Obama reviewed Ayers' book

[R.R.]

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=64

I find it very hard - no, make that impossible - to believe that Barack Obama had "no idea" who William Ayers really was, or that he had a past as a notorious domestic terrorist (as Obama's campaign has claimed) while serving on panels with Ayers and simultaneously praising Ayers' book in a major newspaper. -Zomblog

[Xavier_Onassis]

At no point did Obama say he had "no idea" who Ayers was.

I suggest that it is typical to review books of people one does not know. It happens all the time.

[R.R.]

At no point did Obama say he had "no idea" who Ayers was.

Barack Obama's top political adviser said today Obama "didn't know the history" of unrepentant bomber William Ayers' activities in the violent Weather Underground movement when the candidate attended a political event at Ayers' home in 1995.

"When he went he certainly didn't know the history," chief Obama strategist David Axelrod told CNN - arguing for the first time since the story surfaced early this year that Obama was unaware of Ayers' past.

Link

[Michael Tee]

Keep digging for dirt and coming up with straws like that, R.R.

You have no idea how good it makes me feel.  I love that d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n I can almost hear and feel in your voice.   He's going down, R.R., and none of your desperate antics can save him.

The American people have more important issues on their mind.  Thing they really care about.  Victory in Iraq is not on the list.  Neither is cutting taxes for the rich.  Neither is earmarks.  Neither is Bill Ayers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

At no point did Obama say he had "no idea" who Ayers was.


Barack Obama's top political adviser said today Obama "didn't know the history" of unrepentant bomber William Ayers' activities in the violent Weather Underground movement when the candidate attended a political event at Ayers' home in 1995.

================================
If I said you said something, is that actually the same thing as you saying it yourself?

I would say no, it isn't.

[R.R.]

You have no idea how good it makes me feel that your country added even more Conservatives to Parliament recently. Conservatives made substantial gains in Canada, and that is good news for you.

If Obama does win, it will not be because of fringe voices in the Democrat party such as XO or Knute. It will be because Obama successfully remade himself into a conservative Democrat with Kansas values.

Obama has covered up his relationship with Bill Ayers. He's not just some guy from the neighborhood. It's not desperate to point out pertinent facts about Obama that the NY Times fails to acknowledge. It is kind of desperate, though, to destroy a plumber for simply asking Obama a question that exposed his radical redistributionist policies.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's not desperate to point out pertinent facts about Obama that the NY Times fails to acknowledge.>>

What's desperate is to dive into the muck and emerge with one tiny factoid that no American in his right mind gives a shit about, and claim that you've found the magic sword that will slay the dragon.

<<It is kind of desperate, though, to destroy a plumber for simply asking Obama a question that exposed his radical redistributionist policies.>>

DESTROYED?  Gimme a break, the guy got a million bucks worth of free publicity and probably a book deal as well.  He's a fucking brand already.  All he's gotta do now is pay off the tax lien, get a licence if he needs one, and get McCain's Robocaller to start dialing the local housewives.  He's got it made.  You and I should be so "destroyed."

[fatman]

You have no idea how good it makes me feel that your country added even more Conservatives to Parliament recently. Conservatives made substantial gains in Canada, and that is good news for you.

You do realize RR, that some Canadian Conservatives are more liberal than, well, American liberals.

[R.R.]

I'm aware, though I would describe some of them as libertarians rather than liberal. Some are very fiscally Conservative.

I would say that Prime Minister Harper is pretty much a spitting image of George W. Bush, and Micheal Tee is stuck with him. (No wonder he posts here.)

But, Fatman, keep McCain in mind to vote for. There are likely to be 60 Democrat senators and 250 Democrat members of congress in Jan. 09. McCain would be a good balance of power as president.

[fatman]

I'm aware, though I would describe some of them as libertarians rather than liberal. Some are very fiscally Conservative.

True enough

But, Fatman, keep McCain in mind to vote for. There are likely to be 60 Democrat senators and 250 Democrat members of congress in Jan. 09. McCain would be a good balance of power as president.

I have an open mind towards both McCain and Obama, though I lean towards McCain for the exact argument that you've laid out.  I am investigating a couple of third parties too, though I myself don't know how seriously I'm willing to be about voting for one.  Neither of the two dominant parties impress me though, I'm pretty much sick of both of them.

But the balance of power is an important consideration, and I've argued for it before in here.

[richpo64]

>>But, Fatman, keep McCain in mind to vote for. There are likely to be 60 Democrat senators and 250 Democrat members of congress in Jan. 09. McCain would be a good balance of power as president.<<

Even more important than that is Obama will more than likely appoint at least three Supreme Court judges if he wins. A disaster for this country.

[fatman]

Who are the three who'll retire?  I can think of Stevens off the top of my head, at 88 he'll either die or retire anytime now, but I'm not sure who the other two are.  If they're Souter or Ginsburg that shouldn't change the balance of power, you'd have to search pretty hard to find a Justice more liberal than Stevens.  Replacing Kennedy with a liberal would change the balance, as Kennedy tends to be the middle Justice who is usually the 5th vote in a 5-4 decision.  If the replacement is for Scalia or Thomas, needless to say that would change the balance a lot, but I don't know that either would retire during the term of a Democrat.

All just speculation, but again, I'm curious as to who the two that you're referencing are.

[richpo64]

>>All just speculation, but again, I'm curious as to who the two that you're referencing are.<<

Actually there could be as many as four if he was to (God forbid) serve two terms.

Stevens is 88
Ginsburg is 75
Kennedy is 72
Scalia is 72
Souter is 69

None of these folks are spring chickens.

[Michael Tee]

<<I would say that Prime Minister Harper is pretty much a spitting image of George W. Bush, and Micheal Tee is stuck with him. (No wonder he posts here.)>>

Harper's been smart enough to distance himself from Bush because he knows how much Bush is hated and despised here (as in the rest of the world.)  I hope you guys realize that Harper is the head of a MINORITY government and needs to keep his coalition partners happy so they stay on board.  This severely limits his craziness, and - - for just two examples - - keeps him from taking any steps to criminalize abortion or to send Canadian troops to Iraq, as he had advocated doing when he was in the opposition.  He is also unable to do much to roll back our single-payer health-care system.

Harper is really not worth discussing.  Canadian politics are extremely boring, but I'll just say one more thing on this - - we have had in the past two elections a TOTAL FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP in the Liberal Party, which is the only reason a clown like Harper even got his foot in the door, even as minority government.  As soon as the Liberals get their shit together Harper will be out on his ass.