipartisanship gone.

Now, I don't like being angry, and I'm aware that tunnel vision can be a weakness - but for pity's sake - literally for pity's sake - a man must take a clear view, and hold to some moral convictions that don't change with the ebb and flow of fashion.

I have striven over many years to educate myself morally. And one of the things I've done for that is to study the stories of righteous gentiles of the Holocaust. And the biggest thing I learned from them is that when the whole world around you says these human beings are not really human, it's OK to kill them and forbidden to prevent it you say NO!, and you try to make that stick, you can't waver and start shading away your commitment, or you're lost.

I won't be revising my view on that.

What is tiresome, Armed Liberal, is this notion of false equivalence where it is proposed that all lies are alike and that they therefore cancel each other out.

This is both intellectually lazy and demonstrably false.

I second Chris's call for your list.

#45 NM

I appreciate the apology. You can go one better by attempting to address the issues raised.

Here's the topic. For weeks, McCain, Palin and their spokesman have been insinuating connections between Obama and Ayers that don't exist ("Palling around", e.g.). In response, many of their remaining supporters have come to believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist who will destroy America to further his own personal interests, that he is an unpatriotic liar and foreigner who does not share their values.

Now McCain is walking back from this portrayal after seeing the kind of anger and hatred he and his running mate have elicited.

If I were someone who came to these false, dangerous (to the extent of being investigated by the Secret Service) conclusions about Obama from this exposure, I would be very, very, very upset that I was manipulated in that manner for political purposes.

Wouldn't you? And does David Blue feel any remorse for his inflammatory rhetoric about Obama? Where did he get this info from?

Do you really think we should elect a president who is willing to use such tactics in a public forum, to attempt to turn Americans against one another in such a hateful manner in a time when we most desperately need to come together?

1. An Electoral College victory north of 350-188
2. An excellent chance of a 60 seat Super Majority in the Senate
3. An excellent chance of controlling 60% of the House
4. An excellent chance of controlling a large majority of both Statehouses and state legislatures.
5. A President with the ability, like Reagan, to speak over the heads of Congress directly to the people.

This translates into one of the most prolific first 100 days in the nation's history.

Before I start screaming that the sky is falling, there are things that seem to mitigate against the worst of the fears that are being expressed by people concerning an inevitable Obama Presidency.

1. No one, especially the Left, will be entirely satisfied by what an Obama administration will provide for them.

2. The thing that stands out to me most about Obama is his ambition. I also feel that ambition always trumps ideology, and despite his record, which on a gut level, I feel, was the child of that ambition, Obama will seek power to dominate the political landscape, which will be packaged as crossing the aisle. He will neuter his opponents by co-opting them, not pitting them against one another.

3. From what I have seen of his campaign, he is firm, strict, disciplined and organized in service of his ambition. I do not expect that to be changed. We may be witnessing the rise of the greatest Politician since Roosevelt. No one can argue that he has been a volcano on the plain of American politics over the past 18 or so months.

4. I see his method of rule to be that of the Big City Irish model. I am Irish and very familiar with it. Practical, corrupt, efficient and effective, for a while. This system is a carrot and stick system, though most people only see the carrots. you do not go up against the machine or you are cut off from it. Shunned, in a biblical sense. Left to you own devices, bereft of contact with the hand that feeds you.

5. When I look at Obama, he reminds me of my father who was born in 1907. Stern, organized with an unbreakable will. He also reminds me what a Chinese philosophy professor of mine (he was of all things, a Plato scholar)said when I asked him about Mao, "We have had many stern emperors".

I think, in a lot of ways, the country will benefit from Obama's style and this model, for a time. This may be because I tend to be optimistic and have learned to accept that which is fait accopli and begin immediately, not to live with it, but to deal with it. And, also, I feel that the Republican Party needs time in the wilderness as the electorate is pretty clearly telling us.

The milk has been spilt. No sense crying over it.

I'm telling the truth. I've hunted up the quotes and chapter and verse on Obama the baby-killer before and posted it in a thread when challenged, and I don't propose to keep doing the same hack-work over and over.

Also, unfortunately it's irrelevant, because like the Ayers argument, this isn't an election winner. Both arguments ought to be winners, in my opinion. Neither of them is, and neither is about to be whatever we say.

#49 from TOC:

The milk has been spilt. No sense crying over it."

Some milk has been spilt, because of early voting. A great deal will not have been spilt till election day.

After that day, there will be a great deal of time for conservatives to weep and ponder. Until then, serious conservatives should be fighting for all they're worth.

Again I recommend the excellent example of Sarah Palin.

Patterico responds to this post.

To expand a little on his comments: the full measure of Ayers' and Dohrn's guilt will never be measured. Ayers has been very careful about recounting his involvement in some of their less amusing activities - such as the bungled arson that could have killed a federal judge, his wife, and child.

Something to keep in mind about Ayers and his "comrades" is that they remained at large for years, not because they were smarter than your average Ten Most Wanted, but because they were plugged into a big network of sympathy and money.

The people who helped them, no one was ever punished for doing so, were not fellow terrorists. They were rich liberals who saw no problem with what they were doing, and still don't. This is the larger problem.

Vista:

I'll borrow from a post I wrote recently.

Never mind the old stuff about how Obama claimed an aide filled out a questionnaire with extreme views, but his handwriting showed up on the form; how he said he wouldn't run for president in 2008; how he traces his very existence to the generosity of the Kennedy family, etc.

Obama ran a dishonest ad tying John McCain to Rush Limbaugh on the issue of immigration reform -- and distorting Limbaugh's quotes beyond all recognition in the process. In June, Obama claimed McCain was "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, when that actually accounted for only 1.7% of McCain's money.

On his own record, Obama flat-out lied about taking public financing -- and he lied about why he didn't do it, blaming it all on McCain when it was his own decision. Obama misstated the reason that he voted against a bill that would have required doctors to give medical attention to babies born alive after a botched abortion. Obama took money from oil companies and claimed he didn't.

Obama inflated his role in the creation of the stimulus package. And Obama was deceptive about McCain's regulatory record. On Ayers, CNN has said that “the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.” And Jake Tapper said Obama's camp pulled a quote badly out of context to suggest a Congressman had claimed McCain had blown up a bailout deal, when the Congressman was arguing that he might have saved it.

Just to take a few examples.

And yes, McCain's camp has lied as well.

Re: #46 from Chris - OK, here's one item of many for the list. Obama's been saying that pro-lifers have been lying about his record, when he's the one that's been lying and accusing his honest critics unjustly. He's been debunked over and over, in many places and in copious detail, and he never admits the truth. (link)

Another one is the document with his handwriting on it supporting a gun ban. No link for this, because I've posted it before and I'm bored doing the same link searches over and over, because people like you never admit the obvious truth, and apparently try to win by demanding tedious, redundant proof of points that are never conceded no matter how clear they are. So: Obama says that isn't his writing. He's lying. I've challenged Armed Liberal on this, and never gotten a reply, because there is nothing for him to say. It's as clear-cut as the mysterious stranger who did the killings OJ Simpson was acquitted of: there was no such person.

Gun voters, like pro-life voters, are single-minded. If Barack Obama was to be believed when he makes his seemingly pro-gun noises, they'd be saying so. They don't trust him, because he's proven untrustworthy.

That's two items, which is enough for "lies". The list could be extended indefinitely, because both sides are frequently playing fast and loose with the truth. Both sides.

Allow me to agree that I'd like to see A.L. give us details of how both campaigns are somehow equally mendacious. Sure, the Obama camp has made some exaggerations. The McCain campaign seems to be unique, however, in its willingness to spew totally false statements repeatedly. Defunding the troops. Thanks, but no thanks. Tax increases down to $42K income. And talk radio with the leaders of the right-wing blogosphere are still rooting around in fantasies that Obama is Muslim, that Obama is Arab [see also #6 supra], that Obama's birth certificate is a fake. Daily Kos doesn't have any equivalent.

I'm sure you'd like something from the McCain campaign itself. That, too, can be arranged. From today's NY Times:

In 1995, Mr. Obama was on a team of lawyers that represented Acorn in a lawsuit to compel Illinois to comply with federal laws intended to enhance access to the polls. The team also represented Equip for Equality, a group that promotes the rights of the disabled, and four individuals. [McCain campaign manager] Mr. Davis said that as their lawyer, Mr. Obama had “an intimate relationship” with Acorn “against the State of Illinois and the federal government.” In fact, the Justice Department was on the same side as Acorn in the lawsuit, as were other organizations, including the League of Women Voters. Those plaintiffs won the case.

Leaving aside how Acorn is being transformed into the role the World Jewish Conspiracy, getting wrong which side the Federal Government was on is neither a minor nor an inadvertent error.

The McCain campaign (and the Republican Party) are reduced to relying on voters who are hateful, angry, ignorant, and easily deceived. The Obama campaign is not.

"Allow me to agree that I'd like to see A.L. give us details of how both campaigns are somehow equally mendacious."

I just gave several.

"And talk radio with the leaders of the right-wing blogosphere are still rooting around in fantasies that Obama is Muslim, that Obama is Arab [see also #6 supra], that Obama's birth certificate is a fake. Daily Kos doesn't have any equivalent."

Except for fantasies that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's grandson. And I was rather disgusted to see applause from lefty commenters on countless sites.

And McCain himself yesterday set straight a woman who claimed Obama is an Arab.

"Tax increases down to $42K income."

Obama once voted for a tax increase that would have increased taxes (though not by much) on single taxpayers making $42,000 a year. That's just a fact. Look it up.

"The McCain campaign (and the Republican Party) are reduced to relying on voters who are hateful, angry, ignorant, and easily deceived. The Obama campaign is not."

Indeed. I hear Democrats' sh[vowel removed]t doesn't stink, as well.

Sorry, let me complete this thought I left incomplete:

And I was rather disgusted to see applause from lefty commenters on countless sites when Sarah Palin's e-mail was hacked.

The McCain campaign is now itself boasting that McCain blew up the bailout because of its (alleged) benefits to ACORN. Doesn't make sense to me, but it looks like Jake Tapper and Patterico owe Obama an apology on that one. Incidentally, Obama has a new TV ad that he kicked off his State Senate campaign in a Ramada Inn (I stayed there once, and it's a dreadful hotel). Either this is a new chance to show Obama is lying or, more likely, the Kurtz description of Ayers anointing Obama in his living room/weapons lab is bogus.

Does it seem to anyone else thatACORN:2008 USA election::Jews:1932 German election?

JTFR, Kos personally called for the maximum sentence for the criminal hacking of Palin's email.

The McCain campaign has claimed, falsely, that Obama would have raised taxes on everyone earning $42,000 and they have done so repeatedly. You can look it up.

I've hunted up the quotes and chapter and verse on Obama the baby-killer...

Do we really need to hear anything else from the innocuously named "David Blue" to place him squarely in the category of being this site's equivalent of the angry sidewalk mob screaming at their political opponents in self-righteous fury and animosity?

David, you do your argument no justice nor your side no benefit from being Exhibit A for the prosecution.

And to those on the right who permit these comments to go unchallenged, you are guilty of complicity. I will take David's comments to indicate your own views until such time as you disavow them.

Maybe you're right AL.

Portraying Obama as a dangerous opponent of the First amendment is more of a winner and just as accurate.

I haven't said my opinions represent anyone but me. They are not owned by anyone else unless they specifically endorse them, one by one.

What I called Obama is simply because (a) it's justifiable on the facts, and (b) I'm indifferent to demands for courtesies to Obama on this issue. He hasn't earned them, he's simply lying, he has been for a long time, and it's not a big deal that requires delicacy.

It's like calling someone a tax-raiser, when (a) they have in fact been a tax-raiser, and (b) they've been denying it, dancing all around the park, and accusing those who point to the simple facts of lying. Simply underlining that which the candidate falsely denies is appropriate in a case like this.

Oh yes, and he has indeed been palling around with terrorists.

Again, he's not entitled to elaborate courtesies and circumlocutions which would only serve his desire to obscure the reality of what he's done and damn his critics for pointing to it.

#61 from Rich Horton:

"Maybe you're right AL."

"Portraying Obama as a dangerous opponent of the First amendment is more of a winner and just as accurate."

Are you referring to this? (link)

Unfortunately, academic anti-free-speech coercion, terrorists exercising the ultimate "heckler's veto" and the kind of behavior Barone notes form a pattern, one that too many people are comfortable with now to make opposing it a winning election issue. Which is where we came in.

Vista, what's your problem with people noting that Obama is one of the very few legislators who'd vote against a bill stating that, if an infant should happen to survive an abortion, you can't drop him or her in the nearest dumpster? It's true, after all, and puts him WAY outside the mainstream on the subject of abortion.

He also manages to be at the outer fringe of anti-gun sentiment. Something you'd think would be more troubling to an Armed Liberal.

I don't think the guy IS a terrorist, for all that he's more comfortable around Ayers than I'd be. But on at least a couple of social issues, he's several sigma out. And it's perfectly legitimate to point that out.

"The McCain campaign is now itself boasting that McCain blew up the bailout because of its (alleged) benefits to ACORN. Doesn't make sense to me, but it looks like Jake Tapper and Patterico owe Obama an apology on that one. "

Read the link. He blew up a version that was unlikely to pass on the floor, and the Congressman's point was that in so doing, he helped ensure that a better bill was put out on the floor, that had a better chance of passing.

It didn't pass the first time, but that doesn't change the point the Congressman was making, or excuse the way it was distorted by the Obama people.

If you read the link, you'll see Tapper and I owe no apology. You don't seem to understand what Obama's distortion was.

David Blue-

I haven't said my opinions represent anyone but me. They are not owned by anyone else unless they specifically endorse them, one by one.

Except that's not how this game is played, and you know it... or at least, if you don't, you should be doing a better job of telling Patterico upstream that the actions and opinions of "lefty commenters on countless sites" are not owned by anyone else unless they specifically endorse them, one by one.

What I called Obama is simply because (a) it's justifiable on the facts, and (b) I'm indifferent to demands for courtesy to Omama on this issue. He hasn't earned them, he's simply lying, he has been for a long time, and it's not a big deal that requires delicacy.

David, you link to a news article that is, at the very least, open to interpretation - there's a fairly complex laundry list of what Obama voted for, and when, and what language it contained, and it doesn't even begin to fully settle why he voted for what he voted for. Certainly, as we've seen time and time again, bills contain all kind of high points and low points, and it's frequently going to be the case that any politician will vote against bills that contain good and worthwhile points, and vote for bills that contain bad and damaging aspects, just as part of the legislative process.

But at the end of the day, even if you take fairly unforgiving position on what Obama did and why he did it as far as those bills are concerned, I don't think that justifies you saying that "a NAMBLA member" "would be a moral step up" from Barack Obama, and that "no worse man will ever be made President, because there are no worse men."

Seriously. Think about that language for a moment. And tell me the right wing wouldn't use that kind of language, written by a front-page poster on, say, Obsidian Wings, to utterly and eternally condemn the site as being irrevocably controlled by crazed moonbats.

And, although I hope to get time later to address Patterico's points in more detail, I think we can legitimately say that, regardless of how inaccurate Obama is or isn't, his missteps are relatively run of the mill political stuff. And the guy's supporters certainly hasn't been angels, but it seems as if the worst we're talking about are somebody's email account getting hacked and (swiftly debunked, largely bygone) rumors about who the parent of Trig Palin really is.

On the other hand, we've got a McCain campaign that walks a very fine line between condemning using Ayers, Wright, etc. as campaign issues, and encouraging those issues under the table by having McCain introduced by people who play up the "Barack Hussein Obama" card, and cuts massive, misleading web ads about Obama and Ayers. It's pretty clear that many of McCain's supporters, meanwhile, really do think of Obama as an Arab terrorist, or a closet radical, or a crazed race warrior (as "whiskey" recently called Obama on these boards), or, again, as David Blue calls him in this very thread, the worst human being alive.

I'd say the left compares very, very favorably to the right, given those circumstances.

AJL, you have a habit--perhaps good, perhaps bad--of parsing the meaning of the links you supply. The normal, inquisitive reader won't have the same takeaway understanding that you offer.

Case in point is the link to Politico.com in comment #58, which you characterize as the McCain campaign's insensate boasting that McCain blew up the Wall St. bailout on account of alleged benefits to ACORN.

Here is the entire text of Ben Smith's Obama-slanted post (arguably fair use, as I'm using it to make a point in the debate here):

On that Acorn call, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis also credited McCain with "blowing ... up" the first bailout package when he suspended his campaign to come to Washington, something McCain's campaign had heatedly denied at the time.

Davis expressed outrage that, "in the middle of the greatest disaster in our financial system that we’d had in our lifetime, that the Democrats in the United States Senate would actually link payments to ACORN in the bailout package that they promoted -- prior to Sen. McCain coming to town and actually blowing that package up. So we can actually say that in addition to saving taxpayers millions of dollars, and we’re very happy that no more taxpayer dollars were added to the pile of money going to ACORN."

After the initial bailout package failed, McCain's aides blamed Obama:

"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said

House Republicans had opposed the possibility that government profits from the deal would go to a housing fund for local authorities that could then be spent through ACORN, and those are the grounds on which Davis seemed to credit McCain.

The Democrats in Congress used the bailout bill to slip benefits to ACORN. Quick Google--

One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, was... a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

How many tens of millions of dollars need be included in the legislation before benefits cease to be "alleged"? By the way, Dodd et al's definition of "profits" was a twisted one, phrased so that yet more lucre would flow to ACORN's trough. You can Google that one yourself.

So McCain was one of the sane Congresspeople who balked at rewarding some of the villians of the mortgage meltdown. Do you think the "package" he helped "blow up" was "Paulson's Rescue Plan"? Or might "the package" conceivably refer to "the package of the Paulson plan as amended at the last minute to divert taxpayer funds to reward ACORN and other cronies"? I'd imagine that even Ben Smith might reluctantly concede that the latter was the McCain campaign's meaning. If asked. Which he won't be.

I won't mourn McCain's loss for a host of reasons, but good on him for being on the side of the right in this case.

[minor edit]

"Except that's not how this game is played, and you know it... or at least, if you don't, you should be doing a better job of telling Patterico upstream that the actions and opinions of "lefty commenters on countless sites" are not owned by anyone else unless they specifically endorse them, one by one."

You guys are all running around patting yourselves on the back because a guy took a videocamera to a McCain/Palin rally and lo and behold some of the people in the selectively edited video are idiots. Well, guess what? It's not just one side that has idiots.

But people like Andrew J. Lazarus honestly seem to think so. He's the guy who says: "The McCain campaign (and the Republican Party) are reduced to relying on voters who are hateful, angry, ignorant, and easily deceived. The Obama campaign is not."

Ridiculous.

Patterico doesn't need my assistance, and I'm not telling him anything "upstream".

I am observing the lack of reaction he got when he dumped a great pile of facts and links on the table that answered demands for support for the claim that Armed Liberal and I made that both sides have been distorting the truth, not just one side. The reaction was simply to pile on more accusations. From when Patterico posted his links to when Andrew J. Lazarus resumed his offensive, there wasn't even time for Patterico's links to load on my machine, let alone read and consider them properly; and it doesn't seem Andrew J. Lazarus read his own links carefully enough.

You guys are just piling empty attacks on, demanding tedious research in reply, ignoring it, not acknowledging and engaging with the evidence when it's provided, but just keeping on keeping on regardless.

On that Acorn call, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis also credited McCain with "blowing ... up" the first bailout package when he suspended his campaign to come to Washington, something McCain's campaign had heatedly denied at the time.

I've taken the liberty of bold-facing the relevant passage. So which is it? You're arguing on a combination of what McCain said then and the completely opposite statement he makes now. On the new story, the Obama claim that McCain came into town and blew up a deal, the claim that Patterico says Obama made backed up with a distorted quote debunked by Jake Tapper, is absolutely true. The issue, here, is not whether McCain was astute to wreck the deal because of the money going to the Housing Trust Fund (and from there, possibly to ACORN, should they be awarded a relevant grant), but whether Obama was correct in saying that McCain had done so. We now all seem to be in agreement that the answer is Yes. Now, it may be that the original version would have gone down to an even more severe defeat than the McCain-approved version, but that is not a point at issue here.

As to this side being controlled by crazy people, leaving aside for a moment whether I am one, I don't control this site, nothing like it. Patterico, who's a good example of a sensible rightie, knows that, and would judge accordingly regardless of whether I was left or right wing, and regardless of whether the site was left wing, right wing, or as it is, moderate.

Back to the craziness or lack of it, before I set aside the drudgery of responding to personal attacks and focus back on the topic of Armed Liberal's thread.

"I don't think that justifies you saying that "a NAMBLA member" "would be a moral step up" from Barack Obama..."

At worst I am no crazier there than the Supreme Court, which decided that rape of a child, no matter how savagely aggravated - and that is going far beyond what anyone who was simply a NAMBLA member would be guilty of - was less bad than causing the child's death.

I don't like the fact that Barack Obama went way out of his way to ensure the needless deaths of infants born alive despite being aborted. He could not have picked more innocent, more helpless, more distressed or more disadvantaged people to pick on. And I think he should wear the opprobrium for that.

And now let's return to the Ayers argument, shall we?

I think one of the great advantages Barack Obama gets from having a swift and deep river of mainstream media bias going his way is that McCain has to pick an isolated attack, such as the Ayers argument, and push it like a pin to get through.

The attack by itself is not all that effective. Neither are half a dozen or so other, equally correct attacks he could make. Each one, alone, is just a lapse of judgment, though one that's surprising and does fit the man Barack Obama represents himself to be.

In combination they could be a winning attack, because they add up to a pattern, not a lapse. They challenge the cool, measured, moderate image we see on television, and threaten to replace it with a different image that includes more facts and adds up in a disquieting way.

But there's no way known John McCain is going to get that much information through the mainstream media's filter. It's not a matter of his campaigning lapses. The river is running too fast against him.

"And talk radio with the leaders of the right-wing blogosphere are still rooting around in fantasies that Obama is Muslim, that Obama is Arab [see also #6 supra], that Obama's birth certificate is a fake. Daily Kos doesn't have any equivalent."

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. Immediately after Sarah Palin was announced, the left began a whisper campaign claiming that Trig was not her son but her daughter's. They have also claimed that Sarah's daughter's baby (once it was revealed that Trig couldn't be hers because she was pregnant) was the product of a relationship with her own father. They have repeatedly pushed the claim that Sarah Palin, when Mayor of Wasilla, forced rape victims to pay for their rape kits. Supposed "journalists" from the Boston Globe have pushed this story even after it has been repeatedly debunked.

For eight years now the Democrats (and I use that word deliberately, because the leaders of the Democrat party have blogged on Daily Kos and attended his convention knowing full well what kind of outrageous hatred is routinely displayed there) have promoted the most disgusting disrespect of a sitting President ever in the history of our country. (And there are some really outrageous examples dating back to our founding.) Bush has been burned in effigy. He has been called Hitler. Democrats, on the floors of Congress, have compared our troops to Stalin's minions, Hitler's storm troopers and Pol Pots murderers. And NOT ONE of you high and mighty defenders of all things liberal has ever denounced any of that.

Now you want to complain because your guy is being treated roughly? Please! Don't make me laugh. You created this atmosphere. Now you have to live with it.

If you want things to change, get your party to throw William Jefferson out of the house. Compel Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to testify in public about the present financial crisis and their part in it. Tell John Murtha to retire and apologize to the Marines that he defamed. Tell Nancy Pelosi to allow open debate on the issues instead of bending the rules to ram through her personal preferences.

Until then, it's all out war. You started it in 2000. You have the power to stop it.

At worst I am no crazier there than the Supreme Court...

I'd just like to note, in passing, that the argument following this is cogent. You may not agree with it, but it is logical.

I'm not sure I share Mr. Blue's confidence that things can't get worse. I think they are bound to do so.

Yet I do believe in a happy ending following that crisis to come. I've spoken already of the great army of good men and women who have sacrificed so much for the liberty of strangers, and who stand waiting to assume leadership roles here at home in coming days. I believe in them -- they are both liberals and conservatives, but they are better people than the average American. They have both greater tolerance and greater shared morality. I think a better America will be based on what they have been, and done, and can become.

I'd also like to note for Mr. Blue that the Harris Poll has shown an important, consistent result about Americans. Asked "Who is your favorite movie star?" every year for 13 years, they have always named John Wayne in the top ten. Eight times he has been one, two, or three. His last movie was made in 1976, almost two decades before the poll began.

By the same token, Louis L'amour -- whose work I was citing recently as emblematic of this America's moral code -- has never gone out of print. Indeed, every one of his books remains in print. More than two hundred of them.

The old America is still out there, and stronger than commonly understood. This moment in politics is passing, as are all things; on the other side of it lays, as Tom Brokaw rightly pointed out, the failure of public pensions, Social Security, and the other socialist entitlements. Do what you will with the next couple of years, if fate gives them to you, you will not find a socialist future for America. That crisis will unmake faith in government in a huge and lasting way, and rightly so.

Faith is never rightly placed in a bureaucracy. It ought only be placed in the best of men, and the best of gods.

Quoth Vista:

"You can go one better by attempting to address the issues raised."

I'll stick with the claim made, that the practice of politicians telling lies will suffer a withering death due to some magical transformation to take place at a date certain.

If you really meant what you said, all I can say is:

Balderdash.

The rape kit story appears to be true. The issue probably requires original research by some WoC author to get to the bottom of it, but it is clear that the defenses contain (like Ericson on fusion) obvious factual errors that make them very dubious as refutations. For example, stating that there are records that the city of Wasilla never billed a rape victim is not germane: the hospital would be doing the billing (if any). Quoting the police chief as saying he tried to bill victims' insurance policies begs the question of what was done for uninsured victims. The failure of the debunkers to ask that speaks volumes. (I think it's quite likely that this was just an attempt to save $15K a year from the Wasilla budget by making private insurers and state Medicaid pay, that looks politically embarrassing in the rear-view mirror.)

I will concede that the Trig Palin maternity issue was disgraceful. Shall we compare column inches? Even today I became aware that a front-page author at National Review Online is now spreading the rumor that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's autobiographies!? The charge is being made essentially without evidence. Anyone care to defend it?

Thanks for that, Grim. I did find it reassuring.

These models and ideas count. I don't mock them.

I remember reading of an American woman who was allowed to sit in jury duty wearing her Star Fleet uniform. Ridiculous? I don't think so, and neither did the judge. The woman said she was expressing her commitment to be as fair and rational as possible, like a Star Fleet officer. I wouldn't want to live in that universe, where private property seems to have been abolished and civilians do more or less nothing, with the tightly managed military taking care of every problem. But to that juror, the incorruptible and fair-minded image of the Star fleet was a call to be the best she she could be, and she was screwing up her determination to the utmost to be like that.

Pity the nation that's been bombarded for decades with heroes and ideals that are obvious lies and inspire widespread cynicism. I mean pity Russia. It's natural endowments match America. If extent of lands, mineral resources and so on where all there is to national prosperity, Russia might even be more successful than America. But heroes that make people want to be better than they are are a greater treasure, and that is where America, with freedom of speech, has won out, and Russia, where widespread censorship allowed uninspiring official lies to monopolize the public imagination, lost out.

I don't think it is trivial who Barack Obama's friends are, who inspires him, what sermons raised hairs on the backs of his arms and made him want his daughters to be educated to think like that. I think this stuff will all count more, in the long run, in unexpected crises, than anything written on official position papers now.

Fortunately, I think - no, I don't just think, now I've got the data! - I know a lot of Americans will be responding to better models.

Off topic - looking at the picture, Armed Liberal, a lot of things have changed since those days, but not your walk. Did you do the dead fish gun carry back then too? :P

Armed Liberal said:

Vista, the "they lie, we tell the truth" line is kinda dull to me. If I wanted to spend the time, I could build a fairly massive list of material misrepresentations by both sides.

Actually, AL, I'll be happy to call your bluff on that. Go ahead and put together your list

I second Chris's call for your list.

Allow me to agree that I'd like to see A.L. give us details of how both campaigns are somehow equally mendacious.

Patterico:

I just gave several.

You seem to be missing a point in your rush to speak for Armed Liberal, Patrick.

There is a difference in hearing Armed Liberal substantiate his claims and you stepping in to do so.

It comes down to understanding what he considers to be the equivalent lies from Obama to the bile that has been coming out of the McCain/Palin campaign.

I am quite uninterested in hearing what you (or worse, David Blue) have to say about this, to be honest. One only needs glance up the thread at the voluminous obfuscations of David Blue to see this, while your contribution has been fairly well refuted by Andrew Lazarus.

So, back to you, Armed Liberal.

Andrew, the rape kit story would be meaningful if Wasilla was unique among cities in the Alaska or the US - even partially so. Everything I've read, including regulations for the states involved, suggest that there are multiple states that today attempt to bill the health insurance of rape victims.

So let's stipulate that the issue isn't only what Wasillia did while Palin was in power (i.e. what policies she supported or initiated) but how different those were and are from the policy norms elsewhere.

Because if you're accusing her of doing what's done - for example - in the State of Virginia today. (pdf), then there's not a lot of beef in this charge, is there?

A.L.

If the Ayers argument is no good, given that McCain has to pick just one attack, the obvious question is: OK, what's better?

I think the ACORN attack is better (link).

In fairness to Patterico, I made no attempt to refute any of his specific charges against Obama except the last. There now seems to be agreement that when McCain suspended his campaign and rushed to Washington, he blew up the then-pending deal, ostensibly over ACORN. As far as I can tell, Patterico is claiming that Obama left out that McCain viewed that deal as a political impossibility and, at the time the ad ran, was working on a new one, that became the first bill to reach the House (and lose). I don't view acknowledging that as a responsibility of Obama's; his charge that McCain blew up the first deal is true. If McCain wants to say it was to get a better deal, he can buy his own ad.

I wanted to write this comment because certain of Patterico's charges are true. For some reason, we expect all our politicians to be disingenuous about their ambition for higher office, and Obama played right along with that game when he was first in the Senate. Obama's statements on campaign financing are also sometimes dishonest. Frankly, I think we've come to expect puffery, exaggeration, quibbling, and even dishonesty on some campaign topics. But the sense that Obama and McCain are "balanced" is somewhat reminiscent of hearing Communists balance their hideous system with comparison to Jim Crow or the despoliation of the American Indians. In some cases, degree is a meaningful distinction, and I think we're seeing that in the current campaign.

A.L., are you the volunteer to get to the bottom of this? That said, the policy you link to does not seem to say what you think it does.

The patient may select from the following two (2) options:
1) For CICF [State Crime Victim Compensation Fund] to pay for the examination in full.
2) For the treatment facility to bill her/his health insurance provider and have CICF pay any remaining balance, or the patient is covered by a federally-funded health care program (Medicaid, Medicare, Champus, Tricare, FAMIS or the