Barack Obama, His Membership in the “New Party,” and His Connections to Socialists
I have a number of people e-mailing me about news of Barack Obama’s membership in something called the “New Party.”
Whenever a potentially big but potentially wacky issue comes along, I like to turn to Allahpundit for sober guidance. Allah links a June article by Erick Erickson, which quotes a USA Today article as saying that the party “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic.’” But Allah says: “I can’t tell definitively from either just how far left the NP was at the time; it may be that, like a lot of new third parties, they hadn’t quite hammered out a fixed identity yet.”
I can’t tell either, but I’ve had some fun tonight poking around looking for information about the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party, Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama. The Freepers were an interesting source of links. (Some lefties may not like the Freepers, of course, but links are links.) I have found no smoking guns, and if you’re comfortable with presidential candidates hobnobbing with radicals and socialists, nothing I saw tonight will bother you much. But I found it all sort of interesting.
I saw some conservative blogs asserting that the New Party was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America. I’m not entirely clear on the proof of this. More than one DSA newsletter had a New Party Update, but one of those newsletters discussed “a proposal that Chicago DSA affiliate with the New Party” — suggesting an affinity but no clear pre-existing close relationship. The newsletter said that the DSA decided to “explore affiliation” with the New Party, but also with another party. Clearly, they were fellow travelers, but I urge readers to read any assertions of a connection with a skeptical eye.
However, it is clear from the above links that Obama was a member of the New Party — and it is clear that the Democratic Socialists of America were particular fans of Obama’s. The Democratic Socialists endorsed Obama in 1996 and again in 2000, saying:
When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy.
There’s much more in various posts at this new Zealand blog — poke around its archives for a lot of interesting material.
The Democratic Socialists host an annual dinner called the Debs-Thomas-Harrington Dinner. At the 46th Annual dinner, one of the prominent personalities was Carl Shier, a founder of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (a predecessor organization to the Democratic Socialists of America). In the program for the dinner, Shier honored Obama:
Elsewhere in the program is this tribute to Trotsky:
If you look at the program for the 2003 Democratic Socialists dinner, you see a note from Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn:
Speaking of Ayers and Dohrn: it’s becoming quite clear that they are still disturbing figures, and that Obama continues to minimize the extent of his contacts with them.
For context, recall the CNN report that said that Obama had minimized his contacts with Ayers:
Regarding the coming-out party described in the video, Andrew McCarthy says:
Ayers and Dohrn are passionate radical activists who lived as fugitives for a decade. There’s no way they held a political coming-out party for someone who was unknown to them. Obviously, they already knew him well enough by then to feel very comfortable. They might have been sympathetic to a relative stranger, but sponsoring such a gathering in one’s living room is a strong endorsement.
Indeed. Read all of McCarthy’s piece, which has a lot more on the connections between Obama and this unrepentant terrorist. Also, Ed Whelan asks whether Dohrn and Michelle Obama met at Sidley & Austin. I love this detail:
According to Sidley’s managing partner, Dohrn didn’t get admitted to the bar because “She wouldn’t say she’s sorry” for her acts of domestic terrorism.
This is not too surprising. Dohrn was pursuing questionable and possibly criminal activities into the 1980s. And she’s still quite the radical, as you realize when you watch a video that this fellow says was made in November 2007, of Dohrn talking about overthrowing capitalism:
In the video, Dohrn says:
In my experience just traveling in the last 10 years has been that, you know, the majority of people who are activists have stayed the course in a way, in a variety of ways devoted to overthrowing everything hateful about this government and corporate structure that we live in; capitalism itself, herself, himself.
Dohrn quotes Dr. King as saying “The greatest purveyor of violence on this Earth is my own country.” In connection with that quote, she talks about being “in the belly of the beast” and “inside the heart of the monster” by living in this country.
There is more interesting information about Dohrn and Ayers in a pair of Power Line posts on the friends of Barack Obama, parts one and two. If you want to listen to vintage Dohrn, back before she was merely “staying the course,” but was rather setting the course of domestic terrorism, you need only click on this clip. Here is what she says:
Now we are everywhere, and next week families and tribes will attack the enemy around the country. We’re not just attacking targets. We’re bringing the pitiful, helpless giant to its knees. Guard your planes. Guard your colleges. Guard your banks. Guard your children. Guard your doors.
That puts an interesting little spin on a woman who, in 2007, spoke glowingly of “activists [who] have stayed the course . . . in a variety of ways devoted to overthrowing everything hateful about this government.”
Guard your government.
Meanwhile, Obama is going to a church where the pastor feels comfortable screaming “God damn America.” As Allahpundit says:
The best part of this, assuming that it trickles up the media food chain and gets put to one of Obama’s spokesmen [That's quite an assumption -- P.], will be trying to reconcile the inevitable profession of ignorance about the New Party’s agenda with David Brooks’s assertions about how “socially perceptive” Obama is. Truly, except for Ayers’s terrorist background, Wright’s sermons, Pfleger’s race-baiting, and the NP, his awareness of what’s going on around him is laser sharp.
Heh. You do start to see a pattern developing after a while.
Another speck on the pile, not convincing by itself but interesting in light of the totality, is the list of mentors for the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at The University of Chicago, which includes Dohrn, as well as Barack and Michelle Obama. It also contains literally dozens of other people, so it’s best not to make too much of it. There’s plenty else to look at.
I don’t think it’s worth inclusion in the post.
Comment by Patterico — 10/8/2008 @ 11:00 pm
It’s too late pat. Bush is already giving us Socialism!
NATIONALIZING THE BANKS!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09econ.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Comment by laughing bubba — 10/8/2008 @ 11:07 pm
Meanwhile Gateway Pundit has a post up noting the confluence of Edward Said teahing at Columbia while Obama attended, and Said’s friendships with both Bill Ayers and Khalid al Mansour, the Saudi who reportedly helped Obama gain entrance to Harvard. Very interesting reading.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/8/2008 @ 11:12 pm
Patterico,
I actually personally like you (in the limited and brief time we’ve gone back and forth).
But I gotta tell you. Your posts are getting absurd.
There will be life after Obama wins and some conservative blogs will continue to do just fine.
Some free unsolicited advice. Stick to reasonable conservative arguments as your business model.
There aren’t many out there (NRO is clearly not one of them). You might find a nice little niche.
Comment by jharp — 10/8/2008 @ 11:17 pm
Patterico - I don’t know whether this will wind up being a sort of double comment. Gateway Pundit has a post up linking Edward Said teaching at Columbia while Obama attended and to a friendship with both Bill Ayers and Khalid al Mansour, the Saudi who reportedly gained Obama access to Harvard. It makes for very interesting reading. More pro-Palestinian and potential Ayers and terror connections.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/8/2008 @ 11:18 pm
This fills in the blanks between two links that have been in play for a while. The first is the Ayers/Obama connection. In 1996, socialist terrorist Ayers, his weatherwoman-socialist wife, and (we now know) the socialist front New Party pushed Obama for state senate. That same year, Obama was selected by Ayers and his CAC collaborative to run the CAC grant recipient. That is either a big coincidence or evidence that Obama and Ayers are more than casual acquaintances.
The second is Obama’s strong affinity with far-left socialist political policies. Without that strong affinity, he never would have accepted the endorsement of the New Party, nor would he have invited its members to take his training courses funded by (we now know) ACORN.
This is not a pretty picture for a future President of the US. While it will appeal to the ANSWER nutjobs (some of whom anonymously post here), it will turn off those OH, PA, TN, CO, VA, FL voters who will simply not vote for a socialist.
The Obama troops know this, and will stop at nothing to keep this information from wide distribution.
They well know how toxic this is even if some of the astroturfing posters here would have you believe they don’t.
Comment by jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet — 10/8/2008 @ 11:18 pm
A DK poster has thankfully already answered all the questions you could have. It was just because of ACORN!
(I’d verify that Rogers is a Marxist before running with it, BTW).
Comment by How to Defeat Barack Obama — 10/8/2008 @ 11:24 pm
Patterico - I haven’t had time to read your links, but David Freddoso also covered some of the socialist connections in his book. One of my kids is reading my copy at college so I can’t check it against your post.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/8/2008 @ 11:26 pm
The CNN spot is a start, and quite shocking for the media to admit that Obama openly lied about his relationship to Ayers.
This information needs to be front and center, and frankly, it’s quite annoying that Patterico is doing a better job at culling the data than the McCain campaign. What’s also interesting is the story about the change in the Saturday Night Live bailout sketch - which has now been removed from You Tube. The pathetic censorship of even sketch comedy reveals a Stalinist level of paranoia regarding discovery.
Socialism always needs new blood, because every place they establish themselves begins to decay and rot.
Comment by Apogee — 10/8/2008 @ 11:56 pm
Anything beyond the cursory checking and regurgitation of campaign talking points quickly raises very, very disturbing questions about Obama and the ideologies that animate him.
Looking at his life history, altogether - the only explanation that makes sense is that he’s a committed socialist. It isn’t that he merely knew or crossed paths with these people, many of whom stated their goal to overthrow capitalism and institute a Marxist/Maoist model, but that he gained and applied his professional skills to actively assist in the achievement of their goals and objectives.
The information is all out there, much of it in plain sight. The lethargy of a compliant mainstream media, along with the distractions, denials, obstruction and obfuscations from the campaign has so far delayed the American people getting a complete idea of “who is Barack Obama”
My analysis here - http://silentrunning.tv/?p=3258
Comment by Wind Rider — 10/9/2008 @ 1:09 am
Here’s my take-away: The New Party served as a “fusion” group which embodied the ideals of the Democratic Socialists of America, but which would endorse candidates who were associated with the Democrat party. Their sole purpose seemed to be defeating non-aligned mainstream Democrats in the primaries so that the more far-left Democrat would run in the general.
Their tactics were ruled unconstitutional and the New Party eventually went away.
Comment by w3bgrrl — 10/9/2008 @ 4:44 am
The next four weeks are going to be pretty sick to watch. It’s pretty clear that all Republicans know to do at this point is how to terrify people into voting for them — I wonder how far they’ll go to scare the American people now.
Comment by Phil — 10/9/2008 @ 4:48 am
Phil,
It would be nice if an Obama supporter would defend his record on the CAC, The Woods, Project Vote and his membership in the New Party rather than deflect with cries of victimhood.
Of course, the truth is damaging to the Obama campaign so deflection and distraction is all we’ll see from his supporters, his campaign and him.
Comment by w3bgrrl — 10/9/2008 @ 5:52 am
The reasons I pray Obama does not become our President…..I truly believe Obama has an “agenda”. To destroy our country. Look at all of his associates. Terrorists - Voting Fraud Acorn, who Obama worked for and taught how to collect votes - racial church leaders - wants to sit with the TERRORISTS -belonged to a “killer” tribe in Kenya called the “Odingas” which slaughtered thousands of Africans along with his father - was photographed in a Muslim school which taught the Muslim doctrine - has a brother living on $1.00 a month in Africa - nobody has seen his REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE .. the one showing he was born in Kenya and used his sister’s who was born in Hawaii which means HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT- the taliban pray that he becomes President - (WHY ???) oh yes - and he is a Liar!!!! It is amazing also how he pronounces the word “Taliban” (Tahleebahn)
just like they do - and oh yes - he is a LIAR ! Does anyone else believe this man should be our President? I DON’T THINK SO……..HE SCARES THE BEJ#$% OUT OF ME AND SHOULD YOU !!
Comment by Marilyn — 10/9/2008 @ 6:08 am
It will be interesting to see if Talk radio and fox jump on this story and force it into the national attention. I am frankly surprised Drudge hasn’t run with this yet. I think this is a huge story, but is there enough time for it to resonate with American’s? Probably not, though I think McCain is doing better then we know. Over at my blog I examine a piece in The New Yorker, of all places, about how blue collar democrats still don’t trust Obama. Its amazing the stories that are not being reported, there is a lot going on out there.
Comment by Nancy — 10/9/2008 @ 6:35 am
Facts are terrifying things.
Comment by Karl — 10/9/2008 @ 6:53 am
I see you are keen to look into the Big-O’s past ties.
Why are you not keen to look at the Palin’s firm and documented ties to the secessionist group, The Alaskan Independence Party?
Is it because you afraid?
Or is it because you are hypocrites?
Comment by gillie — 10/9/2008 @ 6:54 am
Bernadette Dohrn is a dangerous woman. From Michelle Malkin back in April quoted this website:
At a 1969 “War Council” in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman “fork salute,” she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death:
“Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” The “War Council” ended with a formal declaration of war against “AmeriKKKa,” always spelled with three K’s to signify the United States’ allegedly ineradicable white racism.
More here. The AmeriKKKa part gave me pause and additional concern, wasn’t that the way Reverend Wright referred to our country?
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Comment by Fallon — 10/9/2008 @ 6:58 am
Phil: Have we finally reached a point in this country where it is no longer acceptable to talk about a candidates’ philosophy and ideas? Barack Obama signed a contract agreeing to take and “active and public role” in working with a socialist fringe political party. He is described in various publications of that party as a “member,” and he attended various meetings and functions. He delivered a eulogy at a memorial service for a well-known Chicago socialist. All of these things point to a politician significantly to the left of the mainstream democratic he portrays himself to be in his half-billion-dollar presidential campaign.
If it’s alright with you, I would like to know who the hell this guy really is. Indeed, that’s what an election campaign is supposed to be all about.
Comment by Conrad — 10/9/2008 @ 6:59 am
We need to connect the dots. Ayers shows not that Barack was a terrorist, but that he coddled and snuggled to former terrorists and radicals in order to climb the ladders of success in Chicago Democratic Politics. Similarly, McCain needs to connect the dots on Obama’s tax policy:
Mr. Obama intends to raise the top personal income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, raise the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends to between 20 percent and 28 percent, levy higher tax rates on corporations, and increase the Social Security payroll tax on upper-income Americans.
Mr. Obama will be raising taxes on the very parts of our economy that have been the wellspring of its venture capital investment pool that is now on life support.
Exactly how Americans worried about the economy can truly believe we can tax our way out of a recession is a mystery, but that is what Mr. Obama is peddling and that is what Mr. Obama voters are buying hook, line and sinker.
But not everyone. Listen to what University of Maryland economist Peter Morici, a sharp critic of the Bush administration’s economic policies, says about Mr. Obama’s plan: “Obama’s tax and redistribute policies will not resurrect jobs, wages or the price of stocks in American retirement accounts. … Obama’s policies may make economic conditions worse,” he said this week. “His platform is full of platitudes and generalizations but not enough substance.”
What McCain Needs To Do
Comment by Joe — 10/9/2008 @ 7:08 am
http://www.patterico.com/images/ayers-and-dohrn-in-dsa-program.jpg
Notice how they misspelled lessons.
A freudian slip from the word lesion.
Comment by rab — 10/9/2008 @ 7:19 am
Phil, I’ve attempted to be more polite to you lately, but you’re coming across as more of a Troll who’s only intent is to bait others here over the past few weeks.
Comment by Dmac — 10/9/2008 @ 7:28 am
Hi Phil!
Here’s a question for you. Just for a moment, let’s assume everything posted above is true.
In your opinion, does that make Obama a more or less attractive candidate?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 7:59 am
Keep digging folks. You will soon get unto something. Something really damaging for Obama.
Seek and you shall find.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 8:21 am
Hi love2008!
Same question for you. Just for a moment, let’s assume everything posted above is true.
In your opinion, does that make Obama a more or less attractive candidate?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 8:23 am
Obama is very evil. Pictures don’t lie.
Is this the man we want as the next President?
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 8:28 am
#21
If and a big “IF” the above points about Obama are true. Then he is not the man for the job. But the problem is that you guys can’t prove anything or produce any seroius, damaging evidence about Obama. Just more baseless theories.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 8:32 am
So now that we’ve established that you agree in no uncertain terms that alignment with these groups is bad, which parts of the analysis above do you disagree with? Granted, there’s a lot of things there but pick one and give the reason why you don’t think it’s true.
As a follow up, what would it take to convince you these things are true?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 8:41 am
You can’t argue with a Bobo Doll, CW - it just looks bad at you with it’s cold, dead eyes. No sign of sentience or actual thought processes are ever observed.
Comment by Dmac — 10/9/2008 @ 8:44 am
“just looks back at you.”
Comment by Dmac — 10/9/2008 @ 8:47 am
Why don’t we do it this way. Pick those points one by one and provide evidence for each of them. mmm?
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 8:50 am
#27
The last comment is for CW at comment #24.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 8:55 am
OK. Point one
It says:
This link says Obama was a member of the “New Party.” Is that correct or incorrect? If incorrect, why?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 9:14 am
“Their tactics were ruled unconstitutional and the New Party eventually went away.”
Not really. After the fusion case decision hey became Democrats in an effort to join-em-and-beat-em. Their party was dissolved but they’re still here. It’s just that Moveon-Markos etc have sold them on co-opting the Dems instead.
Oldtime moderate labor-type Democrats are getting hard to find these days.
Comment by Carol — 10/9/2008 @ 10:24 am
#29
It is correct the link says so. But how does it prove it? How can you trust it to be authentic? Do you have any other link to confirm it? Don’t tell me you are that gullible.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 11:32 am
CW Desiato - Nice job going back in time to 1996, creating a “www.newparty.org” website, and then faking its article in the internet archive so that you could point it out to lovey here. You are some time-traveling hacker!!!
What was that someone said about mental illness? No lovey, we’re not “gullible;” we’re sane.
Comment by carlitos — 10/9/2008 @ 11:36 am
Senator Obama has stated to the Press, that if John McCain can talk all this trash against him on the campaign trail, then why doesn’t he say these things to his face? Good question! He had plenty of time during the debate. He must be waiting for the next, in the meantime he will keep insinuating, without facts, in his joint appearances with Palin and Hubby, who is still connected to the Alaskan Independent Party. Where is the proof to any of this McCain snake oil???
Comment by Honesty — 10/9/2008 @ 11:51 am
Can’t wait for that cite where the Justice Dept. lists the AIP as a terrorist group.
Probably put them at the top of the list above the WU and Hamas.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 12:01 pm
I guess you all think Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party was a good decision.
And the AIP’s connection to Iran? and USG connections to terrorists we love, not to mention support for blah blah blah as someone else said. FUN FUN
I admit it, I’m a socialist. I once attended a dinner with Mike Harrington and 3 or 4 members of congress the future mayor of NYC and the heads of the major union locals. My girlfriend was on the executive board of the UAW local.
And all of us were and continue to be the personification of evil.
Worse: we got real drunk and acted silly.
Comment by Nanker Feldge — 10/9/2008 @ 12:09 pm
The trolls are declining in quality. They don’t even know that the AIP nonsense was debunked a couple of days ago. We need a better quality troll !
This quote is funny. It comes from a CBS report on how Obama is not treating reporters well.
The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama’s past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.
So then the reporters filed those lying stories about how McCain is afraid to talk about economics.
Oh well. Maybe McCain should treat them worse. Sort of a Stockholm Syndrome effect.
Comment by Mike K — 10/9/2008 @ 12:11 pm
“They don’t even know that the AIP nonsense was debunked a couple of days ago.”
Links please kiddo.
And Mike, I thought the press was in the tank for Obama?
Comment by Nanker Feldge — 10/9/2008 @ 12:23 pm
Patterico,
Do you personally believe that Barack Obama and Ayers/Dohrn are friends? In the honest sense of the word? Regardless, do you believe that Obama’s relationship with Ayers/Dohrn reflects that Obama is committed to domestic terrorism?
If not, what exactly are you hoping to establish here?
Tom
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 12:43 pm
Spot on, Tom! But don’t expect a straight forward answer from some members of this blog. Patterico and DRJ and a few here are the only ones left with some integrity. But again, good question.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 1:21 pm
love2008, experience teaches me to be specific in who I’m addressing around here.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 1:43 pm
Comment by Fudge Wanker
Nanker Feldge— 10/9/2008 @ 12:23 pmThere, corrected that for you.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 1:47 pm
My mistake. It’s “Phelge” actually.
Comment by Nanker Phelge — 10/9/2008 @ 1:57 pm
Nope.
Nope.
I do believe that it shows a remarkable lack of judgment on Baracky’s part. A breath taking lack of judgment. Something he claims to be one of his greatest strengths.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 2:02 pm
Nanker - Yawn. That’s about the eighth time some bonehead has pasted that clip here on the past week. Thanks.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/9/2008 @ 2:06 pm
Don’t ask me about that one, Nanker.
Comment by Grand Kleage Byrd (KKK/Dem - WV) — 10/9/2008 @ 2:12 pm
#47
Do you think McCain has ALWAYS exercised good judgment in all his relationships? Has he ever made a mistake of being in the wrong company? Answer me thou holier and more righteous one. Thou Who doth not fart in public. Answer me, thou purest of all.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 2:27 pm
The Bobo Doll speaks to no one but itself. Not being a sentient presence, it can only hurl itself down on the floor, repeatedly.
Comment by Dmac — 10/9/2008 @ 2:31 pm
#51
Tell me, Doofus, are you still sticking your finger in your an*s and smelling it or sticking it in people’s nostrils?
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 2:41 pm
Nobody has claimed to be perfect, or pure, lovie. That is an argument that exists only between your ears.
I can state this as a fact. I have never gone to the home of a domestic terrorist. I have never worked with a domestic terrorist. I have never met a domestic terrorist. If if did meet one, I certainly would not choose to associate with them any longer.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 2:47 pm
#47: Thanks, JD. Would you be willing to specify as to what exactly demonstrates this breath-taking lack of judgment? What action is being criticized here?
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 2:53 pm
See my answer in #53, Tom.
Or better yet, just call me a racist and get it over with. That has been your M.O. previously.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 2:54 pm
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 1:21 pm
Here is a direct question - Why are you dismissing the link to the 12-year-old New Party article that was linked above? How is it inauthentic?
Comment by carlitos — 10/9/2008 @ 2:55 pm
In 33, to be specific.
Comment by carlitos — 10/9/2008 @ 2:56 pm
That is an argument that exists only between your ears.
You’re operating under a mistaken assumption - The Bobo cannot actually think about anything, due to high concentrations of goo inserted between the aural cavities. As evidence of this dynamic, observe the following repetitive Tourette’s Syndrome posting:
are you still sticking your finger in your an*s and smelling it or sticking it in people’s nostrils?
The Bobo can only repeat things it heard from other sentient beings - however, the beings in this case were probably not advanced beyond the 6th grade, judging by the Bobo’s output at this juncture. Like poking a stick into a wild animal’s cage, one only need to observe this behavior for a few minutes in order to classify it appropriately.
Comment by Dmac — 10/9/2008 @ 2:57 pm
#53: At the time at which Obama and Ayers met for the first time, Ayers was a college prof of education, a seemingly-rehabilitated if not respected member of the community. I don’t know about you, but there are people in my life who have messed up, done time, and subsequently changed their lives. Under the circumstances, why wouldn’t Obama (who as a Christian probably believes in the same possibility for redemption as I do), why should Obama assume that Ayers and Dohrn hadn’t turned their lives around by that point? Didn’t they meet for the first time in the 90’s? The actual terrorist acts were some 20 years prior.
I’m not saying Ayers is a swell guy (or even necessarily rehabilitated). But I will say this: all of the “Obama (hearts) Ayers” nonsense isn’t about “judgment” - it’s just part of the same narrative to invoke fear by associating Obama with radical terrorism as we’ve seen all election season (”Barack Hussein Obama…” “Psst…I heard he’s really a Muslim.”).
You can see this in McCain’s ad. It’s clearly trying to scare us with references to terrorism, not simply criticize Obama for having bad judgment (which isn’t an ominous charge, like you might die, which is the tone of the ad).
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:10 pm
#55 - Huh? I don’t remember what you’re referring to. Got a link?
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:13 pm
I guess _you_ might see it that way. I see the ad questioning why Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about Ayers.
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 3:18 pm
@61: CW Desiato, but perhaps you’d be willing to admit that, if this ad (and all the related talking points) did manage to conflate Obama with terrorism in people’s minds, that would arguably help, not hurt McCain’s chances of victory in November. Right?
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:23 pm
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:10 pm
The question of the Senator’s judgement arises because, even after becoming aware of Mr. Ayers’ terrorist activities (even though we have never been able to get an answer to that wonderful question: What does he know, and when did he learn it?) he has not distanced himself from Mr. Ayers and his radical, revolutionary rhetoric and acts.
That is the question about Barack Hussein Obama’s judgement and character; for,
Character Matters!
We found out 16 years ago what happens when the character of a candidate is ignored, or downplayed.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 3:24 pm
Progressive Populist seemed to think he was a member of the New Party:
That paragon of right-wing groupthink, Wikipedia, at the very least, gave him their endorsement in 1996.
So, again, I’m asking, do you dispute he was a member in spite of this evidence? Or, do you think association with the New Party is no big deal?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 3:26 pm
Tom - so you admit you did not ask your questions in good faith? Would you be so cavalier if Barack or McCain had the exact same relationship with Eric Rudolph?
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 3:29 pm
We found out 16 years ago what happens when the character of a candidate is ignored, or downplayed.
Yes. The candidate became president and - wait for it - had an extramarital affair.
Unlike the current president, whose character is unimpeachable. But we digress.
—
My question is, why shouldn’t Obama have assumed that Ayers had redeemed himself, at least sufficiently to work a charity’s board together? They clearly weren’t friends, so long as “friends” actually means what it has always meant up til now.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:32 pm
JD, honest to goodness, you’ve completely lost me. Would you please reference the comments to which you are referring?
I am now and have always operated in good faith since the first time I ever posted here, back in 2004. I’m sure Patterico and DRJ would attest to that.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:35 pm
I’m not going to estimate what other people think because that’s a futile shell game. I’ll tell you that _I_ think that, at the worst, Ayers committed acts of domestic terrorism. At best, he organized or incited domestic terrorism. Further, his worldview of indoctrination via education is not one _I_ agree with.
If Ayers was the only questionable association of Obama, I’d be less inclined to make a stink. However, there have been many questionable relations with people (Mr. Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Phleger, Ayers, Dohrn, ACORN) who have a radical (to me) ideology.
These associations, to me, indicates that Obama either leans that way (I think it’s obvious) or he’s used these people to gain political capital. The only thing I think of when I see McCain’s ad is “finally.”
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 3:38 pm
Tom, I would remind you of the old saw about making assumptions.
We don’t want to know what assumptions BHO is/was operating under.
We want to know what facts he had at his disposal.
When did he learn that William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist,
and why didn’t he end their relationship at that time?
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 3:40 pm
@64: JD, regarding Rudolph, if he had committed these acts 30 years prior to meeting either candidate, and it is not unreasonable to assume that he had rehabilitated himself by that point - I’ll reserve judgment. John McCain (unlike GWB, I might add) seems to me like he has a sense of honor and decency. Barack Obama strikes me the same way. I would give either of them the benefit of doubt on this question.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:41 pm
Dude, don’t blow our cover!
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 3:41 pm
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:41 pm
As my Moma says: Stupid is, as stupid does!
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 3:42 pm
Been trying to post a response all day and for some reason, it doesn’t take. Perhaps it’s the links. Sorry.
Anyhow, Progressive Populist Magazine seemed to think Obama was a party member.
http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html
Heck, even the Wikipedia article lists Obama as having received an endorsement from the party during his 1996 campaign.
My question is, does Obama’s association bother you? Or, do you think it’s simply not true that he was associated with the New Party?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 3:45 pm
Been trying to post a response all day and for some reason, it doesn’t take. Perhaps it’s the links. Sorry.
Anyhow, Progressive Populist Magazine seemed to think Obama was a party member. You’ll have to go to their site yourself and append “11.96.Edit.html” to get to the article. Can’t hotlink from here which is totally understandable.
Heck, even the Wikipedia article lists Obama as having received an endorsement from the party during his 1996 campaign.
My question is, does Obama’s association bother you? Or, do you think it’s simply not true that he was associated with the New Party?
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 3:47 pm
@67: As a seminarian (Christian), I can assure you that to conflate Rev. Wright (and even the obnoxious Fr. Pfleger) with domestic terrorism is mistaken. Wright and Pfleger (oddly enough) come from the perspective of black liberation theology, which is admittedly misunderstood by many, but is certainly not akin to terrorist ideology.
@68: That’s a fair question. This ad, however, goes much further than that, implying “friendship” and conflating Obama/terrorism more than makes me comfortable.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:50 pm
Tom - If Baracky thought it out like that, he should say so. I submit there is no evidence of redemption, rehabilitation, or even attempts at same. Barack is apparently far more open minded than I, having forgiven those meaningless bombs. I would not forgive, that is between him and his higher power. i would not choose to associate with him. Period. And I would look twice at anyone that chose otherwise, including my alma mater.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 3:53 pm
@71: Actually, this is my stance because I believe that Jesus’ salvation is offered to all people - regardless of what they may have done in the past. (Doesn’t mean everybody changes, of course, but it’s incumbent upon me to not write people off only based on their past actions.) In short, it’s possible for anyone to change over time. I know plenty of people who have.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:55 pm
black liberation theology
Except, BLT is based on the Liberation Theology that was part and parcel of the terrorism/revolutionism that turned South and Central America into Killing Fields during the 70’s and 80’s.
It is a totalitarian philosophy that denies free-will, and the freedom of man. Only those that submit to the will of the directorate can be saved, all others are “apostate” and must be eliminated.
That’s a great movement to follow and believe in.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 3:57 pm
JD, thanks. Hey, if you can, please point me to where you feel I called you a racist. I don’t remember it, and frankly I rather doubt that I actually intended to write at some point, “JD, you’re racist.” I do remember you being kind of a jerk once…heh…now WHY would I come to that conclusion???
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:58 pm
I thought to be saved, one must have confessed his sins, and asked for redemption?
When has Ayers/Dohrn done either?
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 3:59 pm
@76: No. Neither systemized black liberation theology nor Gutierrez’ liberation theology espouses submission to the will of any dictator. To be sure, liberation theology has been used in combination with violence at certain points…but then, so has other forms of Christianity. As to systemized black liberation theology, you need to get your head out of the conservative talking points about it and check out some primary sources yourself. Read some Cone, then we’ll talk.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 4:02 pm
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 3:58 pm
Tom, could you actually point to where JD accussed you of calling him a “racist”?
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 4:03 pm
Is there anything the Left will not overlook for Teh One?
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 4:03 pm
@78: That’s between them and God - not them and Obama - isn’t it?
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 4:04 pm
I never said “dictator” did I?
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 4:04 pm
I’m not conflating Wright and Pfleger with terrorism. I _am_ saying that, to me, they espouse (yet another) radical ideology that Obama was, at the least, comfortable with…until it became politically inconvenient.
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/9/2008 @ 4:05 pm
@80:
See my answer in #53, Tom.
Or better yet, just call me a racist and get it over with. That has been your M.O. previously.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 2:54 pm
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 4:05 pm
#83: true. My mistake.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 4:06 pm
@83: the point still stands.
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 4:07 pm
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 4:04 pm
Then, we don’t know if Ayers/Dohrn are redeemed.
But, we know that he believes that he didn’t do enough, and he has never renounced what he did do.
Therefore, there are no visible signs of Ayers/Dorhn being contrite, and of being rehabilitated.
And you, are just another defender of the indefensable.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 4:08 pm
#53
Very unstable and vacillating points of view here. JD, why are you ignoring or avoiding to answer my question. Instead you prefer to divert attention with more drivel and meaningless verbiage. Let me go a little slower. Has John McCain never exercised poor judgment in his relationships? Has he never found himself with the wrong company?
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 4:08 pm
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 4:08 pm
Tell us who you believe John McCain has an inappropriate relationship with, and we will explore that situation and discuss it.
Otherwise, you question is an ad hominum attack.
I would say, right off, that he once associated with Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegel, who were shown to be slimy, low-life, who sold their souls for money (sort of modern Daniel Webster’s - what is it about the U.S.Senate that corrupts the soul?)!
Of course, in his current life, his having to associate with Harry Reid probably ranks right up their with the above three.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 4:14 pm
#90
Did he not know these men were “slimy, low-lifers who sold their souls for money” before associating with them? Or at which point did he stop associating with them? (Atleast you AD are among the few who still attempt to show respect and integrity. Don’t let them take your soul!)
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 4:23 pm
I would think that when he was elected to the Senate, he presupposed that his fellow Senators were all men of honor, of the sort he had served with in the Navy (though John McCain racked up a tremendous number of “gigs” while at the Academy, none were for an honors violation - which would have probably brought about his dismissal, if not a resignation in disgrace on his part).
When he was sucked into the “Keating-5″ situation, he found that some of his fellow Senators were not as honorable as their title would suggest. In fact, before this scandle broke, he distanced himself from Keating telling him that he could not do what Keating had asked him to do because it wasn’t right.
These are the facts that were determined by the Senate Ethics Investigation conducted by Robert Bennett, who is famously known as the attorney in the 90’s for Pres. William Clinton, and were behind the attempt by Bennett to have McCain dismissed from the investigation. The Senate, in its’ infinite wisdom (snark) refused to do that because that would leave them with four Senators, all Democrats in a majority Democrat Senate, on the hot-seat.
I would bet that you could easily find that from that point on, Senator McCain had little, if any professional or personal, contact with Cranston et al (with the possible exception of John Glenn, the fourth Senator in this matter, who was found to be very peripherial to the accusations against the others, and of course, was fellow Navy).
John McCain can be accused of many things, and I have leveled some of those accusations myself, but he cannot be accused of being without honor - his family, his education, his service would not allow it!
I hope this answers your questin on this matter.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 4:47 pm
#92
Yes AD. Thanks for being forthright. Only wish you would be as forgiving towards Obama.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 4:54 pm
love2008, why should anyone “forgive” Obama? Obama has been too busy lying about his associations with Bernadine Dorhn and William Ayers - people who used violence to attempt the overthrow of the government that Obama thinks he should lead - to ask for forgiveness.
Comment by SPQR — 10/9/2008 @ 4:58 pm
Mr. Obama hasn’t demonstrated anything that I can be foregiving about.
He is an overly ambitious, unprincipled, deceitful, empty suit (and I won’t even mention that he’s an ambulance chaser).
I see nothing admirable about the man, or who he associates with, politically, theologically, or just in the neighborhood.
Anyway, if he wants my foregiveness (as if I would even think he would care), he has to ask.
Even though I’m not, it’s a Jewish Thing!
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 5:00 pm
Poor Barack. No love for you here.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 5:14 pm
The last Tom that came around did so, if it was not you, I apologize. You share styles, but if I am wrong, I am the first to admit it. Sorry.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 5:18 pm
What is unstable or vacillating about my answer. To help you out, I will attach it below.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 5:23 pm
#98
I didn’t ask you about yourself. I asked you about John McCain. Even AD understood the question and has attempted an answer. Read the question and answer it. Comment #89
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 5:31 pm
No.
Followed up with, Nobody has claimed to be perfect, or pure, lovie. That is an argument that exists only between your ears.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 5:39 pm
#102
Your answer “No” is all I needed in your last comment. The other stuff is not necessary.
So McCain has made his own bad relationship choices? Hmmm. Interesting.
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 5:53 pm
Comment by love2008 — 10/9/2008 @ 5:53 pm
No, love, you again misunderstand, or are trying to creat a strawman that you can punch.
Has John McCain found himself in relationships that were not to his liking?
Yes!
Has he chosen to be in those relationships?
I doubt that, since it doesn’t comport with what we know about the man (see my #94).
Comment by Another Drew — 10/9/2008 @ 6:35 pm
AD - It does not engage in good faith. Even when it is being lucid, it does not take long for it to revert to form.
Comment by JD — 10/9/2008 @ 6:40 pm
JD, I have seen another Tom around here. FWIW, I will always link to my blog when I comment here, so that may be a way to tell us apart. I have on occasion had to apologize for things I’ve said in anger around here, so I’m sensitive to that possibility as well. Moving forward: no harm, no foul, just political disagreement.
Peace,
Tom
Comment by Tom — 10/9/2008 @ 8:00 pm
love2008, you have a lot of nerve to continue posting on this thread whilst ignoring the direct questions posed to you in good faith at posts 56 and 73.
Answer or don’t, but please respond.
Comment by carlitos — 10/9/2008 @ 9:49 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts above.
As predicted, the Wikipedia (paragon of truth in information) article has been scrubbed of Obama’s name.
Comment by CW Desiato — 10/10/2008 @ 6:04 am
Excellent work. However, there is something not being sufficiently focused on with regard to Obama’s connection with Ayers/Dohrn. That is this: think of the loss of credibility our nation will have in a war on terror, when its chief executive– nay, it’s Commander in Chief– has ties to, indeed launched his political career in the home of, a confessed and unrepentant domestic terrorist. The American people need to reflect soberly on the moral effect such an association will have on the legitimacy of our war against terrorism. If people don’t think that every terrorist state and organization in the world won’t make hay with that, they are delusional. It doesn’t even matter if Obama agrees with or condemns Ayers’ actions. The association is sufficient for the terrorists to exploit. Period. No one seems to be addressing the “why does it matter” aspect (beyond simply bad judgment). I’ve been doing my best to keep up with most of the articles on this subject through RCP, but I don’t think anyone has really driven this home. I really think this is the angle that needs to become a drum beat, and just hammered home until election day. It’s not guilt by association, it’s guilty OF association producing irreparable damage to our nation’s moral credibility in time of war against terrorist states and organizations.
Comment by Max — 10/11/2008 @ 10:03 am
John McCain: Who is the real Barack Obama?
Crowd : “Terrorist! Arab! Off with his head! Kill Him! Arab!…
John McCain: No, ma’am. He’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.”
John McCain: Who is the real Barack Obama?
John McCain: I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.”
Enough said.
Vote for Barack Obama. Say “no” to fear.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 10:17 am
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 10:08 am
Such a great lie that it has to be posted twice, in different threads, by a non-person.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/11/2008 @ 10:21 am
#111
You are the one lying AD. Those were McCain’s words. I know it hurts to admit the truth but I think you can try. Negative campaigning won’t work. Neither will stirring people’s emotions to call for the head of a presidential candidate honorable. Unlike you, John McCain has shown himself to be a man of character and integrity. He will either win fairly or lose gracefully. That is why he is called the “Original Maverick”. A decent and truthful man. Something I can’t say for you.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 11:32 am
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 10:17 am
love2008,
No one, I mean no one, has at campaign rallies called Obama a terrorist. A woman did say she thought he was Arab (there was a pause after this, long enough for her to add “terrorist” but she did not add that), and John McCain, somewhat non-sequitur-ly, said, no, he’s a decent family man. Please get your facts straight. Video is readily available.
No one, absolutely no one, is calling for Obama’s death. (One person at one rally did call for the death of the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. He was either not heard or completely ignored; it’s unclear.)
Here’s, in fact, a thread at HotAir where a pro-abortion person asks if pro-lifers wouldn’t have liked Obama to be aborted. He/she gets schooled but good.
If you’re going to oppose Obama supporters at least you could get your facts straight. It’s no less than infuriating when your whole political side is basically being accused falsely of wanting to murder someone, when the person has tools readily available to find out the truth. That’s called slander. That means a lie.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:00 pm
NOYK, when truth is not on your side, there are only lies to be had.
btw, check this out-
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFhNzlkOTZiYjcxNmNmYmJmYWRmZTM1MjkzMTM5MWQ=
Comment by Dana — 10/11/2008 @ 12:05 pm
love2008,
Here is the video of the woman at the rally, and McCain’s response, after which there is applause by your “off with his head” crowd.
I would like a response, please.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:07 pm
noyk - lovie does not respond. It does not post in good faith.
Comment by JD — 10/11/2008 @ 12:10 pm
#113
If the angry answers were not referring to Obama why did McCain need to come to Obama’s defence?
Do you think that the behavior of GOP people at these recent rallies has not raised cause for real concern. So much that even the Secret Service had to go and investigate. Forcing McCain to take control of the campaign and tone down the rhetoric? And I hope you are not calling me a liar, noyk. That will not be nice.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 12:11 pm
No more concern than you had when the Leftists have called George Bush everything but President for the last 8 years. Your faux concern is disingenuous. You are a liar, lovie. Dishonest mendoucheous liar.
Comment by JD — 10/11/2008 @ 12:13 pm
love2008,
Here is your quote:
Where did you get this quote, pray tell? A whole crowd shouting “off with his head” and “terrorist” referring to Barack Obama must be all over the Internet.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:15 pm
Or did you just make the quote up?
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:16 pm
P.S.: yes, I am thoroughly angry, in case you cannot tell. Slander tends to do that to me. If you produce the transcript or the video of this “crowd” shouting these things about Barack Obama you will have my most abject apologies. If not, all the evidence points to your doctoring a real quote to make conservatives look bad. That would make you not honest with regard to quoting those politically opposed to you. You may draw your own conclusions.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:18 pm
noyk - I have no problems calling it a mendoucheous liar. It has proven itself to be so.
Comment by JD — 10/11/2008 @ 12:21 pm
noyk - I have no problems calling it a mendoucheous liar. It has proven itself to be so.
Comment by JD — 10/11/2008 @ 12:21 pm
love2008,
what is your response to this? Again I ask: where did you get the quote, or did you make it up?
You may remember my saying on another thread a bit back that I am VERY, VERY reluctant to accuse another of a lack of truthfulness unless the evidence is overwhelming. In this case the evidence is very strong, and I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.
If you produce a link to the quote (transcript or video) I’ll absolutely apologize for falsely accusing you. If not, I shall expect yours to conservatives in general, for falsely accusing “crowds” of them of advocating murder. Since I assume you are a person of honor, that is. Aren’t you?
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:27 pm
Dana,
Outstanding quote. Hadn’t seen that by Governor Palin. Am bookmarking that for passing around. Thanks for linking.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 12:28 pm
noyk.
Which part of the world do you leave in? This is one link. Then as for the terrorist claim, you can find it here.
I am amazed at your attempt to try to confuse reality. I understand your embarassment. But don’t lie about it. Even John McCain agrees with me.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 12:50 pm
I am really disappointed in you that you would tow the GOP line of denying and lying when the facts are clear. As for the
“terrorist” claim about Obama, check this out. The “off with his head” charge is all over the internet. But I don’t mind giving you this! and this.
I still respect you as one of the few honest commenters on this blog. Don’t change.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 1:03 pm
No one you know,
Love2008 responded to your earlier comments but her comments were caught in the spam filter. They are ## 125-126 and they contain several links, but each link goes back to this MSNBC post from NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner reporting October 8, 2008, from Allentown PA:
In addition, love2008, there is no reference in any of your links to this claim you made in a comment at 10/11/2008 @ 10:17:
Please check your links and try again.
Comment by DRJ — 10/11/2008 @ 3:01 pm
try again.
Yes. The operative word. Not discuss. Not bring up something relevant. Just keep throwing campaign materials out there while ignoring any response.
love2008 is dishonest. It has been proven.
Comment by Apogee — 10/11/2008 @ 3:11 pm
Thanks, DRJ.
love2008,
As DRJ pointed out, every single of your links (even the “jed” link) has as its source this same url:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1517943.aspx
Despite your claim,
Then as for the terrorist claim, you can find it here.
The word “terrorist” doesn’t even appear on that page.
If the other quote is true, it sounds like one man yelled “off with his head.” The article says this was in response to a tax plan.
Do you think this was a call for Obama’s assassination in response to a tax plan, love2008? (BTW, did McCain or Palin even hear this shout?)
But more importantly, since when is one man a “crowd?” And no one seriously called for his death. (A tax plan?) And, again, your link is incorrect because no one called Obama a terrorist. Cut and paste the “terrorist” quote from the page, will you? You can’t, because it isn’t there.
No. I will show you what an accurate quote looks like.
love2008, here are two exact quotes from you this afternoon:
1. I am amazed at your attempt to try to confuse reality.
2. But don’t lie about it.
3. I am really disappointed in you that you would tow the GOP line of denying and lying when the facts are clear.
I have treated you with respect, love2008, in all your time here. However, that does not mean you are permitted to call me a liar, and you have done so, three times today.
I expect an apology. Immediately.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 3:49 pm
DRJ, looks like spammy caught my comment. Would you mind rescuing it when you have a minute. Thanks.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 3:50 pm
#127
Well DRJ, thanks. I actually posted one comment twice. The second was sent because I thought the first was lost. Not trying to be redundant or anything.
And noyk, sorry if I was harsh. You are not a liar. Not by any standards. You are one of the few I consider a friend. (Hope same there..)
The crowd response I posted was a kind of satire of different scenes. More of a cut and paste work. But they are all accurate. I am sure you know they happened. People calling Obama “terririst”, “traitor”. A woman actually called him “an Arab” and McCain said “no. not so.” (paraphrasing).
My point in the post is that McCain is showing leadership again by refusing to allow people get out of hand in his campaign. This singular thing might just be what will stop the bleeding and bring his poll numbers up. I was also suggesting that his suppoters here do the same.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 3:53 pm
And noyk, sorry if I was harsh. You are not a liar. Not by any standards.
love2008,
I posted a response to your 12:50 and 1:03 comments but it is lost in the spam filter. You’ll see it later I’m sure. The end of it said that I expected an apology for your calling me a liar, and I appreciate your making clear in your 3:53 comment that you didn’t intend to call me one.
The crowd response I posted was a kind of satire of different scenes. More of a cut and paste work. But they are all accurate. I am sure you know they happened. People calling Obama “terririst”, “traitor”. A woman actually called him “an Arab” and McCain said “no. not so.” (paraphrasing).
Thank you for making that clear. Since you put quote marks up in the original, however, it looks like you were quoting a crowd shouting these things. As you are aware, this didn’t happen. So IMO the “quote” was very misleading, and especially the “crowd” part. A (figurative) lynch mob is very different from one person who makes a shout to an uncomfortable silence or boos. I trust you see now how dishonest that change from individual to crowd appears. I hope you don’t expose yourself to that appearance of dishonesty again. Please be careful in the future.
My other post addresses your points about the substance of the shouts by individuals. Please see that when it comes up.
My point in the post is that McCain is showing leadership again by refusing to allow people get out of hand in his campaign…I was also suggesting that his suppoters here do the same.
I already pointed out that the “crowd” APPLAUDED when McCain said that Obama is a decent family man. So I think we –and IMO virtually all conservatives - are on the same page on this point.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 4:10 pm
#128,
Apogee,
From today, you should stop telling lies. Lying can take you to hell, you know?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:11 pm
Hmm, my second to last comment is still in spam; probably will be there for a bit and I explain more fully there but just for now:
–no one called Obama a terrorist, and
–the “off with his head” (by one person) was about a tax plan according to your link and IMO people don’t seriously make death threats - especially in medieval language - about tax plans.
Does that strike anyone else here as plausible BTW?
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 4:14 pm
love2008,
my 3:49 comment is out of spam. (Thanks DRJ, or Patterico, or whoever did that.)
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 4:19 pm
no one you know,
I found your comment from 10/11/2008 @ 3:49 pm in the filter. It’s now #129.
love2008,
Re: Your comments ## 125-126 that were in the filter. I assumed you commented twice because you were trying to get one of them to post, but I wasn’t sure which one to release so I posted them both. However, I thought you might have intended to link more than one source. Sometimes I intend to link separate sources and inadvertently link the same source twice. It’s easy to do.
Comment by DRJ — 10/11/2008 @ 4:22 pm
#131
I never intended for any one to think it happened that way. I never meant to mis-state the issue. Maybe I did not make that clear at first. My fault.
But let me ask you, what are your thoughts about the angry and incitive comments made by those folks? And how do you respond to McCain saying those nice things about Obama? Does it not undermine the authenticity of the negative ads? What’s your take?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:36 pm
And noyk, sorry if I was harsh. You are not a liar. Not by any standards. You are one of the few I consider a friend. (Hope same there..)
This response, and several variations of it, have been used by our little girl almost everytime she has been spanked over one of her lies.
It demonstrates a complete lack on contrition, and just reinforces the conviction that whatever comes from her mouth is a lie, and she is a lier!
Comment by Another Drew — 10/11/2008 @ 4:36 pm
#138
*sighs* Another liar who can’t even spell.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:44 pm
It has been a constant that the factual basis for all of love2008’s opinions turns out to be nonexistant.
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 4:46 pm
This is about the voter registration fraud. The harm is on the party getting the faulty registration. Come election day none of the fake people will vote. This is not grand scheam. The people they hire to do the registration job are being paid by each new registration. They make them up, get their daily wage and move on. It is highly unlikely a person will show up at the polls with a dead man’s ID ready to vote
Comment by jeanean — 10/11/2008 @ 4:46 pm
But let me ask you, what are your thoughts about the angry and incitive comments made by those folks? And how do you respond to McCain saying those nice things about Obama? Does it not undermine the authenticity of the negative ads? What’s your take?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:36 pm
These are good questions. I have an answer ready for every one of them, and will post as soon as you clarify the other unresolved issue: that of anyone calling Obama a terrorist, or saying “kill him” in reference to Obama. Do you have links to those quotes? I don’t think anyone, even individually, said that about Obama. Please clarify.
Lastly, you didn’t answer the question as to whether you thought the “tax plan” guy seriously wanted Obama beheaded. Do you? Thanks.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 4:49 pm
love2008, perhaps you are not aware of this from Politico (no friend of the right),
For all the passion and anger on display this week from Republicans at McCain events, the most vitriol demonstrated at his rallies and town halls over the past year has typically come from antiwar protesters, often affiliated with the group Code Pink.
As an aside, your credibility here would be greatly enhanced if you made a clean apology to noyk - who has always been with integrity.
A simple, <I’m sorry I called you a liar, would go miles toward restoring your credibility here. Any tacked on rationalizations, justifications and attempts to minimize your behavior in fact only adds to the negative.
Comment by Dana — 10/11/2008 @ 4:50 pm
#140
They just keep coming. Another trained liar. When was the last you actually told the truth? By now, it must sound strange in your mouth. And BTW, are you still playing Drag queen when no one is watching?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:53 pm
#143
I really don’t care about what you think. And I don’t remember speaking to you first. So take a number!
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:57 pm
Drag queen? Stealing insults from your buddies in junior high again, I see.
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 5:01 pm
love2008, I’m sorry you’re so defensive. I don’t like to any honest, class act maligned. If you are unwilling to help your case, that’s fine.
Its also significant you ignore the most vitriol at McCain’s rallies.
Comment by Dana — 10/11/2008 @ 5:03 pm
Oh, love2008 is definitely not a class act.
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 5:04 pm
#143
I really don’t care about what you think. And I don’t remember speaking to you first. So take a number!
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 4:57 pm
You’ve told me before you respect my opinion. So here’s mine: that was an immensely rude response to a disagreeing but really very respectful comment of Dana’s.
I’m also dismayed to see you tossing around the word “liar” to so many people today, including SPQR and Another Drew.
You could take the wind out of their sails by proving that what you said upthread was true:
But they [the quotes] are all accurate. I am sure you know they happened. People calling Obama “terririst”, “traitor”.
Respecfully: Links, please?
If you can’t produce them then I’m afraid the charges of dishonesty leveled at you appear all the more true, and a “liar” charge applied to other posters here will not hold water.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 5:04 pm
#142
Lastly, you didn’t answer the question as to whether you thought the “tax plan” guy seriously wanted Obama beheaded. Do you? Thanks.
There is no way I can know whether he seriously wanted Obama’s head off. I am not in his mind. I can only judge a man by what he says. The fact is that you don’t go about saying “Off with his head” and not be seen as a threat. The Secret Service felt it was important enough to check it out. Unless you are suggesting what he said was in order.
And to answer your question about who called Obama a “terrorist” in a McCain rally, why don’t you google it and find it for yourself. It’s there.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 5:04 pm
SPQR, class act = NOYK
Comment by Dana — 10/11/2008 @ 5:04 pm
Dana, yep.
love2008, it is amusing that now you think that if the Secret Service investigates, then it is important. During the Bush administration, liberals have complained repeatedly when the Secret Service investigates anti-Bush rhetoric.
Ah, but that’s the kind of logic we expect from you.
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 5:07 pm
There is no way I can know whether he seriously wanted Obama’s head off. I am not in his mind. I can only judge a man by what he says. The fact is that you don’t go about saying “Off with his head” and not be seen as a threat.
Fair enough, I suppose, in these times of extra caution, though I still maintain people who want other people assassinated don’t go around yelling “off with their head” a la Alice in Wonderland. Especially - again - over a tax plan. They yell something more serious, like, “kill him!”
why don’t you google it and find it for yourself. It’s there.
Speaking of the alleged shout of “kill him” (applied to Obama and not, say, a domestic bomber and terrorist) I provided you with proof of what I was saying upthread, with links. I’m sorry, I just don’t have time to research things for you that I don’t believe exist. If you know it’s there it should be easy to find.
I found a crowd applauding McCain’s compliments to Obama, and linked it upthread, in literally 10 seconds. So it shouldn’t take you long if it’s there.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 5:10 pm
SPQR, class act = NOYK
Comment by Dana — 10/11/2008 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks and back atcha
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 5:13 pm
#153
I am sure you are being deliberately naively about the times we live in. Are you aware that there has been attempts to assassinate Obama? Do you know that these crazy fools get there motivations from comments like “Off with his head” and “kill him”? One unintended comment can spark off unexpected consequencies.
I found a crowd applauding McCain’s compliments to Obama,
Did you also find the crowd that booed on McCain when he said Obama was a decent American? Or was that part too inconvenient for you?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 5:25 pm
love2008, now you are really making up stuff. What attempt to assassinate Obama have you fantasized about now?
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 5:28 pm
#153
I am sure you are being deliberately naively about the times we live in. Are you aware that there has been attempts to assassinate Obama?
No, I actually wasn’t aware of this. Once again, do you have a link? I do believe it though, very unfortunately. I would also believe that McCain has had attempts made on his life. There are many crazy people out there. I think we agree on that. The issue, though, just to keep it straight here, was supposed to be the overwhelming conservative majority’s attitude toward Obama. Hate to be so blunt, but a subject, not to put too fine a point on it, which you broached with your original “crowds” comments.
Do you know that these crazy fools get there motivations from comments like “Off with his head” and “kill him”? One unintended comment can spark off unexpected consequencies.
I do totally agree with this, and this was going to be part of my answer to your good questions (in your post of 4:36) above. The guy shouldn’t have said it, no way.
Frankly it sounds like a joke (”off with his head?!”) that should never have been made, like joking about a bomb at the airport. There is also no evidence whatever that there was any support or laughter or approval in the “crowd” for the comment.
Did you also find the crowd that booed on McCain when he said Obama was a decent American? Or was that part too inconvenient for you?
Please do not - intentionally or not - change the subject. We were discussing your support of your assertions that “crowds” - later amended to “individuals” - yelled very specific things about Obama. So far I would like to answer your 4:36 questions, but am waiting for you to support your assertions first. To make it clear:
1. Do you have a link to an individual calling Obama a “terrorist” at a McCain rally?
2. Do you have a link to an individual anywhere saying “kill him!” about Obama?
Please put these to rest and then we’ll discuss your 4:36 questions. Again, thanks.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 5:40 pm
#156
Yes I made this and this up. Now I know your real problem is ignorance. Try to catch up.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 5:41 pm
love2008, that was never an assassination plot. Two meth addicts were picked up. They were not going to assassinate Obama, they had no credible plans to do so and they never “attempted” to assassinate Obama. The local police department wanted attention.
You said that there were “attempts to assassinate” Obama. That was false and indeed a fantasy of yours.
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 5:44 pm
#159
They were not going to assassinate Obama
So by your depraved logic, if they have not actually killed him or attempted to kill him, they don’t mean it. Interesting. Are you aware that nut jobs like these men are usually the ones that actually kill or attempt to kill important people? More ignorance.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 5:58 pm
Ignorance? Love2008, you have just demonstrated that you are incompetent. You claimed that there had been “attempts” to assassinate Obama.
That was and remains false. There was no “attempt”. The clowns you link to, had done nothing but bad mouth Obama while doing drugs. They had no plan, no capability, and never attempted anything.
Therefore, you claim once again proved out to be false.
Comment by SPQR — 10/11/2008 @ 6:01 pm
I am sure you are being deliberately naively about the times we live in
*sighs* Another liar who can’t even spell.
No comment needed.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/11/2008 @ 6:08 pm
#157
Do you have a link to an individual calling Obama a “terrorist” at a McCain rally?
Try this.
Do you have a link to an individual anywhere saying “kill him!” about Obama?
what about this?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 6:10 pm
#162
No comment needed.
Yeah, go back to tormenting your cat.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 6:17 pm
#161
The difference is that your thinking is shallow. You want evidence that they were actually going to kill Obama and that evidence is their actually doing it. Well I don’t think like that. I think that every threat should be taken seriously. Once again you are projecting that they were not really going to carry it out, if they had the chance. How do you know that? Do you know these men? Are they friends of yours? (Won’t be shocked)
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 6:29 pm
I find these drug accusations hilarious (read: hypocritical). Weren’t we discussing these same issues as they pertained to periods of Dubya’s life just a few short years ago? Whether these accusations are true or not shouldn’t matter if you’re going to be consistent. Stick to the issues, kids.
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/11/2008 @ 6:42 pm
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/11/2008 @ 6:42 pm
What drug accusations?
The only one who has injected drug use into the Presidential Campaign is Mr. Obama, in detailing his use of mind-altering substances as a younger man in one of his auto-biographies.
Please elucidate?
Comment by Another Drew — 10/11/2008 @ 6:56 pm
Sometimes it’s hard to know what the issue is on this blog.
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 6:57 pm
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 6:10 pm
Thanks for providing the links. This will dovetail nicely with the questions I’ve been eager to answer from your 4:36 post.
First and foremost, anyone yelling “kill him” about Barack Obama has committed a crime, and deserves investigation and prosecution, if needed. This is just plain wrong. We are agreed.
Secondly, I think we are agreed that both of your links are from liberal sources (Telegraph is a liberal UK news outlet), so the quotes I take from them will be acceptable to you, I think.
This is from the Huffington Post’s linked article:
The Secret Service is following up on media reports today that someone in the crowd at a McCain/Palin event suggested killing Barack Obama, according to Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley. The shout of “kill him” followed a Sarah Palin rant on Obama’s relationship with radical Chicagoan Bill Ayers.
Wiley says the Secret Service did not begin looking into the matter until press reports, namely Dana Milbank’s article in the Washington Post, surfaced today, because no agents at the event heard anything. “The Secret Service did not hear any threatening statements directed at targets under its protection and no threatening statements were reported to us by law enforcement or citizens at the event,” Wiley told Radar. Also unclear: whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers [or] if the words were actually “kill” and “him.”
So. Let us be clear. It is not certain, per the media’s own report, whether or not “kill him” was the shout (see the last sentence above), nor if it were, whether Ayers or Obama was meant.
Secret Service, whose job it is to notice such things, didn’t hear anything threatening at the event. (Palin, not McCain, was speaking. )
Here’s another example - McCain speaking at a rally. Ignore the headline: listen for yourself - McCain: “WHo is the real Barack Obama?”
SHouter: [ambiguous shout about Obama: "killer?" "Kill him?" [remember McCain's question, after all, and Obama is proabortion]
Now. If the former it was a crime, and certainly disrespectful if the latter. Given the ambiguity the guy deserved Secret Service attention.
What was McCain’s reaction? What was the reaction of the crowd? Did they applaud the man’s comment? Approve? No indication in the video.
Here is my point. Individuals saying terrible or rude things at rallies should not be supported. If they say even worse things (threats or incitement) they should stand trial. But there is simply not the general conservative mob mentality which you made it sound like in your first “crowds” “quotes” at 10:17 am. And it’s not even clear that they mean Obama The Huffington quote above makes that clear.
More answers to your 4:36 questions coming…
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 6:58 pm
Another Drew: You kids have been using this as a strike against him for the past week on these boards. I find it amusing (but, quite expected) that upon being called out as a hypocrite you immediately backtrack.
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/11/2008 @ 7:01 pm
But let me ask you, what are your thoughts about the angry and incitive comments made by those folks?
I think I made it clear above. I don’t even know if they were referring to Ayers or Obama, and the media isn’t even sure. The Secret Service in your example never even heard anything.
And how do you respond to McCain saying those nice things about Obama?
I think that calling him a “decent family man” is charitable, a nice compliment, a respectful referring to another Senator, and true of Obama’s family life.
Given Obama’s repeated broken promises in his professional and senatorial and campaign life, however, his disloyalty to years-long friends and mentors who became a political liability (aka “the bus”), his long-term close associations with corrupt people (Rezco) or unrepentant terrorists (Ayers, Dohrn) or preachers who say “God bless America? No! God damn America!” and “[paraphrase] America is kind of responsible for 9/11″ (Wright), I’m not so convinced that he is a decent PROFESSIONAL man.
Does it not undermine the authenticity of the negative ads?
No, for the reasons I just gave about McCain’s trying to be civil vs. what is known about Obama professionally.
It is quite possible to strongly disagree about someone’s associations or policy position changes or disloyalties, and think they show a lack of judgment and ability to be President, and still to be nice and say you think they’re a decent person.
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 7:07 pm
I forgot to mention, just to be clear, that it was never made clear whether “terrorist” referred to Ayers or Obama either, given the confusion about “kill him” or “killer” or whatever the heck the quote was (remember, the media, per your link, wasn’t sure).
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 7:09 pm
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/11/2008 @ 7:01 pm
I, to the best of my recollection, have NEVER accused Barack Obama of being a drug addict, or of any drug use not self-admitted. In fact, I do not remember ever bringing the subject up.
If you have me confused with someone else, I would appreciate an apology.
If you can find one of my comments that contradicts what I am saying here, I will appologize to you.
Until then, you had best Back Off!
Comment by Another Drew — 10/11/2008 @ 7:10 pm
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/11/2008 @ 7:01 pm
and another thing…
As someone who’s birth pre-dates Pearl Harbor (yes, I am on old fart), I don’t appreciate being called a kid, particularly in a derisive manner.
Thank you very much!
Comment by Another Drew — 10/11/2008 @ 7:12 pm
#171
Do you agree with McCain that folks should not be scared of an Obama presidency? Or is that not a professional endorsement?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 7:13 pm
#173-4
Touchy!
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 7:17 pm
#171
Do you agree with McCain that folks should not be scared of an Obama presidency? Or is that not a professional endorsement?
Comment by love2008 — 10/11/2008 @ 7:13 pm
I will be glad to answer that. If you don’t mind, would you first give me your thoughts on my post # 169, please?
Specifically, about my contention that, most importantly, the crowds and McCain/Palin do not support these inflammatory comments (it’s not clear per the media what exactly they were or who they referred to).
Comment by no one you know — 10/11/2008 @ 7:18 pm
HA! You are the one who interjected yourself specifically into my general comment about the indictment he has been getting for drug use. You go ahead and search through the posts and comments over the past week, and once you find the references to Obama’s drug use as a reason he is unfit to lead, I’ll be awaiting my apology. Back On!
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/11/2008 @ 7:19 pm
John McCain: No, ma’am. He’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.”
That comment makes me think of the soft-hearted aspects of human nature in general. Anyone, regardless of his or her political orientation, may on occasion be vulnerable to poor judgment of others shaped by friendships or purely social back-slapping relationships.
That is a warning of just how really lousy must be the quality of judgment emanating from Barack Obama regarding his sense of the good and bad qualities