Monday, October 27, 2008
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION CRAP
Sarah Palin palled around with a 7-count indicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin began building clout in her state's political circles in part by serving as a director of an independent political group organized by the now embattled Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Palin's name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings.
Palin's relationship with Alaska's senior senator may be one of the more complicated aspects of her new position as Sen. John McCain's running mate; Stevens was indicted in July 2008 on seven counts of corruption, AND FOUND GUILTY ON ALL 7 COUNTS ON OCTOBER 27, 2008.
And John McCain was a pal of American domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy.
The Chicago Tribune is pointing out McCain's own radical associations with G. Gordon Liddy:
How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
For those who are unaware, Liddy helped plan the Watergate break-in that would cost Nixon his presidency and landed Liddy a four-year jail sentence.
But Liddy's career of inflammatory statements and actions exceed his Watergate actions.
Liddy, on Vitenam:
"I wanted to bomb the Red River dykes [sic]. It would have drowned half the country and starved the other half. There would have been no way the Viet Cong could have operated if we had the will-power to do that."
Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF agents during a radio show:
"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."
Liddy, on the impact Adolf Hitler had on him as a child:
When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body."
Let's cut the crap with this guilt by association, okay?
Obama does not endorse domestic or international terrorism and the right's trying to label him as a friend of terrorists is nuts.
And the American people aren't buying it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Stevens was indicted in July 2008 on seven counts of corruption, AND FOUND GUILTY ON ALL 7 COUNTS ON OCTOBER 27, 2008.
Uh, yeah, what's been her position since then?
Oh, that's today. Obviously, the problems have just come to light. Guess that leaves you with the AIP and the Troopergate. Pretty small potatoes when stacked side by side with the list The Marxist (Obama) has stacked up over the years.
However, McCain is on his own.
Patrick,
You didn't get my post.
What's Sen. Obama's "position since then?"
He has consistently repudiated Ayer's actions that happened 40 years ago.
Palin's association with Stevens happened THREE YEARS AGO.
And the Tony Rezko crap is now negated.
Ted Stevens' felony conviction has deballed that nonsense.
If you can say "what's been her position since then?" And excuse her palling around with Stevens, then the Rezko association is excusable too.
This is what happens when the other party starts the idiotic "guilt by association" crap.
And you completely ignored McCain's association with a Hitler admirere, G. Gordon Liddy.
shaw,
its not a matter of associations. its a matter of political beliefs. and if it was just matter of his association with Ayers you might have a point but it is not. and it is his political beliefs that most of us are concerned about and question.
and there is where you are incorrect by your accusation. a person's beliefs can be ascertained by who he associates with if those associates are numerous enough and it can be said that those associations are chosen associations.
Shaw: I'm probably going to echo the Griper a little, but I need to be clear on this.
What's Sen. Obama's "position since then?"
He has consistently repudiated Ayer's actions that happened 40 years ago.
Yeah, I'm pretty certain that Obama is not interested in promoting terrorism against America. And I do believe that he's going to try to do what he thinks is best for America. That's the noble part of getting into politics.
However, as Ayers hasn't, still believes he was right, and has merely changed tactics, the fact that Obama had the association (and I suspect it's deeper than either of us know), it's troubling.
But if it were just one person, and Obama's record and offhand comments indicated anything other than that he and Ayers were on the same wavelength (except on blowing shit up, obviously), then I'd dismiss it as a necessary part of playing politics in Chicago.
But with the Marxist professors, Ayers, J Wright, his voting record, his work with ACORN, the policies espoused on his site (and I have read a good portion of them), and statements made by him and Michelle, all the evidence that his idea of "change" is essentially a hard-assed swing in the direction of Karl Marx is overwhelming.
Now if you're okay with that (and I'm sure you are), then he's the perfect candidate for you.
As for those of us, who are looking at an ever-expanding government, electing someone who wants to expand it exponentially, and may have the 60-vote Senate to do so, is sickening.
Now as to Sarah: She has a record of turning on and rooting out corrupt politicians of her own party. And as he was a political leader in the state and she was an up-and-coming politician in the state, they were bound to be associated.
It really only matters if she helped him with or was aware of his illegal activities before they came to light. And there's no evidence that I know of out there that indicates that. So at this point, if she came to his defense, you'd hear me getting really pissed in about half a second and, consequently, dropping McCain like a sack of monkey crap. Otherwise, you have nothing there.
shaw,
its not a matter of associations. its a matter of political beliefs. and if it was just matter of his association with Ayers you might have a point but it is not. and it is his political beliefs that most of us are concerned about and question.
Do you imply that Obama believes in domestic terrorism? Because the Right has been pushing this association based on what Ayers did 40 years ago, and his supposed non-repentence.
If you truly believe Obama supports domestic terrorisism, you and your friends on the right are truly out of touch.
and there is where you are incorrect by your accusation. a person's beliefs can be ascertained by who he associates with if those associates are numerous enough and it can be said that those associations are chosen associations.
It's interesting to me that you do not apply this same "guilt by association" to the Palins. Sarah Palin's husband, a man she is most intimate with, belonged to a treasonous, separatist organization. And she appeared on tape and offered them God's blessings on the "good work" they do.
To ignore this and harp on Obama's tenuous association with Ayers is simple hypocrisy and, therefore, not to be taken seriously.
And the American people do not take it seriously.
However, as Ayers hasn't, still believes he was right, and has merely changed tactics, the fact that Obama had the association (and I suspect it's deeper than either of us know), it's troubling.
Patrick,
This is a silly argument. Barack Obama is not responsible for Ayers' attitude over what he did 40 years ago. I have to bring out the comparison and hypocrisy of you and Griper ignoring McCain's association with Hitler-loving G. Gordon Liddy, Sarah Palin's palling around with Stevens (a convicted felon) and her husband's close, very close, association with a treasonous organization, AIP.
The American people reject you and your Rightwing friends trying to impugn Obama by blaming him for Ayers' attitudes? You and Griper seem to not understand that the country is not buying this crap. You and your small of guilt by associationists are a minority--vocal, maybe, but the rest of the country has moved on to more important matters.
But with the Marxist professors, Ayers, J Wright, his voting record, his work with ACORN,
John McCain appeared before ACORN a few years ago and praised their work--what about that association?
She has a record of turning on and rooting out corrupt politicians of her own party. And as he was a political leader in the state and she was an up-and-coming politician in the state, they were bound to be associated
Whoops! My hypocrisy-o-meter just crashed. She was BOUND to be associated with a crook, but when the same thing happened in Obama's Chicago political rise to power--well...???
It really only matters if she helped him with or was aware of his illegal activities before they came to light.
The video on my post was taken in June 2008. Stevens was under indictment.
Anyone with a brain sees this for what it is. You want to imply that Obama is a dangerous, questionable American because of the actions of other people, however, you do not want to apply the same rules to people in your own party.
As I pointed out. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS.
PS. I really wish you'd do some reading on Harry Truman's rise in Missouri politics and his association with Tom Pendergast.
I promise, it will be enlightening.
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have done more for this country than Todd Palin and his AIP buddies.
Both have long histories of public service and civic mindedness.
Clearly they have come a long, long way since their Weather Underground days.
Which, bye the bye, were far less lethal than the activities of prominent Republicans at the time.
Can you say G. Gordon Liddy?
As for Acorn, there's a red herring. The organization has been a positive force for change for years.
John McCain even knows that though it's politically expedient to deny his support at this moment in time.
Of course the vast majority of American voters rightly realize there are far more important issues on the table at this election time. And that is why beyond the usual suspects in Rightwingville no one really cares.
Not with two wars going poorly and an economy in shambles thanks to years of Republican misrule and deregulation.
So please Gov. Palin, keep up the 'Marxist' nonsense. It insures a Republican defeat.
Cheers.
shaw,
terrorism is but a tactic used. it is not a political belief.
two people can have the same political belief but disagree on the tactics used to implement those beliefs.
in fact, that was why the Weathermen broke up into two groups, a disagreement of tactics not a disagreement of beliefs.
not to give credibility to your accusations but thought i'd say this.
Palin's association with Stevens came before his indictment.
Obama's association with Ayers came after his indictment.
and there is Obama's poor attempt to deceive the people in regards to that association.
i don't know about you but when i catch someone trying to deceive me i have to wonder and question that man.
more important than anything else is, is the fact that by election of the people we are giving that man the highest security clearance in the land, an honor that Obqama could never have gotten if investigated for such an honor.
i don't know how high of a security clearance he could get but i'll bet a donut to a dollar it wouldn't be very high if any at all.
Very simply, I don't think the Ayers association is as tenuous ans you suppose. And I don't think Obama is down with domestic terrorism.
But I do believe his ultimate goal for this country is the same as Ayers, only through nonviolent means.
As for the AIP, I've been looking into them. Their founder was a kookburger, and it's probably not that bad that he got himself blown up. But the AIP leans secessionist due to the overreach of Washington. And while I don't believe they should, or can secede, I find myself agreeing with much of what they say (except the crazy stuff).
Take that for what you will, but it's the idea of less government, which stirs the libertarian in me.
I wish Alaska would secede. I too long for them to enjoy their 'freedom'.
Here's the way it works for me:
1.) Reimburse US Treasury for initial outlay for Alaska Purchase adjusted for inflation.
2.) Reimburse US Treasury for cost of 'upgrades'.
3.) Enjoy themselves.
As for Obama ghost writer Bill Ayers (just kidding but you can see how crazy this thing has become), Ayers knows most all the political movers and shakers in Chicago. He moves in those circles without any problems. This is yet another invented issue desperate Republicans cling to in the absence of anything substantive.
It isn't as if John McCain has much of a record to run on.
Republican political and economic achievements are, as we are all too aware, extremely rare.
Cheers.
Palin's association with Stevens came before his indictment.
Obama's association with Ayers came after his indictment.
Palin is touted as a very smart woman. You mean to suggest that she didn't have a clue about the sort of man Ted Stevens was? There aren't that many pols from Alaska--there aren't that many people in Alask, for that matter. Pretty much everyone who was in Alaska politics knew how Stevens operated.
You like Palin, therefore, you excuse her palling around with Stevens. That's your choice.
As for Ayers. What he did as a Weatherman was wrong and nuts.
But the man turned his life around and made something better of it.
I don't know if you or Patrick are Christians, but in Christian theology there is this idea of redemption.
Ayers was a bad guy who changed his ways and 40 years later has redeemed himself.
I find it curious that when people do the right thing, leave behind their wicked, destructive ways and contribute to society--so long as those people are lefties, you never accept that change. It suits your agenda to contine to demonize him.
Ayers behaved reprhensively as a stupid young man. He has more than made up for it. It says more about you and your fellow Rightwingers inability to move pass this than it does about Obama's brief association with Ayers.
Patrick actually believes that Obama wants to destroy this country by nonviolent means.
But he excuses the treasonous AIP association of the Palins.
You know what? You both can continue to believe what you want.
It doesn't change the fact that both of you are now the radical fringe in American politics.
From Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.
In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.
McCain says in an Internet ad that the two "ran a radical 'education' foundation" in Chicago. But the supposedly "radical" group was supported by a Republican governor and included on its board prominent local civic leaders, including one former Nixon administration official who has given $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. Education Week says the group's work "reflected mainstream thinking" among school reformers. The group was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, started by a $49 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, which was established by the publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican whose widow, Leonore, is a contributor to the McCain campaign.
More From Factcheck.org
OBAMA NEVER DECEIVED ANYONE ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH AYERS:
We find McCain's accusation that Obama "lied" to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.
Other claims are seriously misleading. The education project described in the Web ad, far from being "radical," had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. The project is described by Education Week as reflecting "mainstream thinking" about school reform.
Despite the newly released records, there's still no evidence of a deep or strong "friendship" with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and '70s Obama has called "detestable" and "despicable."
Even the description of Ayers as a "terrorist" is a matter of interpretation. Setting off bombs can fairly be described as terrorism even when they are intended to cause only property damage, which is what Ayers has admitted doing in his youth. But for nearly three decades since, Ayers has lived the relatively quiet life of an educator. It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist," and an "unapologetic" one at that. But if McCain means the word "terrorist" to invoke images of 9/11, he's being misleading; Ayers is no Osama bin Laden now, and never was.
McCain is not accurate when he says – as he does in the Web ad – "When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, 'This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.' " McCain is using the same line in personal appearances, too. He said on Oct. 9 at a campaign rally in Waukesha, Wis.:
McCain: Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. ... The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.
Obama never said Ayers was "just" a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn't deny getting some early political support from him.
Arthur: Ayers knows most all the political movers and shakers in Chicago. He moves in those circles without any problems.
You've heard of Chicago's political machine, right? And it doesn't bother you that someone like Ayers is a part of this?
Barack Obama is a product of this machine. And whatever lofty (and Marxist ) goals he may have, just look at where he chose to begin.
However, Shaw is right in that his association with Ayers as part of the machine is not so significant in the sense that those terrorist days are behind him.
Neither of you have managed to explain, though, how he differs from Ayers, and the laundry list of other associations, in political philosophy (ie, Marxism). That's the important point here.
BTW, why would you want to give up Alaska. They've got oil and good hunting. Just ask Sarah.
'Nuff said.
Palin's crimes alone give her a moral obligation to resign as Alaska's governor. When Republicans defend Palin's corruption, they make it clear that their party is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
partick: Your attacks on ACORN completely discredit you. ACORN is a noble organization that fights for poor people, including the right of poor people to vote. You are perfectly aware of the fact that ACORN was defrauded by a small percentage of employees in a way that cannot compromise the integrity of elections.
Attacks on ACORN are racist, classist, unAmerican, and unpatriotic.
'You've heard of Chicago's political machine, right? And it doesn't bother you that someone like Ayers is a part of this?'
'Barack Obama is a product of this machine. And whatever lofty (and Marxist ) goals he may have, just look at where he chose to begin.'
I have heard of the Chicago Democratic machine Patrick and have to say it frightens me far less than the the 'free marketers' and Project for a New American Century types who have been running the asylum these past eight years. And Chicago Dems frighten me far less than the union-busting, trickle-down disciples of Ronald Reagan.
Obama is as much a Marxist as Warren Buffett.
And you know it.
Cheers.
Neither of you have managed to explain, though, how he differs from Ayers, and the laundry list of other associations, in political philosophy (ie, Marxism). That's the important point here.
No. The onus is on YOU to show us your proof of Obama's Marxism.
Give us your proof. Not just your parroting of Rush Limbaugh.
Otherwise, this is just rightwing talking points shit.
Libhom: Palin's crimes alone give her a moral obligation to resign as Alaska's governor.
She has one ethical violation which warranted nothing further than stating it existed. Put bluntly, if this is the standard for politicians to resign, we'd have most of the Congress resigning.
As for "Attacks on ACORN are racist, classist, unAmerican, and unpatriotic.": You are full of shit. (I'm stopping before I get more obscene)
ACORN has a pattern (intentional or not) of registering a whole lot of questionable voters. In addition, they had a hand in pushing banks to give out those subprime loans, which put us in the housing mess. And on top of that, their reason for existence (and I just looked it up) is essentially the issues Obama is pushing right now. So my inclusion of them in the list is to show Obama's leanings and tendencies.
I'm not saying they've never done good work. But the direction they would ultimately want to take the country, and what Obama will try to do, is absolutely opposite of anywhere I want the country to go.
So I'd suggest you explain why the hell you think criticizing someone for their actions and philosophies is racist.
Arthur: This is a point where we're just going to disagree due to opposing political philosophy. One thing though:
Obama is as much a Marxist as Warren Buffett.
Sometimes I just have to laugh. :)
Shaw: As to Obama's Marxist leanings, I've been explaining and documenting that for a while now. How much more do you want?
Rather than retread all that, let me ask a question: How does the Obama plan differ significantly from a socialist plan? Because every time I refer to one of his ideas as socialist, you argue it's not. So we either need to get our definitions straight, or you're willfully ignoring facts.
Patrick M typed:
Obama is as much a Marxist as Warren Buffett.
Sometimes I just have to laugh. :)
It IS kind of funny to suggest Obama is a doctrinaire Marxist (or Socialist, the terms are used pretty loosely in right wing/libertarian circles) when he seeks the advice of such as Warren Buffett. Of course anything to the left of absolute laissez faire capitalism is in this view 'socialist' and it isn't much of a step from there to add the labels Marxist, Maoist, Castroist. etc. And THAT is funny.
Apparently Warren is hard at work in his spare time (those hours he isn't acquiring more billions of dollars and teaching the business world new tricks) on his collectivization scheme.
I can't wait.
Arthur: You would take my mockery and try to spin some kind of point out of it, wouldn't you?
No wonder the wingnuts ban you....
I think to call someone a Marxist, you have to provide some evidence that he 1) believes capitalism is based on exploitation and 2) is calling for a worker's revolution.
Barack Obama has done neither.
Patrick typed:
Arthur: You would take my mockery and try to spin some kind of point out of it, wouldn't you?
No wonder the wingnuts ban you....
Hate being called on your b******t don't you? The utter absurdity of suggesting Obama is a 'Marxist'. The sort of casual libels you sling about are despicable.
No wonder you're touchy, your assertion is ridiculous.
What you're suggesting is, by any measure, inaccurate and untrue. It's name calling and nothing more than a smear. And did I mention it's dishonest?
Keep plugging away though! You aren't alone.
There are fewer of you these days though.
We are witnessing the utter marginalization of the Republican Party.
Only the fringe radical right wing of the Republican Party thinks Sarah Palin is acutally a valid candidate.
The majority of the American people think she's a dipshit.
Shaw: Based on that definition, I could not accurately call Obama a Marxist. Also, I think I've made my point. So I'll revert back to socialist, which is definitely more accurate.
Arthur: Hate being called on your b******t don't you?
Hey, if I'm factually wrong, am argued logically, or my opinion changes, I man up and admit it immediately (any doubts, read my comment to Shaw above). Unless I can make everyone laugh by doing otherwise of course. :)
The sort of casual libels you sling about are despicable.
I didn't start the Marxist line until every discussion I heard about other candidates, like Sarah Palin, started sounding like this:
Jennifer C: Only the fringe radical right wing of the Republican Party thinks Sarah Palin is acutally a valid candidate.
The majority of the American people think she's a dipshit.
So if you think I'm going to stand and smile while the other side is slinging mud, or more graphically, bring a knife to a gunfight, you're sorely mistaken.
Jen: Thanks for the ammo and dim opinion.
Shaw: Based on that definition, I could not accurately call Obama a Marxist. Also, I think I've made my point. So I'll revert back to socialist, which is definitely more accurate.
Actually, you need to show me an action Barack Obama has instituted that reflects what socialism is.
For example: Taking a collectively owned resource of a state , say, oil, and sharing the revenue from that collectively owned resource with the people of that state. The Soviets used to do that with respect to farming--collective farming, and apparently, Gov. Palin is involved in this very real, very socialist activity.
The problem with certain rightwing people is that when confronted with reality--that Palin actually "spreads the wealth" of the collectively owned Alaskan oil to Alaskans--they don't see the very real, very "socialism" that it is.
Instead, they make up narratives about Obama, guessing about what he "may" do, instead of looking at what Palin is actually doing.
This is some sort of bad habit for which there is no cure.
It's called mental masturbation.
Shaw: Actually, you need to show me an action Barack Obama has instituted that reflects what socialism is.
When he institutes something, anything, I'll get back to you.
I draw that conclusion based on his pre-campaign associations (ACORN, Ayers, J Wright, professors, Michelle), his statements (spread the wealth, etc), his actions (banning tv stations that give his campaign a hard time), and his plans (universal heathcare, redistributive tax scheme, more "rights" for the "working class", ending union secret ballots, throwing more money at every social problem).
Wait, I did just think of one socialist thing he had a hand in (and was smart enough to stand to the side and let the shrapnel hit others): The Dastardly, Bastardly Bailout. Of course, credit for this debacle goes to Bush and McCain, and Pelosi and Reid and Boehner as well.
Taking a collectively owned resource of a state , say, oil, and sharing the revenue from that collectively owned resource with the people of that state.
Uh, Sarah Palin didn't do that. That was added to the Alaska state Constitution back in 1976. And the amount paid out has varied over the years, based on the profits flowing through. With the spike in oil prices, Sarah simply followed a long-established practice. It's kind of like the senior addiction to Social Security in that sense.
As it is enshrined in their constitution, they have come to expect, or even depend on it. I suspect that, like any government check, they've become addicted and will suffer when the day comes that the checks go away.
It's called mental masturbation.
Is that less messy than the standard method? Just curious. :)
Patrick typed:
I didn't start the Marxist line until every discussion I heard about other candidates, like Sarah Palin, started sounding like this:
So the fact it (Obama's 'Marxism') isn't true is of no concern to you. I thought as much it merely is a feeble rhetorical flourish. You would have been very much at home back in the 1950's. Ah those were the days. The red-baiting doesn't work quite as well as once it did.
I thought you were up for some reasoned discourse Patrick.
My bad.
Arthur: Of course I'm up for a reasonable conversation. Considering I upped the verbal ante in response...
And I do think Obama has some affinity for the Marxist lessons. Enough of that is in his socialist policies and words that I could make the stretch.
As though you've never engaged in a flourish or two. That's not what I've heard. :)
Post a Comment