Ignoring for a moment the amount of moral equivalency it takes to say William Ayers and G. Gordon Liddy are equally guilty of the same crimes, you do have a point.

Liddy, to me, is an example of a GOP star rather than a conservative one (a distinction that is becoming harder and harder to make, just as Democrat and liberal are becoming one and the same). I find it just as wrong for John McCain, a man running on a record of honor, to attend a fundraiser hosted by Liddy. I view the radio appearance somewhat differently, as it is an opportunity to use the medium in exchange for interacting with the messenger, so to speak.

However, what am I to do with this information? Am I to decide that since both candidates have held a fundraiser hosted by criminals, that it must be an acceptable practice? Is that what you're saying?

One of the reasons why Obama is better, or so we're told, is that he represents "Change". In this case, what's so different about the two? I guess I'm supposed to feel chagrined that McCain also has associations with a man convicted of subverting free elections, but to be honest, it's not like I'm suffering from too much McCain exuberance. I haven't changed my middle name to Sidney, or taught my kids the "McCain's gonna change the world" song. I haven't stopped talking to friends who are Obama supporters, nor have I made statements about moving out of the country if Obama wins.

Conservatives, if they're introspective enough, should be humbled by the past four years. We've seen what happens when you think one guy's the embodiment of everything you stand for. But eventually, once you get humbled, I think it's easier for you to find clarity. You try (you don't always succeed) to look at things rationally and reasonably. That's why I can agree that McCain shouldn't have taken part in a fundraiser hosted by Liddy in 1998. It's why it bothers me that McCain has called Liddy a "patriot" (I'm surprised you didn't throw that out there when you read the Huffington Post piece about McCain and Liddy). But I don't have any hyperbolic opinions of how incredibly lifechanging John McCain will be for me, or what kind of Golden Age he will usher in as President. John McCain's a politician, and a decent one. I agree with his positions about 80% of the time, I think he served his country with incredible honor in the military, and I think he'd make a good president. But I don't think he's going to change the world, nor do I think he's going to screw it up.

So I don't have to make excuses for the guy I'll be voting for in November. I can acknowledge the 20% I disagree with, and hope that the 20% doesn't become 40% once he's in office.

I haven't seen too many Obama supporters able to do the same thing, though there are a few out there. Maybe it's human nature to get excited and invested in someone who you think can make all the difference in the world, but sooner or later it just leads to further cynicism about politics in this country. In the meantime, you end up looking just as foolish at Republicans did trying to defend the Harriet Miers selection.

Finally, a word about the moral equivalency you make between William Ayers and Gordon Liddy. Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping. Ayers helped lead a domestic terror organization that law enforcement believe was responsible for more than 200 bombings across the country, including bombs set off in the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, the Department of State, NYPD headquaters, and other locations. They declared war on the U.S. government. An FBI informant testified before Congress that Ayers wife Bernadette built a bomb that killed one San Francisco police officer and wounded another. Three Weather Underground members were killed when the bombs they were assembling detonated prematurely. The bombs they were building were intended for a dance for soldiers at Fort Dix.

As despicable as Watergate was, it was (to my mind anyway) ultimately political. Bill Ayers, as far as I'm concerned, declared war on this country and has never taken it back. As I said earlier, as much as I fault Obama for the relationship that he has with him, I fault society more for allowing Ayers and his crimes to be whitewashed by the passage of time and a vague idea of "Well, it was the 60's, and it was about Vietnam."

If you're going to declare a revolution, there are two outcomes. You either win, in which case you're a leader, or you lose, in which case you're a traitor. Ayers lost, yet we as a society have decided to avert our eyes to his past. I find that sad, but I find it even more frightening.

Some of us have been talking about Ayers a helluva lot longer than the McCain campaign has, DT. Not everyone gets their marching orders from the Obama Campaign, the Huffington Post, or MSNBC.

MN is the one state where McCain has spent more than Obama on TV. Last I saw he was outspending Obama nearly 10-1.

Didn't say that.


Except the comments Liddy made about shooting federal agents were on his radio show. I think that makes it a bit worse.


That's not at all what I'm saying. Palin is the one bringing the charge against Obama. I don't believe Obama has mentioned McCain's ties with Liddy. I'm just simply showing the hypocrisy of the charge.


What's different is that McCain is making the attack. And McCain is supposed to be better because he's a "Maverick" and different from your usual Republican. These kind of tactics sure seem to go against it.


I don't expect you to feel anything. A charge was made against Obama by Palin and it was defended by conservatives the thread. I responded to show that the charge was extremely misleading and then showed how a similar charge could be made against McCain.


Let's get something straight here. I'm voting for Obama because I think he'll be better for the country than John McCain. It's as simple as that. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind in this thread.


I'm excited because he is a great candidate for Democrats. When our past candidates have included John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry, it's hard not to get excited by Barack Obama. I believe each of those people I listed would have been better than their opposing candidate, but I wasn't excited about any of them. Obama is different because he's more exciting than them and he represents a much better chance to get things done that I think the country needs.


I've already responded to the moral equivalency charge above. I'm not sure why you're saying Obama "has" a relationship with Ayers. He doesn't and frankly, it's pretty fucking ridiculous to argue otherwise. McCain was on Liddy's show last November. Furthermore, I also dealt with the Watergate thing since I know people wouldn't much care about that. Liddy called for federal agents to be shot in the head, but he's a "patriot" (thanks for that).


Well all I hear from conservatives is that the only reason we lost Vietnam is because our troops didn't get support stateside. If that's the case, then I'm not sure you can claim that Ayers "lost".

It's funny how Republicans portray themselves as so wise and above it all while anyone who even thinks about voting for Obama is 100% behind every decision the man has made in his entire life and must view him to be some kind of infallible leader.

Apparently it's a bad thing that the liberals are more excited about their candidate than the conservatives are about theirs. Now they know what 2004 was like for us.

Really? Using his family connections to get placements he didn't deserve?

He served his country, and he did volunteer to serve in Vietnam which was admirable, but I'd stop well short of describing his military career as service of "incredible honor".

And I'm sure we'll learn what 2004-2008 was like for y'all too if Obama wins.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the circle jerk. :banghead:

I would fix that saying 2001-2006. Also, Obama as president that isn't necessarily bad, it's him as president with Pelosi and Reid as leaders of Congress that will make it worse than it should be.

Well you didn't have to. You could have responded to my other post, but I guess it's more fun to bring out random icons.

:popcorn::);):p:(:mad::eek::cool::confused::D:redface::devil::lol::banghead::rant::jester::hand::rolleyes::nono::thumbsup::crazy::cry::deadhorse:

Cam, I think that's a legitimate stance. That being said, what about the Alaska Independent Party stuff? Unlike Ayers, Sarah Palin is married to someone who was a member of that party for 8 years, and she addressed their convention (this year I believe, but I may be off on that one). By your standard, isn't that an insight into her character? Heck, what about every goddamn Southern group that keeps bitching about the Confederacy ? Isn't putting up their flag a sign of being a "traitor" as much as anything else?

I don't necessarily disagree with your stance, but there has to be some consistency.

In between the stuff about Ayers and Liddy, when he got onto the general nature of recent elections, Cam was pretty much on fire in that long post above.

Since I didn't know anything about William Ayers I checked at factcheck.org. This came up from the search, which is an article on Jerome Corsi's book.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...l_hatchet.html

The Republicans are getting desperate and, going off the response of independents to attacks on the opposition in the two debates, it could well back fire on them. They need to get back to attacking Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs. However I suspect that desperation will get the better of them.

YouTube - Negative Attack Ads

This new DNC web ad captures John McCain's views on negative attack ads while riding the straight talk express. I agree with McCain, he doesn't have a vision for the future and he's desperate.

that's awesome, especially because it's his own words coming out of his own mouth.

Very good ad for Obama. People simply respond to negative attacks more than positive ones. For as much as people might say they don't, as has been shown over and over...negative attack ads about your opponent work better than positive ones about yourself.

"". Quoted for truth. There's a reason campaign after campaign resorts to this - in the end, negative campaigning works better. It doesn't make it "right" or "wrong", but its a fact about the political process here.

And the gloves are now off on both sides.

Democrat Barack Obama, reacting to Republican charges about his links to a 1960s radical, fired back late Sunday with a Web video about John McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal from the early 1990s.

The short video, being e-mailed to millions of Obama supporters, summarizes a 13-minute Web "documentary" that the campaign plans to distribute Monday, spokesman Tommy Vietor said. He said McCain's involvement with convicted thrift owner Charles Keating "is a window into McCain's economic past, present and future."

The video release capped a day of complaints and warnings from Obama supporters. They said McCain was inviting a harsh examination of his past by having his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, repeatedly criticize Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a founder of the Vietnam-era radical group, the Weather Underground.

That McCain ad is great.

It seems like Obama is well ahead on points going into the 12th round and just got suckered by Palin to go toe-to-toe with McCain (a little early for the Keating card, most of McCain's opponents have waited until the final days to play it ;) ). I'm not sure that's the right move as much of his appeal is that he's been "different than the normal politician". Let the outside groups pull that, but having the Obama campaign engage in this seems real risky for someone with the lead.

Still, I think a no holds barred final 4 weeks gives McCain a sporting chance (something he really shouldn't have). I also wanted to applaud Cam for an attempt at providing a different perspective. The deck was certainly stacked against him, but he gave a strong argument.

The conservatives sure are pissy about being outnumbered here. If it bothers you that much, then start up a new thread and I'll be the only liberal to participate. This "OMG we're so outnumbered but valiantly fighting the Obama worshippers!!1!!" schtick is getting old.

The time is probably right for the Keating card with all of the economic problems. Here's the trailer:

YouTube - Keating Economics: John McCain and a Financial Crisis

I disagree -- I think this way, it comes off as a direct response to McCain going negative. If Obama waits until later, he won't get the sympathy that he'll get now, and he runs the risk of people thinking it's a Swift Boat style ploy.

+1.

This is what should really concern not just Republicans, but all Americans. Having Obama as President along with Reid and Pelosi controlling Congress would create a leadership void that could create substantial policy concerns that could haunt us for quite some time. At least with Bush in office, the two Congressional leaders were held in check from doing anything that was too damaging. With Obama in office, those checks and balances are out the door.

Edit: That's what I get for posting without reading the rest of the thread.... :D

I agree and this worries me greatly, but for me at least, the concerns of having more supreme court justices nominated by the right is a much greater worry. This is important, and its going to bring about some stupidity, but secondary to the court IMO.

Funny that you haven't been worried about those checks and balances until now.

It's disappointing that it's has become common for you to respond to a substantive post that takes apart one of your own by dismissing it with a Limbaugh-style contentless retort. You've been in radio too long, Cam.

Seriously. Was MBBF asleep until 2006?

Someone needs to re-read their history. Watergate came about because Nixon felt strongly that no one but him should be President, for the good of the country. Those who participated (including, very strongly, Liddy) agreed absolutely.

Watergate was all about one small group of people deciding that they knew best for the American people and being OK with upending the Constitution to preserve their view.

Do you know that to be true? Assumption is the mother of all f-ups. Don't let your political bias get in the way of actually asking if it bothered me rather than assuming that I was happy with 2001-2006. Not all in this thread are a left-headed liberal or a right-wing zealot in this thread. Some of us actually bleed in a color other than strictly red or blue. I'm personally in favor of gridlock at all times between Congress and the Presidency.

The problem for me is not that the Democrats will control Congress and the Presidency. My problem is that Pelosi and Reid are easily some of the worst leaders that I've seen in Congress. They lack any true understanding of their roles in Congress and just how important any perceptions about their comments can be. They are also being played like puppets by players such as Dodd, Frank, Schumer, and Clinton to the Nth degree. Given the failure of economic policies championed by these legislators in recent weeks and a presidential candidate that is in lock-step with those policies, I think there's plenty to be concerned about. The thought that our Congress/President could end up as a perfect example of groupthink gone wrong over the next several years is a situation that I'm not excited about.

If typing this isn't knowingly using hyperbole then you have no business accusing others of political bias.

**sigh**

Oh, is this microphone on?

-Cork

So, I take it you voted Kerry in '04?

JPhillips assumed that I was agreeable to the 6 years when the Republicans were in power. I never said anything remotely like that and to assume it was faulty logic at best. JPhillips has already admitted that he's a left-leaning citizen. It's not an accusation when he agrees that he's partisan.

If you disagree that there were worse congressional leaders since 1980, feel free to point them out.

No, but I did vote for Democrats in both the House and Senate races because I was extremely frustrated with the Republican reps in my district/state for the exact same reason that I'm blasting the Democrat leadership. My Missouri reps were far too cozy with the Washington establishment and playing politics rather than serving the common good. That happens far too often unfortunately. The only way to change that is to vote against it.

No, I said that you haven't mentioned the need for a split government before this election.

Is there a long historical record in this regard? You going to launch attack ads that use something I said in 2004 against me? You have no factual basis to back up that claim, but keep on going if it makes you feel good. Asserting the above statement as fact is foolish at best.

Has this thread really turned into attack ads and digging into past statements about each other? Is it possible that we will somehow end up just recreating the entire election here?

One of the reasons I respect Obama as a candidate is because his campaign represents the kind of approach I respect. With each new attack ad out of the McCain campaign, I shake my head and am thankful that each side wears its heart on its sleeve. It's easy to tell which side represents positivity and which side represents fear, and while choosing a president relies on far more important aspects at least the broad strokes are bold and unmistakable. I see the negativity and am glad that my candidate of choice doesn't embrace methods I find dishonorable (the Palin comments about Obama "palling around with terrorists" were beyond the pale). It's a relief that as the campaign goes on, more and more Americans appear to feel as I do -- that Obama represents the kind of approach we'd like to see, and the McCain campaign represents some of the worst of American politics.

Seems to me that the McCain campaign has almost become a caricature of the old warning about the ends justifying the means. If Obama were to lose there'd be no shame in the way he ran his campaign. But if McCain were to win, how could anyone who supported him feel good about how he did so, outside of a certain grim satisfaction that he was effective at being so unrelentingly negative?

LOL!

The MBBF vs. JPhillips election ;)

Most Emailed News Stories

LOL. I'm just waiting for the first attack ad from JPhillips. Seems silly, but his statement was stated as a solid fact, so it must be true. Quite a profound statement to say that since I haven't spoke for a split government, I must be in favor of the same party being in power and only if it's the Republicans for that matter.

Speaking of attack ads, it looks like we're starting to head into another war of advertisements in the presidential race. It'll be interesting to see who reaches the right balance of attack without reaching the level of outrage in this round of advertisements. In this race, it seems like the 'outrage' level is becoming harder and harder to reach.

I did :).

This post belongs in a Bob Saget stand-up routine. It's funnier than anything Saget has ever done.

Seriously. Attack *ads*? Am I missing something? Is this just an expression for attacks, ignoring the words "ads" in there? Or has FireFox (TM) with NoScript © and AdBlocker helped me block FOFC political attacks?

I'm going to need to know where JPhillips stands on 360 v. PS3 before I make a decision. If he would appoint pro-360 Justices, I think my decision would be made.

I invented pants!

Wait, wrong election ;)

SI

No need dig, MBBF has contradicted himself at least twice on this page alone.


So he KNOWS that a Obama/Reid/Pelosi combo will do everything he says it will do. But if someone else says something with similar certainty, it is reckless. :rolleyes:


Ok, so now the timeframe of 'ever' has shifted to start in 1980. :rolleyes:

Standard MBBF M.O., unfortunately. When you get called out on something, just either ignore, mis-direct, or change the definition.