• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's McCain's Next Play?

At a rally today, John McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

Someone yells out clearly, "A terrorist!"



John McCain gives a little frown and moves on.

He does not correct the man. After all, his own vice president is currently making connections between Ayers the terrorists and Obama. He simply gives a little frown and moves on.

This is dangerous. Already people have been arrested who intended to try and assassinate Senator Obama. It is unconscionable for Senator McCain to be building this level of anger in his supporters, to try and ride this crest of hatred to the White House. I dare say that should the same thing have happened at an Obama rally, Obama would have been the first to call that person out and dress him down.

But McCain appears to be soliciting votes from wherever and in any way he can.

Shame on him.

I agree. It just goes along with my post above, it is a very scary situation being set up here. It only takes one wacko to believe everything that the GOP is feeding them to go off and "make history."

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she (Palin) continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.
 
Can you provide a source?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
Wall Street Journal said:
CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

I believe that Obama served as a lawyer for ACORN. At least some pressuring of banks to stop redlining practices seems like it might be justified but beyond a certain point I agree it is advocacy for faulty policy. Do you have source material on what Obama did for ACORN when he represented them?
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote..."
From here and here.

Stan Leibowitz said:
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
Source


ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
Source

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Source



A legitimate criticism assuming it's true. But a criticism that is true of many members of congress, Republican and Democrat. The tie in to Obama's legal representation of ACORN is tenuous. Lots of congressman got lots of money from Fannie and Freddie and I doubt that many provided legal representation to ACORN.
Well yeah, there's Chris Dodd who tops the Fannie & Freddie contribution list, but he's been in Washington since the 70s. Same with most of them. Obama's only been a senator for 3 years.

ETA: There's more interesting info about Obama, ACORN, and the financial mess here.
 
Last edited:
I busted McCain. As of a minute ago, his next play was to serve me my first jref banner ad. :D
 
On Friday, I posted this about McCain's next campaign move...

*snip*

Goodness Mattus, political pundits from all over have been predicting that McCain was going to bring back both Ayres and Rev. Wright in October, and for months now. I even remember Hannity claiming it would happen several times, with glee (and I disagreed with his glee over it, I'm sick of all the negative stuff from both sides).

Are you really trying to act like you hit some major prediction here? Most campaigns (both sides) kick into full negative mode based on the biggest negatives attached to a candidate in October. I'd rather that both sides didn't do it, as I've said before. But I admit, hoping for change on this is like hoping that sharks will suddenly stop being vicious predators.
 
I don't know what's next but if I were him I'd tell Palin to wipe that mindless beauty-queen smile off her face. It tends to convey a distracting Narcisism. IMHO
 
Wow, it's like I'm psychic - maybe I should go for the $1 million challenge? :D

I honestly don't think Obama will even have to say anything about that. Chances are you'll be seeing news stories tomorrow about McCain's association with both Liddy and Keating. It's already all over the blogosphere.

McCain messed up. The Dems were waiting in the wings with some big guns, and now they've clicked the safeties to "off" and are taking aim...


Sure thing, the first thing I hear on the radio news this morning is a story about John McCain and the Keating Five. And it's getting plenty of play in the press - check it out:

Keating Economics



Ouch. So much for McCain "turning the page on the economy" :rolleyes:
 
Here's an interesting analysis by FiveThirtyEight.com which explains why McCain/Palin's "terrorist" charge against Obama is (probably) doomed to failure...

Why It (Probably) Won't Work

... I am not here to dispute that this is McCain's best strategy -- in the same way that an onside kick is a team's best strategy when it trails late in the game with no timeouts left. But like the onside kick, it is fairly unlikely to work.

For one thing, increasing numbers of middle class Americans may already have decided that Barack Obama is their home team. One of the more powerful dynamics during the first Presidential debate is that Obama, in the first 15 minutes of the proceedings, pointed to himself and said, "Hey! Middle Class! I'm your guy!". McCain did not mention the middle class, instead reverting to traditional Republican talking points about supply-side economics. From there forward in that debate, dial testers reacted poorly when McCain attacked Obama, or appeared to be contemptuous of him. ...

... It may be quite difficult for McCain to attack Obama in this fashion without significantly damaging his own brand. The chart below presents a smoothed curve of each candidate's net favorability ratings since the first of the year:



What's interesting is that, with the exception of the past couple of weeks, McCain's and Obama's ratings have been fairly strongly correlated, tending to rise and fall together. This is not to say that negative campaigning doesn't work -- it sometimes does -- but it works at diminished efficiency, because you may be giving back 50 cents on the dollar by harming your own approval scores.

If the McCain campaign brings up William Ayers -- or Jeremiah Wright -- it will almost certianly be seen as attack politics. This might seem to be stating the obvious. But remember that this wasn't the case during the primaries. The Wright and Ayers stories were instead driven by actual news -- ABC's reporting of Wright's inflammatory sermons, for instance -- and were largely not pushed by the Clinton campaign. So unless McCain's oppo research team is sitting on some fresh news about Obama's ties to Ayers or Wright, the stories are liable to be reported as a typical partisan attack, which will impeach their credibility in the public's eyes and reduce their staying power. ...


Having said that this doesn't really put Obama into any political danger, I will agree with other posters here about one thing: the real danger of these veiled references to Obama "palling around with terrorists" is that some whackjob will decide to kill him "for the good of the country". That might actually be one reason why Palin has backed off her previous comments since Saturday, because if something were to happen to Obama the Secret Service might be looking in her direction. I've got the feeling that McCain has told her to tone it down as well - let's hope he's that smart.
 
Please tell me you are kidding me? You don't REALLY support McCarthy-esque allegations like that?

Oh please. After your party blames the Bush administration for the financial mess when it was Carter & Clinton with the CRA. At least the Obama-Ayers allegations were true.
 
I don't know what's next but if I were him I'd tell Palin to wipe that mindless beauty-queen smile off her face. It tends to convey a distracting Narcisism. IMHO

Perhaps if she would wear a burka. Would that be better?
 
Oh please. After your party blames the Bush administration for the financial mess when it was Carter & Clinton with the CRA. At least the Obama-Ayers allegations were true.

Yeah, its also true I was once at a rest stop where, only an hour later, a serial killer killed his last victim before being chased down. Does that make me guilty by association?

In summary; The stupid is getting thick around here.
 
Yeah, its also true I was once at a rest stop where, only an hour later, a serial killer killed his last victim before being chased down. Does that make me guilty by association?

In summary; The stupid is getting thick around here.


Not only that, but the desperation & fail are getting thick as well. Man, you can cut the fail with a knife!
 
DrBaltar,
What you quoted was a pure political hit piece. There was not a single attempt at objectivity throughout the entire article and as such the article hardly seems of value as part of any kind of search for truth.

The piece was riddled with unsubstantiated opinion and the treatment of standard political issues like motor voter laws as some sort of horrible left wing conspiracies that are allowing terrorists into the country. The author never had a moment where his goal was truth. His goal from the outset was to produce a political hit piece.

You might be all fired up by this kind of crap but if you look through the response to the article not many others were as impressed.

The legitimate attack line here is that Obama like many of his fellow Democrats and probably at least some Republicans contributed to the problem by encouraging the issuance of less secure loans than past procedures had required.

In the end was reducing loan requirements the most significant problem or was radically increasing the leverage allowed by freddie and fannie practices the main problem? Assuming it was the latter, who supported the change and who in congress worked to undo it. Ron Paul is on record as talking about the problem and the possible consequences about five years ago. Did any of his fellow Republicans work with him to do something about the problem? Is the Obama campaign claim that Obama tried to get the Secretary of Treasury to study the possibility of a collapse more than two years ago correct? How did McCain vote on the rules to loosen freddy and fannie requlation? How did Obama vote?

How much money has McCain accepted from Fredday and Fannie over the years?
 
Last edited:
Oh please. After your party blames the Bush administration for the financial mess when it was Carter & Clinton with the CRA. At least the Obama-Ayers allegations were true.
Reaching all the way back to Carter.... Who had complete control of the executive and legislative branches for six years after 2000? Who could have completely rewritten the CRA? The Republicans, that's who.

Your blame game is useless. Both Dems and Reps have been feeding off the FreddieMac/Fannie/Mae teat for years. Both looked the other way.
 
...

Your blame game is useless. Both Dems and Reps have been feeding off the FreddieMac/Fannie/Mae teat for years. Both looked the other way.

That seems to be exactly right and figuring out who gets the most blame is difficult because most of what is written about the situation is by people with strong political agendas.

It does appear to be true that Obama received substantially more Freddie/Fannie donations than McCain. But even there the case is not as clear cut as it seems. This calculation excludes contributions from lobbyists and directors. The New York times looked at contributions from directors and lobbyists from those companies:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/09/10/us/politics/2008_FANNIE_GRAPHIC.html
McCain in 2008 received $169,000 from Freddie/Fannie directors and lobbyists and Obama received $16,000.

It is true that early in his campaign Obama used Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairmen, as an adviser to his campaign. But McCain's campain manager Rick Davis served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation. In addition, according to this article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html) "At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years."

The record on who sounded the alarm bell first about this impending disaster is a little muddled also. Both McCain and Obama claim efforts to head off the disaster. Exactly who has the more credible story on that I'm not sure. But maybe this would be the most important way to evaluate the candidates on this issue.

The bottom line here and it's not a happy one, is that congress was bought off on this and neither candidate has clean hands. It is easy to miss that reality if one tends to read or listen to articles coming from a single poltical direction.
 
Not only that, but the desperation & fail are getting thick as well. Man, you can cut the fail with a knife!

Agreed. I have been pretty critical of some of the blindly partisan Dems around here, but in the past couple of days It is like the blindly partisan GOP supporters want to outdo them in the stupidity category.
The "OBama is an illegal alien" rumor has got to be the dumbest rumor yet. You really think the Democratic Party leadership did not carefully check out his qualifications, and if he was not qualfied they would not leaked it to the press to avoid a huge embarassment and handing the Presidency to the GOP on a Silver platter?
ANd, for that matter, that the GOP would not be screaming this from the rooftops if there was any evidence for it?
It's called desperation.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I have been pretty critical of some of the blindly partisan Dems around here, but in the past couple of days It is like the blindly partisan GOP supporters want to outdo them in the stupidity category.
To be fair to the GOP supporters, you've also been blindly critical of both camps in your pious crusade against the windmills of hypocrisy.
 

Back
Top Bottom