As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.
For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.
If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid advertising to do it.
For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama. He should ask voters, “Did you know that:
Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:
Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.
Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.
Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?
Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.
There is more, of course. Do voters know:
That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?
That Jeremiah Wright wasn’t Obama’s first radical mentor? As a young man in Hawaii, Obama had a quasi-filial relationship with radical Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party of the USA. In fact, in his memoirs, Obama concedes that he attended “socialist conferences” and encountered Marxist literature. (Now imagine the outcry if a Republican presidential candidate had such ties to a Nazi).
That the People's Weekly World – the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the USA – has rhapsodized about Obama’s presidential campaign, calling it a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term"? (Think about how the press would react if a fascist newspaper heaped such praise on McCain.)
That Obama has routinely tried to intimidate his critics into silence? His political organization spearheaded a massive campaign against a Chicago radio show that invited one of his critics to appear – even after being asked (and refusing) to send a representative to balance the program, hosted by a non-partisan University of Chicago psychology professor. Worse, his campaign sought to chill free speech by establishing a “truth squad” of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs, which threatened a “vigorous response” to any ad presenting information about Obama that they deemed to be “inaccurate.” And there are other examples.
That even as America struggles to “bail out” our own struggling economy, Obama backs a global bailout? His Global Poverty Initiative would assess $2500 per taxpayer, according to Investor’s Business Daily, to fund a global war on poverty administered by the UN and its agencies.
That despite touting his academic credentials as a rationale for initiating a campaign for president just two years after leaving the Illinois state legislature, Obama refuses to release either his college or his law school transcripts – just as he sought to keep records of his working relationship with former terrorist Bill Ayers on The Annenberg Challenge (a left-wing educational foundation) safely under wraps? What is it that he doesn’t want voters to know?
Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant. But Americans sense that there is more to Barack Obama than they’ve been told. Having witnessed the media’s own bias and favoritism, they’ve come to suspect – reasonably – that even if any of the rumors were true, the press might choose to conceal them until the election is safely over. What’s more, they wonder: What else is the press not telling us?
Certainly, it would be terribly wrong for John McCain to traffic in rumors. But he doesn’t need to. The truth is more than enough. There are facts that the American people deserve to know – and which the press isn’t telling them. By filling in the gaps that the media has left unmentioned, John McCain isn’t just doing himself a service. He’s doing journalists’ job for them, and allowing Americans to make an informed decision when they head to the polls next month.
10 October 2008
Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?
by Carol Platt Liebau.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Good article. (As so many you post are, I just am a Bad Commenter). I forwarded to lots of people along with the youtube video Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up. I will have that song in my head all the live long day. Or at least until Bush speaks today and I cry. Whatevs.
I agree that we should confront the media's skewed portrayal of the political scene. So I'm extending an invitation to you: Let's fight media bias together. There's been a lot of talk in the corporate media about a Obama/Ayers "association". Some claim that it's been a long time coming.
But I'm still waiting for John McCain to denounce his unwholesome relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. Where is the moral outrage, and who hears cries of conspiracy from the Right regarding mainstream media's suppression of this story?
Read the nasty details in THIS LINK to an article from May.
Here are some highlights:
“How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.
Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?
Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."
All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.
In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.”
Read SERENDIPITY.
G. Gordon Liddy was not a domestic terrorist. Ayers was.
Robocop,
What do you think G. Gordon Liddy was? Do you think he was a "freedom fighter"?
He attempted to sabotage an American election. You guys really are something... bitching about ACORN flagging suspicious registrations before handing them off to election board officials. Yet you want to give a pass to Liddy? You're morally bankrupt.
Well, to paraphrase a comment made in the last debate, If Obama wanted to run against Nixon, he should have ran against him back in 1968 or 1972. Is this the best you can do? Now to take you argument further: Just because a Nixon associate may have rigged an election some 40 years ago,that makes it ok for Obama associates to do the same? Is that not morally corrupt? Is that not desperate? You are morally corrupt for supporting a candidate who has no morals, and will do his best to eradicate what morality is left in this country. Oh, and to jog your memory, election fraud was pointed out to BOTH sides in the Nixon election. Remember the registration of dead people? Like a typical Liberal, your memory is selective.
robocop,
But you see, I don't think that any presidential candidate should be running against a man's "supposed associates", but rather against his/her policy positions. The Obama campaign has never made McCain's associates (and his problematic associates are numerous... Liddy is only a single star in that sky) a major issue in this race. The only reason anyone's talking about Liddy (or Rick Davis, William Timmons, Randy Scheunemann, Charles Keating , Rafaello Follieri, Rick Renzi, Maj. General John K. Singlaub, Rod Parsley, et al.) is because the the Far Right wants to run a smear campaign, rather than talk about real issues. The ironic thing is that the "liberal media) only wants to talk about ACORN, Ayers and Wright. I'm guessing that you aren't even aware of the specific problematic aspects that exist between McCain and the people I mentioned. Why is that? Because talk radio, FOX News, CNN, and the rest of the network won't run stories on these folks without partisan pressure applied to them.
"You are morally corrupt for supporting a candidate who has no morals, and will do his best to eradicate what morality is left in this country."
Ad hominem attacks like this only serve to weaken your argument in the mind of any reasonable individual. It's fortunate for McCain supporters that there are so many unreasonable citizens in the US.
Actually, you fired the first shot by stating "You're morally bankrupt."
As for your assertion that Liddy was brought up because we brought up Ayers, this is an invalid argument. Liddy was a Nixon staff member some 30 plus years ago whose biggest crime was remaining silent during the Watergate scandal. . Ayers is a current associate of a current Presidential candidate. Ayers admits to his terrorist activities, and has NO regrets. So what we have here is an ex-terrorist, who did not regret fighting a war with the United States, who is now in a position to influence presidential politics. To a rational mind, the difference can be seen clearly. As for those associates you have mentioned for McCain, name one who carried out 25 bombings on American soil with no regrets?
You argument was weak from the beginning, as it is now. So is your questioning og McCain supporters. The rational of Obama supporters can be best exemplified by Reverend Wright, Momar Kadaffi, and Code Pink. I guess to the Obama supporter, these are what you would refer to as "reasonable" citizens.
"Liddy was a Nixon staff member some 30 plus years ago whose biggest crime was remaining silent during the Watergate scandal."
This is not true. Breaking-and-entering for the purpose of sabotaging an election is a bigger crime. So is conspiracy to murder and incitement to violence.
Ayers did not carry put 25 bombings on American soil. If you have facts to back up that assertion (with accompanying objective sources like newspapers), then provide them.
Your last paragraph is rife with assertions you cannot prove, and is thus irresponsible. It's simply empty rhetoric.
New York Times
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''
"He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it."
"Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail."
FBI
"the group had claimed credit for 25 bombings and would be involved in many more over the next several years."
The New York Times objective enough for you? The FBI objective enough for you? And before you ask why was there no serious time served for these crimes, two reasons. One was that there was a statute of limitations for all Federal crimes except murder. Second was the order in the 1970's instructing the FBI to dump all their files on left-wing extremist groups. The rhetoric is not so empty.
Robocop,
I think your last comment got him, the bastard does not seem to be coming back.
Wrong Isaac. And watch it with the name-calling. If you have nothing substantial to add then stay out of it.
robocop,
You said "As for those associates you have mentioned for McCain, name one who carried out 25 bombings on American soil with no regrets?"
I challenged you and said to prove that Ayers carried out 25 bombings on US soil. You have been unable to do that, and so it's still empty rhetoric. Your quotes have Ayers saying he participated in three bombings. And even then, he could just be bragging because (as you said) the statute of limitations is over and he can't be prosecuted. Where were the other 22 bombings? I'll be checking in periodically...
Naw, he's back right now.
"And even then, he could just be bragging because (as you said) the statute of limitations is over and he can't be prosecuted."
Is it some thing hardly to brag from a "caring" American. A point that is missed that no true American should carryout any attack on their own government. You seem to have no problem with this past behavior.
"I challenged you and said to prove that Ayers carried out 25 bombings on US soil"
Prove that he didn't. The remark stands. Even if he did not plant the charges,he found a group that DID claim responsibility for 25 attacks. Combining this with the fact that he did admit making bombs,and participated in attacks on the US government, it does not take a rocket scientist to use deductive reasoning that he did participate in those attacks. The "rhetoric" is still full,not empty,or half empty.
"I'll be checking in periodically..."
Cool, I got a fan. Could I add you to my blog roll? I don't think I have had any fans from Pittsburg.
robocop,
This is a guy who, in the tumultuous 60's, decided he couldn't sit quietly and take what his government was dishing out. He was a kid and obviously immature. He set out to do as much property damage as possible. He never killed anyone personally, and from I understand, no one in his group intended to either. They screwed up and caused a tragedy. I'm not excusing them. I'm not apologizing for them. I would never advocate violence or property destruction.
I don't have to prove what he didn't do. But if you are accusing him of doing something in a public forum, you should at least have the decency of being able to prove it. This is an American citizen, whether you hate him or not. You do know what libel is, don't you?
Regardless... to equate Bill Ayers thirty-five years later with Bin Laden and Sheik Mohammed is ridiculous. Regardless of how you look at it, none of it has anything to do with Obama. Bottom line- nothing. You don't like Obama's policies... fine. But don't smear his character, because that's BS, and John McCain even said so (although he continues to do it out of a sense of desperation).
Is it some thing hardly to brag from a "caring" American. A point that is missed that no true American should carryout any attack on their own government. You seem to have no problem with this past behavior.
"I challenged you and said to prove that Ayers carried out 25 bombings on US soil"
Prove that he didn't. The remark stands. Even if he did not plant the charges,he found a group that DID claim responsibility for 25 attacks. Combining this with the fact that he did admit making bombs,and participated in attacks on the US government, it does not take a rocket scientist to use deductive reasoning that he did participate in those attacks. The "rhetoric" is still full,not empty,or half empty.
"I'll be checking in periodically..."
Cool, I got a fan. Could I add you to my blog roll? I don't think I have had any fans from Pittsburg.
Even if he did not bomb the places, a person bragging about doing such things, and/or willing to do it is a great pal for BHO eh?
I like to remind you, that my country was saved from communism during the 60s and 70s due to the hard work and sacrifice of the US military.
Oh, and BHO recently endorsed his book. Eat that.
isaac,
Listen. You're the one with the problem with an Ayers/Obama connection. I simply don't care... the same way I really don't care about the long list of terrorists, lobbyists, extremist pastors, corrupt politicians and criminals McCain has hung out with. I vote on policies and positions.
if you need an excuse to not vote for Obama- just pick one. McCain is offering up lots of red herrings. But notice he doesn't talk about his policy proposals.
Why are you bringing up veterans? What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Colin Powell is one of our most distinguished veterans, and he favors Obama. So what?
It is important to see the character of the person even if you agree with the policies. I do not support liberal policies, but I think McCain is a much better person than BHO.
Remember what Clinton said,
"Senator McCain will bring experience to the table; I will bring experience to the table. Senator Obama, will bring a speech he gave in 2002."
Oh, I remember what Clinton said. She refused to talk about policies... and she lost.
"Listen. You're the one with the problem with an Ayers/Obama connection. I simply don't care... the same way I really don't care about the long list of terrorists, lobbyists, extremist pastors, corrupt politicians and criminals McCain has hung out with. I vote on policies and positions."
You seem to be very adamant for someone who does not care.
"if you need an excuse to not vote for Obama- just pick one."
1) He is more socialist than liberal, which is saying much because the difference is difficult to determine.
2) He is anti-Second Amendment.
3) He is a defeatist.
4) He associates with former terrorists.
5) He will appease current terrorists.
6) He will over regulate the free market.
7) He is evasive and contradictory regarding his record.
8) He will turn the Supreme Court into the pride of judicial activism.
9) Depending on who asks him, he supports gay marriage.
10) He cannot keep his promise not to raise the taxes of average Americans due to his social spending agenda. (IE- Universal Health Care)
11) He will strip our military with excessive budget cuts.
12) He is not trust worthy.
"McCain is offering up lots of red herrings. But notice he doesn't talk about his policy proposals."
He has talked about his economic plan, tax plan, war plan.
"Why are you bringing up veterans?"
Because Veterans are US citizens too. All their work will be screwed with an Obama Presidency.
"What does that have to do with anything in this thread?"
Because the right to bounce from subtopic to subtopic is not limited to you.
"Colin Powell is one of our most distinguished veterans, and he favors Obama. So what?"
Exactly, so what.
BTW: You never answered my question about adding your link,so I did so anyway. Please feel welcomed.
robocop,
A few thoughts on your list:
1) "He is more socialist than liberal, which is saying much because the difference is difficult to determine."
A socialist? "Socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Name Obama's policies that fit this definition.
2) He is anti-Second Amendment.
I have seen no reason to believe this. I am pro-gun ownership, and I'm not worried he'll take my guns. He (like the Supreme Court) believes in some "gun control".
3) He is a defeatist.
I don't buy that at all. He believes in diplomacy. He also believes we don't need to be spending so much money on an eternal Iraqi invasion. I agree with him. There is no such thing as "victory" in the Middle East.
4) He associates with former terrorists.
So does McCain.
5) He will appease current terrorists.
He wants to put more effort into tracking al Qaeda. Where's the appeasement?
6) He will over regulate the free market.
There's no such thing as a "free market". It's rigged in favor of self-serving jerks who exploit it at our expense.
7) He is evasive and contradictory regarding his record.
I haven't found this to be the case. Anyway his experiences in legislation are public record.
8) He will turn the Supreme Court into the pride of judicial activism.
"Judicial Activism" is when the justices make a decision you don;t like.
9) Depending on who asks him, he supports gay marriage.
He's told the entire country that he supports civil unions. Didn't you see the last debate?
10) He cannot keep his promise not to raise the taxes of average Americans due to his social spending agenda. (IE- Universal Health Care)
And McCain cannot keep his promised not to raise taxes because of his eternal commitment to Iraq and plans to invade other nations if he becomes president.
11) He will strip our military with excessive budget cuts.
We have a $10 trillion debt. That's inevitable anyway.
12) He is not trust worthy.
Too vague and subjective. He's been very consistent in this campaign, unlike McCain who has been consistently erratic. Plus McCain has been caught in more lies and flip-flops over the last two years.
The typical loser. You are so willing to surrender to the enemy. A great reason why BHO supporters like you can't have your way.
McCain with terrorist? Last time I checked that was against his will in Vietnam, in which he was whacked up.
Isaac,
Do you think you might be capable of getting beyond the name-calling and the simple-minded rhetoric? Is this how you always interact with people you disagree with?
MD,
Only when they prove incapable of rational thought.
How would you even recognize it if someone did?
Oh, thats easy, just scroll through your own comments.
Merge: Did I mention you were pretty adamant for someone who doesn't care? **LOL**
"Name Obama's policies that fit this definition"
Would nationalized health care not be a government control over the 4th largest industry in America?
"I am pro-gun ownership, and I'm not worried he'll take my guns. He (like the Supreme Court) believes in some "gun control"."
Gun Control is an attack on the Second Amendment (you know,the "shall not be infringed" part). Obama has voted for laws that conflict with the Amendment as a state Senator. He has stated his support for excessive taxes on ammunition, his support for the ban on the sale and transfer on semi-automatic firearms, limitations on ammunition capacity, etc, etc...
"I don't buy that at all. He believes in diplomacy. He also believes we don't need to be spending so much money on an eternal Iraqi invasion. I agree with him. There is no such thing as "victory" in the Middle East."
We are at war. We did not sit down with the Japanese, the Nazi's, or the Fascists in WWII, and things worked out. His desired cuts would also focus on equipment and supplies for US forces, not just the ones in the theater. Stating that there is no victory in the Middle East is a stand alone defeatists statement. Iraq has shown much progress that Obama cannot seem to admit.
"He associates with former terrorists.
So does McCain."
That's new to me. I cannot recall a McCain supporter carrying out bombings either domestic or foreign.
"He wants to put more effort into tracking al Qaeda. Where's the appeasement?"
His desire to talk with the terrorists, the states that sponsor them, his desire to pullout of Iraq. Like it or not,it is part of the WOT.
"There's no such thing as a "free market". It's rigged in favor of self-serving jerks who exploit it at our expense."
You might be right after the bailout package. Technically though, the free market is the basis for capitalism. Too much government control over this element equates to socialism,by your definition of socialism.
"I haven't found this to be the case. Anyway his experiences in legislation are public record."
His academic transcripts are fair game. Where are they?
"Judicial Activism" is when the justices make a decision you don;t like."
Now that's an intelligent response. Judicial activism is a decision that has no basis on the Constitution, which a judge is supposed to INTERPRET, not add to,or edit
"He's told the entire country that he supports civil unions. Didn't you see the last debate?"
I have seen it.I have also seen him contradict this. Like I said, it depends on who he is talking to. There is also a technical difference between gay marriage,which I mentioned,and a civil union.
And McCain cannot keep his promised not to raise taxes because of his eternal commitment to Iraq and plans to invade other nations if he becomes president.
"And McCain cannot keep his promised not to raise taxes because of his eternal commitment to Iraq and plans to invade other nations if he becomes president."
Actually, he could.
"We have a $10 trillion debt. That's inevitable anyway."
We are at war, things like that happen. Cut some social programs.
"Too vague and subjective. He's been very consistent in this campaign, unlike McCain who has been consistently erratic. Plus McCain has been caught in more lies and flip-flops over the last two years. "
You asked me to give one reason not to vote for Obama. I did. Subjective reasoning is still a right, despite of PC liberalism.
"Is this how you always interact with people you disagree with? "
Nope, this is fun. Calling someone morally bankrupt is also name calling, so know off the double standard.
Post a Comment