Props to McCain

[MaggieB]

Date: 10/11/2008 9:43:50 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/10/2008 11:21:36 PM
Author: MaggieB

Date: 10/10/2008 9:50:43 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
Finally. This is the McCain I liked before 2004 when he sold out to the party, this is the McCain that I respected and wanted to do well in 2000.

EXACTLY! As I was saying to my Republican fiance today, the thing that really kills me is that this is a great man who used to have a tremendous reputation and respect at LEAST among moderate Democrats. I did not want to see him go down in the flames of hate mongering. But - win or lose - I have enough respect for McCain that I would hope he ends his campaign with his reputation intact. I''m so happy to see the return of the man and not the politician!

Sorry, I''m not giving him kudos for any of this. To create this Frankenstein monster of hate he seems intent on creating and then go ''Uh oh...um...sorry'' at the 11th hour doesn''t impress me at all. So he figured it out. Big deal. It''s a scorched earth tactic of desperation and who is going to pick up the pieces and heal the wounds when the dust settles? To stoke the fires of polarization right now is the lowest tactic I can think of. He could have shown leadership from the start and ''led'' his supporters to a more reasoned and calm tone, but he did not. My respect for him dies a more certain death with every passing day.

> You are probably right. I guess I am such a bleeding heart that I wanted the man to get back some of his dignity. I just find it heartbreaking that someone who so honorably served our country has devolved into this. Not that I''m voting for him, but I did have some compassion for him.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 10/11/2008 10:27:18 AM
Author: MaggieB

Date: 10/11/2008 9:43:50 AM

Author: ksinger

Date: 10/10/2008 11:21:36 PM

Author: MaggieB

Date: 10/10/2008 9:50:43 PM

Author: brazen_irish_hussy

Finally. This is the McCain I liked before 2004 when he sold out to the party, this is the McCain that I respected and wanted to do well in 2000.

EXACTLY! As I was saying to my Republican fiance today, the thing that really kills me is that this is a great man who used to have a tremendous reputation and respect at LEAST among moderate Democrats. I did not want to see him go down in the flames of hate mongering. But - win or lose - I have enough respect for McCain that I would hope he ends his campaign with his reputation intact. I''m so happy to see the return of the man and not the politician!

Sorry, I''m not giving him kudos for any of this. To create this Frankenstein monster of hate he seems intent on creating and then go ''Uh oh...um...sorry'' at the 11th hour doesn''t impress me at all. So he figured it out. Big deal. It''s a scorched earth tactic of desperation and who is going to pick up the pieces and heal the wounds when the dust settles? To stoke the fires of polarization right now is the lowest tactic I can think of. He could have shown leadership from the start and ''led'' his supporters to a more reasoned and calm tone, but he did not. My respect for him dies a more certain death with every passing day.

<<sigh>> You are probably right. I guess I am such a bleeding heart that I wanted the man to get back some of his dignity. I just find it heartbreaking that someone who so honorably served our country has devolved into this. Not that I''m voting for him, but I did have some compassion for him.

Not totally honorable service.
link

 

[Ellen]

All he''s really done is confuse his supporters and made himself look even more erratic. He may well have been told by his campaign advisers to go the route of smearing, and didn''t lke it, but went with it anyway. We''ll never know, but it obviously wasn''t working for him. And trying to correct the situation may not work either. He has really painted himself in a corner....

 

[ladypirate]

*Sigh*

I had hoped that this was the turning over of a new leaf, but the renewed attacks and vitriol spewing from his campaign have proven otherwise. How sad.

 

[Anna0499]

To me, saying he associates with terrorists/radicals (which is true) is different than him BEING a terrorist/radical, although it does mean that he doesn't rebuke their beliefs/ideas. I realize not all Americans or McCain voters get this distinction, but I think most do. I didn't expect McCain to defend Obama in detail, just like I don't expect Obama to - they are adversaries after all. There are a million different words and phrases McCain could've used in response to those people, no matter what he said it would considered not enough. I also don't think him saying that Obama was a decent family man is perceived as any more of an insult by Muslims than the Obama campaign not allowing those Muslims to sit behind the podium when Obama was speaking so they wouldn't be featured in pictures with him.

 

[E B]

Date: 10/11/2008 3:05:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
To me, saying he associates with terrorists/radicals (which is true) is different than him BEING a terrorist/radical, although it does mean that he doesn''t rebuke their beliefs/ideas.

You''re kidding, right?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/11/2008 3:25:11 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/11/2008 3:05:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
To me, saying he associates with terrorists/radicals (which is true) is different than him BEING a terrorist/radical, although it does mean that he doesn't rebuke their beliefs/ideas.

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not. My post clearly started off with "To me." IMO, using your position in an organization to give money to a program that espouses radical education means that you support them or you at least don't think they are promoting anything wrong. You have your opinions about it and I have mine...I'm not interested in turning this thread into an Obama debate, my comment was in response to the reactions McCain's actions in the OP received. I've said several times throughout PS that I don't think Obama is a Muslim (which I could care less if he was as long as he wasn't a radical that diverged from the traditional beliefs of Muslims), terrorist, etc.

 

[VRBeauty]

Date: 10/11/2008 9:43:50 AM
Author: ksinger
Sorry, I''m not giving him kudos for any of this. To create this Frankenstein monster of hate he seems intent on creating and then go ''Uh oh...um...sorry'' at the 11th hour doesn''t impress me at all. So he figured it out. Big deal. It''s a scorched earth tactic of desperation and who is going to pick up the pieces and heal the wounds when the dust settles? To stoke the fires of polarization right now is the lowest tactic I can think of. He could have shown leadership from the start and ''led'' his supporters to a more reasoned and calm tone, but he did not. My respect for him dies a more certain death with every passing day.

Well put, Lauren.

IMO, using your position in an organization to give money to a program that espouses radical education means that you support them or you at least don''t think they are promoting anything wrong.

Here''s what Newsweek had to say about the grant:

there''s simply no evidence that the CAC (or, by extension, Obama) supported, shared or helped implement a particularly radical agenda in Chicago. "In fact," writes Education Week, "the project undertaken in Chicago as part of a high-profile national initiative reflected mainstream thinking among education reformers. The Annenberg Foundation’s $49.2 million grant in the city focused on three priorities: encouraging collaboration among teachers and better professional development; reducing the isolation between schools and between schools and their communities; and reducing school size to improve learning." Here''s more from a 2003 report by the Chicago Consortium on School Research assessing the CAC''s (rather limited) impact:

The Chicago Challenge did not articulate specific goals for individual school development, nor did it specify any specific activities or processes to follow. Rather, it believed that educators, parents and community members could and should identify their own ways to solve local problems and improve their schools. The Challenge initially encouraged schools to focus their efforts on three basic problems of school organization that were seen as obstacles to improvement: a) the lack of time for effective teaching, student learning and teacher professional development; b) the large size of school enrollments and instructional groups hindering the development of personalized, supportive adult-student relationships; and c) schools'' isolation from parents and communities, which reduced their responsiveness to local needs and their accountability to their most immediate constituents.

Sound pedestrian? That''s because it is. As conservative blogger Ross Douthat of the Atlantic has written, this is "as far as the Ayers issue can take you on substance, and it isn''t very far at all."

The article speaks directly to the use of innuendo to create the fear that McCain is now trying to distance himself from:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/10/assessing-ayers-innuendo-vs-information.aspx

BTW I have served on a committee that provides grant funding... we probably provided about $50 million during my tenure. My concern about my fellow committee members is limited to: were they properly appointed? Do they consider all of the information in front of us in making their decisions? Do they recuse themselves from discussions and deicisions in which they have a conflict of interest? Are they respectful of others on the Committee and the professional analysts that advise us?

Of course it''s important to be aware of the expertise and biases each person brings to the table, but... If I had pulled out of the committee because of a disagreement with another committee member''s politics, I would not have been doing my job. I also don''t consider myself to have been in any way tainted by my association with whomever might have been on that committee with me.

 

[luckystar112]

What''s up with the one-liner responses to someone''s thought out point of view?

Here is what I don''t get:
I don''t get how when McCain first brought up Ayers, everyone and their mother were eye-rolling and saying "Hillary already brought this up during the primaries!" but now that new information has come out, and McCain is rolling with it, he''s
"playing dirty" or "leading people to believe Obama is a terrorist". McCain is pointing out Obama''s lack of judgment and dishonesty, not saying that Obama himself is a terrorist (and no, I''m not kidding!

). There is a difference.

McCain should not be held accountable for people who have come to this conclusion or the conclusion that Obama is Muslim because these were ideas that have been around long before McCain won the nomination. It is not McCain''s responsibility to play PR for Obama.

With that being said, I think it is perfectly acceptable and within our rights to question Obama''s ties. But instead of people questioning why Obama keeps blowing off this information, they are accusing McCain of smearing, and it makes him look like a bully. I think that''s a huge concern because everything that has come out recently is closely related.

Finally, I posted an article on the Rep thread a while back that showed how Dem''s in Virginia still believed he was a muslim. McCain can''t take the heat for public opinion. Perhaps Obama''s people should stop throwing around the word "racism" with every single criticism that is thrown Obama''s way and address the concerns thoroughly. But the day Obama does that is the day that Palin gives a press conference on the troopergate findings.

 

[E B]

lucky,

The Ayers 'connection' is a non-story. If you'll read what VRBeauty posted above, as well as articles from places other than Fox and NRO, you'll find that even Republicans who have worked with both Obama and Ayers find the guilt by association ridiculous.

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

Nelson says her fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life ... but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought."

"I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background," says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. "And that included everybody I was engaged with," including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.

Hallett calls this attack on Obama's association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, "a smear campaign. It's a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous."

Obama's Links to Ex-Radical Revisited

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/11/2008 5:00:04 PM
Author: EBree
lucky,

The Ayers 'connection' is a non-story. If you'll read what VRBeauty posted above, as well as articles from places other than Fox and NRO, you'll find that even Republicans who have worked with both Obama and Ayers find the guilt by association ridiculous.

'It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier,' said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. 'It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly.'

Nelson says her fellow Republicans 'might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life ... but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought.'

'I don't remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background,' says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. 'And that included everybody I was engaged with,' including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.

Hallett calls this attack on Obama's association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, 'a smear campaign. It's a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous.'

Obama's Links to Ex-Radical Revisited

Thanks Ebree, but I'll have you know that I do read articles from sources other than Fox or the NRO. Not sure why you felt you had to point that finger, insinuating that I am not open to other points of views. It's kind of insulting.

Maybe that's an easy jab for you, since I'm a republican?

Anyway, I'm off to read the article you linked now. Forgive me for not noticing VRs post before I posted mine, as I was still typing as she was posting. As for the snippets you included in your post, I didn't really get anything from that. It is no secret that some people think the Ayer's connection is ridiculous while others believe the opposite. Since that is all I have read so far I'll be sure to read the full article right now.

 

[E B]

lucky,

I apologize for saying you only read articles from Fox and NRO. I'm just tired of all of this finger-pointing back and forth so close to the election. So far, I haven't read a single piece of seriously damning evidence linking Obama to Ayers in any wrongdoing, which is why I find the subject to be a waste of time. As does much of America.

With 20-something days until the election and trailing Obama in the polls, I think the McCain campaign's time is best spent talking about all the good he plans to do for this country, not trying to link Obama with as many people who've had shady pasts as possible. ESPECIALLY given McCain's actual involvement with a man who ruined the lives of many, many people and is actually relevant in light of the current financial crisis.

Besides, all the smearing is doing nothing for McCain and Palin in the polls: Current Polling

 

[Anna0499]

Well, those who don't McCain and think his campaign strategy stinks should be happy I would think. As far as the Newsweek blog - I can post several links that state the exact opposite but I will spare the thread. You can probably find them on the RNC thread if you want to read them. I don't want to turn this into a my links/sources v. your links/sources thing though. His association with Ayers is the least of my reservations (I am more disturbed by Al-Mansour personally), but it is an issue to me - I don't expect it to me an issue to everyone. It is clear that he was more than just a guy in Obama's neighborhood, though. This thread was started to discuss McCain's recent actions in preventing a misled supporter from proclaiming inaccurate statements about Obama so I'll get back on topic - McCain obviously didn't win any points with some Obama supporters but I'm glad that it happened.

ETA: I'm not trying to be snarky or stir anything up with my posts here - apologies for any misspeak.

 

[Lannie]

Here''s a follow up with the woman who went on at the McCain rally to say that Obama''s an Arab before McCain corrected her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOU9xZ4zcss

People like this really scare me. Misinformed fearful people spreading more misinformation and fear. How does one even reason with someone like this? It makes me so sad to see such ignorance.

xposted

 

[luckystar112]

That lady is unstable, and that reporter is taking total advantage of her.

 

[Lannie]

Date: 10/11/2008 7:34:46 PM
Author: luckystar112
That lady is unstable, and that reporter is taking total advantage of her.

That woman is clearly aware of what she''s saying. He''s asking her the same questions other people she''ll try to spread her misinformation to would ask.

She told him what he thought, he asked her to confirm his understanding of what she meant, she confirmed it. She clearly believes what she is saying is the truth and she freely admits to spreading her misinformation by discussions and mailing''s.

As much as I feel bad for that woman, it''s not for the same reasons as you. I feel bad for her because of the insane amount of ignorance she''s displaying and the insane amount of ignorance she''s been led to believe.

 

[luckystar112]

Just because she is fully aware of what she is saying and believes what she is saying does not mean that she is stable. We kind of share the same point, and we feel bad for her for the same reasons (where in my post did I allude to why I feel bad for her?).
So, we're in agreement.

ETA: But I stick to my opinion above again, that these theories of Obama cannot be blamed soley on the republican party, not that you're saying that.

 

[luckystar112]

P.S. I just watched the vid on my livingroom TV where the sound is obviously amped up more than on the net (the original one, where McCain corrects her) and when she called Obama an Arab you could hear the shocked reactions that she said that. So that''s comforting.

 

[swimmer]

Another Republican, long-time friend and supporter of McCain blasts him for going so negative: link

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 10/12/2008 11:45:40 AM
Author: swimmer
Another Republican, long-time friend and supporter of McCain blasts him for going so negative: link

Great op-ed. Below are the first few paragraphs:

McCain''s attacks fuel dangerous hatred
By Frank Schaeffer
October 10, 2008
John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as "not one of us," I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.

At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, "Kill him!" At one of your rallies, someone called out, "Terrorist!" Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.

Shame!

John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.

John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that surround the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post- 9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are a bitterly divided country on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there.

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.