Partisanship, Opportunism, in Paul Affair

By now everyone knows that Rand Paul stepped in it when he suggested that he was uncomfortable with the federal government telling a private business how to act even if that action was blatantly racist. That statement has lead to a firestorm that continues to follow him today.

Outside the GOP rally, about two-dozen protesters held signs rebuking Paul. One read "Rand the Klan's man." Another, held by a black woman, read "Should I not be served?"

One of the protesters, University of Louisville student Perry Green, who is black, called Paul's comments about discrimination disturbing."It's fundamentally un-American to discriminate along the lines of race or gender and these sorts of things," he said.

The media is literally giddy about the prospect of milking this for all it's worth.

I felt he was cagey on NPR, but no cagier than a lot of politicians on a lot of subjects. The sum and substance of his position - that he abhors racism (of course) but has misgivings about the government telling private businesses what to do wasn't so surprising given his ideology.

Then, last night, he was stupid enough to appear on Rachel Maddow's show, for a long segment. She crushed him. You can watch it here, on Joan Walsh's blog. The full segment is 19 minutes. You can skip the first 9:00 and watch the main back-and-forth, or if you want to cut right to the chase go to about 15:00 and watch the last four minutes.

Maddow had something Robert Siegel did not: lots of time. So she really bore down. By the end, he looked ridiculous. She asked point blank if he thought Woolworth's (a private business) should have been able to retain the right to desegregate its lunch counters in the 1960s, yes or no. He wouldn't answer.

All of this is entirely disingeuous and here's why.

The same media now giddy over Paul had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover the story of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Here we had a Presidential candidate's pastor for 20 years who is blatantly racist and blatantly anti American.

What does the Rand Paul story tell us about Rand Paul? It says that his roots are so libertarian that he is UNCOMFORTABLE with the federal government telling a private business what to do even if they're telling them to stop a blatantly racist policy.

Which is worse exactly? Which is more important? Yet, they will milk this story. They will try and hang this around Paul and define him with it. Meanwhile, the same media wanted to do anything but cover Jeremiah Wright.

Will We Know a Radical When We See One?

We are on the brink of making a historic choice. First and foremost, Barack Obama is on the cusp of becoming the nation's first African American President. Besides that, he will also be one of its most liberal to the point of radical. It is often surreal to watch Obama's radicalism flashed in front of people, and then to watch people defend it as though it isn't really there. The defense takes on many forms. There are two that are most prominent. First, Obama's radicalism is framed into something moderate or even compassionate. The most obvious example is his plan for income redistribution which is framed into a "middle class tax cut". The second is to flip the radicalism around, and use the attackers words against him. This was the most common technique in the fiasco regarding BAIPA. His defenders proclaimed it ridiculous and beyond the pale to accuse Senator Obama of supporting infanticide. As a State Senator, he voted multiple times against a bill that would have provided life saving treatment for babies born after a botched abortion, but yet it is his accusers that are beyond the pale if they dare call this supporting infanticide. Senator Obama has a radical policy, but it is his opponents that are beyond the pale for calling a spade a spade. Yet, on social, economic, and national security issues alike Barack Obama has openly favored radical ideas, and yet, his defenders continue to defend them as mainstream. Furthermore, all of these radical ideas go along with a laundry list of radical associations, and yet again, it is his opponents that are painted as beyond the pale for daring to make the connection.

1) The economy, income redistribution.

It is beyond debate that Senator Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That's been his plan all along. He believes that those that pay 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough. On the other hand, he also believes that those that don't pay any federal income tax (only the Social Security pay roll tax) are paying too much. This is boiler plate income redistribution.

Yet, his defenders continue to insist that it isn't what it clearly is. Most of his defenders point out that his is doing nothing more than what Bill Clinton did. Better yet, they defend his plan by pointing out that our tax system is already progressive. Both defenses are totally out of context. First, Bill Clinton didn't also say he was going to raise the capital gains, corporate, and inheritance tax along with raising income taxes. Second, he didn't give a tax cut to those that pay no federal income taxes. Third, what Bill Clinton did is irrelevant. It's not an excuse to suggest income redistribution because someone else did it too. What kind of nonsense is this? Second, our tax system may in fact be progressive, however Senator Obama is specifically trying to make it even more progressive. There is a big difference between favoring a progressive tax system and looking at a progressive tax system and believing it isn't progressive enough. Finally, we also see Obama defenders get on television and call his tax cut a "middle class tax cut". Of course, that is so but what they conveniently don't say is that this tax cut comes as a direct result of a tax increase to those more wealthy than the middle class.

As I watch, Obama defenders defend his policy of income redistribution, I always wonder the exact wording of other radical ideas like Socialism under Marx. For those that defend Obama's tax cuts as "for the middle class", how is it that you thought that Marx sold his ideology? It isn't as though he proclaimed that government would control every part of everyone's life. Instead, Marx, too, said that he had a plan that would benefit the middle class. That's the problem. Obama pits one group against another in a blatant bit of class warfare and masks it in the nice sounding "middle class tax cuts". His defenders seem oblivious to this and continue to defend.

2) Social issues

There is no question that Barack Obama hasn't met an abortion procedure that he isn't in favor of. That is just the facts. He called Nebraska's outlaw of partial birth abortion a slippery slope.

I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

A partial birth abortion only happens in the last trimester, six plus months into the pregnancy. There are two inherent problems with the argument that the health of the mother needs to be taken into consideration. First, "the health of the mother" is far too vague. Any abortion doctor can then perform a partial birth abortion because the mother says that she gets chronic headaches. Second, what's more important the life of the fetus or the health of the mother? Since when is one person's health more important than the life of another person?

Of course, Barack Obama doesn't stop at merely partial birth abortion. He goes so far as to advocate the killing of a baby even after it is born. He voted multiple times against BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act) in the Illinois Senate. To me it is very simple. Babies were dying. Babies that were meant to be aborted but survived weren't being treated at hospitals in Cook County. The laws that were already on the books weren't protecting them. Barack Obama had an opportunity to save these babies, but instead, he was more concerned with ideology. His fear over the "slippery slope", again, caused him multiple times to vote against this act.

Now, Senators often make bad Presidential candidates because they vote so often and their votes can be taken out of context. In the case of BAIPA, this is exactly the defense that Obama's defenders take. They muddy the issue through a giant maze of procedural matters in order to make it seem as though the vote was really about something besides saving babies. All of this may in fact be so, but ultimately that's the problem. Barack Obama had a clear opportunity to save babies, and instead he chose to turn this into an ideological battle, and a battle to save abortions. In the end, protecting "reproductive rights" was more important than protecting babies. Rather than focusing on this truth, Obama's defenders focus on an endless stream of procedural matters involved with the vote, and then, they use those procedural matters, to proclaim with righteous indignation that it is beyond the pale to say that "Barack Obama supports infanticide". Here, we have a Senator that on more than one occasion voted against protecting infants born alive, and yet, it is his opponents that are beyond the pale.

3) Foreign policy

In a debate in April of 2007, Barack Obama made an astonishing statement. He said that he would meet with many of our enemies without preconditions in the first year of his Presidency.



He's never stepped away from this policy. He has tried to frame it better by proclaiming there would be preparations. Yet, ultimately, the problem isn't that he would jump on a plane and meet with leaders like Assad, Il, and Ahmadinejad before researching them and their nations. The problem is that he would do this without having the nations meet conditions beforehand. It is foolhearty and naive to believe that meetings on the Presidential level between ourselves and our neighbors will lead to anything but disaster. We need only to look back to Kennedy's meeting with Kruschev to see the disastrous results of Presidential meetings with no pre conditions with our enemies. Yet, Obama uses this very meeting as an example of the "positive" that can come out of it. Furthermore, he points to Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev as another example. Reagan never met Gorbachev with no pre conditions. In fact, the U.S. had beaten the Soviet Union into submission before he met with Gorbachev.



Rather than calling this foolish, naive, and radical policy what it is, his defenders muddy the issue and use all sorts of equvocations to try and defend what is truly an indefensible policy. Can you imagine the public relations coup that a photo of Ahmadinejad and Obama shaking hands would be for Ahmadinejad? Furthermore, the absurdity of this policy was proven when Iran set its own pre conditions prior to a meeting.

The vice president for Iranian media affairs says Iran has preconditions of its own. He tells the Islamic Republic News Agency Americans are in dire need of re-establishing ties with the Iranian people and that Iran will only hold talks if “the U.S. moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.”

Those, of course, aren't merely preconditions but rather some lofty preconditions. It seems our enemies understand the power of leverage better than Barack Obama himself. The news from Iran should have been enough to make his defenders understand that his policy is naive to the point of radical. Instead, his defenders have tried to obfuscate the issue. They point to folks like James Baker and Henry Kissinger as suggesting the same thing as Barack Obama. Of course, both those gentlemen suggest low level meetings first, and not Presidential level meetings with no preconditions.



4) Radical associations



It really doesn't matter just how many there are, and how close some of them are. All of them, to his defenders, are totally irrelevant and trivial. Senator Obama can sit in the pews of a racist, anti American zealot for twenty years, and anyone that brings this up is a "racist" themselves and trying to deflect from the "real issues".



He can sit on two boards and make a blurb in a book for an unrepentent former terrorist, and his defenders will claim that the association is loose and tangential.



He can have a twenty year association with a group (ACORN) that is being investigated in more than ten states for voter fraud, and it is also referred to as tangential.



He can have as a neighbor, a friend, a business partner, and a top fundraiser, a convicted felon and crook, and this relationship will also be dismissed as tangential.



Each one of his associations is often defended by pointing to associations of others. For every mention of Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, there is a mention of McCain "relationship" with Pastor Hagee. Of course, Hagee merely endorsed McCain, and McCain was never a member of his church.



For every mention of Obama's relationship with William Ayers, there is someone pointing to John McCain's relationship to G. Gordon Libby. The difference is that Libby's crimes were siginificantly less violent, he served his time, and he apologized.



For every mention of Obama's relationship with ACORN, a defender points out that McCain made a speech in front of ACORN. Making a speech is not the same thing as a twenty year relationship that included: training their staff, defending them as a lawyer, having staff volunteer for his campaign, and finally currently paying them over $800,000 for "get out the vote efforts".



For every mention of Rezko, someone mentions McCain's ties to Charles Keating. First, the Keating five was over twenty years ago. Second, McCain only was at an inappropriate meeting, and most importantly, McCain not only apologized, but used the ordeal to begin a career long campaign against corruption. Obama dismissed his actions as "boneheaded". He proclaimed he knew nothing of Rezko's illegal activities. Furthermore, Rezko was Obama's neighbor, business partner, friend, and top fundraiser.



Yet, despite a never ending stream of radical associations, all are dismissed, by his defenders, as tangential. How many tangential radical associations can one person have before the sum total is something more than tangential?



So, there you have it. This is how a radical, that frankly makes no secret of his radicalism, becomes mainstream to about half, if not more, of the population. Rather than looking at the issue at hand, his defenders jump to defend. Each and every radical association, connection, and idea, is defended until most don't notice that the sum total of his radicalism can't be overlooked anymore. As such, we are on the cusp of voting in a radical.

The Ad McCain Needs to Make

In light of recent developments, here is an advertisment that McCain needs to put up immediately. Since I cut can't cut and paste videos like I would, please bear with me.

(voice over)

Senator Obama has made a lot of promises this campaign...

$65 billion-a-year health plan $15 billion in green energy spending$85 billion in tax cuts and credits A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid$18 billion a year in education spending $3.5 billion for a national service plan. According to the Hill , Barack Obama's spending proposals could add as much as $1 Trillion in new spending per year.

He's also promised a tax cut to every working middle class family...

How does he plan on paying for all this? He promises to only raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? How does he define wealthy? First he said it was anyone making $250,000 then $200,000. Fortunately, his surrogates are more truthful than the Senator.
(video should start at 28 seconds in)






(start about 25 seconds in and stop 40)


$250,000?...$200,000?...$150,000?...$120,000?...$70,000? Where will the tax cuts start and the tax increases end? The number gets lower and lower. That's because Senator Obama's plan doesn't add up. In the Senate, Senator Obama has voted 94 times to increase taxes and cut taxes for those making as little as $42,000 per year. Only the wealthiest 5% will get a tax increase, that just doesn't add up.

(John McCain voice over) I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

...

since it's likely you aren't going to see that ad, enjoy another that was desperately in need of eyeballs.

Barack Obama, Rashid Khalidi, Election 2008, the MSM...A Thought Experiment

Let's pretend for a minute that suddenly the MSM woke and decided to no longer be in the tank for Barack Obama. Let's just imagine what would happen with the story of the relationship between Rashid Khalidi and Barack Obama. Let's even assume that everything in the past happened exactly as it did.

First, let's review. Rashid Khalidi is currently a professor at Columbia University. He was once a professor at the University of Chicago where he was a colleague of Barack Obama's. They had some sort of a relationship though it is unclear just how close that relationship is. The L.A. Times published a story in which the author, Peter Wallsten, talks about a going away party thrown in the honor of Mr. Rashidi in which this occurred.

During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Among the attendees were none other than Mr. and Mrs. Khalidi, Mr. and Mrs. Obama, and Mr. and Mrs. William Ayers. According to Gateway Pundit, the L.A. Times has a copy of a tape of this soiree but they won't release it. Here what Little Green Footballs produced regarding the L.A. Times' response to readers asking for release of the tape.

The Times did write about the tape, so I’m not sure what you mean about suppressing the video or information from the video. Here is a copy of the
report about the video.Thanks again for writing,

Jamie GoldReaders’ Representative
...
If that is the case, then release the video that you have of the event and don’t merely report it. Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi - former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
...
Thanks for your note back. It sounds as if you don’t find “mere reporting” to be enough, but The Times is not suppressing anything.Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light. Thanks again for taking the time to
write.

Jamie GoldReaders’ Representative

Now, there is no reason either journalistically or business wise not to release the tape. We've all heard the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". Well, here an audio would also be worth a thousand words. There is no way for the reader to get any proper context without hearing the audio. As such, the L.A. Times' refusal to release the tape is another example of the MSM being in the tank.

Now, let's just imagine they weren't. What would happen? The first thing that would happen is that the Times website would approach records for number of hits in a single day. Those in sales, advertising, and marketing would have a field day trying to figure out ways to make money in banner advertising on that particular page. The L.A. Times would be linked by everyone from this blog to the government website of Kenya and everyone in between. The Times would go from scourge of the Conservative community to heroes. Their circulation would explode as Republicans and Independents would see the Times as a "courageous newspaper" and forgive all prior transgressions. The banner ad from this page would fetch fifty to one hundred times what they would normally fetch. (given their current struggles the extra ad revenue couldn't come at a better time)

They would become the scourge of the left wing establishment of the likes of Daily Kos, Moveon.org, and Media Matters. Their circulation would drop among the more liberal readers, but not nearly as much as it would pick up by Conservatives. Furthermore, the massive attention it would receive would also explode circulation.

The Times would be wise not to allow embed of the video and to warn You Tube et al ahead of time that the video is the Times' property and so it can't be downloaded in their sites. As such, they would be the one and only holders of the most talked about thing in the world.

The Obama campaign would call them a lackey for the McCain campaign and call it a coordinated plot between McCain, Fox News, and the L.A. Times. Then, all their reporters would be banned from interviewing the campaign. Obama's spokespeople would be on every airway calling this a distraction from the real issues. They would say this is a desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to to distract the public from the failing economy. Surrogates would becry this tape as guilt by associations. Sean Hannity would begin repeating: Chickens come home to roost, the first time in my life I am proud of my country, Bill Ayers unrepetent terrorist, and the crook Tony Rezko (though frankly that would be no different than what he does now) over and over.

Politically, the tape would then run as the so called loop for the next several days. Eventually of course, that tape would begin to run in a loop with some other well known tapes.


The Khalidi relationship would then be examined in the prism of the relationship that Barack Obama had with the likes of Bill Ayers. In other words, it would be the death knell of the Obama campaign. The inflammatory nature of this tape especially combined with the inflamatory nature of the Wright tapes, would send chills down the spines of most voters. I would take a bet as long as I got the "reasonable" 3 to 2 (in other words I bet two dollars to win 3) odds that Obama loses Illinois. The Democrats might not gain any seats. They might even lose seats. Barack Obama and the Democrats would suffer a stunning loss just as they were tasting victory.

All of this would happen merely by releasing a tape that any basic journalism student could tell you should be released regardless of the impact.

The Definitive Dossier on Obama's Marxism

The latest craze on the right blogosphere is this interview first dug up by Matt Drudge.
Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and Stop the ACLU also have details.


The most important quote is right here.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

The reason that this is the most important quote is that it's the first time that Senator Obama has been quoted as believing that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to impose income redistribution. With up to four new Supreme Court Justices to be chosen in the next four years, this should send chills up the spines of all those that believe in limited government and the Judeo Christian founding of our nation.

Still, besides making this bold remark about the Supreme Court imposing income redistribution, nothing that Senator Obama says in this interview is new. In fact, he has frankly been rather open about his Marxism. As such, here is the full dossier of his Marxism.

1) From those with means to those with needs.

This is the center piece of Karl Marx' economic philosophy. It is the philosophy behind income redistribution. It is the philosophy behind his belief in Socialism. Capitalism, in the opinion of Marx, was flawed. It gave far too much to those at the top and left the workers, the proletariat, with the scraps of the economy. Marx believed that a better philosophy redistributed the wealth more fairly. As such, he created the economic philosophy of Socialism.

Barack Obama believes in this tenet. He said as much when he said, "when we spread the wealth it's better for everyone".

Beyond what he told Joe the Plumber, it's the center piece of his economic policy. He's said as much. He wants to raise taxes on the 5% that are most wealthy, those with means. In fact, when he defends his plan, he says "I want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans like Warren Buffet and myself, those with the ABILITY TO PAY." It isn't as though he is hiding his philosophy. He is flat out saying that he wants to take from THOSE WITH MEANS. Keep in mind that he doesn't merely want to raise income taxes on those making $250,000 and more. He wants to raise the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and re institute the inheritance tax. He even wants to create a whole new payroll tax on those making $250,000 to pay for the Social Security benefits of those that are poorer. He wants to raise taxes on all traditional groups associated with wealth. Again, he is making no bones about his intention on taking "FROM THOSE WITH MEANS".

Then, he wants to use the higher taxes from "THOSE WITH MEANS", and cut taxes on everyone else. This includes giving tax breaks to 40% of the country that pays no federal income tax. He will give these folks all sorts of tax credits. In other words, he wants to give to "THOSE WITH NEEDS". Again, there is nothing hidden about his philosophy. No one should be stunned by Obama's Marxism. That has been the center piece of his economic philosophy since he first ran for President. He will take from the top 5%, THOSE WITH MEANS, and give that money to everyone else, THOSE WITH NEEDS.

2) New rights and other government policies.

In the second debate, Barack Obama created a right found nowhere in the Constitution, the right to health care. This is also classic Marxism. In fact, he follows the same "from those with means, to those with needs" philosophy in health care. How does he plan on providing health care to those that can't afford it on their own? He will mandate that corporations and successful small business HAVE TO PROVIDE IT or face a penalty. Once again, he is following the "from those with means to those with needs" philosophy. It is a short step from making health care a right, to making a living wage, housing, retirement, and all sorts of other things a right as well.

There's more. Barack Obama has stipulated that he wants to create a new regulatory framework. Why? It's because he believes we have a "winner take all economy". He wants to use government regulation to even the playing field. Again, this is not new. The new regulatory framework and an end to the "winner take all economy" have both been the center piece of his economic agenda since the beginning.

How does he plan on creating new jobs? He wants the government to lead in creating them.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

Having the government lead in creating new jobs is not new in his platform. It's also the way jobs are created in Socialist societies. Government spends money, consolidates more power, and they are the ones doling out the jobs. That's classic Marxism, Socialism, and its what Barack Obama has proudly said he wants to do as President.

3) Class Warfare.

I believe the Democrats themselves have perfected class warfare but Barack Obama especially. How often have we heard that Bush's tax cuts FOR THE RICH have cosolidated wealth in the few, stagnated wages for WORKERS, and has created an economy that passed most people by. Now, Bush cut the marginal tax rates on everyone THAT PAYS TAXES, and so when Barack Obama refers to the cuts as for the rich, what he is really saying is that anyone that pays federal income taxes is rich.

How often does he scoff at McCain's proposal to cut corporate taxes as a tax cut for wealthy corporations like the oil companies? Instead, he wants to create a windfall profits tax. If a company makes too much, he will tax that more than he taxes normal profits. Then, he'll take that extra tax and distribute it to those that aren't as well off. This is classic Karl Marx class warfare. Demonize the greedy capitalists, punish them, and distribute the punishment to the workers. Again, he has made absolutely no bones about this intention.

He does it on health care as well.

There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market

....In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.

Attacking the capitalistic idea of mergers and demonizing it for creating the struggles of the workers is also classic Marxist class warfare. He even goes so far as to proclaim that he wants more government to solve it. Karl Marx, himself, couldn't have written the script better. Attack the system as favoring the big guy, and propose more government to solve it. It's classic class warfare followed by classic Socialism.

It's no different when discusses mortgages.

Here, in Nevada, we see how so many people are fighting for their American Dream. Because in so many ways, Felicitas and Francisco have lived the American Dream. Their story is not one of great wealth or privilege. Instead, it embodies the steady pursuit of simple dreams that has built this country from the bottom up

....Yet a predatory loan has turned this source of stability into an anchor of insecurity. Because a lender went for the easy buck, they are left struggling with ballooning interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Because Washington has failed working people in this country, they are facing foreclosure, and the American Dream they sought for decades risks slipping away

the common folk were taken advantage of by the vultures of a naked capitalistic system that ran wild. That is the message, and of course, his solution will be a plethora of new government regulations. In other words, naked capitalism caused the crisis, and government regulations will resolve it. Laced throughout his economic proposals, is first the narrative that the system as it is now takes advantage of the little guy in order to benefit the big guy. Of course, the solution is always more government. Once again, it is classic class warfare politics.

4) His radical association.

You want to find context to the plethora of radical associations that Barack Obama has. It is in his Marxist philosophy. Is it any surprise he spent six years as a member of the Socialist New Party? Is it any surprise that his mentor growing up was the Communist Frank Marshall Davis? Is it any surprise that he has ingratiated himself with the Communist and Anarchist William Ayers? Look at the main page for the group ACORN, a group that Barack Obama has had a two decade plus year relationship with.

They want the government to mandate health care, affordable housing, and a living wage. This is all on their site. This group is quasi Marxist itself.

Furthermore, Barack Obama has had associations with radicals like Father Pflegger and Reverend Wright. He's also spent a decade in academia where Marxism is accepted as a legitimate economic philosophy. Again, none of this is new, and so frankly, to say that Barack Obama part and parcel a Marxist is to merely explore the record that is available to the public.

Epilogue.

Now then, let me counter several of the points that Liberals are like to make. First, they will point out that the PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM is not new. That's true, however Barack Obama wants to specifically make it more progressive to those at the top in order to make it less progressive to those at the bottom. Barack Obama thinks that those that already give about 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough, while those that pay no income tax are paying too much. A progressive tax system is one thing, but mandating a redistribution of wealth is something totally different.

Second, is Barack Obama a Marxist? No, he is not totally a Marxist. Liberals will point out that it is ludicrous to point out he is a Marxist since Marx believed in the nationalization of industry, total government control, and a totalitarian state. That's true. Barack Obama pays lip service to the free markets from time to time. He doesn't want to create a totalitarian state. He doesn't want full nationalization of industry. He does however subscribe to the philosophy of wealth redistribution. He does want to partially nationalize health care. He does want the government playing a much more significant role in job creation and in regulation. The point is not to make Barack Obama an exact replica of Karl Marx. The point is how close do we want our President to be to Karl Marx. I reject everything that Karl Marx believed in. I want a President that is as far away from Marx as possible. Liberals seem to believe that if someone only believes in some of Marx' teachings that it is no longer an issue. It would be beyond the pale to compare Barack Obama to Karl Marx if our "only evidence" was his belief in wealth redistribution, government creation of jobs, more government role in regulation, and the partial nationalization of health care. I think that is far too much resemblance to Marx myself.

Why Ayers, Rezko, Wright, ACORN, and the Entire Corrupt Illinois Political Machine Matters

In today's Chicago Tribune, Georgie Ann Geyer gives the standard liberal talking points about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers.

Earlier this week, in her best sled-dog attack mode, Gov. Palin used Obama's supposed cronyism with Ayers as a proof of not only Obama's supposed leftism but of his dishonesty in denying it. In one of her many convoluted statements, she said: "I'm not saying he's dishonest, but in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to this. The judgment and the truthfulness and just being able to answer very candidly a simple question about when did you know him, how did you know him, is there still—has there been an association continued since '02 or '05, I know I've read a couple different stories. I think it's relevant."

Whoo! The McCain camp is trying to set Obama up as a leftie sympathizer of
old leftie Bill Ayers (a "domestic terrorist," they call him), who was co-founder of the
radical and violent Weather Underground. Palin went so far as to tell a crowd in Florida that Obama "launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist!"

But in fact, Bill Ayers, who was then rebelling against his father, Thomas Ayers, no less than CEO of Commonwealth Edison, is a man of total inconsequence today. The Weathermen are either long dead or have high positions in academia or Wall Street. Bill has a 48-page curriculum vitae and is a professor of education at the University
of Illinois at Chicago, who was praised recently by none other than Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley for his work on Chicago public school reform...

Now, frankly if the entire narrative about Obama's past revolved on this murky relationship with Bill Ayers, I would agree with the liberals that this whole thing is nothing more than a red herring. If all there is in Obama's past is this association, then this would be a smear job. Now, I agree with the liberals that McCain is bringing this up to take attention away from the economy. Duh. The economy is working against him, and so of course, he wants to change the subject. Of course, that doesn't mean there is nothing there.

The reason that Bill Ayers matters is because Bill Ayers is only the beginning of what is really a never ending list of questionable associations for Barack Obama. These associations range from acquaintances, to mentors, to spiritual advisors, to friends and neighbors. It isn't merely that Obama was once a colleague with an unrepentent former terrorist. It's that he was once a colleague with an unrepentent former terrorist, AND his friend, neighbor and fundraiser is a crook, AND his pastor is a racist, AND his former employer is at the center of voter fraud, AND his political mentor runs one of the most corrupt legislatures in the country (Emil Jones), AND he has come from the inside of the most corrupt political machines in the country.

Just today, news reports have Obama's former neighbor, friend, and political fundraiser (and now convicted criminal) Tony Rezko reportedly talking to the Feds about Alexi Giannoulis.

Sneed hears rumbles political fund-raiser/fixer Tony Rezko, who is now singing sweetly to the feds from his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, has been talking about his “dealings” with a Chicago bank, which has political connections.

Stay tuned.

...

We just spoke with someone well-connected in Chicago politics who told us that the bank Sneed is talking about has to be Broadway Bank, which is owned by the politically-connected Giannoulias family. We were told that Sneed’s column confirms rumblings people we know heard independently that Tony Rezko is giving up the Giannoulias family to Patrick Fitzgerald — Rezko and the Giannoulias family are as close and tied together as anyone in Chicago could be. If Rezko is turning on them, then Rezko is going to give up Governor Rod Blagojevich and Obama too.

In other words, his convicted crook, neighbor, friend, and former fundraiser is spilling the beans to the Feds about the State Treasurer that Obama himself endorsed in 2006. At the time, Alexi Giannoulis, 29, had no political experience, though his family had and still has all sorts of political connections.

At what point does it stop being guilt by associations, and it starts being that every association appears to be guilty. In 2006, Barack Obama endorsed Todd Stroger for Cook County Board President. Stroger, who was then a sitting Chicago City Council Man (but son of the incumbent Cook County Board President), has since gone on to raise the sales tax to the highest levels in the country, balloon the property taxes, while the local CBS affiliate reported that several of Stroger's friends wound up on the Cook County payroll with cushy six figure jobs.

That's the problem. Questionable associations for Obama are a dime a dozen. There is no end to them. He's had a twenty plus year relationship with ACORN, and now ACORN is popping up every single day with new allegations against them of voter fraud.

How many fiery, anti American, and racist reverends can one person know before it becomes troubling? Obama is close to three: Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Reverend Michael Pflegger, and Reverend James Meeks.

Is Ayers a distraction? On his own I might agree, but it isn't Ayers. It's Ayers, Wright, ACORN, Jones, Stroger, Rezko, and the rest of the corrupt Illinois political apparatus. When someone is close to all sorts of radicals, criminals, and corruption, that person's Presidency will be radical, criminal and corrupt. That's why it matters.

The Media Becomes McCain's Unwitting Accomplices

Having a statcounter on my site allows me to do all sorts of analyses. It not only tells me how many people visit my site but it gives all sorts analytical information. For instance, in the last eighteen hours I have noticed a sudden spike in this story entitled O'Reilly Vs. Obama: Radical Associations. Now as interesting as both Bill O'Reilly and Barack Obama are, the spike in this particular story wasn't due to them. In fact, it was due the key words radical associations. In fact, most of the visitors to the story came through a search of key word combinations, Obama radical associations, or something like it.

This indicates a renewed interest in the public, at least on the internet, in Obama's radical associations. So, how did it come about that in the last day there is suddenly a renewed interest in Obama's radical associations. It all started with this attack by Sarah Palin.





In fact, as the Washington Post points out, attacking Obama's relationship to Ayers is all part of a new McCain strategy. (H/T to Hot Air)

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

...

Two other top Republicans said the new ads are likely to hammer the senator from Illinois on his connections to convicted Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and former radical William Ayres, whom the McCain campaign regularly calls a domestic terrorist because of his acts of violence against the U.S. government in the 1960s.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. appears to be off limits after McCain condemned the North Carolina Republican Party in April for an ad that linked Obama to his former pastor, saying, "Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning."

McCain advisers said the new approach is in part a reaction to Obama, whose rhetoric on the stump and in commercials has also become far harsher and more aggressive.

They noted that Obama has run television commercials for months linking McCain to lobbyists and hinting at a lack of personal ethics -- an allegation that particularly rankles McCain, aides said.

The MSM wasn't done mentioning the connection between Obama and Ayers. At about the same time, this New York Times piece came out attempting to downplay the connection.

In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year.

At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthurFoundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said....Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project — Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.

Then, today, the Associated Press came out with this story attempting make Palin's attack into some sort of back door racist attack. (H/T to Little Green Footballs)

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers’ radical views and actions. ...

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Of course, it should surprise no one that the MSM is attempting to downplay, dismiss, or deflect this story. At this point, I think it's important that I share some words of wisdom from Dick Morris. He believes that the perspective that the MSM attempts to drive is ultimately irrelevant. They move the conversation by what they cover not the way in which they cover it. A great example of this is the media firestorm over McCain's ad in which he compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The MSM skewered McCain for this, but what they ultimately did is draw attention to the ad. As such, Obama immediately lost several points in the polls and the ad was effective. It mattered not what their perspective was but it mattered a lot what they chose to cover.

The same thing is in play here. Suddenly, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright are all sharing the media stage with the faltering economy. If this election is a referendum on economic policy McCain almost certainly loses. If, on the other hand, it is a referendum on Obama's connections to a plethora of radicals, crooks, and liars well then McCain almost certainly wins. If the MSM insists on covering this recycled story as though it was brand new, that is exactly what is going to happen. If that happens, it will be difficult for Barack Obama to explain it all away.

Now, it is highly unlikely that the MSM will play into McCain's hands enough to actually turn this into enough of a story for it to overtake the economy. Still, if McCain wanted to roll out his attacks on Obama and his radical associations, it's unlikely he could have dreamed for a better media response. Already the attack from the AP has allowed the Palin campaign to respond.

The last four weeks of this election will be about whether the American people are willing to turn our economy and national security over to Barack Obama, a man with little record, questionable judgment, and ties to radical figures like unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever befriended an unrepentant terrorist, or had a convicted felon help them buy their house — because those aren’t smears, those are true facts about Barack Obama.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman McCain-Palin 2008

Furthermore, the author of the New York Times piece clarified himself to the Politico as well.


As for Steve, he was great in outlining his theory -- that Obama and Ayers had a relationship going back many years, to the 1980s, and that Ayers therefore must have proposed Obama for the board. He looked at the same letters I'd seen showing Ayers (and one of the two co-organizers, Anne Hallett) had discussions early on with Annenberg folks about the need for a board. Unfortunately, his theory is wrong.

What Steve didn't do was talk to the people involved. As I report, Deborah Leff and Pat Graham give a credible account of how they chose Obama, and I have no reason to think they're lying. Moreover, if Obama only met Ayers when Obama joined the Annenberg project, it seems hardly likely that he would have pushed for Obama's appointment. On the other hand, since Obama already served on Leff's board, it makes perfect sense that she would propose him.

All of this back and forth only goes to further the story and give it more and more attention. It is almost impossible for a recycled story to take on front page status. I can't remember it happening before. Yet, it appears for at least a day, the MSM is determined to do just that. If they keep this up, the election may soon turn on Obama's radical associations.

Obama has tried to stay above the fray regarding these comments.

In Asheville, N.C., Obama noted his opponent's tactic and likened the McCain campaign's linkage of him to Ayers and others to "Swift boat" attacks of 2004.

In remarks to voters, Obama said the personal attacks against him from the GOP camp are "smears without substance. He declined to address his own campaign's latest gambit of calling McCain "erratic" and "dishonest."

Obama said the country faces many crises, but instead of focusing on them, McCain plans to "turn the page on the discussion about our economy and spend the final weeks of this campaign launching Swift boat-style attacks on me."

"Senator McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time," Obama said. "We're not going to let John McCain distract us from what we need to do to move this country forward."

That's probably an astute political move, and if this stor dies out in a day or even a few, then Obama will be seen as the one showing class, and McCain will be seen as desperate. Still, if the MSM insists on making this an issue, then it won't be a one or two day story. Then, Obama will have to defend these associations and then he will behind the proverbial eight ball. Frankly, Obama shouldn't have to do any of this. All of this had its run, and should have been part of the past of the campaign. Yet, it appears the MSM is determined on making it front page news, and by doing so, they become McCain's unwitting accomplices.

O'Reilly Vs. Obama III: Radical Associations

I believe that not much new was accomplished on this topic. Obama, once again, denied ever hearing anything despicable come out of Reverend Wright's mouth. That's hard for his detractors to believe. His supporters think he can do no wrong, and those in the middle don't know what to think. Of course, the more we know about Reverend Wright the more he appears to be a bad person. It's hard for me to believe that Barack Obama, who said that he went to church twice a month on average, never heard anything inflammatory but since I was never in the church I just don't know. Obama tried to minimize the inflammatory statements by both Wright and Father Pflegger by pointing out that they did great things "in the community". This has always been a really weak argument in my opinion because clergy doing good work in the community is not exclusive to Father Pflegger and Reverend Wright. In fact, it is the norm not the exception. Yet, these two clergymen, that Obama has known for a long time, have a penchant for inflammatory language that is the exception not the norm for clergy.

Obama's explanation of his relationship with Bill Ayers is remarkable for its moral equivalency, a tactic he would use throughout the interview. He claimed, again, that Ayers did "despicable things 40 years ago", and that their relationship was strictly professional involving education. These "despicable things" that Obama refers to including bombing the Capitol, bank heists, and even murder. Obama tried to name drop by pointing out that Chicago's mayor, Richard M. Daley, also knows Ayers. That's true, however my fair mayor has a cozy relationship with all sorts of wily characters, and Daley's seal of approval in no way makes Ayers respectable.

O'Reilly brought up the youth crime bill which both worked on. This bill followed Ayers philosophy of rehabilitation over punishment and involved rather lax sentences for violent crimes. It is one of several pieces of controversial legislation by Obama that hasn't been explored nearly enough. O'Reilly didn't ask Obama about the time the two of them spent on the Annenberg Foundation, though Obama did say they spent time working on educational issues. Here is how Sol Stern described Ayers' contribution to education.

What he can be blamed for is not acknowledging that his neighbor has a political agenda that, if successful, would make it impossible to lift academic achievement for disadvantaged children. As I have shown elsewhere in City Journal, Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.

Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”

Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turnthem into laboratories of revolutionary change.Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers’s current work and his widespread influence in the education schools.

In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a “professor of English,” an error that the media then repeated. Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms.

Ayers is now and always has been a radical and if Obama worked with Ayers on either education or crime, he was working with a radical on both issues.

Obama's worst moment was when he attempted to defend his relationship with Daily Kos. Late last year, Obama joined all the Democratic nominees at their Yearly Kos convention. Now, at the time, Daily Kos was a vile site but their vile nature didn't make it to the mainstream until recently. In defending his relationship with Daily Kos, Senator Obama drew a moral equivalency between Daily Kos and O'Reilly's Fox News colleague, Sean Hannity. This continues a troubling pattern of moral equivalency on the part of Senator Obama.

At one point, Senator Obama tried to minimize his radical relationships by proclaiming that he knows thousands of people and that his opponents cherry picking a few folks that have a "tangential relationship" with him. O'Reilly correctly countered by pointing out that he also knows thousands of people and none of them are as radical as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pflegger, William Ayers, and the folks at the Daily Kos. Many of these folks don't merely know Senator Obama "tangentially", and no amount of moral equivalency will change that.

Here is is part 1 ,part 2, , and part 4

The Sensitive MSM

This piece from Jonathon Alter is so absurd I thought I was reading The Onion rather than News Week (though lately it's hard to tell the difference). Alter makes the thesis that McCain's smears are beyond the pale on Obama and that they have created a "smear gap". This is absurdly ironic given that not two days before this was published (though he certainly could have written it earlier) the Obama campaign made the suggestion that John McCain cheated at the Saddleback Forum. Alter alligns these so called beyond the pale smears into four categories

1) McCain made an ad that claimed that Barack Obama himself was responsible for high gas prices.



Now, there is frankly no defending this ad. It is absurd and stupid. A much better ad, similar to ones done later, would have shown how policies that Obama supports contribute to gas prices. That said, Obama has made similarly deceptive ads that claim that John McCain is on the pockets of big oil and that he wants to give them tax breaks while he increases taxes on the middle class. To claim that this McCain ad is beyond the pale and nothing that Obama has done is anything near it is stupid.

2)The Britney ad. Here Alter is perturbed that McCain claimed that Obama would raise taxes on electricity and that his tax plan would raise taxes on small businesses. Then, Alter uses Factcheck.org as his arbitor. Well factcheck or not, Obama has promised to raise the two highest tax brackets, the corporate tax rate, and the payroll tax. All of these would hit small businesses. To call these smears is nonsense. There is plenty of reason for John McCain to say that Barack Obama's tax plan is NOT small business friendly.

3)McCain casts aspersions on Obama's patriotism.

The fact is he hasn't. He came out against the North Carolina ad that attempted to link Obama, Reverend Wright, to several North Carolina pols. The fact is that folks like me think he should. Furthermore, it is a FACT that John McCain is significantly more patriotic, has sacrificed more, and has a much larger resume of patriotism than Barack Obama. To say that it is a smear to point out that John McCain is more patriotic than Barack Obama. McCain joined the Naval Academy at 18. He went to war. He spent nearly six years being tortured in a POW camp. Then, he spent the rest of his life as public servant. Barack Obama spent twenty years in the pews of an Anti American pastor and said nothing. There is no question which of the two is more patriotic. It is NOT smear to point that out.

What's really silly is not the so called smears that Alter points out, but that he simply ignores the smears from Obama onto McCain. For months Barack Obama attempted to claim, falsely, that John McCain wants to continue the Iraq War for 100 years. He has falsely attempted to paint George Bush's Iraq policy as the same as McCain's even though he knows full well that McCain opposed the first four years of that policy furiously. It was those first four years that were the abject failure. Obama knows full well that McCain was one of the only politicians to support the surge from the beginning. Even now, Barack Obama refuses to admit the surge worked.

Furthermore, Barack Obama knows full well that since the beginning John McCain opposed the massive increases in spending that were the biggest black eye on the Bush administration's economic policy. He opposed the Bush tax cuts when they were initially proposed, and he opposed them specifically because they weren't also combined with spending cuts. Yet, Barack Obama falsely paints John McCain's economic policies as the same as Bush's.

This article is frankly just plain silly. What is tragic is that Alter received a paycheck to write such trivial and amateurish analysis.

Obama Leaves Trinity: The Analysis

Barack Obama officially cut ties with Trinity United Church today. He sent a letter of resignation in yesterday.

Barack Obama and his wife Michelle have resigned their membership at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, after controversies stemming from the congregation created a persistent distraction for Obama’s campaign.

The furor started months ago with the sermons of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. But Obama’s pastor problems were compounded this week by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, whose videotaped guest sermon at the church Sunday showed
him taunting Hillary Clinton and saying she felt “entitled” to the presidency because she’s white.

This was not only an astute political but like the only move, politically, for Obama to make at this point. The latest comments by Reverend Pflegger simply cemented the idea that the church would continue to be an albatross around his neck unless he did. The church is simply home to too much controversy and Obama couldn't go through the rest of the campaign waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Now, politically, he no longer has to answer for anything that is said there going forward. That certainly makes some sense, however the controversy surrounding his twenty year affiliation will not die down.

For the most part, the dynamic remains problematic for Barack Obama. While he maintained that he left the church because his association with it put undue burden on the church members and staff, we all understand that he left because it was simply untennable for him to stay. This is of course the ultimate political move by a candidate that claims that to be above politics. Furthermore, Obama continued to refer to Reverend Wright's speech at the National Press Club as the sort of tipping point. Except, nothing that Reverend Wright said at the NPC was any different from anything that we had heard in the so called "snippets" that Barack Obama said the media looped of Reverend Wright.

In other words, Barack Obama is frankly in a lose/lose situation here. What he did was politically expedient and everyone knows that. He will lose some points for that, however it was a lot less than waiting for the next inflammatory statement out of the church. The questions that have lingered regarding his twenty year relationship with Trinity United won't go away. What will go away is the fear of what will come out of the church next that he will have to distance himself from.

Nothing really changes from the Republicans point of view. I am of the opinion that the Republicans let the conservative 527's do their dirty work on this matter. If they can keep their distance from this and have it be an issue that is the best move politically. The best way to do that is to let unaffiliated 527's run with this story. In fact, the attacks just changed with this new news. The 527's can and should attack Obama for holding onto his 20 year relationship when it was politically expedient, and then dropping it just the same. The advertisements could even use Barack Obama's own statements of not being the "typical politician" against him right in the advertisement.

So, in conclusion, this was the right move and the only move, however the damage has already been done, and any astute political opponents will still be able to drive a Mack truck through the hole that this whole fiasco left.

Rev. Pflegger, Barack Obama, and Trinity United

It appears there may be yet another mini scandal involving incendiary comments from a pastor with ties to Barack Obama. Here is the video.



There is, in my opinion, a right way and a wrong way for opponents of Barack Obama to try and attack him in light of this latest scandal. The wrong way is for more guilt by association. I recently wrote a piece in which I tried to differentiate between fair and unfair attacks of guilt by association. It is one thing to sit in the pews of Trinity for twenty plus years and say nothing while your pastor attacks your country and do nothing. (as Obama did with Wright) It is quite another to be friendly with a pastor, and then have that pastor say something inflammatory. If we are playing that game, the McCain has just as much to answer for with Hagee and Parsley as Obama does with Pfleger.

What struck me about this video is the audience reaction. It is not of horror, shock or discomfort. The crowd was excited, comfortable, and totally enthralled. Now, take a look at a recent sermon by Reverend Moss, current pastor at Trinity.



The crowd reaction here is largely the same to an equally incendiar sermon. Of course, the crowd reaction to any of Wright's most incendiary sermons is largely the same.



So, the crowd reaction to Pfleger's most recent incendiary statements, along with that of Moss' and Wright, clearly show a church community that is perfectly comfortable with such thought.

In my opinion, the latest dust up should put to rest any ideas that Wright's most incendiary comments were somehow uncommon. The videos speak for themselves. The Trinity community is one that is perfectly comfortable with the sort of racist, anti American, and incendiary thought that each of the videos bear. That is proven by the overwhelmingly positive crowd reaction to each of them. For Barack Obama to claim that this was thought he was unaware of is just plain disingenuous. For that to be true, he would literally have to be totally unaware of the belief system of the entire church body.

That is the way he needs to be attacked in light of these new videos.

Hagee, Parsley, and Wright...Differentiating Guilt By Association

Almost as soon as the stories broke about Reverend Wright's vicious anti American and racist statements broke, the defenders of Barack Obama looked to find any association of John McCain with any controversial religious figure. The implication was obvious. If they could find someone that McCain associated with nearly as controversial, then Wright's hateful words wouldn't affect Obama anymore.

Right away, the first pastor they found is John Hagee.

According to a New York Times magazine interview this week, John McCain sought out the endorsement of Hagee:

"It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."
NEW UPDATE MARCH 11, 2008: John McCain defended Pastor Hagee's comments today, saying he believe Hagee's claims that his statements were taken out of context:

I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you'd give him a chance to respond. He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression

.

Now, comes word that the media has found another one, Rod Parsley.

Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."

McCain sought the support of Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.

The media manufactured so called firestorm surrounding Hagee went absolutely nowhere, and this new one will likely go just as far I suspect. That's because the media is trying to pull the wool over folk's eyes. Of course, the media understands there is a huge difference between the three cases, however they are hoping the folks aren't as smart as them. I believe they are.

Reverend Wright was Barack Obama's pastor. In fact, he was his pastor for twenty plus years. He married Obama and he baptized his kids. These other two pastors allied themselves with McCain for short periods of time during campaigns. The media is hoping that the guilt by association will carry the same weight. It won't.

in fact, the association between Parsley, Hagee and McCain is much more similar to the association between Farakhan, Ayers and Obama. That's why attacks on Obama vis a vis Farakhan have done absolutely no damage. Ayers relationship to Obama is more difficult to read and that's why that association has had an unclear amount of damage. I have already pointed out the way in which I would attack Obama vis a vis Ayers

Reverend Wright created such a firestorm that Obama needed to make a speech to address the controversy. In it, he defended Wright however distanced himself from his most vicious remarks. He has subsequently had to distance himself from Wright entirely after he continued making the same remarks.

I won't defend the remarks that Hagee and Parsley made, nor will I defend McCain's relationship with them. He should have known better and he should have exhibited better judgement than reaching out to anyone that owns such hateful rhetoric, but we are talking apples and oranges. Barack Obama was in the company of Reverend Wright for twenty years while he spewed anti American hate. He never challenged him. He never left the church. He never did anything. How is he expected to defend America from invaders when he can't defend America from his pastor?

John McCain accepted the endorsement of two pastors that made vicious and vulgar comments about people of other faiths. They never made them in his presence mind you, and he may or may not have known about the controversial comments when he accepted the endorsement.

Barack Obama either knew full well that his pastor was full of anti American hate and did nothing, or he is so oblivious to his surroundings that he never noticed for twenty years that he is. Either way, this is a night and day comparison and while the media seems to think most folks will be fooled,I suspect that the folks are smarter than that.

Jeremiah Wright: Rhetoric and Reality

The sermons of Jeremiah Wright reveal an anger that was described by Obama as the product of years of bigotry and despair. According to a report by Ronald Kessler of Newsmax, that anger may have been nothing more than a creation because his upbringing and his entire life appear to be nothing but comfortable...

Wright was born in Philadelphia in 1941. He lived in a racially mixed section called Germantown, which consisted of homes on broad tree-lined streets in northwest Philadelphia. The owners then were middle-class families.

For 62 years, Wright’s father, the Rev. Jeremiah Alvesta Wright, was pastor at Grace Baptist Church of Germantown. He was one of the first blacks to receive a degree from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

Wright’s mother, Mary Elizabeth Henderson Wright, was a schoolteacher. She was the first black to teach an academic subject at Roosevelt Junior High, the first to teach at Germantown High, and the first to teach at the Philadelphia High School for Girls. She became vice principal of Girls High in 1968.

...

Rather than attend the more racially mixed Germantown High School at 40 East High St., Wright traveled a few miles to the elite Central High School at 1700 West Olney Ave., graduating in 1959. Opened in 1838, Central High has a distinguished past and admits only highly-qualified applicants who are privileged to attend from all over the city. It is comparable to the Bronx High School of Science and Boston Latin School, both public schools known for academic excellence.

When Wright attended Central High, the student body was 90 percent white, according to students who attended around the same time. At least three-quarters of the students were Jewish. Former students of the period say racial tension did not exist.

...

In retirement, Wright will continue a life of privilege that dates back to
Central High. As a retirement gift, Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ is
building him a million-dollar home abutting Odyssey Country Club and Golf Course
in the nearly all-white Chicago suburb of Tinley Park. The home sits on land the
pastor purchased in 2004 for $345,000. In December 2006, Wright sold the land to
his church, which took out a $1.6 million mortgage on the property.

In April 2007, the church applied for a building permit for the brick and
stone structure.
Wright’s new home has 10,340 square feet of space, about
four times the size of a typical suburban house. It includes four bedrooms, an
elevator, an exercise room, and a four-car garage.

His new home is in the middle of a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly white. Wherever his anger comes from, it certainly doesn't seem to originate from either his upbringing or his station in life currently.

Wright's antics remind me of Jesse Jackson. Jackson has made a living preaching to African Americans that the white man is keeping them down. A couple years ago I went to see the movie Munich. Next to where I sat, there was 12 seats that had were covered with paper and the word reserved was written on them. Right before the movie started a white employee of the theater lead Jesse Jackson and his entourage into the theater where they were seated in these reserved seats. I have never before seen seats reserved for anyone in a theater. Yet, a white employee made this jesture to Jackson. It was clear that this particular white guy wasn't bringing down Jackson, himself African American.

The sort of race baiting and America hating that Wright peddles is bad enough, however if it is nothing more than an act that he has cashed in on, as Kessler clearly implies, then it is downright despicable.

This story is nowhere near done and events remain fluid. Stay tuned for updates.

A Cynical View of the Clintons

If there are any cynics as far as the Clintons are concerned, all your perceptions of the two will either be proven right or wrong in the next couple of weeks. After a landslide victory in South Carolina, Barack Obama is set to receive the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. Between several early primary victories and his outstanding fundraising, Obama is no longer merely a formidable opponent. He is now a full out threat to the Clinton's plans on re taking the White House.

We, cynics, have a chance to see if our cynicism is warranted. We believe that the Clintons will do anything to get elected because we cynics believe the Clintons value power over anything else. That means, if we cynics are right, we will see a heavy dose of race baiting. We will see a heavy dose of hit jobs alluding to prior drug use, Tony Rezko, and they may even use Barack's name and faith against him.

Now, some reading this may in fact be saying that we have already seen that. Yes, we have seen a bit of it, however that is not the intensity that we cynics believe we will see. We cynics believe that Hillary will stop at nothing to get elected and the more that is in doubt the more desperate her tactics will become.

You want to see how heavy this will become. Let's see how Hillary cynic number one Dick Morris sees it...

Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race — and Obama ultimately loses.

Race is of course only one issue which the Clinton's can subtly sling mud at Obama with. There is Tony Rezko. Here is what Hillary said at their last debate...

when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Now, a harsh shot in one debate is not beyond the pale and it would be unfair to characterize Clinton as doing something any other candidate wouldn't do. We cynics don't believe this is the last we will hear of Tony Rezko in the debate. If we cynics are right, then soon Tony Rezko will become part of the political vernacular.

Then, there is Obama's church. The pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, has opened Obama up to plenty of guilt by association attacks to any cut throat politician the kind we cynics believe Hillary will be. Here is what he said about Louis Farrakhan...

Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience

...

His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose

Now, Obama has long distanced himself from these statements. The positions of the pastor are problematic, and that is putting it diplomatically, and Obama was even married by him. That said, this is like condemning Arnold Schwarzenneger for the positions of his father. Of course, if we cynics are right, that won't stop Hillary from using it to sling mud at Obama.

Obama has also admitted to prior drug use. If they raise the issue it won't be the first time. Their proxy Bill Shaheen raised the issue this way...

The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

The Clintons immediately distanced themselves from the comments and Shaheen was even fired from the campaign. It is of course unclear what role if any the played. The cynics would spin a large machiavellian yarn about this whole fiasco but much of it happened behind closed doors so who knows. If we cynics are right, this is not the last time this issue will be raised.

Beyond that, who knows what the Clintons might have up their perverbial sleeves? If we cynics are right, there is all sorts of dirt that the Clintons will dream up. They have already tried to attack an essay he wrote in kindergarten. We cynics believe they hire P.I's to dig up dirt on their enemies. If we cynics are right, they will trot out every skeleton in every closet that Barack Obama has ever had.

Dick Morris long ago pointed out that Hillary would look to get Obama in the mud with her. She needed to bring him down from the perch that he was on as the politician that would unite, that is above the fray, and the one that will bring about a new kind of politics. They have been able to accomplish that to a certain extent however not enough to put him away. I think they realize that on the issues there is little difference. I think they realize that he beats Hillary on personality and charm. I think they realize that to beat him they need to make his theme look hypocritical and fraudulent. In order to do that, they need to sling as much mud at him as possible hoping he will sling back. If we cynics are right, that is exactly what she will do and the blue print is what I have provided. If we cynics are right, the next few weeks of the Democratic race should be all about race, drugs, religion, as well as friends and associates. We shouldn't hear much about policy, and it will be ugly. We will wait and see if the cynics are right.

That, of course, is if we cynics are right. If we are wrong then the next couple weeks will be spent debating the finer points of the differences in their health care plans, their Iraq withdrawal plans, and their stimulus packages. If we cynics are wrong then the next two weeks will be spent campaigning on the issues. Either way, the next two weeks will tell if we cynics have a reason to be cynical or if we may just owe the Clintons a bit more slack than we have given them since the 1990's.