April 19-22, 2008
Apr 19 11:48 But He's Such A Nice Terrorist Apr 19 16:51 Larry Kudlow Obliterates Obama Apr 20 14:10 John F. Kerrry: Obama "Truly Transformative" Apr 21 03:26 The Ugly Messy Truth Apr 21 09:33 McCain Hits Obama Hard on Ayers Apr 21 09:58 Jimmy Carter: Clueless Apr 22 00:33 Punditry 101
But He's Such A Nice Terrorist
This article in the Chicago Sun-Times seems to make a case that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn have become productive members of society who don't deserve the ridicule they're currently getting. Check out this section of their article:
But friends like Chicago political strategist Marilyn Katz said Ayers should not be a campaign issue.Ms. Katz seems to be suggesting that we see both the good and the bad that Ayers has done. I don't see the need to do that in this instance because the evil things that William Ayers did 40 years ago are that evil. Furthermore, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to forgive him while he remains unrepentant.
Katz met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of Students for a Democratic Society, a peaceful group from which the Weather Underground splintered. She noted Ayers' work with Mayor Daley to overhaul the Chicago Public Schools and likened him to Black Panther-turned-U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.
"What Bill Ayers and Bobby Rush...did 40 years ago has nothing to do with" the presidential campaign, Katz said. Ayers "has a national reputation. He lectures at Harvard and Vassar. He writes the textbooks that are the standard for innovative approaches to reaching inner-city youth."
Let's put the proverbial shoe on the other foot for a moment. What if a reporter found out that John McCain had some ties with Tim McVeigh back in the 1980's? Does anyone think that the media wouldn't have be right to examining just how tight the ties were between those men? I'd bet the proverbial ranch that MoveOn.org and Kos would say that that's proof of Sen. McCain's extreme right wing tendencies.
Let's take this a step further. Some lefties are saying that Obama is the victim of guilt by asasociation, both with Ayers and with Pastor J-Wright. Let's ask the next logical question. Which other presidential candidate had ties to an unrepentant terrorist while attending a church with a racist pastor?
What I find amusing is that Sen. Obama's defense, and the defense by his supporters, is that Hillary Clinton is just as guilty because Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground:
Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, on Friday defended Obama's handling of the Ayers matter and noted Clinton has ties to the Weather Underground through her husband, former President Bill Clinton.It's interesting that Sen. Obama's spokesman tries rationalizing his ties with Prof. Ayers by tying Hillary to the Weather Underground. That isn't the way to get this issue resolved. All that does is show a stark contrast between the Democrats' candidates and John McCain.
"In the debate, Obama called the acts Ayers committed 40 years ago 'detestable,'... and any attempt to connect him with those events is outrageous," LaBolt said. "While Obama, Mayor Daley, and others in Chicago's academic and civic communities have known Bill Ayers in recent years...President Clinton pardoned a member of the Weathermen who participated in a heist that left two police officers and a security guard dead, and commuted the sentence of another, and we have yet to hear where Senator Clinton stands on President Clinton's actions."
Apparently, Mr. LaBolt doesn't understand that that argument won't work against John McCain.
I just found this must read post on Lynn Sweet's blog :
When you read that extensive list of terrorist attacks, it's important to focus on Ayers' quote in the NYTimes, saying that he felt that "we didn't do enough." Does anyone in their right mind think that they "didn't do enough"?For those who have forgotten or weren't born yet here is a list of a few of the activities. Just think if this were happening today:
7 October 1969 ; Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a "kickoff" for the "Days of Rage" riots in the city October 8; 11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, "Prairie Fire."
8 October-11, 1969 ; The "Days of Rage" riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.
6 December 1969 ; Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book "Prairie Fire" that they had did the explosion.
27 December-31, 1969 ; Weathermen hold a "War Council" meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO).
13 February 1970 ; Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department.
16 February 1970 ; Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.
6 March 1970 ; Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.
6 March 1970 ; "bomb factory" located in New York's Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members Theodore die in t. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.
30 March 1970 ; Chicago Police discover a WUO "bomb factory" on Chicago's north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO "weapons cache" in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.
10 May 1970 ; Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..
21 May 1970 ; The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn's name releases its "Declaration of a State of War" communique.
6 June 1970 ; The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.
9 June 1970 ; Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters.
27 July 1970 ; Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]
12 September 1970 ; The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men's Colony prison.
8 October 1970 ; Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]
10 October 1970 ; Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]
14 October 1970 ; Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]
1 March 1971 ; Bombing of The United States Capitol. " [NYT, 3/2/71]
April, 1971 ; abandoned WUO "bomb factory" discovered in San Francisco, California.
29 August, 1971 ; Bombing of the Office of California Prisons. [LAT, 8/29/71]
17 September 1971 ; Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]
15 October 1971 ; Bombing of William Bundy's office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]
19 May 1972 ; Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]
18 May 1973 ; Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York
28 September 1973 ; Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy. [NYT, 9/28/73]
6 March 1974 ; Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco
31 May 1974 ; Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.
17 June 1974 ; Bombing of Gulf Oil's Pittsburgh headquarters .
11 September 1974 ; Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).
29 January 1975 ; Bombing of the State Department in (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)
16 June 1975 ; Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York.
September, 1975 ; Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation.
October 20, 1981 ; Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.1981 "Guilty as hel*. Free as a bird. America is a great country," Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.
September 11, 2001 "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers is quoted in NYT article
In the final summary of this relationship, what will be known is that a major political party's presidential nominee had rather dubious ties to an unrepentant terrorist. When people learn that, I suspect that they'll say, in overwhelming numbers, that Sen. Obama should've immediately denounced Bill Ayers' terrorist attacks and immediately distanced himself from Ayers.
Posted Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:50 AM
No comments.
Larry Kudlow Obliterates Obama
The aftereffects of the Philadelphia Fiasco continues much as I expected. One of the highlights from the Philadelphia Fiasco for Republicans was Sen. Obmama's answer on capital gains taxes, which I spoke to here :
MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent." It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. ButToday, Larry Kudlow takes that answer apart as only he can do. Here's the part that zeroes in on Obama's chest:
actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA : Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.Larry Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "bungled his answers on tax policy" carries some weight with financial types. The more that Sen. Obama talks about tax fairness instead of solid tax policy, the more incompetent and inexperienced Sen. Obama looks.
First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
Kudlow pointing out the people who'd get hurt by Obama's tax policy certainly won't help Sen. Obama with the middle class voters he'll need to win in November. Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles" will surely be used to attack Sen. Obama as incompetent and not qualified to the next president. This paragraph isn't helpful to Sen. Obama's campaign:
In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.Finally, this might be the most damaging portion:
Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, nobody questioned his expertise on economics. Clearly, people are questioning Sen. Obama's economic expertise. That can't bode well for him this fall.
Posted Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:51 PM
No comments.
John F. Kerrry: Obama "Truly Transformative"
In this Newsweek op-ed , John Kerry declares that Sen. Obama is the "truly transformative" presidential candidate. What he forgot to say is that he's inept when it comes to putting together economic policies .
This year, Democrats know we have an embarrassment of riches-two terrific candidates. But one is truly transformative. Obama isn't just winning elections; he's exciting millions of new voters. In North Carolina, 165,000 people have registered this year alone, three quarters of them eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Skeptics question whether Obama can win working-class voters , but in Virginia and Wisconsin, two states the party aims to carry in November, he romped through-winning every demographic group across the lines of education, religion, ethnicity, race and income. With critical Senate races in places like Colorado and New Mexico, Democratic leaders are excited that the "coattails" of an Obama campaign can win a new generation of Red State Democrats. Last February, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine was asked whether a Democratic candidate could carry Virginia for the first time since LBJ did it in 1964. "The right Democrat could," he replied. Two days later, he endorsed Obama.Statistically speaking, Sen. Kerry is right; Sen. Obama did carry working class voters. That was then, this is now. It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Obama wouldn't have done well with working class Democrats had he made his bitter comments earlier in the cycle. Had voters known then what they know now, it's likely that this would've been a completely different race.
Sen. Kerry's statement that "the party aims to carry" Virginia this November is boilerplate stuff. I pointed out in this post , it appears as though Virginia, Missouri, Ohio and Florida are solidly in the Red column. Just because Democrats can "aim to carry" the state doesn't mean it's a done deal.
I'd finally say that the Democrats have an embarassment but it isn't an embarassment of riches. The Philadelphia Fiasco showed people that Hillary and Obama are clueless about economic issues, not to mention the fact that they've both got ethical skeletons in their closets that might disqualify them on that basis alone.
The Illinois senator is the strongest nominee because he has shown that he can learn from mistakes and respond to challenges with the best weapon America has: the truth. He has already had a presidential moment in this campaign. Faced with criticisms about his faith, Obama gave one of the most eloquent, brave and bracingly honest speeches I have ever heard a politician give. Instead of trying to say the right thing, he just tried to tell the truth, in all its unvarnished complexity. There is no greater sign of his respect for people everywhere than a refusal to insult their intelligence.With all due respect to Sen. Kerry, the speech Obama gave immediately after the Pastor J-Wright story broke was intended to change topics. While the elitist media praised it incessantly, the average Joe saw it for what it was. They knew immediately that it was an attempt to not talk about why Sen. Obama stayed in a church with a racist, anti-American pastor.
There's no denying that the speech was eloquent. There's also no denying that people were still asking why Sen. Obama stayed at Pastor J-Wright's church. Until he answers why he stayed, people will question his decisionmaking abilities.
The bad news for Sen. Obama is that that' just part of his problem. People still question why he had connections with Tony Rezko and William Ayers. Sen. Obama can whine all he wants about guilt by association isn't fair. The fact remains that John McCain doesn't have those types of skeletons in his closet.
Posted Sunday, April 20, 2008 2:12 PM
No comments.
The Ugly Messy Truth
When the final analysis is written about this year's Democratic nominating process, this statement will surely be proven right:
Before this year's historic campaign, poisoned at the root by overt and ugly sexism and covert and coded racism , Democrats have never been asked to choose quite so nakedly which absolutely necessary demographic they would like to do without. Here is the question, a cynic might suggest, that the Democratic Party must answer this summer: Do we want to lose because we drove away blacks or because we drove away white women ?Early in the process, GOP strategists rightfully worried about Hillary's and Obama's big turnouts. What's needed, in my opinion, is something that happened right after George Bush's re-election. That's when the Nutroots pushed Howard Dean down the DNC's throats. From Day One, disaster was predictable, even inevitable. The Nutroots saw the Clinton/DLC connection as GOP lite. The Clintons saw the Nutroots as McGovernite losers. In other words, they hated each other.
In fact, it's more accurate to say that this rift first started with Howard Dean's presidential campaign. He repeatedly said that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." That rift got wider in August, 2006, when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. That night, a new type of Democrat was born: Lieberman Democrats. Brendan Loy typifies Lieberman Democrats, socially and economically liberal but hawkish about national security.
Let's return to the present. Pennsylvania's primary is a perfect illustration of the split that's becoming more apparent each day. Blue collar Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. Rich, white liberals will join African Americans in enthusiastically voting for Sen. Obama. Once Sen. Obama wins the nomination, alot of Hillary's DLC supporters will leave the Democrats' coalition and vote for John McCain.
While it'd be wrong to think that these DLC types to abandon the Democratic in dramatic numbers, their defections would be catastrophic for the Democrats.
What's that got to do with this year's race? Sunday night, I talked with a political insider in Pennsylvania. This insider told me that Sen. McCain has a definite shot at putting Pennsylvania in the red state column, regardless of the candidate. That figures to be the case in other blue collar states across the country.
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008 3:27 AM
No comments.
McCain Hits Obama Hard on Ayers
Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, John McCain questioned Barack Obama's ties to terrorist William Ayers . Bill Burton's reply was swift but otherwise unimpressive:
Asked by host George Stephanopoulos whether he has any doubt that Obama shares his sense of patriotism, McCain brought the subject up.Bill Burton's yapping about smear politics won't cut it except with Sen. Obama's most rabid supporters. Trying to deflect criticism might work within the Democratic primaries but general election voters want to know about this connection. They won't see it as a smear tactic. They'll see it as an attempt to exploit Sen. Obama's blindness to a terrorist.
"I'm sure he's very patriotic. But his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question," McCain said. "He became friends with him and spent time with him while the guy was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization, the Weathermen," McCain said. "Does he condemn them? Would he condemn someone who says they're unrepentant and wished that they had bombed more?"
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded aggressively, calling McCain's salvo "smear politics. Unable to sell his out-of-touch ideas on the economy and Iraq, John McCain has stooped to the same smear politics and low road that he denounced in 2000," Burton said. "The American people can't afford a third term of President Bush's failed policies and divisive tactics."
What makes Burton's response less effective is the fact that Sen. McCain is laying out a real economic agenda that I predict will gather support as he talks more about it. I don't think it's wise for Obama's campaign to bring up the subject of the economy in light of his debate performance, especially after his meandering reply to a question about the capital gains tax.
The swiftness of Burton's reply tells you that Team Obama realizes that this is a no-win situation for them. If this wasn't hurting them, their reply wouldn't have been this quick and this sharp. This problem isn't going away. The bad news for Team Obama is that they don't have a way to reply to this that'll put this issue to rest once and for all.
Sen. Obama chose to associate with William Ayers because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Sen. Obama put political expediency ahead of doing the right thing. He should've said that he didn't need the support of a terrorist. Instead of doing the right thing, Sen. Obama did the expedient thing, showing voters where his priorities lie.
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008 9:34 AM
No comments.
Jimmy Carter: Clueless
I've always maintained that Jimmy Carter was clueless with regards to foreign policy. He's done nothing since the 1970's to change my opinion on that. In fact, he keeps adding new embarassments to his already substantial pile of foreign policy embarassments. Here's his latest major blunder :
Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to "live as a neighbor next door in peace," former President Jimmy Carter said Monday.The problem for Carter is that Hamas isn't willing to accept Israel's right to exist :
Carter said the group promised it wouldn't undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
Carter said Hamas promised it wouldn't undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.What in Hamas' history made Carter think that they'd agree to recognize Israel's right to exist? Everyone who's anyone knows that Hamas' stated goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said Hamas' readiness to put a peace deal to a referendum "does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum."
There was a time when Jimmy Carter held the titles of being the worst president in history and the best ex-president in history. He still is the worst president in history but he's now considered by sane-thinking people to be the worst ex-president in history.
President Carter would've been wise to stick to building houses through Habitat for Humanity and left foreign policy to the adults. It's painfully obvious that he isn't qualified in foreign policy.
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008 9:59 AM
No comments.
Punditry 101
The American Prospect is going where no other pundit will go. In fact, Terence Samuel's prediction is the opposite of what Sen. Obama is predicting . First, here's what Obama said on the radio Monday:
Obama on KDKA radio in Pittsburgh this morning:Here's the opening to Samuel's column:
"I'm not predicting a win. I'm predicting it's going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect," he says (audio) .
Clinton began the Pennsylvania primary with a lead of more than 16 percentage points in the RealClearPolitics polling average; her lead now stands around 5 points.
That creaking noise you hear is the sound of me going way out on limb to predict that Barack Obama will win the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, finally ending Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.This is delusional thinking on Samuel's behalf. Political experts like Rick Santorum, Carl Rove and Newt Gingrich are predicting a Hillary win, with the margin being anywhere from 6 points to 10-11 points.
After all sound and fury, the race in Pennsylvania will come down to the strength of get- out-the-vote (GOTV) operations, and I think Obama's campaign's organizational advantages will be enough to push him past Clinton by almost two percentage points. He's got money, he's got energy and enthusiasm (despite his debate performance on Tuesday), and he's got Philadelphia and its suburbs.
Sunday night, I spoke with a friend of mine in Pennsylvania. My friend said that Obama's statements at the San Francisco fundraiser were like manna from heaven for Hillary. She was already winning blue collar Democrats. Sen. Obama's statements just increased her advantage in that demographic. Instead of getting solidly thrashed in that demographic, he'll get utterly trounced in that demographic. Here's another absurd Samuel's statement:
The path to an Obama win is relatively straight forward: run up the numbers in and around Philadelphia, fight for and maybe even win the Lehigh Valley cities Bethlehem and Allentown, and minimize his losses in the west. This is a strategy that tracks with Democratic victories in Pennsylvania in recent years.Steel mill towns won't be going for Sen. Obama. That's wishful thinking. It certainly isn't reality-based.
It's just my opinion but I think Mr. Samuel's opinions should be supported with more facts than with wishful thinking.
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:34 AM
No comments.
