Rules of the Mccain/Obama election?

It's been true since Reagan, and it's true now"

The Left is rife with loathing and contempt.

Reagan is dumb, Bush 1 is out of touch, Bush II is McChimpyHitler, Palin is a book censoring evangelical pig with lipstick.

Of course, when the tables get turned, and Obama is mocked as the Obamessiah and the "community organizer" (picture his slim physique in a Che T-shirt) and a known to be comrade of non-repentant terrorist bomber turned awesome educational grant writer Bill Ayers...well, it's just too too much for them.

They can dish it out but they sure as hell can't take it.

In the end, for the left it comes down to sloganeering. McCain is "4 more years of Bush." Republican tactics are "swiftboating."

To be honest, I really don't care who wins. It's a set of tradeoffs with either candidate, none of which are very appealing.

But it would be immensely entertaining to see McCain win and then watch the left and the Democratic party go completely insanely apoplectic.

 

Yes, but within a year, the right would be going nuts. Remember, the right used to despise McCain for his stance on immigration. They're kidding themselves now if they don't think that issue won't arise, and they're going to feel completely betrayed when he pushes a plan that involves amnesty.

The Bill Ayers stuff is, frankly, about as stupid an issue as I've ever seen. Two weekends ago, I came across his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, down here in Hyde Park. I didn't meet her, but a friend pointed her out. The friend knows both Ayers and Dohrn and has almost certainly spent more time with them than Obama ever did. I'm not going to pretend that those two are good people or that their subsequent charity absolve them of their association with the repellent Weathermen, but like it or not, they're fixtures in Hyde Park.

Kark, here's the kicker: the friend is a retired professor from Kellogg!

(I'm not making that up.)

 

There's no question that Obama has thrown a few elbows. But let's not kid ourselves. He's been subjected to some awfully egregious attacks made by opponents. The emails about his supposed secret Muslim faith, his "plan" to bring his dark African relatives over to the country after his election, etc., are at least as nasty and libelous as the emails and whispering campaigns directed against McCain in 2000.

And Palin has been allowed to get away with tremendous bullshit. It would be nice if someone called her on it, but hey, it's been two weeks since her announcement, and her handlers are still too terrified to let her speak without prepared text . . . text, incidentally, that former Bush speechwriter (and vegetarian!) Matthew Scully prepared several weeks before he even knew who would be delivering it.

It's a different subject, but Scully's . . . I'm sorry, "Palin's" and Giuliani's obnoxious, snarky jokes about Obama's community organizing work made me livid. He worked in some incredibly dangerous and hopeless areas of Chicago, working for virtually nothing, right out of college while he was in his early 20s. What was Palin doing in her early 20s? Drifting between community colleges and entering beauty pageants. Ooooooh. Beauty pageants! How honorable!

 

I'm in a state that's already in the Obama column, but I'm voting for him just for vanquishing Hillary.

OK, so the Dems get a pass while the GOP is guilty until proven innocent on the racism issue. The tables are turned (and the libs caterwaul over this insufferably) when the Dems are guilty until proven innocent on the patriotism issue. What would you rather be, a bigot or traitor? Take your pick.

Likewise, would you rather be a greedy polluter or soft on murderers?

These stereotypes are the backdrop to any issue, and it cuts both ways. Four years ago it killed Kerry. The Swiftboat thing would have been much less effective against a Republican. Like it or not Bo, that's your lot in life as a lib. The good part is, you can accuse everybody all day long of racism and greed and hating hineyboys.

 

But that's about an ISSUE. Not about a smear.

No, it isn't stupid and here's why.

Barack Obama worked closely with Ayers on efforts at "educational reform" which for Ayers was simply a conduit to get his extreme left wing views propagated through the Local School Counsels, extreme left wing views, by the way, that he lovingly shared with Hugo Chavez not too long ago.

The difference between, say, Daley and Obama was that while Daley can express tolerance for Ayers, when it really counts he wasn't going to let that particular sort of "reform" poison HIS school system.

And of course, when asked directly about his relationship with Ayers, Barry says it's "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" as though he accidentally runs into him from time to time at the deli.

Gimme a break. He held a fund raiser at his house.

In other words, this was a chosen association with a way-out-of-the mainstream extreme leftist designed to achieve specific policy ends. It's fair game.

All Obama would have to say is, "It was bad decision on my part to work closely with this person. It won't happen again." It's actually striking he hasn't thrown Ayers under the bus, the same way he threw Wright, considering how politically convenient it would be.

By the way, next time you see Bernadine, tell here, dig it, I stuck a fork in the belly of a pig I recently roasted, it was wild!!

 

Karl, Hyde Park isn't that big. You simply can't be involved with local politics down here without also occasionally dealing with this fella. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if several of the big-wigs at the GSB dealt with Ayers from time to time. And the "fund raiser" consisted of people getting together for coffee at Ayers house in 1995, after which Ayers donated a whopping $200 to Obama's state Senate campaign.

The Woods Fund Board's membership can be found via Google. In addition to Ayers, it includes executives from the radical organizations of Skidmore, Owings, & Merril and UBS.

This was not a "chosen association with a way out-of-the-mainstream organization" any more than Obama's tenure at the U of C indicated sympathy for the far-right views of Anton Scalia or Richard Posner. It's silly guilt-by-association nonsense.

 

I agree with the comments about talk radio, left and right. You raise some very good points in your initial post. I also understand your comment about the P&CE threads but that is where I disagree. You have to filter out some idiocy on both sides but there is some very good conversation that occurs there. I would also say that there is a real need for more balance there as well.

I've tried to post in Bills forum before and get a dose of what it is like to get shouted down but I don't think simply having echo chambers provides any benefits. I am often worried when reasonable conservative voices give up on the election threads because the entertainment and value come from reasonable differences of opinion.


Bob Barr? Seriously?

 

Wow. It looks like it has been about two years since I was here.

I share many libertarian ideas but don't go nearly as far as the hard cores. I am skeptical of Bob Barr. I think his true stripes were revealed as a republican congressman and his act now is just a way to revive a dead career.

 

Umm... the comments made on his being a community organizer were a direct result of Obama's campaign making public statements questioning whether Sarah Palin had the experience to be president because, after all, she was just the mayor of a small town in Alaska that had lower payroll than Obama's campaign. Completely disregarded that she was Governor of Alaska (and that she was the state's youngest and first female Gov). So they replied in kind talking about Obama's equivelent experience.


That being said, I didn't care at all for Guiliani's speech. Thought it was a terrible speech, and pretty crass. Made me glad he wasn't the republican nominee (not that I'm thrilled with McCain either). I was surprised it was well received by most conservative commentators.