WMD Owl Wrote:And as for the "war" that will kick off on Wednesday.. you got that right.. and it will make what happened to the Clintons look like a picnic.

Any Congressman that represents anything close to a moderate district will be put on notice by the Republicans that if he supports the legislative insanity of Obama-Pelosi-Reid, he will be out of a job in two years. It will be VERY easy to raise money for Republicans once Obama starts getting his tax hikes on people making $250,000 ooops $200,000 oops $150,000 oops $125,000 per year.

Hopefully, your "Messiah" will be politically crippled by the results of the 2010 elections, just like Clinton was in 1994, and the redistricting by the state legislatures will seal the deal.

If you think the 1994 elections was a sea change, wait until 2010. Because people will be pissed at Obama and will elect Republican candidates that will go to their State Legislatures, get out their pens, and start redistricting. Adios Sheila Jackson Lee, Lloyd Doggett, etc you just got drawn out of a job.

Sounds like you ought to start packing for Australia or some friendlier place. After all, the sky is falling here, no? I'm not going to attempt to argue with you about what the future with Obama as President will be. You've consulted your crystal ball and your mind's obviously made up.

It's just as likely (imo, of course) that Obama could be the transformational figure Colin Powell suggested he might be and that he will start a shift similar to FDR or Reagan. At least until the Democrats get entrenched and corrupted the way any party in power does.

Your point about redistricting in 2010 is an interesting one. I can't see how it could be worse than today for the Democrats. Unless you know of a Democratically controlled legislature that will be Republican in 2010. If the Ds get control of either the Florida or Texas legislatures it could go the other way. btw, Sheila Jackson Lee will be safe in any scenario. DeLay's strategy was to have a few very heavily Democratic districts (SJL has one) and a larger number of marginally Republican districts. Doggett won one of the latter.

For example, Florida is marginally R statewide, maybe something like 52-48 at most, but the Congressional delegation is 16-9 Republican. Redistricting by Democrats could pick up 4 or 5 seats, but it's not likely the Republicans could do much better than they are now.

One other note - you have no one other than George W. Bush to blame for your predicament.

The question of what does Obama stand for is a valid one, and one that concerns me greatly, despite the protests of his followers.

First, the detailed policy positions as laid out on his website sound great, there's something for literally everybody, until you realize that the numbers don't add up. Let's see, we're going to add a trillion dollars of new spending, while eliminating a $400 billion annual budget deficit, while reducing taxes for 95% of Americans. If you're expecting to make that up with a tax increase on the remaining 5%, that's going to be one doozy of a tax increase--certainly far bigger than the modest increases they are suggesting. If you're expecting that 5% to just sit there and take it (Joe Biden's idea of "patriotism"), good luck. The vast majority of those people, especially the ones who are truly rich rather than just upwardly mobile, have the ability to restructure their affairs so that, like Nancy Pelosi, the can keep their tax burden in the 15% range even with several million in annual income. The things they will do to accomplish that will inevitably take investment away from areas that produce jobs. Obama is well aware of this, obviously, because he keeps dropping hints that he will not do this right away, or he'll suspend that, or there will be changes to proposed programs. I think the goings on with the income level at which the break in taxes will occur--the web site says $250,000, Obama himself has said $200,000, Biden trotted out $150,000, and Bill Richardson even suggested $120,000--are a way to feel out how low they can go without meeting too much resistance. Note that the number gets lower the more easily deniable the source is. In short, the website enumerates very specific positions, true, but those positions are clearly not attainable, so the website is basically one big and very well-crafted fabrication. So telling someone to check the website because everything is laid out there is a pretty shallow and disingenuous answer. Which things on the website are actually going to happen, and which aren't?

If you look into his history to get clues, the answers are somewhat alarming, at least to me. The web site is, overall, a fairly far left document. The stump speeches are much more centrist, designed to portray Obama as some centrist consensus-builder. The books are left of center but not extremely so, appearing to me at least to be designed to pull the reader slightly but incrementally further to the left. The voting record, in Springfield and in Washington, has consistently been off the left end of the chart. With this context, if you are voting for Obama because your own political leanings are socialist/Marxist/communist and you see him as a fellow traveler, then I disagree with your politics but I do think you are making a rational political choice. It's those who are voting for Obama with the expectation that he will be some sort of post-partisan consensus-builder that I think are being conned.

I think Obama's idea of consensus-building is let's all meet at the left end of the political spectrum. For those who don't want to go there, I think he will
1. Offer them handouts to buy their support. This is already well under way.
2. Shame those who don't cave in by dismissing them as racists. The existence of this thread says this is already under way.
3. And this is the scary one, use the abuses of power that the Bushes legitimized with the patRIOT act to force compliance on the rest of us.

I can live with 1--I don't need their handouts. I can live with 2--I know that racist is the furthest thing from what I am, and my friends of all races and nationalities have made it clear to me that they understand this too, so I can live with some name-calling. 3 scares me; that's why I was so opposed to the patRIOT act in the beginning--that and the fact that we could have prevented 9/11 without it if only a few bureaucrats had gotten off their dead a$$*$ and done their jobs. The first sign of 3 that I see, I'm gone. Between now and then, my first priority will be reorganizing my life to make a quick escape as doable as possible.

I really don't know what to make of the associations with people like Wright and Ayers. Questions have been asked and answered, but the answers have always seemed more like throwing something up on the wall to see if it will stick. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the stuff that was going on? The essence of black liberation theology is that blacks have been held down by white oppression, that if Jesus were here today he would be leading the black revolt against that oppression, and therefore it is your Christian duty to revolt against white oppression. The now infamous Wright sound bytes are directly on message with that. I don't see how any reasonably sane human being could spend 20 years in that environment and remain unaware. It's like Ken Lay denying that he knew what was going on at Enron. The standard response on Ayers is that "I was 8 when it happened, he's now mainstream, and besides he was just some guy who lived in the neighborhood." None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room, particularly when Bill's 2001 interview is factored in. I don't know how concerned to be, because I don't want to think of Obama as being defined by his acquaintances. I've got some pretty weird friends, and I sure don't think they define me. But I am concerned by what appear to be carefully crafted attempts to be less than truthful. I am also concerned by the media's willingness to take half-a$$*d answers and walk away, when they normally skewer prople who do this, even those with whom they agree politically (remember Gary Hart's love affair). I find the whole situation a bit disconcerting, if not troubling.

What I think is happening is that there's such a huge reservoir of hatred against W that people are falling for anything that looks different, and the more different the better. All I can think of to say is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

WMD Owl Wrote:If you think the 1994 elections was a sea change, wait until 2010. Because people will be pissed at Obama and will elect Republican candidates that will go to their State Legislatures, get out their pens, and start redistricting. Adios Sheila Jackson Lee, Lloyd Doggett, etc you just got drawn out of a job.

I suspect you're ignoring the level of influence the DOJ has on all redistricting in Texas.

No minority districts in Texas will be going away; more likely we'll have more (it's the current demographic trend). Though don't be surprised to see a black district eliminated to create another Hispanic district.

As far as Doggett going away, until the city of Austin is disenfranchised as a whole, there's not much that can be done to him that hasn't already. Despite the city of Austin being almost exactly the population of a Congressional district and clearly being a community of interest (the standard one theoretically seeks to adhere to when drawing a map), we are trifurcated into districts stretching south and west to San Antonio and Bandera/Kerrville, east to Harris County, and west and southeast to Lakeway and Hays county and Gonzales, Lockhart, LaGrange, and Columbus.

That last one is Doggett's district. Note that the description above is how it stands today, after the court threw out the 2003 map in which the district stretched east of San Antonio and down to McAllen. The 2003 map sought to toss Doggett out in the primary, but he won by a 2-1 margin over a D from the valley (and only losing in two counties out of the nine). The 2005 map is still fairly unfriendly to him, including large swaths of suburban and rural areas, and yet the Rs did not feel he was vulnerable enough to put forth a candidate.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:The question of what does Obama stand for is a valid one, and one that concerns me greatly, despite the protests of his followers.

First, the detailed policy positions as laid out on his website sound great, there's something for literally everybody, until you realize that the numbers don't add up. Let's see, we're going to add a trillion dollars of new spending, while eliminating a $400 billion annual budget deficit, while reducing taxes for 95% of Americans. If you're expecting to make that up with a tax increase on the remaining 5%, that's going to be one doozy of a tax increase--certainly far bigger than the modest increases they are suggesting. If you're expecting that 5% to just sit there and take it (Joe Biden's idea of "patriotism"), good luck. The vast majority of those people, especially the ones who are truly rich rather than just upwardly mobile, have the ability to restructure their affairs so that, like Nancy Pelosi, the can keep their tax burden in the 15% range even with several million in annual income. The things they will do to accomplish that will inevitably take investment away from areas that produce jobs. Obama is well aware of this, obviously, because he keeps dropping hints that he will not do this right away, or he'll suspend that, or there will be changes to proposed programs. I think the goings on with the income level at which the break in taxes will occur--the web site says $250,000, Obama himself has said $200,000, Biden trotted out $150,000, and Bill Richardson even suggested $120,000--are a way to feel out how low they can go without meeting too much resistance. Note that the number gets lower the more easily deniable the source is. In short, the website enumerates very specific positions, true, but those positions are clearly not attainable, so the website is basically one big and very well-crafted fabrication. So telling someone to check the website because everything is laid out there is a pretty shallow and disingenuous answer. Which things on the website are actually going to happen, and which aren't?

If you look into his history to get clues, the answers are somewhat alarming, at least to me. The web site is, overall, a fairly far left document. The stump speeches are much more centrist, designed to portray Obama as some centrist consensus-builder. The books are left of center but not extremely so, appearing to me at least to be designed to pull the reader slightly but incrementally further to the left. The voting record, in Springfield and in Washington, has consistently been off the left end of the chart. With this context, if you are voting for Obama because your own political leanings are socialist/Marxist/communist and you see him as a fellow traveler, then I disagree with your politics but I do think you are making a rational political choice. It's those who are voting for Obama with the expectation that he will be some sort of post-partisan consensus-builder that I think are being conned.

I think Obama's idea of consensus-building is let's all meet at the left end of the political spectrum. For those who don't want to go there, I think he will
1. Offer them handouts to buy their support. This is already well under way.
2. Shame those who don't cave in by dismissing them as racists. The existence of this thread says this is already under way.
3. And this is the scary one, use the abuses of power that the Bushes legitimized with the patRIOT act to force compliance on the rest of us.

I can live with 1--I don't need their handouts. I can live with 2--I know that racist is the furthest thing from what I am, and my friends of all races and nationalities have made it clear to me that they understand this too, so I can live with some name-calling. 3 scares me; that's why I was so opposed to the patRIOT act in the beginning--that and the fact that we could have prevented 9/11 without it if only a few bureaucrats had gotten off their dead a$$*$ and done their jobs. The first sign of 3 that I see, I'm gone. Between now and then, my first priority will be reorganizing my life to make a quick escape as doable as possible.

I really don't know what to make of the associations with people like Wright and Ayers. Questions have been asked and answered, but the answers have always seemed more like throwing something up on the wall to see if it will stick. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the stuff that was going on? The essence of black liberation theology is that blacks have been held down by white oppression, that if Jesus were here today he would be leading the black revolt against that oppression, and therefore it is your Christian duty to revolt against white oppression. The now infamous Wright sound bytes are directly on message with that. I don't see how any reasonably aware human being could spend 20 years in that environment and remain unaware. It's like Ken Lay denying that he knew what was going on at Enron. The standard response on Ayers is that "I was 8 when it happened, he's now mainstream, and besides he was just some guy who lived in the neighborhood." None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room, particularly when Bill's 2001 interview is factored in. I don't know how concerned to be, because I don't want to think of Obama as being defined by his acquaintances. I've got some pretty weird friends, and I sure don't think they define me. But I am concerned by what appear to be carefully crafted attempts to be less than truthful. I am also concerned by the media's willingness to take half-a$$*d answers and walk away, when they normally skewer prople who do this, even those with whom they agree politically (remember Gary Hart's love affair). I find the whole situation a bit disconcerting, if not troubling.

What I think is happening is that there's such a huge reservoir of hatred against W that people are falling for anything that looks different, and the more different the better. All I can tthink to say is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Wow. 100% spot on! Except for the part about getting ready to leave the country, this exactly represents my thinking.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room....

Of course, it's legitimate to consider the Wright and Ayers links when forming an opinion of Obama. But why is it necessary to perpetuate misleading talking points like this?

When they they really get into the tax hikes, they will probably get down lower than 120,000-maybe 50,000 or even 20,000. They might not even have to do some of it explicitly. They can let the temporary tax reductions imposed earlier in the decade expire in 2010 or 2011. The last Democrat I have seen lower taxes was John F. Kennedy and that was 47 years ago. The new breed is quite a bit different than JFK.

Middle Ages Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:The question of what does Obama stand for is a valid one, and one that concerns me greatly, despite the protests of his followers.

First, the detailed policy positions as laid out on his website sound great, there's something for literally everybody, until you realize that the numbers don't add up. Let's see, we're going to add a trillion dollars of new spending, while eliminating a $400 billion annual budget deficit, while reducing taxes for 95% of Americans. If you're expecting to make that up with a tax increase on the remaining 5%, that's going to be one doozy of a tax increase--certainly far bigger than the modest increases they are suggesting. If you're expecting that 5% to just sit there and take it (Joe Biden's idea of "patriotism"), good luck. The vast majority of those people, especially the ones who are truly rich rather than just upwardly mobile, have the ability to restructure their affairs so that, like Nancy Pelosi, the can keep their tax burden in the 15% range even with several million in annual income. The things they will do to accomplish that will inevitably take investment away from areas that produce jobs. Obama is well aware of this, obviously, because he keeps dropping hints that he will not do this right away, or he'll suspend that, or there will be changes to proposed programs. I think the goings on with the income level at which the break in taxes will occur--the web site says $250,000, Obama himself has said $200,000, Biden trotted out $150,000, and Bill Richardson even suggested $120,000--are a way to feel out how low they can go without meeting too much resistance. Note that the number gets lower the more easily deniable the source is. In short, the website enumerates very specific positions, true, but those positions are clearly not attainable, so the website is basically one big and very well-crafted fabrication. So telling someone to check the website because everything is laid out there is a pretty shallow and disingenuous answer. Which things on the website are actually going to happen, and which aren't?

If you look into his history to get clues, the answers are somewhat alarming, at least to me. The web site is, overall, a fairly far left document. The stump speeches are much more centrist, designed to portray Obama as some centrist consensus-builder. The books are left of center but not extremely so, appearing to me at least to be designed to pull the reader slightly but incrementally further to the left. The voting record, in Springfield and in Washington, has consistently been off the left end of the chart. With this context, if you are voting for Obama because your own political leanings are socialist/Marxist/communist and you see him as a fellow traveler, then I disagree with your politics but I do think you are making a rational political choice. It's those who are voting for Obama with the expectation that he will be some sort of post-partisan consensus-builder that I think are being conned.

I think Obama's idea of consensus-building is let's all meet at the left end of the political spectrum. For those who don't want to go there, I think he will
1. Offer them handouts to buy their support. This is already well under way.
2. Shame those who don't cave in by dismissing them as racists. The existence of this thread says this is already under way.
3. And this is the scary one, use the abuses of power that the Bushes legitimized with the patRIOT act to force compliance on the rest of us.

I can live with 1--I don't need their handouts. I can live with 2--I know that racist is the furthest thing from what I am, and my friends of all races and nationalities have made it clear to me that they understand this too, so I can live with some name-calling. 3 scares me; that's why I was so opposed to the patRIOT act in the beginning--that and the fact that we could have prevented 9/11 without it if only a few bureaucrats had gotten off their dead a$$*$ and done their jobs. The first sign of 3 that I see, I'm gone. Between now and then, my first priority will be reorganizing my life to make a quick escape as doable as possible.

I really don't know what to make of the associations with people like Wright and Ayers. Questions have been asked and answered, but the answers have always seemed more like throwing something up on the wall to see if it will stick. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the stuff that was going on? The essence of black liberation theology is that blacks have been held down by white oppression, that if Jesus were here today he would be leading the black revolt against that oppression, and therefore it is your Christian duty to revolt against white oppression. The now infamous Wright sound bytes are directly on message with that. I don't see how any reasonably aware human being could spend 20 years in that environment and remain unaware. It's like Ken Lay denying that he knew what was going on at Enron. The standard response on Ayers is that "I was 8 when it happened, he's now mainstream, and besides he was just some guy who lived in the neighborhood." None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room, particularly when Bill's 2001 interview is factored in. I don't know how concerned to be, because I don't want to think of Obama as being defined by his acquaintances. I've got some pretty weird friends, and I sure don't think they define me. But I am concerned by what appear to be carefully crafted attempts to be less than truthful. I am also concerned by the media's willingness to take half-a$$*d answers and walk away, when they normally skewer prople who do this, even those with whom they agree politically (remember Gary Hart's love affair). I find the whole situation a bit disconcerting, if not troubling.

What I think is happening is that there's such a huge reservoir of hatred against W that people are falling for anything that looks different, and the more different the better. All I can tthink to say is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Wow. 100% spot on! Except for the part about getting ready to leave the country, this exactly represents my thinking.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room....

Of course, it's legitimate to consider the Wright and Ayers links when forming an opinion of Obama. But why is it necessary to perpetuate misleading talking points like this?

And exactly how is this a "misleading talking point"? What part of it is misleading?

One thing for sure, your typing the words "misleading talking points" on a computer screen doesn't make any part of this a misleading talking point.

WMD Owl Wrote:I see something bad coming on the horizon…

Assuming Obama is elected President, anyone who comes out with strong opinions or opposition to his programs and policies will automatically be labeled a “racist” by Administration supporters.

Well, at least that would be a change from the current practice of anyone who disagrees with the administration being “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” or “traitors” or “siding with the terrorists”. Based on recent comments by Palin and “Joe the Plumber” a McCain administration would add that people who disagree think “the terrorists are the good guys” and question opponents' “loyalty to this country”. But then non-Republicans aren’t “real Americans” so what do you expect? </sarcasm>

Seriously, I really hope Obama does not fall into this sort of rhetoric. This idea that fellow citizens who disagree on policy issues are “the enemy” is a cancer on our political culture and it’s seeping into our culture more generally. Democrats have not been completely innocent on this count, but I don’t think there is any Democratic equivalent to what we’ve seen from Rove & Co. the past 8 years.

The other distinction I see is that Democrats tend to hate Republican politicians but, especially on talk radio, it seems like Rs focus also on hating the people who support Democrats, the evil “libruls”, demonizing their fellow citizens. (Sure, you can probably come up with examples of Dems doing this, but I can turn on my radio on the ride home from work and choose from multiple shows where the host will basically argue that me and my family are traitors because we disagree with him/her politically.)

Back to the original point – I’ve seen no evidence that Obama will try to paint people who disagree as racist. In fact, I think that would be politically quite risky. He’s avoided race as much as possible in the campaign, his one prominent speech on the subject aside.

Going back to my original post, perhaps I could have been more explicit, but I wasn’t arguing Republican=racist. I was alarmed at the strain of racism/xenophobia/bigotry increasingly on display from a subset McCain-Palin supporters, particularly it seems, Palin supporters.

My argument was not "disagreeing with Obama on taxes=racist," it was "making monkey noises as an 'Obama impression'=racist." It seems to me that this sort of thing has become way too prominent to be just a few unrepresentative yahoos. Going back to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” Republicans have exploited white racism to win elections, and in particular, turn white southern racists from Democrats to Republicans. This year they're adding anti-muslim and anti-Arab bigotry to the mix. This and the anti-intellectual, Know-nothing, John Bircher strain of Republicanism is what I’m talking about and what I suggested the Republicans had to deal with after the election. David Brooks and Peggy Noonan, among others have made similar arguments.

Unfortunately, I see the Palin wing taking over post-election. I could be wrong. Time will tell...

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:The question of what does Obama stand for is a valid one, and one that concerns me greatly, despite the protests of his followers.

First, the detailed policy positions as laid out on his website sound great, there's something for literally everybody, until you realize that the numbers don't add up. Let's see, we're going to add a trillion dollars of new spending, while eliminating a $400 billion annual budget deficit, while reducing taxes for 95% of Americans.

Of course this last figure is misleading inasmuch as almost half of all Americans don't pay taxes anyway. What it means, however, is the continued destruction of America as an ownership society.

Quote:... If you look into his history to get clues, the answers are somewhat alarming, at least to me. The web site is, overall, a fairly far left document. The stump speeches are much more centrist, designed to portray Obama as some centrist consensus-builder. The books are left of center but not extremely so, appearing to me at least to be designed to pull the reader slightly but incrementally further to the left. The voting record, in Springfield and in Washington, has consistently been off the left end of the chart. With this context, if you are voting for Obama because your own political leanings are socialist/Marxist/communist and you see him as a fellow traveler, then I disagree with your politics but I do think you are making a rational political choice. It's those who are voting for Obama with the expectation that he will be some sort of post-partisan consensus-builder that I think are being conned.

Let's briefly state the obvious about Obama: he'd be a pretty bad president, certainly the worst since Jimmy Carter. By 2012, there'd be a lot of people thinking what you just said: "How could I have let myself be conned by that guy?", and they'd think that way for some of the reasons you list below.

Quote:I think Obama's idea of consensus-building is let's all meet at the left end of the political spectrum. For those who don't want to go there, I think he will
1. Offer them handouts to buy their support. This is already well under way.
2. Shame those who don't cave in by dismissing them as racists. The existence of this thread says this is already under way.
3. And this is the scary one, use the abuses of power that the Bushes legitimized with the patRIOT act to force compliance on the rest of us.

Leaving aside the highly-debatable assertion that the PATRIOT Act somehow represents "abuses" of power, your three points can be summarized by simply noting that Obama, if he's anything at all, is a narcissist, and narcissists don't take being gainsayed very well.

Quote:... I am also concerned by the media's willingness to take half-a$$*d answers and walk away, when they normally skewer prople who do this, even those with whom they agree politically (remember Gary Hart's love affair). I find the whole situation a bit disconcerting, if not troubling.

This is certainly part of the problem....

Quote:What I think is happening is that there's such a huge reservoir of hatred against W that people are falling for anything that looks different, and the more different the better. All I can think of to say is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

At some point I'll probably put up a post going into more detail about this, but basically you're correct. Even if McCain wins this election, it's going to be driven by essentially non-rational factors, and that's not a good thing. I'll also speculate as to why this couldn't have happened 30 or perhaps even 20 years ago but could today.

JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:I see something bad coming on the horizon…

Assuming Obama is elected President, anyone who comes out with strong opinions or opposition to his programs and policies will automatically be labeled a “racist” by Administration supporters.

Well, at least that would be a change from the current practice of anyone who disagrees with the administration being “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” or “traitors” or “siding with the terrorists”. Based on recent comments by Palin and “Joe the Plumber” a McCain administration would add that people who disagree think “the terrorists are the good guys” and question opponents' “loyalty to this country”. But then non-Republicans aren’t “real Americans” so what do you expect? </sarcasm>....

As someone who's been interested in politics and the conservative movement for a long time, virtually every assertion here and in the rest of your post strikes me as wrong. Frankly, the post reads more like some Democrats'/liberals' version of what they think Republicans/conservatives believe rather than what they actually do believe. I could parse the entire post and point out the problems, but that'd be a topic for another thread....

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room....

Of course, it's legitimate to consider the Wright and Ayers links when forming an opinion of Obama. But why is it necessary to perpetuate misleading talking points like this?

And exactly how is this a "misleading talking point"? What part of it is misleading?

One thing for sure, your typing the words "misleading talking points" on a computer screen doesn't make any part of this a misleading talking point.

It's a talking point because I've seen it frequently repeated verbatim across the conservative web. It's misleading because there's a kernel of truth in it -- a coffee for Obama (one of many) was held in Ayers's house during his first run for office -- but it's overstated -- saying "launched" -- in a way that implies that Ayers is the sinister guiding force for Obama's career. Goes along with the Manchurian candidate theme. Not that you're implying that, but it's the unmistakable undercurrent to the statement.

Let me give a rough parallel from the other side (though I'm making this up and haven't seen it elsewhere): "John McCain launched his political career when he signed divorce papers with his first wife to clear the way to the beer heiress." Kernel of truth, but unfair.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room....

Of course, it's legitimate to consider the Wright and Ayers links when forming an opinion of Obama. But why is it necessary to perpetuate misleading talking points like this?

And exactly how is this a "misleading talking point"? What part of it is misleading?

One thing for sure, your typing the words "misleading talking points" on a computer screen doesn't make any part of this a misleading talking point.

It's a talking point because I've seen it frequently repeated verbatim across the conservative web. It's misleading because there's a kernel of truth in it -- a coffee for Obama (one of many) was held in Ayers's house during his first run for office -- but it's overstated -- saying "launched" -- in a way that implies that Ayers is the sinister guiding force for Obama's career. Goes along with the Manchurian candidate theme. Not that you're implying that, but it's the unmistakable undercurrent to the statement.

Let me give a rough parallel from the other side (though I'm making this up and haven't seen it elsewhere): "John McCain launched his political career when he signed divorce papers with his first wife to clear the way to the beer heiress." Kernel of truth, but unfair.

I don't think they are parallel at all.

To, me, "launched" means "started", not "guided". I think Ayers was unimportant in Obama's career after the early times. But at some point, Ayers saw something in Obama he liked, enough to go out of his way to raise funds. What was that?

The Ayers connection is a minor thing to me, but it raised some concerns for a couple of reasons. One, Ayers does not regret his actions at all. We all did stupid things in our youth, but he clings to his stated beliefs that not only was it right to bomb agencies and hurt people, he should have done more. Two, Obama does not reject Ayers, he defends his associations with him. True, he says he detests the actions, but what politician is going to say bombing the Pentagon was and still is a good idea? He has done the minimum to disassociate.

Moot point now, unless Ayers is appointed to a high education post.

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:

JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:I see something bad coming on the horizon…

Assuming Obama is elected President, anyone who comes out with strong opinions or opposition to his programs and policies will automatically be labeled a “racist” by Administration supporters.

Well, at least that would be a change from the current practice of anyone who disagrees with the administration being “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” or “traitors” or “siding with the terrorists”. Based on recent comments by Palin and “Joe the Plumber” a McCain administration would add that people who disagree think “the terrorists are the good guys” and question opponents' “loyalty to this country”. But then non-Republicans aren’t “real Americans” so what do you expect? </sarcasm>....

As someone who's been interested in politics and the conservative movement for a long time, virtually every assertion here and in the rest of your post strikes me as wrong. Frankly, the post reads more like some Democrats'/liberals' version of what they think Republicans/conservatives believe rather than what they actually do believe. I could parse the entire post and point out the problems, but that'd be a topic for another thread....

Or, you could listen to Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh for 30 minutes and hear confirmation of what I said. Are there conservatives who don't think like that? Of course. But they are in danger of losing control of the party. Some might say the McCain campaign is evidence that they already have.

Another example - my wife was basically called a traitor by the Attorney General of the United States. Ashcroft said the American Library Association was "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by not violating their code of ethics and agreeing that they should hand over people's records without due process. But I guess in your world that didn't actually happen.

Are you seriously arguing that a racially based "Southern Strategy" never happened? It's a matter of historical record.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room....

Of course, it's legitimate to consider the Wright and Ayers links when forming an opinion of Obama. But why is it necessary to perpetuate misleading talking points like this?

And exactly how is this a "misleading talking point"? What part of it is misleading?
One thing for sure, your typing the words "misleading talking points" on a computer screen doesn't make any part of this a misleading talking point.

It's a talking point because I've seen it frequently repeated verbatim across the conservative web. It's misleading because there's a kernel of truth in it -- a coffee for Obama (one of many) was held in Ayers's house during his first run for office -- but it's overstated -- saying "launched" -- in a way that implies that Ayers is the sinister guiding force for Obama's career. Goes along with the Manchurian candidate theme. Not that you're implying that, but it's the unmistakable undercurrent to the statement.
Let me give a rough parallel from the other side (though I'm making this up and haven't seen it elsewhere): "John McCain launched his political career when he signed divorce papers with his first wife to clear the way to the beer heiress." Kernel of truth, but unfair.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're making a bunch of inferences and adding them to what I said. Let's be clear that it's you, not me, bringing up those inferences, even if you are bringing them up only for the purpose of refuting them. Put those words in your mouth, not mine.

My point is limited to this. The Obama "talking points" on this are "8 years old," "just a guy in the neighborhood," and "he's mainstream now." The 1995 event makes a mockery of all those, unless you want to argue that Ayers really is mainstream (but that brings up its own set of problems). Reading your initial reaction, I thought that perhaps you were questioning whether the 1995 event actually took place, as there was some internet chatter questioning that at one point, but I believe the occurrence of the meeting has now been admitted by all sides.

I'm guessing that the truth is probably something like this. Ayers and others present at that event were the gatekeepers of the Chicago liberal political establishment at the time, and to break into the club Obama had to go through this rite of passage. At some point before, during, or after that event, Obama discovered that he and Ayers shared some common concerns about education, and they decided to work together on some of them. After getting to know Ayers better, Obama decided that Ayers's views were a bit too radical for his tastes, so they drifted apart and now have little contact. Ayers would not have any role in an Obama administration.

That's a believable explanation, and I would be satisfied with it. My question is, if that's what really happened, why can't Obama just say that? Provide a believable explanation instead of one that simply doesn't make sense. And why has the press simply rolled over and accepted an unbelievable story?

Both of those questions could be asked about any number of other situations involvng Obama. By providing the answers he has provided, he has left the Manchurian candidate speculation within the realm of possibility. I want to believe that sort of stuff is ridiculous, because this country isn't livable if it's not, but Obama's BS answers don't do much to convince me. And the press isn't taking him to task for it.

Interesting:

Racists for Obama

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200...index.html

I'm going to retire from this thread with this post, but I think we can all agree this is a nice story - the 109 year old daughter of a slave casts her vote for Obama.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/ne...jones.html

Paul Begala in the Racists for Obama article Wrote:If you got to a white neighborhood in the suburbs and ask them, "How would you feel about a large black man kicking your door in," they would say, "That doesn't sound good to me... But if you say, "Your house is on fire, and the firefighter happens to be black," it's a different situation.

I get the point the article makes, but wow, that is incredibly dumb wording. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't feel good about someone kicking their door in regardless of color, gender, or size.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:None of that fits the 1995 party to launch Obama's political career from Bill and Bernie's living room....

Of course, it's legitimate to consider the Wright and Ayers links when forming an opinion of Obama. But why is it necessary to perpetuate misleading talking points like this?

And exactly how is this a "misleading talking point"? What part of it is misleading?
One thing for sure, your typing the words "misleading talking points" on a computer screen doesn't make any part of this a misleading talking point.

It's a talking point because I've seen it frequently repeated verbatim across the conservative web. It's misleading because there's a kernel of truth in it -- a coffee for Obama (one of many) was held in Ayers's house during his first run for office -- but it's overstated -- saying "launched" -- in a way that implies that Ayers is the sinister guiding force for Obama's career. Goes along with the Manchurian candidate theme. Not that you're implying that, but it's the unmistakable undercurrent to the statement.
Let me give a rough parallel from the other side (though I'm making this up and haven't seen it elsewhere): "John McCain launched his political career when he signed divorce papers with his first wife to clear the way to the beer heiress." Kernel of truth, but unfair.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're making a bunch of inferences and adding them to what I said. Let's be clear that it's you, not me, bringing up those inferences, even if you are bringing them up only for the purpose of refuting them. Put those words in your mouth, not mine.

I was addressing the subtle implications of the line - not saying that that's what you meant. That's why I later typed "Not that you're implying that...."

S.A. Owl Wrote:I was addressing the subtle implications of the line - not saying that that's what you meant. That's why I later typed "Not that you're implying that...."

Fair enough. I think it is a legitimate question. I also agree with you that the talking heads have pirated it to make it seem like more than it may be, and that may have impaired our ability ever to know the truth.

If we actually had a believable explanation, it'd be a whole lot harder to distort it IMO.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:I was addressing the subtle implications of the line - not saying that that's what you meant. That's why I later typed "Not that you're implying that...."

Fair enough. I think it is a legitimate question. I also agree with you that the talking heads have pirated it to make it seem like more than it may be, and that may have impaired our ability ever to know the truth.

Shouldn't the famous expression instead be, "Truth is the first casualty of campaign season?" (Applying to both sides....)