Don't know what to make of this. Part of me thinks it's stronger than the Wright/Ayers stuff because it's a personal attack with substance and policy behind it. In other words, it goes hard at McCain, but it also keeps the economy in the conversation. It's not just a random insult.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's powerful, and relevant.
Part of me wishes Obama didn't have to use this tactic, but with McCain throwing the kitchen sink, garbage disposal and septic tank at him...
Another thing to keep in mind is that Obama (and many others) clearly anticipated the precipitation of this crisis. Democratic partisans have been begging for Keating Five to be aired all year, but Obama wisely kept it in his pocket for when its relevancy was at its highest.
That's the difference between a tactic and a strategy.
The thing is, it's not guilt by association, it's guilt by guilt. Fair game, imo.
Of course, it's also really old, and I don't know that it will do much. But as the Rs seem intent on their 2-prong He's Unamerican and The Press is Mean attack for the next month, might as well get the unsavory associations out there.
I don't like that it's come to this, but, you know, it has.
I love it. I absolutely love it. It related to the current financial debacle, keeping the focus on the economy. It's not a cute, short commercial. It's a serious piece that asks the viewer to become engaged.
If, nothing else, Obama is proving that he has no intention of letting those mofos roll over him.
As Yglesias points out:
McCain's attacks are "guilt by association"
McCain's status as a dishonored member of the Keating 5 is "guilt by guilt" and beyond pertinent to the current crash of the economy.
McCain helped Charles Keating lose 20,000 American's savings by gambling their money away.
I agree with Deborah, it is guilt by guilt. And if your plan is to shape the race around experience and "being ready to lead," then you damn sure better expect your own record to pop up front and center.
One thing I like about this is that the Obama camp put the Keating 5 in its back pocket and waited for the mud to come. Once it did, it began to trumpet that shit loud and hard--and without apology.
What I can't figure is why McCain's camp announced the shift before coming with it (WaPo, Saturday). That gives you more of a chance to make a meta-narrative out of it instead of defending it.
Maybe I'm a kool aid-drinker, but this attack seems different to me because it's something John McCain *did*, not just someone he knows. Attacks on politicians associations have always seemed really weak (not to mention boring) to me. This is ancient history, but at least a teaspoon more relevant than a dude Obama had dinner with or listened to on Sundays.
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the Chicago way.
There's a lot more "there" there with the Keating Five than with Wright/Ayers, and a lot more relevance to the stuff people are worried about.
I don't know about this one. It seem premature to go nuclear as Rome burns (see stock market plunge - the bailout has put nothing behind us). Now McCain will have no qualms at all about going nuclear himself.
And while McCain can say he was exonerated, Obama will face the softer, racially tinged fears of "who is this guy?" -- racism and xenophobia McCain can keep exploiting even if there is no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing.
It most likely won't work, but what if Obama had kept the high ground for a little longer and said, "look, the market is crashing and he wants to talk about a hippie?"
I was unsure myself, until I started to see McCain's reaction. I mean, his team plays up this childish guilt by association crap on the cable shows on Sunday, and the Obama drops the boom. Now McCain FREAKS OUT. He sends out surrogates calling the Keating ads a "smear job" and that he "did nothing wrong."
Well..
(1) McCain was rebuked by the Senate ethics committee, and McCain used this scolding as the pivot point to transform himself into McMaverick the reformer
(2) Now he claims he was wrongly convicted and did nothing wrong?
Which was it, Johnny?
Seems like the McCain tailspin gets worse. It's like, they think they have this masterful knockout blow, and then Obama blows them over with a feather.
The bailout hasn't happened yet; the funds haven't been allotted. That's why the credit freeze is ongoing and the market continues plummeting. This will take some time.
The McCain campaign response strikes me as absolutely, perfectly, wrong. The place of Keating in the McCain Mythology is the fall before grace. Now they wanna say it wasn't a fall?
Do they really wanna spend a week or two, right now, re-litigating the Keating Five Scandal? I have no idea why they're pushing back against this instead of trying to co-opt it.
Here is the link to the full version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g72BuIvMbWY
It's very weak. You watch this and have no clue what he did. And of course, he's apologized for this umpteen times, was cleared of all charges, went on to do campaign-finance reform because of this very experience - you're not going to beat McCain on ancient accusations of influence-peddling.
@Asher:
No, "[we're] not going to beat McCain on ancient accusations of influence-peddling" but will answer crappy accusations with relevant-with-the-current-events and truth accusations. The rest: the economy, the war, health care, etc is in BO's favor.
It's about time Obama dropped the Keating Five on McCain. McCain took bribes. (Some call them "campaign contributions" - although there were, of course, those trips to the Bahamas.)
Bribes aren't hard to understand. There's a fine line between legalized bribery and the illegal variety. McCain got away with skating right up to that line. Did he cross it? Probably, but the stomach to prosecute him wasn't there.
Check the full version of the film, where Heflin comes right out and says that many believe McCain took bribes.
Bye bye, crooked McCain.
McCain is taking pot shots.
Obama is building a narrative about the number one issue on voters' minds.
this is powerful stuff that could be devastating if they frame it correctly.
they need to characterize keating for what he was: an economic terrorist who terrorized his customers and stole the life savings of little old ladies and went to prison for his crimes.
and instead of being a peripheral person in mccain's life, keating was mccain's mentor, his first arizona patron who was essential in his political rise.
the short preview of the longer documentary - i have not seen the full documentary - is somewhat weak and unfocused. i know that it is supposed to be like a movie trailer, but they have to know that many news outlets will only play that trailer and therefore, the trailer needs to be more specific.
they assume that most people already know the facts of the keating scandal and of mccain's connections with keating. that is an incorrect assumption and they need to provide more info...even in the trailer.
Besides the content this attack:
1. Folds McCain/Palin's attacks into a 'process story' about dueling attacks, taking attention off the details of McCain/Palin.
2. Gives the Obama base something to talk about rather than "another defensive Democratic campaign".
3. Makes McCain personally angry. And if he doesn't get angry but acts in a way consistent with anger (i.e., today's planned speech in New Mexico) provides a frame for which those comments will be seen as "angry" and retaliatory (even though in reality they were most likely planned over the weekend before Keating broke).
4. The media loves campaigns on offense, so Obama's campaign will get positive coverage for its strategy (note that the "rope-a-dope" and "jujitsu" memes popular in the left-wing blogs are now getting more of mainstream play).
This is the first true Rovian swift boat ad of this election campaign put out by Obama. One of McCain's strengths is his narrative of having "atoned" for the Keating scandal by becoming a Washington fighter. It will be interesting to watch the Republican response unfold.
I was visiting my retired grandfather in Sun City Arizona right after Lincoln went bankrupt. He told me about a good friend of his whose investments were wiped out in the scandal. The friend was going to lose his house so he killed himself. He sat in the bathtub to make it easier for others to clean up.
He might not have lost everything if McCain didn't place more value on his rich friends than his constituents.
I like this as well.
I forget who said this but I agree with the idea that Obama shouldn't respond to McCain's attacks directly. It just makes the news cycle longer. Instead, put you're own attacks out there. This one is not news, but it is highly relevant to our current crisis and it shatters McCain's rhetoric with his own record. Finally, nothing hurts like the truth.
"And of course, he's apologized for this umpteen times, was cleared of all charges, went on to do campaign-finance reform because of this very experience'
Actually, Asher, this is weak. He apologized umpteen times? Whoopee, his priest can absolve him, but how does that clear him of suspcions about his integrity and judgement?
And his campaign finance reform you tout is routinely condemned, typically by conservatives like George Will, as a violation of the 1st amendment. First Amendenment violations, one more area where he is in lock-step with Bush.
The one reason to hold back is timing; you might want to save this for later. But since there is more and worse, don't wait. More and worse: McCain is running on his POW time and his miltary service. Fine. He is a naval officer, as in "I will not lie, cheat or steal.' When Admiral Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, found he was erroneously wearing a combat ribbon he was not entitled to, he "could not live with the shame" and shot himslef. Now when McCain personally approved a campaign ad accsuing Obama of funding sex ed for kindergartners when in fact the program was sex abuse prevention, that was a lie, and a nice and recent lie. We are waiting, John. Obama should lay it out like that in the debate, and then just stand there waiting.
This ties in very neatly to what's going on with the economy and it exposes McCain proving his honor and honesty was always a sham.
The bonus is not that it increases turnout for Obama, but decrease support and turnout for McCain.
It's the Perfect Relevance that makes it work. It's not just about something McCain did years ago, it's not about some passing acquaintance or happening in the life of a politician who swims in a sea of all types; it's about how he failed to learn from one of the most personal and shattering experiences of his life - with that March 2008 speech standing as vivid proof.
And if he didn't learn from that, what are the odds that at 72 he's going to be flexible enough to do what's needed now?
Doesn't learn. Lacks judgment. Wrong for the time.
I knew the Chicago would come through.
Keating is fair game, even if:
1) McCain was thrown into the prosecution because otherwise the Keating 4 would have been all Democrats
2) He was absolved of all charges
3) The (Democrat) independent prosecutor has stated that McCain should never have been charged in the first place
4) McCain has spent the twenty years leading the charge on reforms, even if he has gone overboard in some instances (e.g., McCain-Feingold)
Now let's revisit Obama's associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko and that Saudi/black Muslim radical fellow too. I forget his name, but you'll know it soon enough.
Harry Shearer is behind this Sarah Palin music video "Bridge to Nowhere":
http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Harry_Shearer/Music_Videos/PalinBridgeToNowhere_934.aspx
avoiding discussing opponents' attacks for fear of extending the news cycle on them is a erroneous strategy, and i'm glad obama is apparently not following it.
why won't it work?
because mccain and palin - and palin, especially - will just keep repeating the smears each and every day in a different location and the news media will just replay each day's rendition of the same smears. so obama will get hammered each day, with the same smear and if he was worried about extending the cycle, and therefore avoided responding, mccain would simply repeat the same lies, day after day til november.
without refutation.
john kerry did not respond to the swiftboat attacks because he followed the same strategy now being recommended.
it didn't work then and it would not work now.
Fred, where have you been? Sarah Palin and John McCain have already brought all that stuff up. Again. That's leaving aside the absurdity of McCain 'leading the charge on reforms.'
McCain is a reformer insomuch as that, once every decade or so, he gets a bug up his ass and throws a temper tantrum/religious crusade against people he doesn't care for. Campaign finance reform, the Bush tax cuts, and global warming--that's about it. The best part is when my Republican friends at the office trying to argue that they support him because of his mavericktude, then stammer when you ask they exactly why those jumps off the reservation are a selling point to them
"1) McCain was thrown into the prosecution because otherwise the Keating 4 would have been all Democrats"
...
"On April 2, 1987, a meeting with chairman Gray of the FHLBB was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[7] The senators requested that no staff be present.[12] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln."[7] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[7]
On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[4] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[11][7] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[7] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[7] DeConcini began the meeting by saying, "We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent."[13]"
From Wikipedia. If you count, there's one-two-three-four-five senators involved.
Jack,
Your Republican friends probably don't agree with McCain's position on those issues. I don't either. The reason I am voting for him is because he is the lesser of two evils. Obama is an orthodox liberal (as demonstrated by his background and his voting record) masquerading as a centrist. With him in the White House and a Democratic Congress, he'd have the power to do some real damage. With McCain in the White House at least we'd have some checks and balances. With Obama, we'll get the same corrupt liberals whose fingerprints are all over this financial mess -- Dodd and Frank -- planting the seeds for the next one, abetted by Obama's friends on Wall Street.
If this country is stupid enough to vote for that, then we'll get the government we deserve.
"If you count, there's one-two-three-four-five senators involved."
If you subtract McCain, who the independent counsel said shouldn't have been charged in the first place, you would have had four Senators, all Democrats. If you count, it would have been one-two-three-four Senators, hence the Keating Four. Try to keep up.
"who the independent counsel said shouldn't have been charged in the first place"
Citation?
If McCain had a strategy, they'd be running this as "yes, as a new and inexperienced Senator I used poor judgment, but I learned from that experience and produced this record as a result." But they just have daily tactics, so we get "Keating, what Keating?"
Meanwhile McCain fights back with a bold statement on the economy, which can be summarized "Obama... Obama.... Obama.... Obama... Do we know the real Obama?" Good lord.
I like it.A few days ago I would not because I didn't want Obama to go negative in any way but after the "Obama wants to teach Kindergarteners sex ed and now the Ayers strategy I feel that enough is enough. I really am sick and tired of McCain/Palin throwing anything and everything in the hope that something sticks.
McCain/Palin are reminding me of a gambler who has lost a ton of money and is now betting stupidly in an attempt to get back above water. Also, in all their combined years on this earth, they has not learnt that "You don't throw stones when you live in a glass house"
Here is Palin's recent comment
"Well, I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago," Palin told the crowd. "Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.' These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do -- as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in -- not my kids and not your kids."
First of all, the association as phrased above is false. Second, Palin, who couldn't name ONE SINGLE NEWS PAPER she read when asked by Katie Couric and now she reads the NYT?
Third, unlike the Ayers guilt by association, the Keating 5 scandal is relevant because it actually happened, it is documented and if I remember correctly McCain was censured in some form or other. And it was a big freaking deal.
Also, that comment comes from Palin whose husband belonged to an organization that wanted Alaska to secede from the U.S and she once addressed one of their meetings. Are you freaking kidding me!!!!
I havent watched it yet, however on first glance I appears to be contrary to Obama's message of a new kind of politics. I guess no one is above being practical.
The formalist,
With Obama, we'll get the same corrupt liberals whose fingerprints are all over this financial mess -- Dodd and Frank -- planting the seeds for the next one, abetted by Obama's friends on Wall Street.
Nice try, Fred, but that sauce tastes like watered-down ketchup, it's so weak. John McCain voted for the bailout. George Bush wanted us to pass it, and so did his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson.
What's more, John McCain has lost more friends on Wall Street than Obama will ever have. You know, like Charlie Keating?
Fred,
Why do you even pretend? Keating Five was an important part of the 80's scandals and McCain did not escape censure, despite what you claim.
So you counter something McCain did with some people Obama knows.
You hate Obama because he's black. Which is why McCain is doing what he's doing now - it's precisely the different, unknown, dark, frightening strategy.
Unfortunately, there are more people who won't fall for it than people like you.
It's going to be a miserable Nov 5th for you Fred.
Folks:
A few things:
1. Ayres' ex-wife and Weatherman, Bernadine Dohrn, teaches at Northwestern University School of Law legal clinic. Is everyone who worked in the NU legal clinic now suspect because they said hello, worked under or with, Ms. Dohrn?
2. Read Fallows' discussion of Chuck Spinney. A guy who bases his campaign on his honor does not win by personal and/or phony attacks (as opposed to issues based attacks).
3. As I said in other threads, Obama is playing the Jackie Robinson revenge card just right. This response is not in reaction to uppity/elitist/celebrity/presumptuous attacks-- but to a non-race based attack. This is the perfect spikes-high slide that most agree is fair game.
Keating is directly relevant to the current financial crisis and will stick. Meanwhile, McCain/Palin play the "Obama is a terrorist" angle. Oh yeah, supporters of Palin shouted out "kill him" when she referred to Ayers/Obama.
You stay classy brown shirts...I mean Republicans. And yes, I fully believe that parts of the Republican Party have crossed the threshold and now espouse an American form of fascism.
Second, Palin, who couldn't name ONE SINGLE NEWS PAPER she read when asked by Katie Couric and now she reads the NYT?
Technically she's quoting something she was handed that was written by Ben Smith of Politico from February, while claiming she reads the NYTimes. Andrew's going to be worn out.
There's a reason Katie phrased it as "before you were tapped" because most of us understand that you get a press book after being tapped--though reading outside the press book would be admirable. And of course from more recent sources.
So is everyone in Illinois who know Ayers -- who happens to be a UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR -- are all his university associates and students and local government who know him, all of them are "palling around with terrorists? RIDICULOUS. We have at least 1 or 2 senators and House reps I know for sure are ex-KKK members -- the quintessential American terrorists. Byrd, for one. And no one is holding that against him or his friends. Terrorists whatever. I'm so done with today's GOP. Bill Clinton, fiscally, was a better Republican than any of the jerks we've got in place today.
Your Republican friends probably don't agree with McCain's position on those issues. I don't either. The reason I am voting for him is because he is the lesser of two evils. Obama is an orthodox liberal (as demonstrated by his background and his voting record) masquerading as a centrist. With him in the White House and a Democratic Congress, he'd have the power to do some real damage. With McCain in the White House at least we'd have some checks and balances. With Obama, we'll get the same corrupt liberals whose fingerprints are all over this financial mess -- Dodd and Frank -- planting the seeds for the next one, abetted by Obama's friends on Wall Street.
If this country is stupid enough to vote for that, then we'll get the government we deserve.
Posted by Fred | October 6, 2008 4:20 PM
Shorter Fred: I have nothing substantive to say, so I'll cobble together a few tired old attacks on libruls, without, of course, any evidence whatsoever, and pretend that I have an argument worth respecting. My name is Fred - slightly thicker than a bucket of pigswill, but with less nutritional value.
I'm loving the new look of the site.
With him in the White House and a Democratic Congress, he'd have the power to do some real damage.
Absolutely. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if he ignores the threat of Al-Qaida until we experience the worst domestic terror attack of a generation; wastes American influence on an avoidable war of adventure; presides over the loss of American morality by state-sponsored torture; rolls back civil liberties; and enacts an economic policy that heralds the worst solvency crisis since the 80's.
Oh, wait.
New design sucks. It's like you went back in time to 1998.
Whoop de doo!
Obama, in seeking not to have to answer any questions about his relationship with Ayers, slimes McCain with a scandal from which he was exonerated! The New York Times has reported many times that the Senate Ethics Committee decided to play politics with this scandal and made sure at least one Republican was dragged into to make it seem bipartisan, even though the three whores at the center of it, DeConcini, Cranston and Riegle, were all Democrats. The tactic forced them to condemn another American hero, too, John Glenn, who couldn't be let off the hook if the story of McCain's involvement was going to stick.
And we, so wise politically, are supposed to applaud this!
All Obama has to do is back down from his lie that Ayers was "a guy in the neighborhood," and simply explain the relationship. Instead, he's lied about it and wants his lie to stick. And to make it stick, he slimes a much better man than he.
Obama has finally thrown himself under the bus. He was the last one left.
Is the Keating Five Scandal merely one symptom of a giant disease of greed, hypocrisy, and profound dishonesty stretching back to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Charlemagne, King Solomon, and the Egyptian pharaohs? “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.” – Samuel Clemens.
Do all people everywhere in the world need to know about the love of money and the abuse of political power? Consider the following information from www.namebase.org :
Winter-Berger, Robert N. The Washington Pay-Off: An Insider's View of Corruption in Government. New York: Dell Publishing, 1972. 336 pages.
Robert Winter-Berger was a Washington lobbyist from 1964-1969, and he got out just in time. The next year his friend Nathan Voloshen, who had underworld connections and was a political fixer for House Speaker John W. McCormack, was indicted along with McCormack's aide Martin Sweig. McCormack faked ignorance and was allowed to resign quietly, while Winter-Berger was mentioned in the press. He had spent five years watching McCormack, Sweig, Voloshen, and many others pass around envelopes filled with cash in exchange for political favors; the indictments reflected only the tip of the iceberg. During those five years, Winter-Berger took notes and was in the habit of saving every scrap of evidence. This name-intensive book is the result.
If bribes, double-dealing, kickbacks, blackmail, and corrupt judges sound like grist for Hollywood, imagine the same thing happening in Capitol Hill offices, day in and day out. Once while Winter-Berger is sitting in McCormack's office, Lyndon Johnson storms in, alternately cursing and crying over his Bobby Baker problems. After a few minutes of this, Johnson finally notices Winter-Berger, and asks McCormack, "Is he all right?" "Yes, he's a close friend of Nat's," replies McCormack. LBJ then gets an idea -- he tells Winter-Berger to take a message to Nat for delivery to Bobby Baker, offering Baker a million dollars to take the rap and keep his mouth shut.
Was the love of money and the abuse of political a big part of the back-story for the War in Vietnam? Do all wars throughout history have significant overlap in the unwritten histories of bribes, influence-peddling, amoral merchants, and those evil people corrupted by money and power?
Obama, in seeking not to have to answer any questions about his relationship with Ayers, slimes McCain with a scandal from which he was exonerated!
Is there anything about this statement that is true? "Exonerated" is a funny way to spell "censured by the Senate ethics committee for errors in judgment", and we're practically been buried under a pile of news stories probing the Obama-Ayers "connection" to an absurd degree, and the worst, most dammning connection between Obama and a well-respected faculty member at U of Chicago is that they served on the same board, once.
And that pile came long before McCain's desperate smear campaign.
It's fairly obvious that PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) is in full effect here.
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has only been speaking truth to power. Barack Hussein Obama is eager to have a tea party with Iran, and he never met an America-hating terrorist he didn't gleefully approve of. Were this not so, you wouldn't see so many white flag-waving defeatists such as the leftists on this blog flailing around in such a fevered panic.
I applaud Sarah Palin's heroic efforts to expose the bosom buddies of terror, Nobama and Lyin' Biden.
Country First.
Atanarjuat confirms for me that there is a Franklin Mint somewhere that stamps out GOP-boiler-plate talking points and hires people to randomly post them to unrelated blog entries.
At least now we can dispense with the myth that Obama is some "new" kind of candidate. Disingenuous attacks don't exactly make for "change you can believe in."
At least now we can dispense with the myth that Obama is some "new" kind of candidate. Disingenuous attacks don't exactly make for "change you can believe in."
==
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. A lot of Democrats aren't looking to elect a Messiah. We're looking to elect a President, and if he has to scuffle a bit to get there, alrighty then. So thanks but no thanks for your concern! (;))
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. A lot of Democrats aren't looking to elect a Messiah. We're looking to elect a President, and if he has to scuffle a bit to get there, alrighty then. So thanks but no thanks for your concern! (;))
I'm hardly concerned, but I am glad to know that at least a few of you have stayed away from the kool-aid.
At least now we can dispense with the myth that Obama is some "new" kind of candidate. Disingenuous attacks don't exactly make for "change you can believe in."
Please. Those of us who have the brains that God gave a Billy Goat knew long ago, that Obama is a politician just like any other. I'm glad to see Obama hitting back and bringing the fury in a way that Kerry and Gore never did.
Kill My Dog, Ima Slay Your Cat,
HR
At least now we can dispense with the myth that Obama is some "new" kind of candidate.
A Democrat who's not afraid to confront lies and pursue an aggressive campaign to get elected?
I'd say that's pretty new, actually.
Part of me thinks it's stronger than the Wright/Ayers stuff because it's a personal attack with substance and policy behind it.
Gosh, the US is involved in a Global War on Terror, and Obama got his political start with the help of an unrepentant anti-American terrorist. Nope, no policy or substance there!
Gee, Obama's running on his "judgment", and he spent 20 years in a church run by a delusional (the US Government created AIDS) anti-America ("God damn America") bigot (Black liberation Theology). Nope, nothing of substance there!
It's about time Obama dropped the Keating Five on McCain. McCain took bribes. (Some call them "campaign contributions"
You people are so funny. Obama was the #2 recipient of bribes, I mean campaign contributions, from Fannie and Freddie, not 20 years ago, but in the last 4, and you want to be talking about companies bribing Senators to get protection from regulators?
Bring it on!
It must be really difficult for folks like Greg Q to accept the reality that Obama will very likely be his President. Keep raging against the dying of the light, Greg, but it won't amount to much. All of the "associations" are completely overblown and you know it. Rev. Wright, while possibly a buffoon, had his words ("God damn America") completely taken out of context and anyone who actually read the complete sermon would know that. But keep on taking your partisan, fear-based talking points as total truth. Obama will be President and he will have the onerous task of undoing all the great and terrible things that Bush and his solipsistic Republican contingent have wrought...
Logan,
I wish I could put you on national TV, telling that to every potential voter, because if they could all hear it, Obama would lose in a landslide.
The only "legitimate context" for "God Damn America" is "some scumbag was saying 'God Damn America', so I told him to get lost." You lefties don't understand that, but a majority of Americans do. Which is one of the reasons why you lefties keep on losing whenever you let the American people know what you stand for.
As for President Obama, I'm working to keep him from winning, because I do care about America. But if he does become President, I will laugh.
Because he's an empty suit, a pathetic joke, and an incompetent buffoon. The only thing Barack Obama has ever accomplished is to win some elections. When he actually tries to govern, he will be a complete flop, and will destroy the Democrat brand for decades. The 2010 elections will be a joy, and make 1994 look like a tea party.
You lefties don't understand that, but a majority of Americans do.
Actually I'm going to say no, they don't. For a substantial majority of Americans the sentiment "God damn America" seems incendiary, and somewhat puzzlingly aggressive, but it simply doesn't inspire them to consider the speaker a "scumbag", or to make the average American hate a decorated Marine with multiple White House letters of commendation in the way that you so obviously do.
It's because, Greg, you suffer from a specific personality disorder called "Right-wing authoritarian personality type", characterized (among other things) by violent loyalty to one's identified group (America, in your case.) Look up the work of Bob Altemeyer. This is a real condition that you suffer from. It's why Bush enjoys a 28% approval rating - that's roughly the same number of Americans that suffer from this illness.