The Audacity of Blame

re: McCain's Audacious Blame Game

enufsaid — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:20:59 GMT

What kind of person would shirk his bipartisan duty and use the impending economic apocalypse as an opportunity point fingers at his political opponents?

Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, thats who!

re: McCain's Audacious Blame Game

FlaLady — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:26:55 GMT

www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

The video says it all--who's to blame! PASS IT ON

re: The Audacity of Blame

Ironworker/USA — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:48:40 GMT

You're doing just fine McCan't! Keep up the good work.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

re: The Audacity of Blame

willnotvoteobama — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:17:44 GMT

Some October surprises that can happen! Obama gets named by resko in his federal deal and is ordered to appear before a federal court to face charges! Or Larry Sinclair videotape emerges with proof that Obama did have a homosexual affair! Or the Michelle Obama whitey tape comes out or a terrorist attack in an u.s. city (god help us) or Iran attacks Israel and makes an announcement that they have a nuclear Wepons! Or Pakistan breaks into two different factions and one is a terrorist regime! So many things can happen!

re: The Audacity of Blame

Augustman53 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:42:18 GMT

The only October surprise that I see is McCain waking up to reality, and listening to his party, and dismiss the "hockey mom" from the ticket. Hey wilnotvote, here's a proposition, why not hold your breath with the belief one of your "prayes" will result in an October surprise?

re: The Audacity of Blame

Augustman53 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:42:52 GMT

re: The Audacity of Blame

Proud Democrat — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:51:35 GMT

All McShame does is blame. He doesn't like tonight's moderrator, but Brian Williams has moderated, he's obviously on the Conservative side, but no one complained about him. He blames Obama for things that happened before Obama was even a Senator. He blames the meida for all Palin's bad press, but never looks to her as the reason for the bad press. The man has nothing to stand on for himself, and I, for one, am tired of all his references to his POW years. Yes, that was horrible, but there are thousands of people who have been POW's, kidnapped victims, etc, and do you think all of them are fit to be President just bacause of that?

re: The Audacity of Blame

Beka13 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:15:33 GMT

Why do Republicans think that if there is an October surprise that it will automatically hurt Obama?

re: The Audacity of Blame

queenie — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:17:39 GMT

Nancy Pelosi blaming the Republicans for this crisis was unfortunately for them, fact. Amazing that the hurt feelings of the Republicans trumps what is right for the country. The policies of the Bush administration brought all of this on, and McCain voting with him most of the time indicates MORE OF THE SAME if he is elected. To Willnotvoteobama - your vision of the future is so hopeful and positive! Glad you're not on our side!

re: The Audacity of Blame

Bluegrass Woman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:17:48 GMT

I am surprised and happy to see that the "conservative" Americans are not as stupid and bigoted as I once thought. I guess they are just slow to realize that white doesn't always equal right. What people of color and intelligent, informed whites saw as an under educated, silly woman who was able to read a teleprompter; white conservatives saw as the answer to their prayers....one of them.

I don't believe McCain believes his own affirmation of Palin's qualifacations; but, that if he says she's qualified often enough, others will believe him.

re: The Audacity of Blame

goddy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:20:34 GMT

McCain won the republican primary long before his democratic opponent which means he had ample time to put together a solid plan for a smooth or silky path to November 4th. What baffles me is why couldn't he do that?. I think the times are a little too terrifying for someone who has ad infinitum, been flummoxed by emergent events to be at the helm of the leader of world affairs.

re: The Audacity of Blame

Prat_24 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:35:43 GMT

What insults me is that McCain and company think people are stupid enough to buy into his blame game and negative ads. Voters see through his hypocritical blather and will punish him for it in the voting booth.

re: The Audacity of Blame

stacon — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:40:12 GMT

I thought Hilary to be a pathological liar, but McCain makes her look like a saint by comparison. Hilary's redeeming qualities were her knowledge of the issues and her competency with getting things done. McCain is a reckless, undisciplined, shameless, unprincipled disgrace, lurching blindly from one blunder to the next. Even when they blow up in his face he refuses to acknowledge he was wrong. Sounds a lot like someone we are all too familiar with, someone he is running hard to distance himself from, George Bush.

re: The Audacity of Blame

mikemaj — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:49:34 GMT

Country First - my foot. Selecting Sarah Palin as a running back in itself shows that McCain is more interested in winning the election then the Country. Any American who tryly believes the best for America should have picked a running mate who the country could belive will be equally a capable individual if not more.

Suspending the campaingn, only a stupid can believe that he put Country First. His only motive was to shake up the things as he saw the polls. My advise to all those retirees, if McCain wins, plan to move to a Country where you can have peace of mind. I am planning to do that.

re: The Audacity of Blame

rohario — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:06:33 GMT

Sarah Palin doesn't have enough insight to realize she is not qualified to be the Vice President. I want someone who is thoughtful and blinks many times before making a decision Her lack of knowledge of the issues is embarassing. Her decision to run was as ridiculous as McCains was to ask her.

re: The Audacity of Blame

icepick — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:27:50 GMT

McCain speaks about cutting out pork barrel spending and identifying those who bring it about, yet he said nothing about the $100M added to the bail out. When questioned on MSNBC this morning, all he said was that he was going to put a stop to it when he is president. Anyone who voted yes on this bill doesn't deserve to be even a senator, this includes Obama as well, and I was going to vote for him for president.

re: The Audacity of Blame

SouthernGentleman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:29:42 GMT

Should we expect anything else of McCain? He has proven what he is and America just needs to accept that he has sold his soul to the Republican political elite.

re: The Audacity of Blame

sparky716 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:32:11 GMT

McBlame scares me he flip flops on everything, can't remember anything (how many houses he owns or what kind of car he drives) His decision's are scarey...I don't think his mind is sound enough to be president...look at his pick for vp...Palin a post turtle.....Whats a post turtle? your driving down a road and see a turtle balanced on top of a post....you know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there,and she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of nut put her up there to begin with....when I read that I thought how true, sad but true...McBush is 72 has cancer so that puts her one heart beat away from being president....now that really scares the hell out of me and it should scare you to.

re: The Audacity of Blame

cheesedad — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:42:43 GMT

There is nothing new here. McCain is the King of blaming others and creating ads that are just plain inaccurate, often by 100%. He has no ethics. He is just a politician who will sell his soul to be elected.

Many Americans are dumb enough to believe him, buy fortunately, not a majority.

The "old" John McCain was not a bad guy. The "current" John McCain is a loser for the ages. It is hard to believe that he would sacrifice his reputation in an attempt to win this election.

re: The Audacity of Blame

jgeisler — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:57:49 GMT

The thing that is most disheartening to me about the current John McCain, is that he used to be at least partially admirable. He did speak straight at times and seemed above partisianship. But that fact that he has made an actual CHOICE to take the low road is despicalblle. Some politicians, you feel like they can't help it or don't know any better, but by CHOOSING, McCain obviously knows the difference and has decided to trade his soul by doing things that are just ethically wrong. Just because it's political doesn't mean lying is any more acceptable.

Sad and shameful.

re: The Audacity of Blame

widollar — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:08:15 GMT

John McCain is a shallow, vindictive, hot head with absolutely no good ideas for cleaning up the horrible mess that has been created by the corrupt Bush regime. As to Sarah Palin, McCain should be embarrassed but of course he is not because the only time any crowds show up is to see Sister Sarah, the talking in tongues Lady Tundra from the North.

re: The Audacity of Blame

tom2009 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:40:04 GMT

I would have voted for the old John McCain any time. The problem is he is not the same guy any more. He has become this phony, Christian Right wannabe, bizarre creature. Obama will win this election in a landeslide. Besides, given how the deregulation philosophy of the Republican party has destroyed our economy, how would any sane person vote for the same people who have created this disaster in the first place?

re: The Audacity of Blame

queenbeethatsme — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:48:50 GMT

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...AHEM (WHEW!!) HEH HEH

re: The Audacity of Blame

RiversideWarrior — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:56:15 GMT

McGrumpy has evidently not been taking his meds lately, especially given his most recent outburst that "life isn't fair" wah-wah-wah-wah, I'm crying a river of tears for him and Sarrah Barrah Cuddah the RedNeck Princess.

re: The Audacity of Blame

John Loves Peace — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:14:06 GMT

There's no fool like an old fool...unless it's one that has thrown aside every moral and ethical principle that he supposedly lived by...not to mention lacking rational thought by picking the out-of-her-league VP running mate he now has.

re: The Audacity of Blame

paulte — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:23:29 GMT

Stumper has a point here. The blame game is a no brainer. And McCain running back to the Senate because of the financial crisis was just political theatre.

McCain should just start talking conservative here. Will the credit markets freeze up because of this crisis? If so, then a bailout is necessary but why not make it a loan or a semi-loan instead of a partial freebie? Main Street won't complain about the bailout if Wall Street becomes mortgaged to the govt for the $700B with interest.

The govt buys up the bad loans and the credit markets are freed up. When the time is ripe the govt sells off the assets it got from the bad loans it bought. This will bring in a significant portion of the $700B. Then when Wall Street starts turninng a profit, it begins to pay back the differential between the $700B and what the govt recoups from the assets of the bad loans. I would suggest a 3% tax on profits for 30 years on the Wall Street financial institutions which benefit from the bailout. They pay back what they can on the differential. If they pay it all, then they start to pay back interest on the base. But after 30 years they are set free.

Next McCain needs to do something about Sarah Palin. She is not qualified to step into his shoes if he does not complete his first term. She is becoming a drag on the ticket. Obama has regained his advantage over McCain in the polls and is now increasing it. Sarah is not really attracting many women and white Christian conservative women will vote for Mc Cain anyway.

Sarah needs to step aside so he can pick a pro-life & conservative white male for VP to maintain his hold on the base, whites, males, Evangelicals, conservatives & pro-lifers. I would suggest Pawlenty, a person he should have picked originally.

re: The Audacity of Blame

Congram — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:27:02 GMT

It has gotten to the point that it is just sad...it seems all he has left is anger and false accuisations. What a great roll model for our youth. Vote for the guy with one car and one house. November 4 can not get here fast enough.

re: The Audacity of Blame

CoffeeeCandy2 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:33:29 GMT

willnotvoteobama .. WOW you really are trying to expect a lot to happen in OCT Humm Maybe you and the McCain people are planing something to all of a SUDDEN POP UP .. Fraud, lies, will POP UP only ! .. and that will make it worst for theMcCain party so Why don't you be the Best Little Supporter you can be and Write to your party and tell them PLEASE do not try any rotten things to the Obama camp you will get caught! Same ole tactics same good ole boy politics

re: The Audacity of Blame

CoffeeeCandy2 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:38:34 GMT

If the McCain camp tries and do something with Palin it will just look like McCain (which we all know ) made a bad call .. however this bad call is what he would leave for our Country if something were to happen to him. This shows he was intersted only in wining not the best for our Country and if people that have just an ounce of sense can not see this I feel sorry for this Country

re: The Audacity of Blame

katiec — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:48:42 GMT

Mccain can do nothing but blame others as he and his republicans are totally

responsible for what has happened to our country.

The king of de-regulation will in no way take the blame for anything.

His continuous lies, distortions and attacks have given the American

voters insight into how incompetent, dishonorable he would be as

a leader of our country.

We cannot elect a man we cannot trust and Mccain has thrown all

integrity, honor away in his quest for win.

re: The Audacity of Blame

MG of IL — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:50:41 GMT

This late in the game it's a little too late to try and make things right - John McCain cannot undo the lies, change the twisted facts or change the public opinion of himself and his vice-presidential nominee. These choices were John McCain's - his decisions - his judgment, right or wrong.

If all John McCain has left is more of the same - lies, dishonesty, manipulation, deceit and anger then he's already lost. I've never supported John McCain or the Republicans in general - however, at one time John McCain seemed above politics as usual - this campaign certainly has shown a different light on him.

re: The Audacity of Blame

Hillary Dem — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:53:47 GMT

I too, was fascinated to hear McCain, the big anti-pork king, try to justify his approval of this horrible bill. He couldn't. I might have actually begun to admire him again had he voted "NO" and stood on his principles. But, no, he had to go along with Bush. I am angry at all the Senators who voted for this, including Biden and Obama. I am praying the House will come through yet again, and take the pork out of this-it's worse than the original bill now.

re: The Audacity of Blame

NOLARunman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:29:41 GMT

I am amazed and befuddled simultaneously at the person McCain has morped into all to satisfy his ego of being able to call himself The President. He uses lies, half truths and innuendo more than any politician I have ever witnessed. He is using the very type of politics he stated such disdain for. The same type tactics that were used against him by Bush/Rove. I can now say McCain is a Liar.

re: The Audacity of Blame

ShootTheBiasLiberalMedia — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:37:20 GMT

Sad how the Liberal media is to point out McCain's ads this week and how quiet they were in past weeks ... OBAMA who was supposed to not play politics as usual seems to have the media Wrapped...

Barrak Osama ...i mean ...OBAMA had 77% Negative ads versis McCain's 56%...!!!

Where was the media then? humm?

Politics AS USUAL OBAMA... 3 years in office and you didn't change anything in the Congress !

You voted 100% with your party... not change just the same ...

Actually we are doing WORSE economically then in 2006 when YOU were handed the senate seat...

What reasonable INFORMED voter would Ever pick you... wow...

QUOTE:

Despite perceptions that John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona senator, says a new study released today.

Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican convention, compared to 56 percent of the spots run by McCain.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_airs_more_negative_ads_s.html

re: The Audacity of Blame

Jack 8590 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:46:21 GMT

ShootTheBias.....

Are you too biased to get the point?

Obama ran more negative ads - agreed.

But he didn't run ads that said we have to stop fixing blame and start fixing problems when the sentence right before that blamed Obama for all the problems.

That's the difference.

And you know what? I don;t blame McCain - it's his handlers that are being dumb.

re: The Audacity of Blame

Fattddaddy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:09:35 GMT

I voted for McCain in the SC primary in 1999....I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher today. He has morphed into George W and is totally out of sync with America. It is not that I am partial to Obama, but please....not one single idea that Bush doesn't espouse.

If I hear "he is a hero" one more time, I'll puke. Hero is someone who has earned your admiration and devotion...and that boat sailed a while ago. To admire someone for an occurrence 40 years ago and to see his behavior today is not, is not heroic.

re: The Audacity of Blame

VAvoter — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:24:55 GMT

This is a serious question. Has McCain had a brain scan done? I know his vast medical records were released only in a very limited way, so we may not have the answer to the question. I am trying to fathom some rational to his erratic behavior. The best excuse I can think of for him is that he is suffering some type of brain malfunction. Otherwise he would surely realize that at least some of us would notice that his position changes almost daily if not more than once in a day. And that his behacior and conflicting statements would seriously damage his credibility. Whatever the reason, it is sad to see someone I used to admire operating in such a diminished way.

re: The Audacity of Blame

mjw1978 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:27:48 GMT

It is really sad to see an American Hero reduced to this. Senator McCain had to become George W Lite to win the GOP's nomination and that's a recipe for failure to win the general election. The dye has been cast on the McCain Campaign and President Bush and it says FAILURE. The American People can hardly wait to rid itself of the last 8 years and the Republican Philosophy. Can we all say President-elect obama?

re: The Audacity of Blame

RI_MAAM — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:11:41 GMT

It's pretty kool that McCain has actually admitted to loving Barack Obama's message so much that he's decided to makea comercial using Barack's speach almost verbatum (we are the United States of America....).

The man is losing his credibility/dignity in wanting to continue grasping so desperetaly ro power and prestige in seeking this higher office. I have no idea what mentality would make someone who appears so tired to do this, when it is clear Obama is brilliant, forward thinking, level headed, and just the person we need to lead us away from this path towards hell in isolation. Is he blind to reality? Are his supporters so affraid of a little difference they're ready to sacrifice the future of this country any further?

I'm ambivalent about some things, but the path we need to have the regal and credible future we enjoyed in the past is beyond obvious.

re: The Audacity of Blame

Space Ghost — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:16:50 GMT

Seriously, Sen. Mcain has a credibility problem. He is suffering from the effects of the Hanoi Hilton. He is totally out of touch with reality. His advisors apparently have no clue as to the tenor and temperment of the country. His judgment is seriously flawed, as exposed by his pick of Sarah Pallin. He as sold his soul to the Devil and is reaping the repercussions; he should have known the devil was going to trick him. Well you reap what you sow

re: The Audacity of Blame

pto11pto — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:19:22 GMT

The audacity of hope is that it is a "SWEET and SOUR" dish (chicken or pork). Someone is confused by the bipartisan ("RED and BLUE"). We are in financial and foreign policy cirsis now. We need the leadership.

re: The Audacity of Blame

sieg6529 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:20:57 GMT

Who's to say that 5 years as a POW might not have knocked a few screws loose?

re: The Audacity of Blame

willnotvoteobama — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:09:04 GMT

to pto11pto , just so you know your audacity of hope "sweet and sour" will have to be chicken barack obama don't eat pork ! claiming that his choice is for health ! but most think its for a different reason ! after all pork is a healthy dish if prepared correctly! the only "pork " you'll see for obama is in his bills !

re: The Audacity of Blame

willnotvoteobama — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:30:55 GMT

Biden voted in 1999 for deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now.

Biden Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut."

Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.

During the debate, Biden said, "Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record! My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology.”.... However, during an early campaign stop once he was announced as VP Candidate, Biden said, "No coal plants here in America. If they’re going to build them, over there [China]. Make them clean. We’re not supporting clean coal.”. One of the most upsetting lines last night in the debate was Biden's attempt to say that he didn't know he was voting on a War resolution? I'm sorry but someone who has been in the Senate since Nixon didn't know he was voting on a War resolution when he voted on the Iraq War! Let me ask you people does he think we are stupid? Or is he just stupid? Either way if a seasoned senator doesn't know when he's voting on a war resolution we have bigger problems in Washington then we know! And we certainly do not need a VP like that sitting with an inexperienced president! If you think things are unstable now wait and see what will happen if God Forbid Obama and Biden get to the White House… Sarah Palin did great last night. She was able to manipulate the debate by bringing the talking points back to the issues that she wanted to talk about to the American people! McCain / Palin will be a breath of fresh air for this country and will make a great president and vice president. The age of Obama will end November 4th

re: The Audacity of Blame

VoteForChange08 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:45:04 GMT

-Willnotvteobama

Funny that you should find that one of the most upsetting lines in the debate last night, for me the most upsetting line was Sarah Palin's diluted understanding of the Constitution in claiming that it allowed for "an expanded role of the VP in the Senate". The constitution is very clear on the responsibilities of the VP, one to preside over the senate and vote only in the case of a tie vote, and two to assume office in the event of the President being unable to serve.

I find it horrifying that she would attempt to rewrite the Constitution to expand the role of the Vice President beyond that of even Dick Cheney who has probably expanded the role more than anyone before him, for the worse. The last thing we need is this flake exerting her uneducated will upon us in any way shape or form don't cha know.

Also, I find it enlightening that you have such a great understanding of McCain's policy on tax breaks as no one else in the country does. Not even John McCain I would imagine since the republican ticket has intentionally failed to give specifics on any of their meaningful policies throughout the duration of this campaign.

Perhaps you could also enlighten us on how taxing health benefits will benefit the middle class since Sarah decided to answer an entirely different question when asked about it and John McCain failed to discuss it in the last debate after being posed the question by Obama.

I'll take real change for a thousand please Alex...

Answer there, "Obama/Biden '08"

re: The Audacity of Blame

VoteForChange08 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:48:46 GMT

Additionally Willnotvoteforobama,

Thank you for cutting and pasting your critiques of Biden verbatim from the AP article. In the future comment sections are intended to provide an opportunity to freely express your thoughts on an issue, do you have any independently formed thoughts or are you just another puppet of the right?

The problem with what you did is that, 1) this story was already picked up by several major publication and printed in it's entirety (if anyone would like to read the article please google "Biden deregulation" and you can have your pick of the publication you like), and 2) you gave only one side of the article and failed to mention the equally egregious gaffes by your beloved SP. Do you perhaps have a job with the news branch of Fox Broadcasting? If not, they can always use another person like you so you might consider looking into your employment opportunities with them.

Please leave the news reporting to the professionals and stick to providing your "comments" on other peoples new stories!

With Kind Regards,

re: The Audacity of Blame

willnotvoteobama — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:46:47 GMT

DEAR MR. OBAMA,

I am that segment of America you all currently call Main Street. I am as Middle America as middle gets. I have much more than blue collar roots. Well at least you could see Dad’s blue collar, rest his black lung racked soul, when he shook the coal dust out of it. I also did some time on the factory floor in Chicago before enlisting in the Army. There was no community organizer pretending to look out for me.

Life is not always easy out here where people live a real life, but most of us wouldn’t trade it for anything else that the rest of the world, including the alternate universes you live in, has to offer us. Your universe? That is where the basic principles of honor and morality were discarded long ago replaced by self-adulation. You lie to one another; you lie to us and worst of all you, with relative ease, you can look at your image in the mirror and lie to yourselves - all for the sake of political power, some self-perceived prestige or some utopian ideology that history has repeatedly proven a failure.

I am not the Joe Six-pack you envision. I know you better than you know yourselves and that of course will ultimately lead to your end. For us intellectually deficient out here that name just calls up an image of someone who is quite average, but I know what you see when you use it. That term of elitist endearment gives you an image of some pot bellied guy, wandering out of the liquor store with a 12 pack of beer, lottery tickets and half his butt crack sticking out from his jeans. Mr. Six-pack is your guy. He didn’t work today or most days because you extended his unemployment insurance. Your bus will pick him up on Election Day and you will give him a carton of smokes, promises of more of my money and maybe even a mortgage he can’t pay back for his vote. I don’t know what other images you get in your mind whenever you refer to me and the many millions like me who happen to populate this great land with one of those expressions you use to demonstrate just how in touch with us you really are. Your actions lead me to believe that you see a pathetic imbecile that cannot survive without your grand intervention, a collection of bitter, uneducated people clinging to guns and Bibles.

Maybe I should offer you another image. I go to work every day. I provide goods and services that people want and need. I get grease and dirt beneath my fingernails turning the wrenches that keep our great and free country chugging steadily along. I serve in the Police Departments, Fire Departments and Armed Forces of my country. I do many other necessary jobs that are probably well beneath your oversized egos and those prestigious educations of which you are so proud. I pay taxes. You waste them. I pay your salary by reading what you write; watching the movies you make and tuning in to the nightly propaganda productions you call objective journalism. If I contributed as little to my country materially and socially as you do, I could not earn a living out here in the real America. Neither could you. Your product, your Washington Speak and Hollywood nonsense have become quite stale. Imagine a place where a Barbara Walters enabled Whoopi Goldberg can call someone else stupid and you have the center of your universe.

In the past few weeks, we have come to know you even better. You have always tried to use class warfare to gain political power. Always pretending that you actually give a rat’s ass about Joe Six-pack living on Main Street, Middle America. No, Joe and everyone representative of Joe are just stage props for you. When you take off the tie, roll up your shirt sleeves being careful to not drop the cuff links, and walk the rope line talking pap about how deeply you feel Joe’s pain, it does not convince anyone that you are like us. When you media types, Hollywood nitwits, Beltway pundits and bandits dedicate all of your time trying to convince yourselves that the only way one from our working class could ever enter the Whitehouse is on a tour or with the janitorial crew then you have the class war you have always sought.

We’ll see you on Election Day.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/JDPendry?a=6zC2mhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/JDPendry?a=6zC2m

re: The Audacity of Blame

willnotvoteobama — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:12:29 GMT

What if Barack Obama's most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you'd know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I'd wager, does Barack Obama.

This is a story we've largely missed. While Obama's Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal "motor-voter" bill. In fact, Obama's Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama's role as an Acorn "leadership trainer" is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama's ties to Acorn.

An Anti-Capitalism Agenda

To understand the nature and extent of Acorn's radicalism, an excellent place to begin is Sol Stern's 2003 City Journal article, "ACORN's Nutty Regime for Cities." (For a shorter but helpful piece, try Steven Malanga's "Acorn Squash.")

Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960's "New Left," with a "1960's-bred agenda of anti-capitalism" to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of "one of the New Left's silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization." In the 1960's, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force "a radical reconstruction of America's unjust capitalist economy." Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America's inner cities - until welfare reform began to turn the tide.

While Acorn holds to NWRO's radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960's-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas - where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often "slow to grasp how radical Acorn's positions really are." Acorn's new goals are municipal "living wage" laws targeting "big-box" stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks - efforts styled as combating "predatory lending." Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn's living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn's opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive "donations" that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.

According to Stern, Acorn's radical agenda sometimes shifts toward "undisguised authoritarian socialism." Fully aware of its living-wage campaign's tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain "exit visas." "How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?" asks Stern, adding, "This is the road to serfdom indeed."

In Your Face

Acorn's tactics are famously "in your face." Just think of Code Pink's well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you'll get the idea. Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers' dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor's home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.

Acorn, however, defiantly touts its confrontational tactics. While Stern himself notes this, the point is driven home sharper still in an Acorn-friendly reply to Stern entitled "Enraging the Right." Written by academic/activists John Atlas and Peter Dreier, the reply's avowed intent is to convince Acorn-friendly politicians, journalists, and funders not to desert the organization in the wake of Stern's powerful critique. The stunning thing about this supposed rebuttal is that it confirms nearly everything Stern says. Do Atlas and Dreier object to Stern's characterizations of Acorn's radical plans - even his slippery-slope warnings about Acorn's designs on basic freedom of movement? Nope. "Stern accurately outlines Acorn's agenda," they say.

Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern's catalogue of Acorn's disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn's rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn's various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.

But don't let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn's key post-New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago's Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist "New Party."

Obama Meets Acorn

What has Barack Obama got to do with all this? Plenty. Let's begin with Obama's pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Few people have a clear idea of just what a "community organizer" does. A Los Angeles Times piece on Obama's early Chicago days opens with the touching story of his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago's "Friends of the Parks," so that parents in a blighted neighborhood could have an inviting spot for their kids to play. This is the image of Obama's organizing we're supposed to hold. It's far from the whole story, however. As the L. A. Times puts it, "Obama's task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement" in their communities. Part of Obama's work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.

Although the L. A. Times piece is generally positive, it does press Obama's organizing tales on certain points. Some claim that Obama's book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Obama, these critics say, denies due credit to Hazel Johnson, an activist who claims she was the one who actually discovered the asbestos problem and led the efforts to resolve it. Read carefully, the L. A. Times story leans toward confirming this complaint against Obama, yet the story's emphasis is to affirm Obama's important role in the battle. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama's organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

And what exactly was Talbot's work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.

Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn's demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn't get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call "direct action," orchestrated by Acorn's Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train.

Surprise Visit

Does that mean Obama himself schooled Acorn volunteers in disruptive "direct action?" Not necessarily. The City Council storming took place in 1997, years after Obama's early organizing days. And in general, Obama seems to have been part of Acorn's "inside baseball" strategy. As a national star from his law school days, Obama knew he had a political future, and would surely have been reluctant to violate the law. In his early organizing days, Obama used to tell the residents he organized that they'd be more effective in their protests if they controlled their anger. On the other hand, as he established and deepened his association with Acorn through the years, Obama had to know what the organization was all about. Moreover, in his early days, Obama was not exactly a stranger to the "direct action" side of community organizing.

Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.

To rebut this charge, Obama's organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan "actions" that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama's plan, one such group paid a "surprise visit" to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out. Presto! Obama is immunized from charges of having worked exclusively with blacks - but at the cost of granting us a peek at the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy side of his community organizing. Intimidation tactics are revealed, and Obama's alliance with radical Acorn activists like Madeleine Talbot begins to make sense.

"Non-Partisan"

The extent of Obama's ties to Acorn has not been recognized. We find some important details in an article in the journal Social Policy entitled, "Case Study: Chicago - The Barack Obama Campaign," by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader and a member of Acorn's National Association Board. The odd thing about this article is that Foulkes is forced to protect the technically "non-partisan" status of Acorn's get-out-the-vote campaigns, even as he does everything in his power to give Acorn credit for helping its favorite son win the critical 2004 primary that secured Obama the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Before giving us a tour of Acorn's pro-Obama but somehow "non-partisan" election activities, Foulks treats us to a brief history of Obama's ties to Acorn. While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn's "motor voter" case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama's representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama's post-law school role organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama's yearly service as a key figure in Acorn's leadership-training seminars.

At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama's role in training Acorn's leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama's long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama's early political campaigns - his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were "old friends," says Foulkes.

So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama's political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama's years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn's signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as "the Senator from Acorn."

Foundation Money

Although it's been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the period of Obama's service on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

According to the New York Times, Obama's memberships on those foundation boards, "allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants" to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, "whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race." As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and "non-partisan" arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn's political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn's endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.

Supposedly, Acorn's political arm is segregated from its "non-partisan" registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes' case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I'm not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes' account, Acorn's get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of "non-partisanship."

Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.

In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, "Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?" which includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once resided. According to Bechtle, "It's clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome," and reading Foulkes's case study of Acorn's role in Obama's U.S. Senate campaign, one can't help but agree.

Radical Obama

Important as these questions of funding and partisanship are, the larger point is that Obama's ties to Acorn - arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country - are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn's leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it's clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face "direct action" game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.

The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama's stomping grounds, it found the park he'd helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the "progressive" fashion. Unfortunately, Obama's Acorn cronies have blocked that solution.

In any case, if you're looking for the piece of the puzzle that confirms and explains Obama's network of radical ties, gather your Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the "President from Acorn" at his feast.

By Stanley Kurtz

National Review Online