Hard-hitting McCain Ad on Obama-Ayers Connection

There is an outstanding new McCain campaign ad that discusses Barack Obama's alliance and collaboration with former terrorist Bill Ayers:

Comments

[David Hoggard]

Not "hard hitting" to me, Joe. But it is pretty amazing.

Not the old-hat-repackaged information in the ad, but the level of desperation it reveals on the part of Sen. McCain and the fear the ad is intended to arouse in people.

I really wish McCain would start getting his message out about policy differences and leave such crap in the gutter. It's not working.

[Joe Guarino]

David, I think it is truly regrettable that the McCain campaign feels it has to do this. But think about it. The Democratic Party did not adequately vet its own candidate. And the news media for the most part has not reported or investigated Obama's background adequately. And his background is highly relevant.

McCain has been discussing issues; although I would like to see him rev up his discussion on the economy and the financial crisis, and some other key issues.

[Stormy]

Joe,

Barack Obama's alliances and his character are the issues. When you start getting comments like Hogg's, you know that McCain has struck deep into the opponent's backfield.

[Bubba]

"Not the old-hat-repackaged information in the ad, but the level of desperation it reveals on the part of Sen. McCain and the fear the ad is intended to arouse in people."

For someone like you, it's obviously no big deal, and something that doesn't matter, and merits no consideration.

Continue to keep that attitude, to your own great risk, and to the great risk to our nation.

Your attitude very, VERY wrong, and is flat out dangerous.

[Stormy]

Funny, but it seems that Obama just made a similar comment about the ad being a desperate move by a failing campaign. Well, at least, the talking points are together.

This is the danger of nominating a candidate that hasn't been vetted. If he gets vetted by the opponent right before the election, and in front of the voters, you might be embarrassed and lose the election. Heaven knows, the media isn't and hasn't been doing it.

Does Barack Obama have any associations or alliances, past or current, that are not questionable? It seems that everyone of which we learn, it's worse than the previous one. What's next?

[Roch101]

Hoggard is a moderate Republican. If white middle-aged moderate Republican men like him are not happy, you guys are in deep doodoo.

[Everest]

Moderate Republicans....typically those are Democrats that once voted for Reagan....what is a "moderate" Republican anyway...?

Stormy hits the nail on the head - if the media/Democratic Party is not going to vet their own candidate, then it falls to the opposition to do so. What would Hoggard have us do...? Sit on our hands while the most liberal, least known/understood candidate in recent American history walks away with the Presidency? That doesn't sound like something a "moderate" Republican would want....

[Stormy]

A moderate Republican is called a RINO, and they are extremely unreliable members of the Republican Party. I've watched Hoggard's words and actions for several years, and honestly, he looks and sounds like a liberal. So, if he is a Republican, he is a liberal Republican, and not the type of party member that McCain/Palin can count upon to get elected. Hoggard may well be white and middle-aged, but he is not part of the solution for Republicans. Based upon his past actions and words, I would wager that he was voting for Obama long before he saw McCain's "old-hat-repackaged information in the ad".

[David Hoggard]

"What would Hoggard have us do...?"...

I dunno... perhaps stop grasping at 40 year-old straws and start making a much better case as to how that now, even more than 3 months ago, experience at the helm is critical to our very survival as a world power.

You know... the stark truth, a sprinkling of hope... a more paternalistic stance... a simple leveling with the people.

Not, "...there's a bogeyman under the bed and his name is Obama".

As for Stormy's, "When you start getting comments like Hogg's, you know that McCain has struck deep into the opponent's backfield."

What a dumbass statement.

When you start getting such comments from those of us right of center Repubs, who have been labeled and dismissed in the past as "RINO's" by the base... you ought to pay attention and adjust... because it is folks like me who are going to swing this thing. Not you dyed-in-the-wools.

That ad did nothing for me but cause me to let out a big sigh and wish for better. I doubt it was aimed at me, anyway, but it did make an impact on me. Just not the impact the McCain folks were hoping for.

[Stormy]

Possibly more dangerous than William Ayres is his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Dohrn currently serves as an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center. This is a person that was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List. In July 1969, Dohrn and others representing "Weatherman", traveled to Cuba and met with representatives of the North Vietnamese and Cuban governments. (Note: John Kerry also went to Paris to meet with representatives of the North Vietnam government.)

Dohrn was a principal signatory on the group's "Declaration of a State of War" in 1970 that formally declared "war" on the U.S. Government, and completed the group's transformation from political advocacy to violent action. Dohrn also co-wrote and published the subversive manifesto Prairie Fire in 1974, and participated in the covertly-filmed Underground in 1976.

Dohrn's criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar, according to The New York Times. "Dohrn didn't get a [law] license because she's stubborn," Trienens told the Chicago Tribune reporter in 2008. "She wouldn't say she's sorry."

In 1994, Dohrn said of her political beliefs: "I still see myself as a radical."

Is this a person that someone who aspires to be our next president should ally with and be friends with? What possibly could a presidential candidate learn from such a person? Do we want our next president to be someone who has friends and associations with such people? And, Obama says he didn't know about Dohrn and Ayres history when he went to them to gain entrance into politics. Either he is the world's least informed person or he is not telling the truth.

Do any of you have any alliances or associations with known terrorists that were once on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list and is unrepentant to this day? Would you continue those associations if you knew? Of course, a man that would sit in Jeremiah's church for 20 years and never hear his anti-America and racist vile spew from the pulpit, would, I suppose, if it was politically advantageous to his career.

[Stormy]

"because it is folks like me who are going to swing this thing"

You are right, Hoggard. You will swing the election...to Obama.

"us right of center Repubs"

That is a joke, Hoggard. You have never been right of center. You may call yourself a Republican, but you are in name only.

[Spag]

Is there any part of the ad that isn't true?

Substitute "John McCain" for "Barack Obama" and "David Duke" for "William Ayers" and you would have a media, left wing blogger, RINO circus.

[Everest]

"I dunno... perhaps stop grasping at 40 year-old straws and start making a much better case as to how that now, even more than 3 months ago, experience at the helm is critical to our very survival as a world power."

Uh, sorry David, but it was about 12 years ago that Obama launched his inaugural State Senate campaign at Ayer's home...and only 7 years ago Ayers wrote a NYTimes op-ed (on 9/11 conincidentally) about how he wished he had bombed more buildings...perhaps that doesn't matter to you, but who this guy (Obama) chose to spend time with, and what those people stand for (see Ayers views on education) matters to me - and I'll bet it does to a lot of folks. Most of whom are hearing this for the first time EVER...and having "exeprience at the helm" doesn't mean a 4-year strikingly liberal Senator from Illinois.

I wish we didn't have to spend time on this less than 30 days too...although a thorough review of both candidates' plans for the economy, healthcare, etc allows me pretty quickly to choose a candidate. The problem, again, is that none of this background has ever seen the light of day - the media has steamrolled the electorate, throwing any remaining shreds of their credibility over the side of the ship, along with McCain.

So tell me, you're a "moderate" Republican....what does that mean again? I mean, what views do you hold that cause you to align yourself as a "moderate Republican"...?

[Bubba]

"Hoggard may well be white and middle-aged, but he is not part of the solution for Republicans."

He's part of the problem.

He's also in denial about Obama.

[David Hoggard]

This ought to give you a good idea...

A passion for civil liberties.

A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority.

A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age.

A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty.

A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community.

A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government.

A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need.

A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities.

A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda.

A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good.

A commitment never to put party above country;

and

A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good.

Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.

Credit this source:http://moderaterepublican.net/id1.html and the fact that Abe and I were both born in Hodgenville, Kentucky.

[Bubba]

"A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good."

And Bill Ayers is just some guy who lives in Obama's neighborhood, right?

Mainly my understanding of the sixties came as a result of my own investigations, as my adolescent rebellion sought justification in the political and cultural changes that by then had already begun to ebb. In my teens, I became fascinated with the Dionysian, up-for-grabs quality of the era, and through books, film, and music, I soaked in a vision of the sixties very different from the one my mother talked about: images of Huey Newton, the ’68 Democratic National Convention, the Saigon airlift, and the Stones at Altamont. If I had no immediate reasons to pursue revolution, I decided nevertheless that in style and attitude I, too, could be a rebel, unconstrained by the received wisdom of the over-thirty crowd."

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-mom-knew-about-the-sds

Also posted here:

http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-product-of-radical-sixties.html

[Everest]

Well, um...thanks for clearing that up...

What's interesting about your laundry list of "beliefs" is that you don't say an awful lot...which leads one to understand the "moderate" label. Here's what I mean...you appear to think the Constitution should be "interpreted" as opposed to followed - that's typically what "made relevant for a modern age" means. And that's a pretty liberal interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended. What I know for certain is that there is not a politician alive that is a better or wiser man than the ones who penned the Constitution. So when people start trying to "interpret" what the Founders would have meant, that means finding all sorts of new rights and duties that the Founders never intended. How do I know they didn't intend them - because these new "relevant" ideas are not in the Constitution. The Constitution is fine the way it is, and for its brevity, quite remarkable on its own.

I like diversity too, but I don't think that should mean we need to ship our children all over town to acheive some indiscriminate mix that a handful of lifelong educators think makes sense - and for which there's no evidence has any positive impact on our children's learning.

I agree that religion shouldn't be used to achieve political results, but I won't ignore the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs either. And there's nothing wrong with our religion shaping our political belief system, whether Democrats want to criticize us for that or not.

Since I don't know your belief system, and the list you provided could be interpreted so broadly, I'll take you at your word that you're a "moderate"...but you think the Left in this country has any interest in putting the country above party...? Do you think they ever exhibit any political courage, or are intellectually honest? To the contrary David, you only mention speaking out against Republicans when they stray...on what issues do you protest the Democrats? It's interesting that bipartisanship only seems to apply when it's Republicans agreeing with Democrats, and moving Left. Because as history shows us, the opposite never happens....

[Stormy]

How is it that a right of center middle-aged white guy wants to align himself with a person that is, without question, the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate, and has a history of being friends, an associate, and an ally with people that are Marxist, Socialist, Radicals, and/or simply corrupt people? Does Barack Obama even know one person that is a right of center middle-aged white guy?

Hoggard - "A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good."

Uh, Dave, that would describe John McCain. He was always the darling of the media and the left because of his willingness to publicly criticize his own party and cross party lines when he thought his party was on the wrong side of the issue. Why have those people deserted him now that he is running for president against someone who has been 100% loyal to his party and never reached across party lines? When a tough issue presents itself which requires men and women of principle to take a position and cast their vote, Obama has voted "present" or he has hid in the cloak room.

[David Hoggard]

I'm still a McCain man, guys. Have been for many years, His appeal to me lies in his moderate views.

My point is that his campaign is doing their best to drive me away of late.

Get over yourselves already.

Of course I believe moderates not only "speak out against Republicans when they stray", Everest. We should, and do, speak out against Dems as well under similar circumstances.

I copied and pasted the list (and inadvertently left out the quotation marks). The link provided gives the whole, verbatim thing.

[Spag]

Hoggard, that list is like liberals denying they are liberals and instead calling themselves "progressives".

I have no right to define what a Republican is, but your list does reduce it to simply another word for Democrat.

Almost none of the ideas expressed in your list have been part of any party platform since 1960 except maybe the Democrats.

You can call it what you want to. I'm not really that fixated on party labels especially after the past 8 years of Republican's acting like Democrats.

Now if you want to argue about conservative vs. liberal or progressive, that's another story. Liberal Republican, liberal Democrat- same thing and I have no use for either.

[Spag]

Caveat: that list does contain some things that conservative Republican's or just plain conservatives would agree with. But some of those things simply cannot be reconciled with contemporary Republican platforms which essentially invalidates the whole list against its purpose.

[David Hoggard]

So, then, are you saying I've got the wrong party listed on my voter registration card, Sam? Or, perhaps, everyone would be more comfortable if I would have "UA" in the box.

This is really pretty amazing.

The "true" Republicans here seem to be saying that their tent is entirely too small for the likes of me. How's that working for the Party guys?... I'd say not so well.

"True" Democrats just like "true" Republicans have little room for vacillation in their tents. Things are either black, or they are white, or rather red or blue.

Both sets of colors leave little room for the non-dogmatic.

(I'm out-of-pocket until late this evening...)

[Roch101]

Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a race-centric nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause.

This is crazy. There is no way we can allow this kind of anti-American extremism to have a position of power. Surely we can all agree on this.

One more thing: This is not true of the Obamas, it describes the Palins.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/

[Everest]

Leave it to Roch to set the record straight by using a most trusted, objective and valued source as "Salon"...

The same people who are mortified by Todd Palin's "involvement" (if any) in this party are the same folks calling Republicans racists for mentioning the Obama's 20-year pastor, or his early mentor Ayers. I didn't see you mention anything about the New Party affiliation of the Obamas either Roch...of curse, we already knew Obama was a socialist.

[Joe Guarino]

Everest, I am not sure that many on the left are necessarily troubled with Obama's history of allying himself with a party that apparently is socialist.

Roch, I am not sure I see the parallel. A spouse of a vice presidential candidate (Todd Palin) was sufficiently concerned about the overreaching of federal power that he was once a member of an independence party that at least at one time had a wacko leader who spoke in an intemperate way.

Consider the comparison. The presidential candidate himself (Obama) has a history of multiple alliances with radical/socialist individuals and organizations, including a terrorist and others sympathetic with terrorists.

Not even close.

[Roch101]

That's it, Everest, attack the messenger when you cannot refute the facts.

Joe, voters recognize that, because of McCain's age, his [poorly chosen] running mate is an extremely important consideration. That you see Obama's associations as important and dismiss Palin's is simply a reflection of your own extremism.

[Stormy]

I'm personally more concerned about Barack Obama's troubling alliances with radicals, anti-Americans, and simply corrupt people, than John McCain's age.

Barack Obama, if elected, would be the president of this country for four years. This is an individual that has not been vetted by his party or the national media. It's strange that you would refer to Joe's observations as "extremism". That is a word that many would use for Barack Obama and his alliances.

But, we all can see clearly now that any attempt to expose and investigate Obama is met with charges of extremism and racism. A usual tool of the left. Let's see which Alinsky Rules for Radicals would this tactic follow? Barack Obama has learned them all very well from his mentor.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

They are all such great radical tactics that I can not decide which one you are using, Roch. Maybe all of them at one time.

[Stormy]

Salon.com as a reference, huh? You mean the one that is a far left online magazine, based in San Francisco? Yeah, that one. By the way, Roch, is Salon.com funded and controlled by George Soros? You know, George Soros is everywhere in this election as the man behind the screen, and Barack Obama is his front man. Let's review what we know about the George Soros/Barack Obama alliance, and how George Soros is buying the election just like he bought the Democrat Party.

One further maneuver in Soros’ effort to take over the Democrat Party was his formation of the Democracy Alliance. In 2005, George Soros and 70 millionaires and billionaires got together to discuss further prospects for buying up the Democratic Party. On July 27, 2006 the Washington Post reported that there was a requirement that every member of the Democratic Alliance give $200,000 to the organization, but most members gave more, and Soros was one of the top three contributors. Democratic Alliance funds were thrown into organizations like the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). These organizations also played a role in operations against Senator Clinton in the primary campaign.

The ongoing 2008 Presidential election represents Soros’ importation of the techniques he has utilized for popular subversion in foreign lands to the U.S. political process. MoveOn.org, an organization hugely funded by George
Soros, played a central role in Barack Obama’s capture of the Democrat nomination, despite Hillary Clinton’s clear superiority in the popular vote. Although positioned as a pro-Obama instrument long before, as of February of 2008, MoveOn officially backed Obama’s campaign, sending him an army of “volunteers” and an established money machine and fundraising base. As Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly warned, Obama himself is a throwaway in the financial oligarchy’s plan to capture the Presidency of the United States under conditions of economic collapse. He was promoted to destroy the Clinton candidacy and its potential for a Rooseveltian solution to the financial collapse.

Obama himself has been blessed with Soros’ “soft money” since he was an Illinois state senator. Obama’s career in national politics was catapulted by George Soros’ pool of dough during his run for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Throughout that campaign year, Soros kept tabs on Obama. On July 4, 2004, one month before the Democratic Nominating Convention in Boston, Obama was the only candidate Soros personally met with that year in Soros’ New York home. This same year, Soros and his family raised $60,000 for Obama.

In 2006, Obama, as U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois, had his sights set on bigger things. He met with Soros again in his Manhattan office. That meeting lasted about an hour. Immediately afterward, Soros introduced Obama to a dozen of the biggest moneybags in politics, including financier and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer and Union Bank of Switzerland U.S. chief Robert Wolf. A week later Wolf had dinner with Obama in Washington D.C. to craft his campaign strategy, one month before Obama officially launched his Presidential bid.

Obama announced his candidacy for President in January 2007. In just four months, Soros and Wolf raised $500,000 for Obama. From April until the closing months of the primary campaign season, Soros and his associates held a series of fundraisers and practically guaranteed a steady flow of money into his campaign. In fact, Soros played a major role in changing how political campaigns are run in the United States, through his support for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation in 2002. Soros’ Open Society claims that it provided the key logistical support for the legislation by mobilizing itself and other foundations to lobby for the legislation
and to raise the money needed to defend it against subsequent court challenges. As a result of the McCain-Feingold act and subsequent developments, PACs with wealthy sponsors, like MoveOn, Internet-based “movements,” and wealthy bundlers, like those who predominate in Obama’s campaign, have taken the place of constituency organizations, and have thus become the central focus of all political activity. So, after the vast sums of cash that were thrown around, after key Clinton support was simply bought off, should there be any mystery as to how Obama apparently got the nomination?

Okay, Roch, start your cherry-picking fact-checking. Yeah, as I said, Barack Obama's alliances with dangerous people concern me more than John McCain's age and Sarah Palin's "rumored" radical connections promoted by far leftists. Before you say it, I know that you will say that this is just paranoia, but as Henry Kissenger once said "Even a paranoid has some real enemies."

[Roch101]

Nice. Now anything to refute the facts?

[Bubba]

"Now anything to refute the facts?"

With your document failures as a fact checker, your ability to recognize a fact is a sad joke.

You testtify to that every time you post on any of these local blogs.

[Stormy]

Roch,

What exactly in this post is not accurate? We know that George Soros owns MoveOn.org. We know that MoveOn.org was who allowed Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primaries, even though she had more popular support. Unfortunately for Hillary, she couldn't expose Obama within her own party. We know that MoveOn.org announced that the Democrat Party was bought and paid-for. We know that it is George Soros who is funding his campaign. To believe that Obama is funding his campaign with one million contributors of less than $200 each is not believable. And, he isn't particularly eager to reveal the names of those people. But, dog-gone, Roch, why should we bother? If Obama wins this election, our entire existence in going to change in this country. George Soros will have achieved his goal of world power.

So go ahead and do your fact-checking and tell us what is not accurate. But, please do not use far left sources such as Salon.com to do it.

[Stormy]

Hoggard said "Not the old-hat-repackaged information in the ad, but the level of desperation it reveals on the part of Sen. McCain and the fear the ad is intended to arouse in people."

An interview with Bill Ayres appeared in the NY Times, Ironically on 9/11/01, where Ayres discussed his and Dohrn's days as terrorists with the Weather Underground.

"I don't regret setting bombs,"" Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough."

"So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said."

I was a young adult during the Weather Underground days, I remember these thugs quite well and the atrocities that they committed. Not only did the Weathermen commit terrorist acts similar to what we see with Islamic radicals in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were nothing more than punk criminals. In 1981, members of the Weathermen robbed a Brinks truck that left four people dead. What does armed robbery and murder have to do with being a noble resistance against the evil U.S. Government?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=%93I+don%27t+regret+setting+bombs%3B+I+feel+we+didn%27t+do+enough%2C%94&st=nyt

Then, we have heard many versions of excuses by Barack Obama about his associations with Bil Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn. "He was just a guy in the neighborhood", etc. Obama would have us believe that he didn't really know Ayres and Dohrn all that well, but shouldn't he have known about them after the NY Times article? One would surely think so. So, if he did, why did he continue to associate with them by appearing on conference panels, such as this on April 19th & 20th, 2002?: http://www.uic.edu/classes/las/las400/conferencealt.htm

Speaking on the same panel doesn’t mean Obama is sympathetic to their goals. It does suggest that there was no break with Ayres after the 1995 visits. Obama hasn’t distanced himself from these domestic terrorists, even after terrorism against the United States became a little…harder to ignore after September 11th, 2001.

Appearing on a panel with creepy people doesn’t mean you’re a creep. But, events such as this begin to add up to a pattern of what is at best frightening ignorance of terrorism, evil and chaos these radicals represent. Anyone involved in politics, particularly in the Chicago area, knows who William Ayres and Bernadette Dohrn are and agreeing to appear with them at events is a tacit endorsement of their radical politics.

So, Hogg, if John McCain's Ayres' ads strike fear in you, that is probably a public service. Ayres and Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists who should have gone to prison for a very long time. There is no doubt that they did the things that they are accused of doing. They have admitted them. If Barack Obama has been working with and freely associating with these people, and people like them, he does not have the character and judgment to be the leader of the free world. That is why these ads are appropriate and necessary. Barack Obama hasn't been honest with the American people about who he is, and the national media hasn't vetted him for America.

[Everest]

Okay Roch - I'm not sure why I'm taking time to answer a question from you about refuting facts - since you are consistently unwilling to do the same - but here goes...

Todd Palin was, on two separate occasions, a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. While the founder was fiery about Alaskan Independence, he of course died in 1994 (before Todd joined), and the group moderated some of its stances a great deal According to MSNBC (since you feel Salon is authoritative, I'll use an official Obama website) "Some members of the party have advocated secession from the United States, though that is not a goal listed in the party's platform." In fact, in 1990, Walter Hickel (a former Republican) was elected governor of Alaska as a member of the AIP, even though he didn't support the secession ideas. He later rejoined the Republican Party (Wikipedia.)

I'm not sure why it's a bad thing that Todd Palin for several years, was a member of a third party that was widely recognized in Alaska as a legitimate third party, just because the founder of that party said crazy things in the 1970s. Now, if the founder had bombed government buildings, and private residences, and been a fugitive from justice, and on the FBI's most wanted list, and exhibited no remorse for these actions AND Todd Palin had been a friend of his in spite of that, then I would have an issue with him as well...of course, that's not the case here. If it was, then Sarah Palin would be a shoo-in for the Democratic nominee for President....

Finally Roch, when faced with Ayers in a primary debate, Obama said that "he was a guy that lived in my neighborhood"...and said later he had no idea of Ayers' past. Now, we know that's not accurate, but today Obama says that, "well, I thought he had been rehabilitated when I met him." Rehabilitated from what exactly....? I thought he was just a guy that lived in his neighborhood...can you help us understand that?

[Stormy]

Obama and his campaign are just trying to run out the clock on the Ayres scandal. If they can keep trying on enough excuses, they figure that Obama can get across the finish line before voters really understand the issue. In any event, probably the most incriminating issue between Obama and Ayres is the CAC. In brief, this was a scheme that allowed Ayres to get $50 million of initial funding (and an additional $60 million later) to improve the learning in Chicago public schools. He was able to get Obama appointed to the board, where he distributed the funds, not to schools, but to community groups, not unlike ACORN. Those groups' objectives were to radicalize school students. Test scores in math and reading didn't improve. This is the biggest issue with the Obama/Ayers alliance. Barack Obama can not claim that he did not know what was happening to the money he distributed. He was the one that distributed it to radical groups.

[David Hoggard]

So... I leave it to the true Republicans to discuss the size of your tent and all I read upon my return is silence.

Noted.

Not just the zippering of the tent flaps, but the reluctance toward developing a bigger, more accessible one.

Big tent my ass.

[Stormy]

Isn't it interesting how all of the Cone Trolls showed up once the subject about Obama's shady alliances started getting some light? Must be touching some nerves somewhere, and that tells us that it's a sensitive area.

[Bubba]

"Isn't it interesting how all of the Cone Trolls showed up once the subject about Obama's shady alliances started getting some light?"

It's just standard operating procedure.

You know their reaching when theirfavorite token Republican ("I don't want help from the local Republican organization") Hoggard makes an appearance.

[David Hoggard]

All of the "Cone Trolls" are present and accounted for; including the the two above.

[Bubba]

When's the next blogger meet-up with Mitch, Hoggard?

[Stormy]

So, those two Cone Trolls would be Dave Hoggard and Roch 101?

[Spag]

Hoggard, I guess what I'm getting at is the term "moderate" basically describes the same group of Republicans and Democrats. Really, what is the difference between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat?

Roch, conservatives love Palin. We don't regret the pick at all. Continued efforts to discredit her will go nowhere. She has a bright political future regardless of what happens to McCain, and that is what scares you. An attractive, conservative, pro-life woman is simply too much for liberals to handle. Geeky men are intimidated by her and angry feminists see her as a mortal threat.

[Fred Gregory]

David Hoggard readily admits that he slipped out of the big tent and voted for John " Heinz " Kerry in 2004

[Stormy]

Hoggard was never voting for McCain. It was just a good cover story for criticizing him. I'll bet that Hoggard hasn't voted for a Republican in decades.

[Brenda Bowers]

I always like to watch home town news papers but was busy today. Hat Tip to Dallas for this one:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1215915,tony-rezko-obama-election-101108.article Or just go directly to Chicago Sun Times as there are several interesting articles on Obama.

David are you reading? These are not my words I am sending you to. And if these stories were about McCain they would have been blasted all over TV. And I know you can not deny that fact.

Just look at the headlines on the Palin thing. Fact: It was agreed she had ample legitimate reason to fire the man. It was also stated that some of her "motivation could have been personal". Come on, give me a break! I can not believe it but all of the headlines are giving it out that the "could have been" is indeed fact. How biased must the media bee before you admit they are so for Obama that they will allow nothing negative. So go to Chicago's own paper to see what the home town guys have to say about Obama and his mob connections.

There is only one way to judge people and that is on their past actions. Words are useless. Words can lie. Words can be promises that can be broken. Words can be promises that a president has no say over. Actions are real and tell the truth. BB

[Dave Ribar]

This is what factcheck.org said about the McCain ad (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html).

It looks like McCain is the "lier" here, not Obama.

[Joe Guarino]

Dave, based on a quick read of the factcheck article to which you link, I think they are wrong overall. I think they have overreached. I am not going to argue all the reasons why, point by point. But Obama attempted to minimize the relationship with Ayers when asked about it; and it was considerably more extensive and collaborative than he tried to make it appear.

He should never, ever, ever, have involved himself with a Weather Underground terrorist who as recently as 2001 expressed regret that he had not committed more of these acts. That relationship should never have taken place. He should have walked away from it completely.

Brenda, I agree with you completely that Obama needs to be assessed according to his past actions, not his words.

[David Hoggard]

Good point, Sam. What you are saying is that a "moderate" is just that, whether they have and 'r' or a 'd' on their registration card. I can't find any fault with that assertion.

For me, my affiliation is a matter of degrees of agreement with the tenets of the parties. I'll admit that my affiliation was initially based more on fiscal than social planks of the respective platforms.

Those lines were so clear to me at the time but have blurred somewhat over the years. But it wasn't me, nor my "values" that shifted in the ensuing years... it was those of the parties'.

That said, I still find myself voting more 'R' than 'D' over the years - but probably not by much. The cross-over I am most proud of was Fred's mention above. After voting for 'W' the first term, I just couldn't do it the second time around, however.

Turns out my instincts were pretty sound, I'd say.

[Bubba]

Ribar citing Fact Check as a reliable source!

Too funny.....

That's almost as funny as saying Roch doesn't have his.......nah, never mind.

[Stormy]

The Fact-Check article works overtime to "prove" that Obama did not have a connection with Ayers, and further, that Ayres wasn't really a terrorist, but rather a prodigal son of the local establishment. I didn't see any attempt to approach the subject from an objective point of view, only one to debunk everything we know about Obama/Ayers. As a matter of fact, the article's objective was to completely exonerate Obama and Ayers. Is that what non-partisan fact-checking organizations do? Sorry, but Bil Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were violent terrorists that are no better than the terrorists who are setting bombs to kill American soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan today. They admitted what they did, and they got away with it. Ayers can claim they weren't really terrorists, but his words now don't change history. Weather Underground was a violent group of terrorists that set bombs and criminals that robbed Brinks trucks. He is unrepentant, and he said that they did not do enough.

Still, when you take the overall picture of Obama, he was and is surrounded with radical, anti-American, and corrupt people, from Ayers, Daley, Dohrn, Rezko, ACORN, Farrakhan, Phlaeger, to Wright, just to mention a few. Obama doesn't seem to have any friendships, associations, or alliances that are not radical, anti-American, or corrupt. It looks as though Fact-Check is going to have to work overtime for the next month to debunk all of Obama's connections. And there lies the problem with Obama. There is much that we do not know about him, and that which we do know is not appealing.

[Joe Guarino]

One of the things I learned yesterday through a post over at Bubba's site:

The factcheck.org website is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation. Is that not the same outfit that Obama and Ayers served as leaders on its board together?

If true, it seems factcheck.org is hardly an objective source.