Untraining Pavlov’s dog *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Aug 26 2008 at 8:09 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Leftist morality
Was I the only one who found it hysterically funny that Nancy Pelosi, after building a political career on the cult of victimhood — especially women’s victimhood — is now snapping at all those well-trained victimized women to give it up and get with the program?
“I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight,” she said. “I think that what Hillary Clinton did was tremendous for the country. She has kicked open many doors, which now we have to bring many more women through, millions more women through. My being speaker of the House was breaking the marble ceiling in Congress, which is hard. Sen. Clinton [had] a bigger challenge to run for president of the United States. What we have to do now is say, we have to translate that not just for individuals, but for all women.”
It’s nice to see the victim concept step out from behind the curtain. As you and I have long realized, it has nothing to do with ones actual status, and everything to do with where one stands vis-a-vis the Democratic Party and its goals.
(As a by the way, I’ve been reading a delightful book about Einstein
On the same trained dog theory, is it any surprise that Barack Obama, running for President of this land, is trying to terrorize TV stations into pulling an ad reminding people of his close ties to a terrorist? When you’re a Leftist, you never fight ideas with ideas (or with truth), you just bring in the big guns. Of course, given that the truth, for Obama, can only hurt him, it’s probably not surprising that he’s opting for bullying and threats in the face of a very damaging ad.
Here’s one more piece of food for thought about that Ayers ad. The same news article that describes Obama’s bullying tactics contains this line: “Obama has denounced Ayers’ past activities.” All well and good, but please note that Ayers himself has never apologized or expressed remorse. To the contrary: He’s proud of what he did, wishes he’d done more, and believes that the “in-America” terrorist fight should continue. Given that Ayers is unrepentent, who cares that Obama has “denounced” the acts he committed in the 1960s? What matters is that Obama is completely comfortable with someone who continues to hold radical, violent anti-American views. Again, sometimes you just can’t untrain Pavlov’s dog.
UPDATE: I knew I’d seen the Ayers ad somewhere, but couldn’t find it. Power Line has a copy running, though, so here it is. So far as I know, there is nothing in that ad that is untrue.
Email This Post To A Friend
91 Responses to “Untraining Pavlov’s dog *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The theory of relativity has often been interpreted as “everything is relative” and used to justify cultural relativism. Actually, Einstein almost called it the theory of invariance, referring to the invariant speed of light.
Re Nancy Pelosi: apparently, she was unaware that natural gas is a fossil fuel.
I have always been one of those who never thought it possible Nancy Pelosi could be as stupid as appears. Shows my own mindset, perhaps: I didn’t buy it at all, but always figured she was up to something.
Since she’s become Speaker, I’ve had to re-adjust my thinking in the face of mounting evidence. I have now decided that despite the seeming impossibility of anyone in public life being this damn dumb, Nancy Pelosi is indeed. She is a remarkably stupid human being. Thank you, San Francisco.
Along with her ignorance as pointed out by David, she also took a whack at the abortion “when does life begin” argument. (I heard all this on the radio, don’t have a link - sorry.) She first began by describing herself as a devout, fierce, Catholic - and then naturally proceeded to a display of complete ignorance of Catholic teaching and doctrine on the subject. Among other things she said that the church itself has never managed to settle the question of when life begins, though they’ve been arguing about it for “fifty years.”
The fact is, of course, that Tertullian, who died 1,778 years ago, (1,778 years is somewhat more than 50 years, I believe, even in San Francisco) wrote to settle the question insofar as the Church is concerned by pointing out that life begins at conception. To my knowledge, this has pretty much been the Church’s unchanging position since he put his quill down, more than 1,778 years ago.
If this woman’s been going to church her whole life, as she claims, then she’s been doing it with her ears sewn shut. That her brain wasn’t turned on goes without saying.
I have always been one of those who never thought it possible Nancy Pelosi could be as stupid as she appears. Shows my own mindset, perhaps: I didn’t buy it at all, but always figured she was up to something.
Since she’s become Speaker, I’ve had to re-adjust my thinking in the face of mounting evidence. I have now decided that despite the seeming impossibility of anyone in public life being this damn dumb, Nancy Pelosi is indeed. She is a remarkably stupid human being. Thank you, San Francisco.
Along with her ignorance as pointed out by David, she also took a whack at the abortion “when does life begin” argument. (I heard all this on the radio, don’t have a link - sorry.) She first began by describing herself as a devout, fierce, Catholic - and then naturally proceeded to a display of complete ignorance of Catholic teaching and doctrine on the subject. Among other things she said that the church itself has never managed to settle the question of when life begins, though they’ve been arguing about it for “fifty years.”
The fact is, of course, that Tertullian, who died 1,778 years ago, (1,778 years is somewhat more than 50 years, I believe, even in San Francisco) wrote to settle the question insofar as the Church is concerned by pointing out that life begins at conception. To my knowledge, this has pretty much been the Church’s unchanging position since he put his quill down, more than 1,778 years ago.
If this woman’s been going to church her whole life, as she claims, then she’s been doing it with her ears sewn shut. That her brain wasn’t turned on goes without saying.
Sorry - I could have sworn I didn’t do that twice…
Talk about stupid!!!!
Over at the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes notes that while 0bama’s trying to squelch the Ayers ad, he’s also sending out a press release referencing a HuffPo post saying that Mark Sanford has a vague connection with Ayers too, so there.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/obama_ayers_andrepublicans.asp
That’s ok, Tiresias…it could bear repeating.
More on the Obama connections:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-responds-to-mccains-ayers-ad.html
Tiresias: Nancy Pelosi is the poster grandmother for “a couple of bricks short of a full load.” She recently said that natural gas was not a fossil fuel, a statement which would come as a surprise to generations of geologists. Someone like this wants to make decisions on where and when drilling should occur? Apparently all Nancy Pelosi has to do to come across as a doddering fool can is to open her mouth.
Perhaps we should inform Nancy Pelosi that as we are not searching for oil, but for natural gas, that such drilling should be permitted.
Bookworm, I don’t know the Ayers-Obama connection that well, so forgive my ignorant question: iis Ayers a terrorist because he broke US laws or because he did something horrifically inhumane (i.e., bombing buildings in order to scare people into changing policies)?
And what is the extent of Obama’s connections to him, that are upsetting people so much? Does it upset mostly people on the right or centrists also?
Here’s all the info on the Weathermen that you’re likely to need(link below). Ayers was one of them. He’s a communist. The problem Obama has is that he has had some sort of a relationship with Ayers which he has attempted to hide and/or minimize - so the answer to your question is that he _has_ had connections, and we don’t know exactly what they were. As usual, it may not be the deed itself that is a problem, but rather the cover-up. Until you know, you don’t know.
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm
OK, dg, let’s play.
Say Ayers is a Communist (he is) and an unrepentant person who once bombed the Pentagon and still today regrets not waging more damage against the U.S. government.
Let’s change one word “communist” to “Nazi”.
Still feel the same about Ayers now? Is it OK for Obama to be close friends with a Nazi? If not, why not? What’s the difference between a communist and a Nazi?
Help us out, here.
Thanks for the link. You are aware that it takes me to a 420 page report on the subject, correct? Since you’ve presumably already read it, please help me out here with answers to a few simple questions: Is Ayers a terrorist, merely a criminal or just a communist? If he’s a terrorist or a criminal, what act of terror or crime did he commit? Why is he not serving a life sentence?
Also, I don’t think the FBI report from 1976 contains the answers to my other questions: What is the exact relationship or set of relationships between Ayers and Obama, and what is the coverup undertaken by Obama? Usually, coverups refer to obstruction of justice (itself a crime) to avoid prosecution of a crime, but your definition seems more benign. Is not wanting to talk about something during a political campaign that’s less than flattering a coverup?
Danny, so it’s a question of right versus left rather than a question of determining whether there was faulty judgment or just guilt-by-association? McCain continues to retain a relationship with Charles Keating, who, unlike Ayers, actually was convicted of crimes. Am I to assume that McCain will not be ethical in office given that association? By the logic of the anti-Obama camp, the answer would be yes.
That you opened your comment with “let’s play” is so cynical it is beyond words. There are facts and then there is innuendo. So please, lay out the facts and drop the innuendo. And please establish why merely serving on the board or visiting the house of another person suddenly constitutes an embrace of all of their past failings. This is swift-boating all over again: the candidate that stayed in the US is braver than the one on the battlefield; if insurance companies assessed risk the same way, they’d all be broke.
By the way, I guess Carter showed poor judgment by brokering the Camp David Accords because Menachim Begin planned the bombing of the King David Hotel, killing 91 people. How dare he shake hands with that terrorist…
dg, are you American born?
No, I haven’t read it. I remember it. I was not privy to all the details, but I’m sure you’ll want all the details.
Ayers is a communist. That’s a political position, and not a crime. For those of us who know what communism entails, it’s a condemnation, but Obama is in agreement with him - which makes him anathema to those of use who want nothing to do with communism.
He is a terrorist. He bombed - or was responsible for -the home of a Judge with whom he disagreed, and a police station. Several of his fellow conspirators were killed by a bomb they were preparing, but which went off at the wrong time.
He is not in jail, because the government elected not to prosecute, due to information that would have been necessary to disclose in open court and which they did not want to disclose to the public. That information may or may not have been redacted in the FOIA report. He has never denied his guilt, and has stated as recently as 2001 that his only regret was that they had not done more to accomplish their ends.
The exact relationship is as yet as unknown. While Obama says that Ayers is an upstanding citizen, he nevertheless has not been forthright about the fact that Dohrn - Ayers wife and fellow terrorist - was Michelle’s co-worker and was probably responsible for getting Obama his job with their law firm, and that he was also an active board member with Ayers on the Annenberg Foundation Project for some 5 years. Even if they just attended board meetings together, they were somewhat more than just “he lived in my neighborhood” acquaintances. What that means is that he’s denying or at least minimizing his connections with Ayers.
Why?
It’s a coverup when the connection between that person and yourself gives an indication of something that you don’t want known. If you don’t want it known, it’s probably because you feel it would be detrimental to your election.
But you know this….
>>McCain continues to retain a relationship with Charles Keating, who, unlike Ayers, actually was convicted of crimes.>>
Ha. You knew this before I posted my lengthy dissertation.
>>Why is he not serving a life sentence?>>
So you knew the answer to this as well.
>>…your comment with “let’s play” is so cynical it is beyond words.>>
But apparently true, nevertheless.
How can it possibly be legal for Ms Speaker to hold the power to deny drilling for oil when she has made an investment in T. Boone Pickens’ wind project? Pickens says this project cannot succeed without government subsidies.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12764.html
Are you aware of some of the interconnections of contracts and Feinstein’s husband’s business as well as connection between Pelosi’s vineyards and immigration laws??
They’re a nest of thieves…
Yes, and the tuna too. My question is “how can this be legal?”
Dg, nice try. Suek, good response.
So, Dg, show us your data that confirms that McCain has an ongoing relationship with Keating. My recollection is that his ties to Keating were determined to be inconsequential and that he has had absolutely NOTHING to do with Keating since the Keating affair became public.
Now, in fairness to Keating, Keating never declared war on the U.S., bombed any U.S. government facilities or associated with people that murdered innocent Americans. Ayers did.
But…you very cleverly dodged my questions. Ayers is a communist. Had Ayer’s been a Nazi and any politician (not just Obama) launched their political campaign from said person’s living room…would you be OK with that (first question)?
And, if not, tell us what is the difference between a Nazi and Communist (second question)?
Still waiting….or will the crickets keep chirping on this one?
They’re a nest of thieves- suek
Believe it or not, the same can be said of many Republicans, as well.
It’s a strange world where those who set policy — or influence those who set policy– stand to gain from it.
FDR and Eisenhower seem to be the last politicians to take a stand against such things.
“…the same can be said of many Republicans, as well.” Ozzie
Absolutely. That’s why many here (BWR) say “a pox on both their houses” and it is why no one in Congress brings it up. Not that they are all guilty; it’s just that they don’t want to throw the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. They might one day need that vote.
But like so many other cases (EEO etc) , the Congress apparently exempts itself from Insider Trading and Conflict of Interest laws.
>>This is swift-boating all over again: the candidate that stayed in the US is braver than the one on the battlefield>>
You don’t understand the meaning of “Swiftboating”…
Danny, sorry to keep you waiting. Some of us actually have jobs we do between visits to these blogs. So you’re still stuck on the communist-vs.-nazi thing. The left might cry foul over associations with Nazi’s, although not as loud as conservatives over Communists. I mean, do you think Hannity would have the second highest rated show on cable television and radio if liberals publicized his adept use of a Nazi to enhance his ratings early in his career? But I don’t care about left or right false dichotomies–I’m not one who would denounce McCain even if his business partner was a Nazi, as long as McCain didn’t act like one. I care about avoiding ad hominem arguments and guilt-by-association attacks.
Now, you’re asking me to show that Keating is still on the McCain x-mas card list, which I cannot prove beyond doubt. I’ve heard stories from friends in Arizona, but we all hear stories… I am not sure that is relevant, however. As I understand it, conservatives are not saying that Obama is a terrorist or a communist (at least not the honest or sane ones); rather, they are saying that he showed poor judgment by having had recent relationships with him and his wife. If Obama renounced Ayers tomorrow, I doubt this story would go away. I hope I have that right. Let me know if I don’t.
So how did this relationship reflect badly on Obama? He served on a board with a bad guy. Big deal. There are plenty of crooks that have taken individuals’ savings that have served on boards with incredibly respectable individuals that protected shareholder interests–I meet many through my work all the time–and I’ve never seen the good ones turn bad simply by working on the same board. I mean, Warren Buffett, who is truly untouchable in terms of ethics, hired and maintained on his GenRe board an individual that went to jail. So now Warren Buffett, who’s business judgment is legendary no longer has credibility? Give me a break! You’ll have to do more to convince me that serving on the board of a non-profit designed to improve educational outcomes in the city of Chicago somehow shows a lack of judgment, just because another member of the board is a scum-bag. And you’ll have to explain to me how McCain’s own past, “unfortunate” associations call his judgment into question, because I don’t think they do, even after reading the following far more shameful association than Obama’s efforts to help little kids read better:
From Wikipedia: “McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called “Keating Five”.[84] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[85] political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating’s jets[84] that McCain belatedly repaid two years later.[86] In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government’s investigation of Lincoln.[84] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: “The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”[87] In the end, McCain was cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of acting improperly or violating any law or Senate rule, but was mildly rebuked for exercising “poor judgment”.[87][85] ”
Of course, you might say that McCain denounced his relation, but he was under the force of a legal investigation before he did so; moreover, he had a clear conflict of interest, while Obama was just trying to help out kids; and McCain, like Obama, is not exactly in a hurry to uncover this episode during a campaign. That you find one set of facts (Obama’s) an indictment of judgment and the other set of facts (McCain’s) irrelevant only shows how biased you are in your own judgment. This is political BS of the highest order.
Suek, with due respect, your logic on this issue is breath-taking. You say that Ayers is a communist and, later, Obama “is in agreement with” Ayers. So, by implication (I guess), Obama is a communist? A bad guy? What? This is a fun game: Ayers has a pulse; you have a pulse… But seriously, what was Obama in agreement with Ayers about? Venezuelan politics? The causes of the Iraq war? That 9/11 was a good thing? That terrorism is fun? Or maybe, just maybe, that helping little kids’ educational programs was a good thing and Obama was a good person to do this, given his prior good work in the inner city of Chicago (remember that Ayers approached Obama, not the other way around–which is another contrast with McCain who actively sought out and then protected his sugar daddy Keating). By the way, you’ll have to tell me in what context and where the exact quote is where Obama calls Ayers an upstanding citizen. Was it regarding his philanthropic work or while looking at the picture of Ayers standing on the American flag? Finally, you say that Obama was an “active” board member at Annenberg, as if this made his relationship with Ayers even closer. Please tell me what other kind of board member there is besides an active one.
You mention that Bernadine Dohrn was co-workers at Dohrn and Ayers’ firm. I think you mean Sidley Austin, the 9th largest law firm in the world that was named #2 in customer service, making it the equivalent of Morgan Stanley within the Chicago law firm world; this is not some tiny law firm for terrorists run by terrorists. This firm, by the way, has many conservatives working there too, many who give to the Republican Party and to McCain’s campaign. There are also major US companies who hire Sidley Austin to do work for them–great American firms like Anheiser-Busch, Staples, Motorola, Kraft Foods (you know, those instruments of communism…). So I guess those people and company executives are also using poor judgment. Just like Michelle Obama who, like most grads of HLS took the very best firm’s offer they could find to pay off the big debt coming due, and, when she was done paying off her debt, opted to help people poorer than herself rather than going for the brass ring. Must be the commie in her to care about others so much. McCain’s wife, whose fortune comes from a business that is notoriously sleezy and requires huge political connections (because the distribution of beer is a government monopoly requiring the greasing of palms to obtain), and whose houses are too numerous to count, is a much better role model.
It’s funny you mention that Obama “probably got his job” through terrorist connections. Again, some proof would be nice, since this isn’t merely an ad hominem argument, that a) a terrorist got him the job; b) that he knew his benefactor was a terrorist; c) that it somehow made his judgment less clear and ethical. By the way, Obama was the very first African American to become the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review. This is the equivalent of winning a Rhodes’ Scholarship and a Marshall (i.e., only one person, the very best law student at the very best law school, earns it). I think Sidley Austin’s entire team of partners were begging him to come. Please remind me whether McCain graduated fourth or fifth from the bottom. But I digress…
Here’s the bottom line. Lots of people do not like Obama for legitimate reasons. Maybe because he could raise your taxes, take a more international approach to foreign policy, or a million other legitimate concerns. Working on a non-profit to help underprivileged kids, even if another boardmember has an unsavory history, is hardly one of them. If it were, then all of those nice Republicans working for or hiring out the services of Sidley Austin, who not only kept employed Ayers’ father as a senior partner, but also hired and employed for several years Bernadine Dohrn, the other terrorist in this story. Next time you drink your Bud or eat your Oreos or shop at Staples or dial your cell phone, feel a little ashamed that you are associating yourself with someone who associated themselves with someone who associated themselves with a terrorist. Tisk, tisk.
dg
Note that Obama began his political career with a fund raiser hosted by Ayers.
http://tinyurl.com/55jfbn
http://tinyurl.com/3vqpwb
http://tinyurl.com/6qpmwv
This should bring you up to speed on Ayers. There is a lot more out there on the subject.
Please do not change the subject when responding. Pointing out behavior of others does not negate the behavior of Obama.
Birds of a feather flock together.
Here’s Jonah Goldberg on why some people might have problems with that Ayers/Dohrn connection: Ayers & Dohrn [Jonah Goldberg]
Bookworm, you’re doing it again. You quote Jonah Goldberg as if he is some authority. He is a partisan hack, who sells partisan books that appeal to the right. In the interest of his paycheck alone, he is going to hold the views communicated here. When are we going to discuss how serving on the same board or working in the same company makes two people morally equivalent. I guess I can trash the entire Marine Corp since some of its members had the audacity to serve with Reverend Wright.
You don’t see me saying that McCain’s judgment should be questioned over Keating, even though that was the conclusion of the Congressional ethics committee that investigated him. No, I simply look at his positions on Iraq, the economy, immigration and a host of other concrete policy issues and draw a conclusion. You see, I don’t make ad hominem arguments (yet another logical fallacy) to criticize McCain. If conservatives actually want to demonstrate intelligence they ought to start doing the same…
It is truly silly season. You’ve made four logical fallacies in one day. I hope you liked my link to that long catalogue of them, by the way.
Thank you for answering my question, dg, and, except for the snarky sign-off, it was a good answer. It also highlights clearly how, where and why we disagree.
You answered that it wouldn’t make any difference if a political benefactor (Ayers, in this case) was a communist or a Nazi. We agree…for different reasons. To Suek’s point, Ayers and Dohrn absolutely did help launch Obama into politics and he absolutely does value their friendship and did refer to them as “mainstream”. Nobody is seriously saying that Obama is a communist by virtue of his association with Ayers, but many people are questioning his judgment.
Where you and I differ is that to many of us, and certainly for conservatives, the terms “Communist” or “Nazi” are virtually synonymous variants of socialism and equally reprehensible. I wanted to see if you would try to make a distinction - you didn’t and good for you!
I happen to believe that we do and should judge people by their associations…birds of a feather flock together and all that (esp. given that I live in Chicagoland) and that the taint of bad associations does put people’s judgment into question. Were McCain to be linked to Holocaust deniers or white or black supremacists, I absolutely would turn my back on him (I invite you to support your charge about McCain’s previous allegiance to a “nazi”, by the way).
In the case of Ayers and Dohrn, it is that they are un-repentant terrorists. I might do business with them (including Sidley & Austin) if I absolutely have to and at arm’s length, but I would not welcome their support and I would clearly disavow any personal relationship with them. Sidley & Austin may have a respectable facade, but all major Chicago law firms have their hands deep, deep into Chicago and Illinois politics (and please don’t confuse Illinois Republicans with conservatives - in Illinois, labels mean nothing. Democrats and Republicans gladly make room for each other at the public trough)
Now, with respect to those “not-for-profit” organizations (The Chicago Annenburg Council) on which Ayers and Obama collaborated, questions are now being raised in Chicago as to how a cool $100 million disaster relief fund destined for the Chicago public school system was funneled through Ayers, Obama and their network of friends with no discernible results…or accountability. For those of us that live here, it is all too familiar a pattern. In Chicago, politicians go through middle men that they all get rich and take care of each other. Now and then, some go to jail only to keep their mouths shut, knowing that millions await their release as a reward for silence. The Chicago school children, however, suffer on, their lives pawned to the political machine as a means to other peoples’ ends. As Chicago Tribune investigative editor John Kass remarked, the motto of Chicago government should be “Where’s mine?”.
Politics in Chicago, well it’s like….let’s say like Senator Obama inserting a $1.0 million earmark grant to a well-connected Chicago hospital only to see his wife’s salary shoot-up from $121,910 to $316,962. “She deserved it,” hospital administrators said in a USA Today piece. Yeah, I’ll bet she did. So, what’s really going on? I think that inquiring minds have a legitimate right to know this before we elect that fellow President, don’t you? And, yes, dg, for me there is guilt by association - so much so that I believe any product of the Chicago (and much of Illinois) political system should be declared unfit for national office.
So, dg, I respect your answer and the clear delineation that you offer between our respective world views.
If anyone wants a good insight into the cesspool of Chicago political system, its interlocking relationships, and what kinds of associations are required to break into politics, Michael Barone offers a great insight: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_ayers_ties_are_relevant.html
dg — my point is that Dorhn and Ayers are absolutely despicable human beings, and unrepentantly so. How can I think well of someone who numbers people like that amongst his political advisers and friends? Had they recanted and apologized I might think differently. But these are people who are vocally proud of their degraded, dehumanized past — and Obama, while saying he doesn’t like what they did, is still their buddy.
Let’s say you knew someone who was a Nazi camp death guard and had never expressed remorse. Would you want to be his friend even though the war has been over for more than 60 years?
Let’s say you knew someone who was a leading killer during the Cultural Revolution in China and had never expressed remove. Should I admire you for befriending him?
Let’s say you knew someone who ran one of the Gulag’s, and to this day thinks they were a good thing. Does it help me that you say the Gulag’s were bad but, hey, he’s a great guy?
Do you draw any lines regarding the quality of people with whom you associate directly or do you draw any conclusions about what those associations might say about you?
>>You quote Jonah Goldberg as if he is some authority.>>
>>But seriously, can we just say that such-and-such a reporter made an analytical mistake rather than trying to show that the mainstream media is biased or stupid?>>
So if Book indicates the MSM as a group, that’s bad, and if she quotes a particular writer, that’s an “appeal to authority”…
Consistency not your strong point???
Danny, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I say this with complete seriousness, if Osama bin Laden sent me a check for $100M–that I knew was actually legitimately earned (e.g., from his wealthy family’s construction business)–I would take it in a heartbeat and pass it on in full to the victims of 9/11 that are not being helped by the current governments in NYC, Albany and Washington. There is so much by way of actions to judge me and distinguish me from bin Laden that only a fool would confuse me for a terrorist or think that my judgment is poor. The irony here is that the real indictment on Obama is that they spent $100M to raise test scores in Chicago and didn’t move them up at all! But both liberals and conservatives are too partisan, too gullible and too focused on rhetoric as opposed to things that are measurable to even focus on the real issue. If my $100M came to good use, I really wouldn’t give a damn what hypocritical, partisan people think.
Ok, Bookworm, was Menachem Begin absolutely despicable for planning the bombing of the King David Hotel that killed 91? If not why not? I don’t believe he ever apologized for resorting to terrorism to force the Brits out, making way for the Israeli state. So, is he different because he killed people with his bombing? Because you agree with the goals of his terrorism? Or is it that you wouldn’t approve of a politician launching his career in Begin’s home either?
Also, why did you support Bush in his last two elections despite his long association with the bin Laden family? This was substantiated at great length and was highlighted in Michael Moore’s movie–if it’s false, the Bushies never rebutted the charges, especially the one that showed that the bin Laden’s launched Bush W’s entry into the oil business. Too often, the “association” argument, like the “character” argument is unevenly applied.
I really don’t think they are friends but even if they are it doesn’t change my view of Obama’s judgment because there is ample evidence based on what he does. I don’t need to focus on his associations. If he can work with highly imperfect people and still accomplish good, then that’s ok in my book. The associations argument is only useful when it is redundant: i.e., when associating with a terrorist makes you a terrorist or at least a terrorist sympathizer.
I’m not religious, but I kind of liked the way Jesus dealt with intolerant people by associating with prostitutes and tax collectors. If he came back as a Presidential candidate, the GOP (and especially the Christians) would run him out of town on a rail…
Good exchange, dg.
Re. the $100 million grant via the CAC: the question from the Chicago perspective, dg, is how much actually went to those children and how much went into inflated salaries, “fees”, and other undocumented “expenses” for those “friends and friends of friends” running the programs. This how the governments of both Chicago and Cook County (in which Chicago resides) are run. The local press has been turning stories about front organizations that collected funds with no documentation or accreditation and somehow never got that money to the kids. It’s the Chicago way!
As far as your example of a $100 million check from OBL…words fail me. Methinks it’s like trying to explain colors to the color blind. Oh well.
Suek, your logic once again astounds–again, no personal disrespect, but I calls ‘em likes I sees ‘em. I told Bookworm to stop implying that the MSM is somehow uniquely biased or stupid versus the right-leaning outlets she doesn’t label MSM. This is confirmation bias. This has little to do with my problem with bringing out Goldberg as a supposed expert and non-partisan judge, when he clearly is not. This is false authority. Two different fallacies of logic, but pernicious both of them.
By the way, G.W. Bush didn’t need any Bin Ladens to launch himself into the oil business. His dad oil services firm, Zapata, provided all that was needed for that. Please, let’s stay off the troofer stuff, OK?
Danny, I guess you would kill yourself having come to from a heart attack only to discover that Ayers was the one who delivered the CPR… I am a pragmatist, while you are an apparent moralist to the extreme. I just hope you complained 1,000 more loudly when the Bush administration lost $10B in Iraq and couldn’t account for it. I do seem to recall all the conservatives then talking about fogs of war and collateral damage of that very noble conflict. I’m hoping you were a little more honest.
Obama didn’t need the Ayer support either. He was a superstar from the moment he entered law school. His classmate is a friend of mine, and she (a super die-hard Republican) told me that she disagrees with all of his positions but even she thinks he is a superstar and thought he’d be a formidable politician. She knows him way better than the lot of you, so I’ll base my judgment on her. Editors-in-chief of HLS with his powers of persuasion, ethnic advantages, intelligence and all the rest do not need Ayers and Dohr to “launch” their political career. George W, who crashed every business he ever touched, except the Rangers, which he didn’t have control over, needed all the help he could get.
More importantly, according to your logic, it isn’t the needing that matters, nor what came out of it, but whether it happened at all. And it did happen. I’ve seen the documentation, which has been public since his first gubernatorial campaign. Don’t ignore facts just because they are inconvenient. Of course, the bin Laden’s while supporting horrible human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, had not produced a terrorist son yet, so it doesn’t count. I guess you draw the line at torturing political opponents, but not at blowing up uninhabited buildings. Do I have that right? The lines shift in the sand depending on the GOP candidate and his or her background. It’s so much easier to focus on deeds rather than “friends,” I’m telling you…
From an interview with Vox Day:
Jonah Goldberg:
Tell me again why he is a hack? I must have missed something. Are you saying that because you disagree with the premise in Liberal Facism?
dg, who don’t you know?
“Editors-in-chief of HLS with his powers of persuasion, ethnic advantages, intelligence and all the rest do not need Ayers and Dohr to “launch” their political career.”- DG
You certainly have no shortage of opinions.
It was more than my single opinion, or those of Ayers and Dohr that created the greatest lift in turnout for the primaries since JFK. Suddenly, it is an obscure sit down fund raiser in Chicago that launched his career. Believe what you want, but it totally strains credibility to hear this nonsense. He needed terrorists’ help to get a job, his top-flight legal credentials notwithstanding. And now the giant wave of adoring fans were all the work of Ayers and Dohr’s epic “launch party.”
My dad and I talked a lot about medicine growing up (he’s a trained doctor), so I would feel really comfortable doing your brain surgery although I studied business and law. Yeah, Goldberg is just such an expert. Here’s the test they use in the academy to determine whether a theory makes sense: first they ask how it relates to the theories that are already out there and how does it better explain the observations that the old theories made sense of, but in a new way–this first step is designed to eliminate the many quacks working in garages or on the fringes (e.g., the guys who invent cold fusion or the Holocaust deniers). Then, they test the theory against empirical evidence. Finally, it is peer reviewed. It is almost unheard of for someone to come up with great ideas while being totally divorced from the academy. Einstein wrote up his theories in a patent office, but he was actually professionally trained in physics and had his theories reviewed by the academy. The great philosopher Rousseau was entirely self taught, but he too entered the academy, albeit later in life. Goldberg pretends to be an academic and then sells mass-published books to people who don’t know what the academy is. According to the right-wing die-hards, Ann Coulter is a legal scholar, Ben Stein is an evolutionary biologist, and Rush Limbau is a philosopher. This kind of thinking is exactly why the academy formed–to combat the take it on faith and authority crowd that crowded into churches across Europe to hear dark ages nonsense as unsubstantiated as these political pundits. Talk about false authority.
And by the way, before you say it, the academy is often wrong. But there’s no avoiding that. The difference is that the process of theoretical conservation, empirical analysis and peer review is better than Goldberg fantasizing about how much more he learned from his father than he could have from those liberal elites at Harvard–as if Harvard doesn’t have intelligent conservatives (e.g., Mansfield, Fried, et. al.).
Oh, and nice try with Vox Day. That’s like asking one “expert” Holocaust denier to vouch for the credentials of another. How about asking Charles Mansfield what he thinks of Goldberg’s views of the Ayers “controversy” or exploring Daniel Pipe’s views on the subject? Then we can have a really meaningful discussion. My suspicion is that both of these learned gentlemen have more important ideas to think about. But I could be wrong…
I recall seeing a video of a wind turbine (in Denmark, I believe) that got caught in a wind storm. As the turbines whirled faster and faster, the entire windmill began to wobble, eventually collapsing while randomly spewing bits of metal in all direction. A change machine for the future producing lots of energy, until torn asunder by conflicting forces and going “poof”.
Apt metaphor for when the ad hominems and non sequiturs fly, dontcha think?
I love that metaphor. Can I steal it?
Obama didn’t need the Ayer support either.
So why did he launch his first campaign from the Ayers’s household? So why did he associate himself w Ayers via the Annenberg Challenge and other endeavors?
If, as you claim, Obama was such a skilled politician that he didn’t need Ayers, then why did he associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist? If , as you claim, Obama had such smarts as a politician and as a Harvard Law student, then why wouldn’t he see that down the road associating with an unrepentant terrorist would not help his career? Just wondering.
But then, associating with Ayers is just Chicago politics. After all, Daddy Ayers was a big man in Chicago, and like Mayor Daley II said of Ayers and Obama: “They’re friends. So what?” The stench emanating from Chicago politics can be smelled all the way to St. Louis, so why should we be surprised?
There is more tu quoque argument, bringing up allegations about Dubya when the issue is Ayers and Obama. That is also called avoiding the issue.
I find it rather amusing that you call Jonah Goldberg a “hack” when you go ahead and use Michael Moore as a source to support your point of view re Dubya. You may as well cite Britney Spears! The day that Michael Moore can construct a coherent argument or stick to the truth is the day that Michael Moore is 30 pounds underweight. Michael Moore is a fool, and only a fool would cite Michael Moore to support his point of view.
Sure, dg…use it at will. In fact, here is another one you you might want to with respect to the would you take money from scoundrels issue…i.e., the character question, an old Middle East saying: if you make your bed with scorpions, you must expect to get stung.
Actually in my previous post, you can read that he specifically doesn’t make that claim.
Was that a very subtle literary device, smear by association, or are you making a claim?
So many words, so little time.
There is a difference between making a bed with scorpions and learning to live in a world filled with adversaries. Which wise man spoke of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer? But that’s not the point, with Ayers or Keating. These are political smear tactics on both sides. We engage in them because they are more effective on voters than cerebral discussions over policy. That is why we live far worse than we might. Evolution isn’t done with us yet…
I’m making a claim about Vox Day (aka Theodore Beale), that he is neither objective or nor an authority on whether Goldberg is an expert on the subjects he claims to be. I did like his top-40 pop hits, however.
dg…
What are you trying to say here?
Obama was not associated in any way with Ayers?
Even if he was, it doesn’t matter?
Obama is not a communist?
All of the above?
Anyway…if one or two, why has he lied about the extent of his relationship? to what end?
And why _this_:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/27/document-drop-turning-the-tables-again-on-obamas-speech-squelching-thugs/
Methinks he doth protest too much. Smoke/fire etc.
Addendum:
To say _nothing_ about freedom of speech.
Facism on the rise! Your Dems at work!
Re-read Post 39 (or maybe just read it). Vox never claimed Goldberg is an expert, and Goldberg never said he is an “academic”, in fact he said he was not.
His thesis will have to stand on its merits.
More on that wonderfully unbiased MSM…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/jack-torrys-bogus-analysis-msm-covers.html
Media bias? What media bias!
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
BrianE, thanks for that link. Do you have the one to the original report, so I can see the methodology. It is similar to the Hoover Institute findings I referenced. I don’t know which sane, intelligent person thinks the MSM is unbiased, but I know a lot of Republicans that think that the non-MSM, which they call Fox, talk-radio and their favorite blogs, are unbiased. The data you include in the link on Fox, the WSJ editorial page, and the Washington Times cast doubt on that.
BrianE, actually, Bookworm’s original argument must stand on its merits (which it doesn’t), rather than be propped up by the fake authority of Goldberg. I believe that was the original argument near the beginning of this thread. BTW, Goldberg’s thesis doesn’t really stand either, as his “fake scholarly” thesis linking of fascism to the modern Progressive movement is simultaneously not novel and inaccurate. So it’s really annoying to see conservatives thoughtlessly recite it so frequently.
Dg, your obsession with academic credentials is truly astounding, especially given how we Americans live in a meritocracy where people are judged by the content of their works rather than their academic pedigrees. I also truly question that you have actually read Goldberg’s book.
You aren’t European by any chance, are you?
Couple of things, dg, before you get too smug. First, I never deviated from my original point. I don’t care about Communist, Nazi, Begin or whatever. I just note that Ayers is a despicable swine who wanted to kill his fellow Americans, and whose methods succeeded in doing so; and whose wife celebrated the brutal slaughter of innocent people (a fact that Goldberg points out). I note also that he and his wife still think their original acts and the ideas that gave birth to those acts are just hunky dory. Lastly, I note that one has to question Obama’s judgment in freely associating with these people and in trying to pretend that, despite their lack of remorse, their acts are in the past. I don’t usually hang around with people who seek out and celebrate the slaughter of their fellow citizens. Obama’s decision to do so is, well, questionable.
Also, I dropped out of this thread because I got bored with your approach, which I see on a daily basis in my professional life: drag in irrelevant details, set up strawmen, and then knock them down. I also see a lot of attacks on the source, even when the facts are impeccable. Thus, you may not like Goldberg, but Dohrn’s own words convict her of a striking lack of humanity.
These tactics are intellectually weak. You’re obviously a really bright, well-informed person, so you shouldn’t cheapen yourself this way, nor should you boast about it afterwards.
Suek, do you really not know what I am trying to say? Let’s try this a different way… The Ayers thing is a fake controversy to call into question the “judgment” of a candidate whose record is too short to pick at real votes made or policies championed. It is a tactic that the GOP uses when their candidate has a long record with lots to attack, not to mention an easy link to a sitting President with epic unapproval ratings. The Ayers relationship would not come up in a normal job interview for, say, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, the head of air traffic control at LAX or the principal of the public school in your local community. Obama had a relationship with Ayers the lies somewhere between an arms’ length business relationship to a friendly co-worker type of relationship. I don’t know the details because the Republicans exaggerate the link and the Democrats minimize it. Either way, it doesn’t mean that Obama is suddenly less wrong in criticizing the launch of the War in Iraq, in drawing attention to serious economic problems at home, or any other parts of his campaign and agenda. That Obama wants to change the topic when the Republicans want to embarrass him is not surprising for a politician. But it doesn’t make him a liar in the same league as past presidents: “I am not a crook…” or “I did not have sex with that woman…” or “Read my lips…” or “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
The Republicans want you to think he protests too much, which is why they keep talking about the issue. We’ve talked more about the scary relationship between Ayer and Obama than the far more pernicious one between the Bush Administration and Chalabi–the guy who lied about whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, causing us to embark upon an unnecessary war and a foreign policy disaster. According to Google, the media (MSM and otherwise) has as well, about 4x as much. Pretty silly. But keep saying it’s important. Maybe we can make another major policy mistake because the voters are not informed on the real issues but distracted.
I’ll take a look at Malkin’s piece, with my nose held. I stopped taking her seriously when I saw this on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mPkOberRCo. Methinks the lady doth pom-pom too much… And that was, in case you missed it, an ad hominem argument.
Opinion.
Uninformed opinion even.
How do you know, since you don’t know the details.
Bookworm, I will concede that bringing up Begin or other associations is irrelevant when you show me why, when you show me it is distracting from rather than enlightening of the issue. Otherwise, it isn’t changing the subject at all. I don’t believe–nor do you, in all likelihood–that Carter showed bad judgment associating with a former terrorist (Begin himself called the tactics used terrorism), so why does Obama show bad judgment having an association, that I consider less consequential, with Ayer. I am not changing the subject but highlighting the lack of relevance. The Camp David Accords are widely praised, and nothing in Obama’s history suggest he lacks the judgment for similar deeds.
Also, you characterize my argumentation as similar to your colleagues. Based upon your writing style, I would guess you are a lawyer. If so, you’d be wrong to paint me with the same brush. Lawyers specialize in using words and rhetorical phrases to hide logical fallacies (”playing fast and loose with the language…”), while those of us who are numerate (of which, sadly, only a few lawyers can count themselves a part) can use math and stats to avoid logical fallacies. Sometimes that means changing the subject, since the subject is totally devoid of importance. For example, I once saw a 60 minutes journalist (they also are usually innumerate) ask the CEO of Ford why he didn’t do more personally to avoid the problem with F-150 trucks flipping over, to which the CEO laid out a bunch of statistics showing no significant issues, highlighted the tens of thousands of complaint letters the company reads that he cannot personally screen, and left the journalist grasping at straws. This journalist was focused on an irelevant issue (how many complaint letters the CEO reads) rather than an important one–does the truck actually flip over more frequently. While my questions may have been inartful, I am trying to establish why an association that doesn’t disqualify Obama for other very important jobs (CEO, air traffic control, security of nuclear plant, principal of your kids’ school) should call into question his ability to lead the country. Now, I know that people want to like their President, but to me the threshold questions should deal with issues. And we are not even talking about them (see my quantification of Google hits for Chalabi-Bush versus Ayer-Obama). If I am changing the channel, it is from the Cartoon Network to the Discovery (of the facts and relevance) Channel. Not a bad decision for parents of young kids, and not a bad decision for us voters.
Sorry for the length, but I wanted to add that I actually do not dislike Goldberg, especially after he attacked Fox News for shoddy journalism and Ann Coulter for being extraordinarily insensitive. But he is an amateur historian and not the authority that people want to hold him up as.
BrianE, you are asking me to prove it is not a controversy. How do I prove a negative? You can continue to make up some other speculation on what he’s hiding because he’s silent. Do you not see that? That’s why the critics need to come forth with proof that he has bad judgment or stop talking about what unsaid, unproven connection says about a guy who otherwise should be scrutinized on the issues.
Also, I dropped out of this thread because I got bored with your approach, which I see on a daily basis in my professional life: drag in irrelevant details, set up strawmen, and then knock them down.
Would it surprise you to know that dg finds my deductive approach utilizing philosophical axioms from which all else may be derived or checked, incomprehensible?
Dg simply prefers arguments to authority in the logical fallacies archive he utilizes.
Do you draw any lines regarding the quality of people with whom you associate directly or do you draw any conclusions about what those associations might say about you?
dg draws lines of right or wrong based upon his personal preferences. Essentially, if it makes you comfortable, it is correct. Everybody’s comfort level is different. Yours, Book, is different from Obama’s.
rianE, you are asking me to prove it is not a controversy. How do I prove a negative?
When you claim something is true in your argument, as you did with Ayers, you are supposed to prove what you claim.
Btw, many things are legal but are ethically wrong at the same time.
Ymarsakar, don’t kid yourself. I find everything you write incomprehensible. I believe you are a well-meaning person and an ethical person. But I have trouble understanding where you are coming from, and I am pretty certain you haven’t got me figured out yet either.
Ymarsakar, one other thing. Rigorous math proofs take a couple of pages. Words are less concise. So if you think we are going to have a rational discussion with you taking snippets out of context and adding your own half-liners, I’m going to have to cut it short…
Hi DG,
So, I asked if you are EUropean (no response).
I note your obsession with academic credentials (no response).
Are you a European academic? Just curious, is all.
Here’s a good quote that highlights that of which I speak…”But he is an amateur historian and not the authority that people want to hold him up as.”
Hmmm…let me look at my bookcase of other amateur historians…William Shirer /journalist (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), Edward Gibbon /Parliamentarian (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire), Friedrich von Hayek/economist (Road to Serfdom), Toqueville /government functionary and sociologist (Democracy in American); Theodore Roosevelt /lawyer and politician (Naval War of 1812)
(sigh) Oh well, I suppose I should relegate these amateurish tomes to the dustbin. They weren’t written by accredited scholars. Worthless rubbish, apparently.
Book is right, you know…you do put up straw men. Here’s a good example in your recent post regarding Obama and Ayers…”But it doesn’t make him a liar in the same league as past presidents: “I am not a crook…” or “I did not have sex with that woman…” or “Read my lips…” or “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
I would have thought that the recent removal of 500 tons of yellow cake from Bagdad would have put that canard to rest. Even the notoriously Liberal/Left MSNBC put that to rest long ago http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html.
If you want more background…try, http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
Then again, you aren’t relying on amateur historian Joseph Wilson for you info on this, are you?
Do you believe in plastic turkeys as well (two can play at this game)?
Straw man, knock down.
Danny, first thanks for that link to Annenberg. It is really, really good. I will use it as my new fact check source. Reluctantly, I will concede that Bush was merely wrong rather than lying about the yellow cake. I have that story wrong, so thanks for setting me straight.
Still, all politicians lie. And Bush appears to have lied, in all likelihood, in other claims in the run up to the war (e.g., http://www.factcheck.org/misstatement_of_the_union.html or http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html), so I don’t think you can vindicate, much less sanctify, the man just yet on this major foreign policy decision. Also, you said the yellow cake found in Iraq proves the story, but your own fact check source actually says otherwise: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_it_recently_revealed_that_the_us.html.
I would disagree that I have set up a straw man. The point is that if a Presidential candidate wears briefs and answer boxers when MTV asks, this is less significant than when the President says, just ahead of a vote to authorize the war, that he knows that Al Qaeda trained in Iraq and ten-month old intelligence says otherwise. Clearly, Obama’s “association” with Ayer is a bigger indictment on his judgment than boxers-vs-briefs but far less than misleading the public about pre-war intelligence. I also have tried to illustrate this point by showing that lots of top lawyers had no trouble associating with Dohrn, nor did respectable companies that used that law firm. I also tried to illustrate the point by showing that an association with someone like Ayer would not even come up in an interview for important or sensitive jobs. Why don’t you respond to any of these, before dismissing my point as merely a “straw man?”
On the historians, there is much I do not know about the famous writers you cite, but I do know that Hayek was a professionally trained economist and thus an expert on political economy. Also, de Tocqueville couldn’t have been a professor of political science, because he is credited with inventing the field (he is in the same league as Max Weber and Emile Durkheim). Shirer was the only American in Austria during the anschluss, and covered Germany for the entire war–so he was an expert in the history because he observed it first-hand. Gibbon was a member of the Royal Academy, so his contact with professional historians was likely frequent, as was his scholarly publishing. And I wouldn’t put Teddy’s work in the same league, no offense to the old rough rider, although maybe The Winning of the West qualifies. The other point I would make is that you are comparing mostly writers from nearly a century ago or more when PhD’s were few and merely graduating from Oxford or Harvard qualified. It’s a little different today. Most importantly, I would remind you that what I said was that it is very rare for someone, especially today, who is working entirely outside of the academy to come up with a powerful new theory or insight. I didn’t say it was impossible. Also, those books are not rubbish. I’ve read Democracy in America and consider it the most important description of America this side of the Federalist Papers.
By the way, you didn’t ask but perhaps the leading American authority on fascism is Charles C. Maier. And he, not Goldberg, was one of the first to observe that FDR and other progressives admitted to admiring and borrowing ideas from the Italian fascists, who themselves were influenced by Antonio Gramsci, who was a Communist. Like Gramsci’s version of Communism, which was less radical than Lenin’s, Italian fascism is less radical than German Nazism–actually, many scholars (including Maier) have argued that they are entirely different. So Goldberg did not break new ground but merely popularized what academics have known for years. The problem with Goldberg’s book is that this warmed-over insight, that Italian fascism is not a horrific totalitarian ideology and more like a benign Socialist third way between Communism and laissez-faire capitalism, is then perverted back into a negative moniker to hang around the neck of liberals in the 70s, 80s and 90s. No respectable historian would attempt to tie Carter, Clinton or Kerry to Antonio Gramsci or Ugo Spirito. Also, Goldberg ignores the very different sources of fascism and Nazism that are the subject of ongoing debate; rather, his initial attempt to develop a clear, scholarly definition turns into political stereotypes. That is my view anyway, although there are professional book reviewers who agree. Interestingly, Charlie Maier and other specialists in the field have never reviewed much less endorsed his book. But for some reason, conservatives on this blog cite it as though it were the Good Book. I wonder why.
BTW, whether I am European or not is really irrelevant.
Sorry for the length of the post. You raised very good points throughout your last post. Thanks for that.
My comment consisted of 61 words. It included 6 questions.
Your reply consisted of 417 words and included not a single answer to my questions, which could have been answered with yes or no.
I’ll say this for you, though…you sure must be a fast typist.
Here’s more info on the Ayers/Obama link. Very long article - full of links to other sources.
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html
Suek, and you are a fast counter…
I’ll try and spell it out for you.
“What are you trying to say here?”
see response above
“Obama was not associated in any way with Ayers?”
obviously he was. it’s a matter of public record. whether this association rises to the level of “friend” or “good friend” is a matter of debate.
“Even if he was, it doesn’t matter?”
it doesn’t matter very much and has little value in predicting what Obama’s judgment will be on policy matters. I’ve tried to explain above why this is the case. You can find it uncompelling but should at least try to say why rather than faulting me for a word count.
“Obama is not a communist?”
are you seriously asking this? of course not.
“All of the above?”
see above
“Anyway…if one or two, why has he lied about the extent of his relationship? to what end?”
because he is a politician and all politicians lie. he needs to because people use it as fodder to attack, which is fine. but the quality of the President we get is a function of the quality of the debate we have. this issue is less important than substantive discussions around issues. the GOP wants to have this debate rather than the issues debate, perhaps because they think they lose on the issues.
“And why _this_:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/27/document-drop-turning-the-tables-again-on-obamas-speech-squelching-thugs/”
Did you see my Youtube link on her? She looks great in a cheerleading outfit. When I see her I don’t hear words but just watch her mouth move. When I read her stuff, I understand the other reason why I don’t hear words…
“Methinks he doth protest too much. Smoke/fire etc.”
McCain and his staff protested a lot about his alleged affair with Vicki Iseman… I guess he’s hiding something too, to follow your logic.
And here’s a link to the Iseman association: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html
Remember, your party impeached a President over an affair and subsequent lies to cover it up. An impeachable offense should be a candidate’s disqualification.
And whenever you want to talk about real issues, let me know.
>>And whenever you want to talk about real issues, let me know.>>
I’m always interested in real issues - and if you were the last person left on the internet, I wouldn’t choose you to discuss them with.
Whether you’re mark, greg, or dg.
Suek, I’m not sure you know what they are…
Now, now, children. Play nicely. Although I do agree that dg and suek are at an impasse, which definitely leads to frustration.
Bookworm, can you point me to your posts that have the most substantive take on the issues you think most important in this campaign? It’s hard to know where they are. Where do I find the critique of Obama and McCain’s energy policies, tax policies, immigration, trade policies, foreign policies, legal philosophies, etc.? Obama, as you point out, has a light-weight record to flesh these out–where do I find your fill-in-the-gaps kind of postings? McCain, as should be pointed out, has changed his views recently to accomodate his part–where do I find the which-is-the-real-McCain discussions? Maybe Suek and I can act like adults on those pages…
DG - good response to my post, by the way, and we agree to disagree.
Three quick points:
1) I don’t think that you have read Goldberg’s book. He clearly makes exactly the point that you do - America’s brand of fascism (the Progressive movement) was/is very different than that of Europe or Russia (after all, he gives it a smiley face) - at both the beginning and the end of the book. His book is also exceptionally well researched, referenced and footnoted. Read it…then judge it.
2) For the record, Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself in front of a grand jury (a Federal crime) over a case involving sexual harassment - not for Whitewater, not for enjoying oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.
3) My question to your about being EUropean is that I am half European (born and raised there) and I recognize that there is a vast gulf between how (most) Europeans and Americans view the world and express opinions about it.
Danny, thanks for the post. Three quick reponses:
1. I have read the book and see a slow transition in connotation around fascism from positive early in the book to negative later in the book. I don’t have the book with me to give you specific quotes, however. We can agree to disagree on Goldberg, you might have to admit that those that quote the book frequently rely upon the negative connotation of fascism (in the post Nazi era) to attack liberals that Goldberg has linked. I also think that despite the research and references his link between Carter, Clinton and Kerry with Italian fascist thinkers is tenuous.
2. For the record, Clinton would not have been in front of that Grand Jury if the GOP had not started a wild goose chase over this sexual daliances, a strategy eerily similar to the charges of a cover-up regarding Obama’s associations with unconvicted terrorists.
3. Consider us kindred spirits, although my views would be more aligned with the old continent and less aligned with the US, while yours appear to be the opposite. N’est pas?
>>Maybe Suek and I can act like adults on those pages…>>
And if all else fails, insult the blog owner.
Wow. Unbelievable.
DG -
One more reply:
#1. You and I had very different takes on Goldberg’s book. We are arguing past each other.
#2. The whole thing did not begin with Clinton’s sexual dalliances but with the Whitewater investigation, which resulted in 14 convictions, including of Arkansas’s sitting governor and many of Clinton’s closest friends and associates. One of the convicts went to jail in order NOT to testify on the Clinton’s role. This issue brings us back full circle to the beginning of our posts, which had to do with character, reputation and the taint of bad associations. All the sexual stuff came much later and, if you read David Schipper’s (House Impeachment Counsel and Cook County Democrat) book on the subject, Clinton got a pass on the impeachment because Senate Republicans (led by Trent Lott) refused to review the evidence against him, including an FBI report on the rape of Juanita Broderick.
#3. C’est exact. I devote considerable time advocating to Americans why we should never, never want to be like Europe. Why that might be will have to await another post.
Ooops! I didn’t mean “advocating”. I meant “warning”.
Suek, I didn’t insult Bookworm. Only you. I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up. Your understanding of the English language rivals your logical reasoning skills–and that’s not a good thing (in case you didn’t follow either of mine).
Danny,
1. I agree.
2. I kind of agree. And I think the Clintons are crooked. Still, the fact remains that he was impeached for lying about something totally unrelated to Whitewater, and all of the criminal investigations stopped when the Clintons left office. Now I ask you, what does that show? That the GOP was out for justice or merely playing politics?
3. I kind of agree. I think Charles de Gaul said it best, when he remarked that America is the daughter of Europe but that she stopped living in its house long ago. I think America should not want to be like Europe; however, I also think that Europe should not want to be like the US, and there should be mutual respect of and a willingness to learn from one another.
I think that we are edging toward common ground, dg.
#2 - I blame Republican Senators’ cowardice and lack of principles, which sadly is still much in effect today (please don’t interpret this as an endorsement of the Senate Democrats, which I consider much, much worse). Personally, I would have preferred that criminal investigations into other issues had gone on, such as into the nature of the relationship between Clinton and the Chinese, but that will have to be left to historians. The country was understandably tired of it all.
#3. - I think that we agree on this one as well.
Let me, for once, throw you some bipartisan meat to chew on…
if you want to know what truly does outrage me about both Republicans AND Democrats is how past-Presidents (or ANY past Cabinet official or elected senator or representative) should be permitted to collect massive speaking “fees” (post hoc bribes is more like it) from foreign entities once they leave office. I hold both Bush I and Clinton in contempt for their speeches in Saudi Arabia and Dubai once they left office.
on #3, I am not sure. I think Presidents should be allowed to collect whatever the market bears, quite honestly, provided they aren’t in a position to take real bribes–so Bush senior perhaps should not be collecting fees while his son is President, but after 2008 I think it’s ok. Everyone from soldiers to celebrities to former White House aids sell books, so why should the President be less entitled?
I have more of a problem with the Presidential libraries and the outrageous fundraising for them, since that fundraising occurs while they are still in office.
Because, DG, the way it works (as we in Chicagoland /Illinois well recognize), you can’t take a bribe while you are in office but there is nothing to stop someone paying you for favors rendered AFTER you leave office on the pretext of a speech or book advance that has no bearing on its worth in the marketplace.
>>Suek, I didn’t insult Bookworm. Only you. I really would like to have a substantive discussion on the issues wherever she has set it up.>>
You seriously did not intend the following as an insult?
>>Bookworm, can you point me to your posts that have the most substantive take on the issues you think most important in this campaign? It’s hard to know where they are. Where do I find the critique of Obama and McCain’s energy policies, tax policies, immigration, trade policies, foreign policies, legal philosophies, etc.? Obama, as you point out, has a light-weight record to flesh these out–where do I find your fill-in-the-gaps kind of postings? McCain, as should be pointed out, has changed his views recently to accomodate his part–where do I find the which-is-the-real-McCain discussions?>>
>>2. For the record, Clinton would not have been in front of that Grand Jury if the GOP had not started a wild goose chase over this sexual daliances,>>
Actually, Clinton was sued for sexual harrassment in civil court, and it was his perjurious testimony in that suit that started the whole impeachment thing. If he had just settled with Paula Jones, the whole thing would have gone away.
Suek, who paid the legal bills and goaded the plaintiff into that lawsuit years after it occurred? Mellon Scaife, a well-to-do Pittsburgh family that notoriously attacked Clinton as soon as he was elected President. This is the wild goose chase I talked about. If Scaife cared about the harrassment, he could have funded it shortly after it occurred and BEFORE Clinton became President. And why did the plaintiff wait years to file it and, apparently, only after being paid (bribed?) by Scaife and other GOP operatives? And why did all the investigations and lawsuits suddenly end when he left office? Either you are naive or take me for a fool. This was a political hit job from start to finish.
Suek, it was seriously not an insult. I’d like to know where I can find the post in which we can have a civil discussion on energy. I’ve already had a good one with Earl on abortion and another with Danny Lemieux on a variety of topics, including Goldberg’s book, Whitewater among others. I look forward to discussing energy policy (e.g., how offshore drilling closes a 15m barrel per day gap), economic policy (e.g.., whether the American dream is really in danger), foreign policy (e.g., how to resurrect the Bush failed diplomacy with Russia). There are lots of important discussions to have, but I don’t know where to initiate them. I am hoping Bookworm can do it.
Just because you can’t past guilt-by-association and ad hominem arguments to deal with more substantive issues does not mean other conservatives on this site cannot. I am hoping that Bookworm has, can or will open up those discussions.