TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10206
36 Comments
Raoul Ortega wrote:
A little while ago I came across this, from the same source, that this is supposedly in the speech tonight:
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience [as mayor], let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.
How exactly did The One!™ let himself get roped into being compared unfavorably against McCain's VP, anyhow?
ken anthony wrote:
All she has to do is wait for them to call her mayor then simply say, "you're not running against a mayor"
Then let the silence work for her. Everybody will get the point.
Dave G wrote:
ROFL ROFL ROFL
You got your wish!!! Listen later, this is gonna be good.
Jim Harris wrote:
Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except mayors have to get results and are held accountable if they don't.
She got results all right. In fact, she really brought home the bacon. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin obtained $27 million in federal earmarks, which was $3,000 to $4,000 for every resident of the town.
But hey, since she has a philosophy of individualism and self reliance, they were libertarian earmarks. Or maybe she was libertarian except for those itty bitty earmarks --- nobody's perfect, you know.
A commenter asked why "leftists" have reacted so much to Sarah Palin. My answer is that both Palin's selection and Rand's support for her have been great opera bouffe. The former mayor of Earmarkville is somehow the libertarian candidate of the race. Yeah, right.
But I admit that the opera bouffe is getting old.
Mike Puckett wrote:
"A commenter asked why "leftists" have reacted so much to Sarah Palin. My answer is that both Palin's selection and Rand's support for her have been great opera bouffe. The former mayor of Earmarkville is somehow the libertarian candidate of the race. Yeah, right.
But I admit that the opera bouffe is getting old."
How about her handing the entire libtard world their ass on a silver platter tonight for something new?
Dan Quayle? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You hosers can forget that shit!!!
If Hillary could speak hals this well, she would have stomped Obama into the Terra Firma by the end of January. She is a natural.
Anyone who can't see why McCain picked her after tonight either did not watch the speech, is a retard or is a retard who did not watch the speech.
Leland wrote:
But I admit that the opera bouffe is getting old.
Agreed, so why do you keep doing it. It was old after the second time you ever posted to this blog. You've pursuaded no one and never made a rationale argument. It's boring. You're a bore.
Myself, didn't watch the speech. I'm not a big fan of the conventions. But I read through the transcript. I like it. I said before that I find it hard to support McCain, but I might vote for him to avoid Barack. Well, I think I can support Palin.
Leland wrote:
Favorite line:
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
Ouch. I guess if you are going to talk about your experience as a Senator, you ought to be able to point to legislation that you authored and not the books you authored while not writing legislation.
Michael wrote:
It seems to me that if a significant portion of the narratyive of the race continues to be comparisons between Obama and Palin, then Obama is in big trouble. If the best coverage that Obama can get, as a presidential candidate, is favorable comparison to the Republican party's vice presidential candidate, then that leaves John McCain essentially running unopposed.
So, I watched Sarah Palin's maiden speech last night at the convention. I also heard her experience praised to the skies. In fact, Rudy Giuliani, talking to MSNBC after her speech, suggested that she balanced John, "who's weak in that department." Maybe the ticket should be Palin - McCain? ;-)
Seriously, she did deliver a good speech, and the Democrats will have their work cut out for them.
Here's what irritates me on the "Palin Experience Express." McCain has spent the last nine months beating Obama with the experience stick, suggesting he's an empty suit with an ability to read a teleprompter. So now he goes and appoints somebody with basically equivalent experience to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. To learn on the job, which I heard from several interviews at the convention.
The word for that is hypocrisy. Experience matters, except when it doesn't. Giving an inspiring speech isn't enough, except when your party needs inspiration. Michael Kinsley in Slate compares this flip-flop to the American Communist Party. It's an entertaining read.
Don't get me wrong - Palin will be a tough nut to crack. But if she's "experienced enough" to be VP, then Obama is "experienced enough" to be President.
Josh Reiter wrote:
Chris Gerrib wrote:
"if she's "experienced enough" to be VP, then Obama is "experienced enough" to be President."
I appreciate the attempt at turning this logic on its head but I do not believe it reciprocates very well here.
Palin is a VP, a potential president who's aptitude and abilities will only be called into question contingent on a number of misfortunate occurrences. Obama is seeking to fill the actual role of President -- Apples/Oranges.
Obama has done another thing that is confusing. Long has W. Bush been criticized for being Dick Cheney's puppet. Why then would it be suddenly acceptable for Obama to rely upon Biden to fill out any short comings in his experience?
Leland wrote:
So now he goes and appoints somebody with basically equivalent experience (to Obama) to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
So you are saying Obama would be a good pick for McCain's VP?
if she's "experienced enough" to be VP, then Obama is "experienced enough" to be President.
As Michael says, if this is the narrative the left wants to put forward, then it doesn't bode well for Obama.
Leland & Josh - I can't speak for the Left, but I can speak for me. I thought the "experience" argument was bogus from the start. It seems that the Right and various Democratic primary opponents couldn't or didn't want to attack Obama's policies so they attacked "experience."
Jim Harris wrote:
Long has W. Bush been criticized for being Dick Cheney's puppet.
It's not that it's so terrible in principle for the President to delegate to the Vice President. What has really been disastrous is Cheney's insidious, fanatical right-wing maneuvers. Palin probably wouldn't be equally powerful in Washington, but she could well be equally fanatical.
The fact that Palin wants to ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and Down syndrome is an interesting example. She said that her wish for such a law is just a personal opinion that she can set aside. The fact that she tried to yank books from the Wasilla public library gives the lie to her theory about personal opinions.
Naturally it plays well at the RNC. The Schlaflys and so on enjoy getting away with things that don't make sense, or that they don't deserve. When it comes crashing down, they then say that a disloyal media presented the wrong reality.
Rand Simberg wrote:
It seems that the Right and various Democratic primary opponents couldn't or didn't want to attack Obama's policies so they attacked "experience."
I don't know what campaign you've been watching, but I've seen them doing (appropriately) both.
It's not that it's so terrible in principle for the President to delegate to the Vice President. What has really been disastrous is Cheney's insidious, fanatical right-wing maneuvers.
[rolling eyes]
Repetition of nutroot assertions doesn't somehow render them non-nonsensical.
Leland wrote:
I can't speak for the Left, but I can speak for me.
Ok, so it is a foolish narrative for you to propagate.
I thought the "experience" argument was bogus from the start.
So, you decided to call people hypocrits by making it an argument now? Psychologist call that "projection".
It seems that the Right and various Democratic primary opponents couldn't or didn't want to attack Obama's policies so they attacked "experience."
Yes, Democrat contenders questioned his experience. It's pretty hard to run against Obama's policies as a Democrat when he adopts the DNC policies 100%. As for McCain, Obama's experience is hardly comparable, which is probably why people like you are comparing Obama to Palin.
Leland - I thought I was propagating and critiquing the McCain narrative as of one week ago. The McCain narrative as I understood it was "experience." McCain also said that he would pick a Vice President who was ready "on day one" to be President.
Adding those two narratives together doesn't equal a 1st term governor of a sparsely-populated state with no known expertise in foreign policy.
Since that's what he picked, it appears that experience wasn't as important as he stated.
Jim Harris wrote:
Adding those two narratives together doesn't equal a 1st term governor of a sparsely-populated state with no known expertise in foreign policy.
I really think that the expertise/experience angle is an oversimplification. It's true that to all appearances, Palin could hardly know less or care less about foreign policy. But what would she be if she did read up on Pakistan and Venezuela? She would still be a pit bull, and the last thing that our foreign policy needs is more pit bulls. Pit bulls get tangled up in endless fights in alleys. What we need is owls, who can gaze over all countries with perception and balance, and only fight when they have to.
Palin is not and will never be an owl, because that would be "elitist". McCain has sometimes had a steadier gaze, but he has become another pit bull in order to appease The Base.
Leland wrote:
Ignoring Jim's silly pet analogies, exactly how do you plan to support this comment: Adding those two narratives together doesn't equal a 1st term governor of a sparsely-populated state with no known expertise in foreign policy.
Like I wrote to Bob, get a map Chris. Also, please provide the international agreement that Obama brokered. Say a pipeline deal with Canada ( And don't just tell me it's part of his energy plan). Has Obama even decided what his position is with Canada and NAFTA? And before you think Canada is not foreign enough, exactly what ideology group was recently complaining about Alaskan oil going to Japan? Who worked out that agreement? Obama?
Again, you are foolish to keep comparing Palin to Obama.
Leland - thank you for providing the link. I was not aware that the natural gas pipeline ran through Canada.
You do realize that Obama sits on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee?
A bit of Googling on the pipeline found that Palin and Obama agree on the pipeline as late as August 7 of this year. The article, by the Anchorage Daily News, suggests that the pipeline is not a done deal.
Leland wrote:
You do realize that Obama sits on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee?
And?
First, I'll point out again you are comparing the number 1 spot on the DNC ticket to the number 2 spot on the RNC ticket. It was dumb idea the first several times you did that.
Second, he's a member on the committee. What type of executive experience is that in foreign relations? Grant it, Biden is the chair of the committee. Perhaps Biden should be at the top of the ticket? Neither are very good at foreign relations. They've been on vacation since Russia invaded Georgia and thus failed to have even one hearing on the matter. I see when they get back, they'll be looking at Ambassador nominations.
Third, Obama and Palin may agree that the pipeline is a good idea. I already noted that Obama considers it part of his energy plan. The difference is Palin went beyond the plan; she actually implemented the solution as the Governor of her state. Pretty damn easy for Obama to do foreign relations when his competitor does the work for him.
Back to the first item, continuing to compare Obama to Palin isn't a winning strategy.
Leland - No, I'm comparing what John McCain said he would do with what he did do. The definition of hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.
Also, regarding "executing" the pipeline deal. As I read the article, Alaska spent $500 million for a company to get permits to build a pipeline. Not one piece of steel has been cut for this project.
Oh, and for Governor Palin's edification, Obama's stint as a community organizer (for 3 years right out of college) was as the director of the Developing Communities Project, a group organized and funded by eight Catholic parishes.
Mike G in Corvallis wrote:
You do realize that Obama sits on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee?
You do realize that Obama chairs the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs ... and has never bothered to convene it?
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Chris Gerrib it's very common to buy or negotiate rights before starting to build, be it pipelines or anything else. It's a good idea if one wants to stay out of court, avoid international scandals, wars... you get the idea.
What was your point again? If it was the money you need a good map and a sense of scale (and not just geographic).
And even if one assumed (wrongly) that Obama and Palin had an equal amount of experience it wouldn't automagically give Obama more or less experience than he had before. Vice Presidents do have an opportunity for on the job training that Presidents don't. Palin is not running for President. Where exactly is the hypocrisy you're alluding to?
Now add that Palin has far more experience than Obama and in some ways more experience than McCain and your argument becomes downright silly. Purely on executive experience McCain outshines Obama "merely" from having been a Navy captain (I guess most people wouldn't have any idea how much executive experience that actually is). So who exactly on the Republican ticket is less experienced than Obama?
The "executive experience" argument is alive and well, the Democrats are stumbling into just about every political sinkhole in existence and it's likely a very high percentage of Americans will sooner or later recognize at least some of it for what it is: widespread incompetence and delusion. They might as well vote for lemmings instead.
My bias: Palin/Rice'2012! ^_^
Leland wrote:
My bias: Palin/Rice'2012!
No doubt the reason Palin is being savagely attacked by the Democrat partisans.
Leland wrote:
Obama's stint as a community organizer (for 3 years right out of college) was as the director of the Developing Communities Project, a group organized and funded by eight Catholic parishes.
You really want to go into that subject?
The DCP was created from a grant by The Woods Family Foundation, for which Obama was a board member. The Woods family made their money selling coal to Illinois largest energy supplier, Commonwealth Edison. The former CEO of Commonweatlh Edison was Tom Ayers. Tom's son was on the board of The Woods Family Foundation with Obama. Although, Obama and Tom's son worked together; Obama would later say he only knew Tom's son as a neighbor down the street.
Most of us know Tom's son because of his actions in 1970 (bombing of the NYPD police station), 1971 (bombing of the US Capitol) and 1972 (bombing of the Pentagon). Billy Ayers is proud of those accomplishments and says he didn't do enough (I guess Al Qaeda did his work for him, though they didn't get the Capitol). Obama seems to have no problem with Billy Ayers; after all, Ayers babysitted Obama's children. And apparently, Chris, you think that his work with Billy Ayers provided Obama with critical executive experience.
I don't think Obama's campaign plans on bringing up that particular aspect of Barack's executive experience.
Leland wrote:
Oh, and for Governor Palin's edification, Obama's stint as a community organizer was as the director of the Developing Communities Project
You do realize she acknowledged that point in her speech, and indeed that was the whole topic of this thread. For your edification, her point was that a Director of a Community Project doesn't have the same responsibilities as a Mayor.
So again, I remind you that comparing Obama's experience to Palin's experience is not a winning argument.
Leland - the source I found for the Developing Communities Project said it was founded by local Catholic parishes. There was nothing about the Woods Foundation mentioned, although since when is it a problem to make money selling coal to a power company? Also, Obama was not on the Foundation board during his community organizer days (1985-1988) nor was Bill Ayers. So unless you provide a link with facts otherwise, I will assume you are misinformed.
This blog has a bad case of Bill Ayers cooties. Here's the Ayers problem - for people of my age (42, five years younger then Obama) the first time we heard that Ayers was a terrorist was when the Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine ran a bio on him the week after 9/11. (A bio that had been in the works for weeks, and was probably physically printed before 9/11). The gist of that bio was how well-established Ayers was in the Chicago scene.
In short, it was entirely possible to live in Chicago, associate with Bill Ayers, and not know he was / is a terrorist. It's not like the guy wears an "I Am A Terrorist" t-shirt. If hanging out with "Billy Ayers" was a problem, it was a problem shared by half of Chicago.
Habitat - my point on the pipeline was that it's not done yet.
Also, I was in the Navy. I am aware of the executive experiences of Naval Aviators. Until you get to squadron command, they don't have much experience. Basically, they just fly the plane, and the CPOs / WOs / Maintenance Officers fix them, and lead the people who do the fixing. McCain commanded a squadron for 1 year or so - the limit of his executive experience.
I'm actually not attacking Palin or her experience. I don't agree with her politics, but that's a different issue. I'm questioning the decision to put her on the ticket - McCain's decision.
I don't conceed that Palin has more experience then Obama - she has at best the same amount. So if Obama's experience is problematic for McCain, Palin's should be.
It seemed reasonable to expect McCain to match his words with his actions. I don't think he did so.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> I don't conceed that Palin has more experience then Obama - she has at best the same amount.
Ran a state vs watched Axelrod run "his" campaign with covering fire from the MSM? (Getting MSM on board was brilliant, but Sen. Clinton eventually figured out what had happened and started to break through, but ran out of time.)
Then there's the Annenberg Foundation's $100M education program. By Obama's standards, it was a roaring success. It didn't do much harm, didn't cost the taxpayers much (it was mostly private money) and it funnelled money to cronies.
Leland wrote:
the source I found for the Developing Communities Project said it was founded by local Catholic parishes.
Chris,
From the link you provided of Obama's wikipedia page: He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993 to 2002.
From that link, you can click the Woods Fund of Chicago, which shows the board of directors in 2001 including Barack Obama and Billy Ayers.
DCP wasn't founded by Catholic parishes. Read the text from the link you provided: Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes.
To answer your other question: since when is it a problem to make money selling coal to a power company?
I don't know, who is claiming it as a problem? I simply corrected your misreading of who founded the DCP. Since when does a coal company = catholic parish?
So unless you provide a link with facts otherwise, I will assume you are misinformed.
Well, I could assume you are illiterate, but if so, you have made an aweful career choice. If you are literate, then you don't comprehend very well, which is pretty much the same as illiterate. If you are not illiterate and can comprehend, then I'm left with you deliberately misrepresenting facts.
Leland - With all due respect, the only individual suffering from an inability to comprend the written word is you. Specifically:
If an institution "originally comprised" eight Catholic parishes, doesn't that mean they had to found it? In addition, The Nation article sited is written as if the Fund gave a grant to an existing entity.
Obama was not on the board of the Woods Foundation when he was working with DCP, nor was Ayers. They both joined later, which was what I said. (In fact, Ayers joined after Obama had joined.) I don't see why it's a problem for somebody to accept a grant from an institution when they are not affliated with it, which is what DCP and Obama did.
As I also said, and is repeated in The Nation article, Ayers was all over Chicago society at the time. Such radical people as Mayor Daley knew and associated with Bill Ayers.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Chris you're coming across as intentionally dumb now, i.e. that you're playing stupid. We're not even discussing politics any more but simple comprehension of facts.
Snippet from dict.org
"Syn: To embrace; include; comprehend; contain; encircle; inclose; involve; imply. [1913 Webster]"
So no it doesn't mean that they had to found it, or fund it, or be in charge of it, or in any way be associated except as a geographical delimitation.
Now let's say they did even so, it doesn't change anything. As certain people usually love to shout: follow the money. Did it come with strings attached? Or is it just coincidence that Obama and Ayers stayed so close? Considering what else is known about Obama there seems to be little cause for reasonable doubt but I'm all for finding further details.
As for McCain I'm not worried about it being one year or one day because he and Palin have both already said the magic words when talking about leadership. Not only that but McCain has beyond any doubt tried to live those words for decades as has Palin during her far fewer years as mayor and Governor.
For that matter McCain got perhaps the toughest crash course possible on true leadership long before his squadron command. You can ask his brothers in arms whether he failed or passed.
Obama has nothing that compares to any of this, absolutely nothing.
About that pipeline yeah it hasn't been built yet. So what? Are you snapping your fingers? ^_^
Likewise I'm not done with my daily training yet (late as it is, only got twenty crunches left) but that doesn't mean I'm not intending to and planning on doing just that as soon as I've posted this. Teaspoons: you haven't made an argument.
Habitat & Leland - you say that the DCP was founded by the Wood Fund. You have no proof of that. I say that "originally comprised" implies, under the normal usage of English, that the entities which originally comprised it founded it. I further say that the construction of English "gave a grant to" (from The Nation article) means that the entity receiving the grant is already in existence.
Not that receiving a grant from or even being founded by the Wood Fund should be a problem. I see no indication that it is anything other then a small charitable organization. The only problem anybody seems to have with it is that, after it funded the DCP, it included Bill Ayers as a Board member. Since Bill Ayers was heavily involved in non-profits in Chicago, that doesn't seem problematic to me.
I say that if you start from the premise that something is evil, you can twist facts and language to support your beliefs. You two are obviously doing that here.
The question of "executive experience" is not personal bravery. As Fred Thompson said, "being a POW does not qualify you to be President." I have no doubt McCain is personally brave.
I do not know what his abilities are to manage a large organization, such as the Executive Branch. Nor for that matter do I know what Obama's abilities are in that regard, although it appears they have equivalent experience levels. Since I am personally displeased with the current management of the Executive Branch, I am willing to take the risk of somebody who will clearly do things much differently then the current President is doing.
At any rate, it appears that neither of you is willing to be persuaded. Since it is obvious to me that I am wasting my time and yours with this discussion,I will withdraw from it.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Chris Gerrib posted: "Habitat & Leland - you say that the DCP was founded by the Wood Fund. You have no proof of that. I say that "originally comprised" implies, under the normal usage of English, that the entities which originally comprised it founded it. I further say that the construction of English "gave a grant to" (from The Nation article) means that the entity receiving the grant is already in existence."
No what I did is point out that "originally comprised" does not by itself say anything about who founded it or funded it or anything else. It says something about original scope and delimitation and that's all. Sure it can imply lots of stuff but it's not explicit and you shouldn't treat it as such unless you can back it up somehow. Can you?
Leland quoted Wikipedia's Obama page, here's the full sentence: "He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993�2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994�2002.[12]"
The [12] refers to: "12. ^ a b c d e f g Chassie, Karen (ed.) (2007). Who's Who in America, 2008. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who's Who, p. 3468. ISBN 9780837970110. Retrieved on 2008-06-06."
So that's the source according to Wikipedia. I don't have that book and I'm not buying it either ^_^
If you're saying the source is wrong then please provide the details. Can you?
The DCP "About Us" page says:
"Developing Communities Project (DCP), the largest church-based community-organizing agency on Chicago's far south side began in 1984 as a branch of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC)."
That's very light on the details but at least we have a rough idea that it was in some form conceived in 1984. Usually it means they filed the appropriate papers at that time.
DCP is incorporated and says it's faith-based but their home page doesn't give any details on what it is incorporated as. I kind of would have expected them to be some kind of 501(c) and seeking donations publicly. I get a 403.6 message ("Forbidden: IP address rejected") when I try to go to the State of Illinois website (I know for a fact that the states of California and Florida don't do anything that silly) so I can't look up the details without hassle. Maybe one will find out elsewhere.
So what's the CCRC?
Here's a description from an article called "The Agitator" in The New Republic: "A year after graduating from Columbia, Obama spotted an intriguing help-wanted ad in The New York Times. The Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC), a group that aimed to convert the black churches of Chicago's South Side into agents of social change, was looking for a community organizer to run the group's inner-city arm, the Developing Communities Project (DCP). Obama soon arranged to meet in New York with the organizer heading up the job search."
Hmm "a group that aimed to convert the black churches of Chicago's South Side into agents of social change"... that does not sound like the local parishes coming together, it does sound like hijacking. It would be nice to have more details on what the CCRC really is and who is behind it. After all names can be deceiving on purpose.
On funding (not founding) the Nation article Leland linked to called "Obama Under Weather" says: "The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago's economically depressed South Side."
It could well be that this funding in 1985 was the first funding for DCP, things take time to get running.
So who hired Obama? A guy named Jerry Kellman. Here's how he is described by The Rocky Mountain News in an article called "Obama's 'change' could be more than a coined phrase": "Jerry Kellman came to Chicago, a product of the '60s and the anti- war movement, to learn how to organize under the legendary Saul Alinsky - who, interestingly, was the subject of an undergraduate thesis by another presidential candidate from Chicago, a woman named Hillary Clinton."
Now of course if you actually take a look at his "Rules for Radicals" you'll understand that the Wikipedia article is heavily watered down.
However his Wikipedia page had an interesting tidbit at the end: "Thirteen years after Alinsky died, some of his former students hired Barack Obama to a $13,000 a year job as a community organizer in South Chicago.[12]"
The [12] refers to: "12. ^ For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone by Peter Slevin, The Washington Post, 2007-03-25."
You'll find that The Washington Post article here.
I've merely scratched the surface with the help of Google and lightly looked over some of the results/articles --nothing in-depth, there might be much more in the links I've given-- but I already know enough and I don't think you should fool yourself about this stuff.
Chris Gerrib posted: "Since Bill Ayers was heavily involved in non-profits in Chicago, that doesn't seem problematic to me."
So it would be problematic if a terrorist only partook in a single non-profit but if he plays a part in many then it isn't an issue?
Please think that one through again. Read that Alinsky book to get a grasp of the "rules" they're following: the tactics and strategies of communists, socialists, and national socialists. They're not stupid and they'll eat you alive with the rest of the "children of the revolution" if you and enough others let themselves be tricked. Your choice.
Hopefully you'll find something soon enough that you instantly recognize as flat out wrong and disastrous, I liked Obama better than Hillary before I did (not that it matters much since I'm not an American). No, it wasn't the topic at hand.
Chris Gerrib posted: "I say that if you start from the premise that something is evil, you can twist facts and language to support your beliefs. You two are obviously doing that here."
Sure you're not projecting? Don't give me an answer on that as it's immaterial, instead try to look at all this without that last quoted sentiment of yours.
I can't change your mind for you, I can only show you mine.
Chris Gerrib posted: "The question of "executive experience" is not personal bravery. As Fred Thompson said, "being a POW does not qualify you to be President." I have no doubt McCain is personally brave."
No disagreement at all but I was talking about something entirely different; there's nothing brave about breaking. There's nothing brave about being rescued.
Confessing to the fact of it and admitting you broke has a small amount of bravery because it hurts and shames but it's beyond the point I was making.
No, what I'm convinced McCain understands is what happened when his fellow prisoners rescued him after breaking, that he knows what it was. It was many things but among them it was pure condensed leadership stripped of all fluff and trivialities. Maybe it would help you understand if I said personal leadership but no other kind of leadership exists. He at the very least learnt that leadership has little --and often absolutely nothing-- to do with being on top of a hierarchy.
Why is leadership important? If one takes leadership and the understanding it embodies and removes it from executive experience one is left with nothing but administrative experience. Administrators manage.
I said an awful lot with very few words in that last paragraph, spend some time thinking it through until you see how it can make sense and you should get it.
Chris Gerrib posted: "I am willing to take the risk of somebody who will clearly do things much differently then the current President is doing."
Congratulations! You can't lose this election no matter what, I think you should ask for more though, I sure would if I was a US voter.
Chris Gerrib posted: "At any rate, it appears that neither of you is willing to be persuaded. Since it is obvious to me that I am wasting my time and yours with this discussion,I will withdraw from it."
What were you trying to persuade us of?
Leland wrote:
Thanks HH. AS for Chris: I say that if you start from the premise that something is evil, you can twist facts and language to support your beliefs. You two are obviously doing that here.
I never took such a premise. I know you claimed that I suggest something wrong about selling coal and providing grants, but I never made such a suggestion. You did. I do think Billy Ayers is evil, but I didn't say that Obama was evil for associating with him. I would like to hear Obama say he doesn't trust Billy Ayers, but that's another story.
My premise from the beginning was restated several times: I remind you that comparing Obama's experience to Palin's experience is not a winning argument.
When I was in HS, I had a much bigger guy try to bully me into a fight. I didn't back down, but I did posit that it wouldn't work out for him. If I bested him, then he got beat by a smaller kid. If he got the better of me, then he beat up a smaller kid. He decided there wasn't much in it for him to fight me.
Obama's at the top of his ticket. Palin's at the bottom of her's. Of course, you don't want to convince me that Palin has better experience. Even if you can convince me Obama's experience is better, then all you've done is convince me he would make a good VP. You decided to go down the road anyway.
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 3, 2008 2:11 PM.
A little while ago I came across this, from the same source, that this is supposedly in the speech tonight:
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience [as mayor], let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.
How exactly did The One!™ let himself get roped into being compared unfavorably against McCain's VP, anyhow?
All she has to do is wait for them to call her mayor then simply say, "you're not running against a mayor"
Then let the silence work for her. Everybody will get the point.
ROFL ROFL ROFL
You got your wish!!! Listen later, this is gonna be good.
Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except mayors have to get results and are held accountable if they don't.
She got results all right. In fact, she really brought home the bacon. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin obtained $27 million in federal earmarks, which was $3,000 to $4,000 for every resident of the town.
But hey, since she has a philosophy of individualism and self reliance, they were libertarian earmarks. Or maybe she was libertarian except for those itty bitty earmarks --- nobody's perfect, you know.
A commenter asked why "leftists" have reacted so much to Sarah Palin. My answer is that both Palin's selection and Rand's support for her have been great opera bouffe. The former mayor of Earmarkville is somehow the libertarian candidate of the race. Yeah, right.
But I admit that the opera bouffe is getting old.
"A commenter asked why "leftists" have reacted so much to Sarah Palin. My answer is that both Palin's selection and Rand's support for her have been great opera bouffe. The former mayor of Earmarkville is somehow the libertarian candidate of the race. Yeah, right.
But I admit that the opera bouffe is getting old."
How about her handing the entire libtard world their ass on a silver platter tonight for something new?
Dan Quayle? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You hosers can forget that shit!!!
If Hillary could speak hals this well, she would have stomped Obama into the Terra Firma by the end of January. She is a natural.
Anyone who can't see why McCain picked her after tonight either did not watch the speech, is a retard or is a retard who did not watch the speech.
But I admit that the opera bouffe is getting old.
Agreed, so why do you keep doing it. It was old after the second time you ever posted to this blog. You've pursuaded no one and never made a rationale argument. It's boring. You're a bore.
Myself, didn't watch the speech. I'm not a big fan of the conventions. But I read through the transcript. I like it. I said before that I find it hard to support McCain, but I might vote for him to avoid Barack. Well, I think I can support Palin.
Favorite line:
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
Ouch. I guess if you are going to talk about your experience as a Senator, you ought to be able to point to legislation that you authored and not the books you authored while not writing legislation.
It seems to me that if a significant portion of the narratyive of the race continues to be comparisons between Obama and Palin, then Obama is in big trouble. If the best coverage that Obama can get, as a presidential candidate, is favorable comparison to the Republican party's vice presidential candidate, then that leaves John McCain essentially running unopposed.
(Cross-posted from my blog)
So, I watched Sarah Palin's maiden speech last night at the convention. I also heard her experience praised to the skies. In fact, Rudy Giuliani, talking to MSNBC after her speech, suggested that she balanced John, "who's weak in that department." Maybe the ticket should be Palin - McCain? ;-)
Seriously, she did deliver a good speech, and the Democrats will have their work cut out for them.
Here's what irritates me on the "Palin Experience Express." McCain has spent the last nine months beating Obama with the experience stick, suggesting he's an empty suit with an ability to read a teleprompter. So now he goes and appoints somebody with basically equivalent experience to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. To learn on the job, which I heard from several interviews at the convention.
The word for that is hypocrisy. Experience matters, except when it doesn't. Giving an inspiring speech isn't enough, except when your party needs inspiration. Michael Kinsley in Slate compares this flip-flop to the American Communist Party. It's an entertaining read.
Don't get me wrong - Palin will be a tough nut to crack. But if she's "experienced enough" to be VP, then Obama is "experienced enough" to be President.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
"if she's "experienced enough" to be VP, then Obama is "experienced enough" to be President."
I appreciate the attempt at turning this logic on its head but I do not believe it reciprocates very well here.
Palin is a VP, a potential president who's aptitude and abilities will only be called into question contingent on a number of misfortunate occurrences. Obama is seeking to fill the actual role of President -- Apples/Oranges.
Obama has done another thing that is confusing. Long has W. Bush been criticized for being Dick Cheney's puppet. Why then would it be suddenly acceptable for Obama to rely upon Biden to fill out any short comings in his experience?
So now he goes and appoints somebody with basically equivalent experience (to Obama) to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
So you are saying Obama would be a good pick for McCain's VP?
if she's "experienced enough" to be VP, then Obama is "experienced enough" to be President.
As Michael says, if this is the narrative the left wants to put forward, then it doesn't bode well for Obama.
Leland & Josh - I can't speak for the Left, but I can speak for me. I thought the "experience" argument was bogus from the start. It seems that the Right and various Democratic primary opponents couldn't or didn't want to attack Obama's policies so they attacked "experience."
Long has W. Bush been criticized for being Dick Cheney's puppet.
It's not that it's so terrible in principle for the President to delegate to the Vice President. What has really been disastrous is Cheney's insidious, fanatical right-wing maneuvers. Palin probably wouldn't be equally powerful in Washington, but she could well be equally fanatical.
The fact that Palin wants to ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and Down syndrome is an interesting example. She said that her wish for such a law is just a personal opinion that she can set aside. The fact that she tried to yank books from the Wasilla public library gives the lie to her theory about personal opinions.
Naturally it plays well at the RNC. The Schlaflys and so on enjoy getting away with things that don't make sense, or that they don't deserve. When it comes crashing down, they then say that a disloyal media presented the wrong reality.
It seems that the Right and various Democratic primary opponents couldn't or didn't want to attack Obama's policies so they attacked "experience."
I don't know what campaign you've been watching, but I've seen them doing (appropriately) both.
It's not that it's so terrible in principle for the President to delegate to the Vice President. What has really been disastrous is Cheney's insidious, fanatical right-wing maneuvers.
[rolling eyes]
Repetition of nutroot assertions doesn't somehow render them non-nonsensical.
I can't speak for the Left, but I can speak for me.
Ok, so it is a foolish narrative for you to propagate.
I thought the "experience" argument was bogus from the start.
So, you decided to call people hypocrits by making it an argument now? Psychologist call that "projection".
It seems that the Right and various Democratic primary opponents couldn't or didn't want to attack Obama's policies so they attacked "experience."
Yes, Democrat contenders questioned his experience. It's pretty hard to run against Obama's policies as a Democrat when he adopts the DNC policies 100%. As for McCain, Obama's experience is hardly comparable, which is probably why people like you are comparing Obama to Palin.
Leland - I thought I was propagating and critiquing the McCain narrative as of one week ago. The McCain narrative as I understood it was "experience." McCain also said that he would pick a Vice President who was ready "on day one" to be President.
Adding those two narratives together doesn't equal a 1st term governor of a sparsely-populated state with no known expertise in foreign policy.
Since that's what he picked, it appears that experience wasn't as important as he stated.
Adding those two narratives together doesn't equal a 1st term governor of a sparsely-populated state with no known expertise in foreign policy.
I really think that the expertise/experience angle is an oversimplification. It's true that to all appearances, Palin could hardly know less or care less about foreign policy. But what would she be if she did read up on Pakistan and Venezuela? She would still be a pit bull, and the last thing that our foreign policy needs is more pit bulls. Pit bulls get tangled up in endless fights in alleys. What we need is owls, who can gaze over all countries with perception and balance, and only fight when they have to.
Palin is not and will never be an owl, because that would be "elitist". McCain has sometimes had a steadier gaze, but he has become another pit bull in order to appease The Base.
Ignoring Jim's silly pet analogies, exactly how do you plan to support this comment:
Adding those two narratives together doesn't equal a 1st term governor of a sparsely-populated state with no known expertise in foreign policy.
Like I wrote to Bob, get a map Chris. Also, please provide the international agreement that Obama brokered. Say a pipeline deal with Canada ( And don't just tell me it's part of his energy plan). Has Obama even decided what his position is with Canada and NAFTA? And before you think Canada is not foreign enough, exactly what ideology group was recently complaining about Alaskan oil going to Japan? Who worked out that agreement? Obama?
Again, you are foolish to keep comparing Palin to Obama.
Leland - thank you for providing the link. I was not aware that the natural gas pipeline ran through Canada.
You do realize that Obama sits on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee?
A bit of Googling on the pipeline found that Palin and Obama agree on the pipeline as late as August 7 of this year. The article, by the Anchorage Daily News, suggests that the pipeline is not a done deal.
You do realize that Obama sits on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee?
And?
First, I'll point out again you are comparing the number 1 spot on the DNC ticket to the number 2 spot on the RNC ticket. It was dumb idea the first several times you did that.
Second, he's a member on the committee. What type of executive experience is that in foreign relations? Grant it, Biden is the chair of the committee. Perhaps Biden should be at the top of the ticket? Neither are very good at foreign relations. They've been on vacation since Russia invaded Georgia and thus failed to have even one hearing on the matter. I see when they get back, they'll be looking at Ambassador nominations.
Third, Obama and Palin may agree that the pipeline is a good idea. I already noted that Obama considers it part of his energy plan. The difference is Palin went beyond the plan; she actually implemented the solution as the Governor of her state. Pretty damn easy for Obama to do foreign relations when his competitor does the work for him.
Back to the first item, continuing to compare Obama to Palin isn't a winning strategy.
Leland - No, I'm comparing what John McCain said he would do with what he did do. The definition of hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.
Also, regarding "executing" the pipeline deal. As I read the article, Alaska spent $500 million for a company to get permits to build a pipeline. Not one piece of steel has been cut for this project.
Oh, and for Governor Palin's edification, Obama's stint as a community organizer (for 3 years right out of college) was as the director of the Developing Communities Project, a group organized and funded by eight Catholic parishes.
You do realize that Obama sits on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee?
You do realize that Obama chairs the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs ... and has never bothered to convene it?
Chris Gerrib it's very common to buy or negotiate rights before starting to build, be it pipelines or anything else. It's a good idea if one wants to stay out of court, avoid international scandals, wars... you get the idea.
What was your point again? If it was the money you need a good map and a sense of scale (and not just geographic).
And even if one assumed (wrongly) that Obama and Palin had an equal amount of experience it wouldn't automagically give Obama more or less experience than he had before. Vice Presidents do have an opportunity for on the job training that Presidents don't. Palin is not running for President. Where exactly is the hypocrisy you're alluding to?
Now add that Palin has far more experience than Obama and in some ways more experience than McCain and your argument becomes downright silly. Purely on executive experience McCain outshines Obama "merely" from having been a Navy captain (I guess most people wouldn't have any idea how much executive experience that actually is). So who exactly on the Republican ticket is less experienced than Obama?
The "executive experience" argument is alive and well, the Democrats are stumbling into just about every political sinkhole in existence and it's likely a very high percentage of Americans will sooner or later recognize at least some of it for what it is: widespread incompetence and delusion. They might as well vote for lemmings instead.
My bias: Palin/Rice'2012! ^_^
My bias: Palin/Rice'2012!
No doubt the reason Palin is being savagely attacked by the Democrat partisans.
Obama's stint as a community organizer (for 3 years right out of college) was as the director of the Developing Communities Project, a group organized and funded by eight Catholic parishes.
You really want to go into that subject?
The DCP was created from a grant by The Woods Family Foundation, for which Obama was a board member. The Woods family made their money selling coal to Illinois largest energy supplier, Commonwealth Edison. The former CEO of Commonweatlh Edison was Tom Ayers. Tom's son was on the board of The Woods Family Foundation with Obama. Although, Obama and Tom's son worked together; Obama would later say he only knew Tom's son as a neighbor down the street.
Most of us know Tom's son because of his actions in 1970 (bombing of the NYPD police station), 1971 (bombing of the US Capitol) and 1972 (bombing of the Pentagon). Billy Ayers is proud of those accomplishments and says he didn't do enough (I guess Al Qaeda did his work for him, though they didn't get the Capitol). Obama seems to have no problem with Billy Ayers; after all, Ayers babysitted Obama's children. And apparently, Chris, you think that his work with Billy Ayers provided Obama with critical executive experience.
I don't think Obama's campaign plans on bringing up that particular aspect of Barack's executive experience.
Oh, and for Governor Palin's edification, Obama's stint as a community organizer was as the director of the Developing Communities Project
You do realize she acknowledged that point in her speech, and indeed that was the whole topic of this thread. For your edification, her point was that a Director of a Community Project doesn't have the same responsibilities as a Mayor.
So again, I remind you that comparing Obama's experience to Palin's experience is not a winning argument.
Leland - the source I found for the Developing Communities Project said it was founded by local Catholic parishes. There was nothing about the Woods Foundation mentioned, although since when is it a problem to make money selling coal to a power company? Also, Obama was not on the Foundation board during his community organizer days (1985-1988) nor was Bill Ayers. So unless you provide a link with facts otherwise, I will assume you are misinformed.
This blog has a bad case of Bill Ayers cooties. Here's the Ayers problem - for people of my age (42, five years younger then Obama) the first time we heard that Ayers was a terrorist was when the Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine ran a bio on him the week after 9/11. (A bio that had been in the works for weeks, and was probably physically printed before 9/11). The gist of that bio was how well-established Ayers was in the Chicago scene.
In short, it was entirely possible to live in Chicago, associate with Bill Ayers, and not know he was / is a terrorist. It's not like the guy wears an "I Am A Terrorist" t-shirt. If hanging out with "Billy Ayers" was a problem, it was a problem shared by half of Chicago.
Habitat - my point on the pipeline was that it's not done yet.
Also, I was in the Navy. I am aware of the executive experiences of Naval Aviators. Until you get to squadron command, they don't have much experience. Basically, they just fly the plane, and the CPOs / WOs / Maintenance Officers fix them, and lead the people who do the fixing. McCain commanded a squadron for 1 year or so - the limit of his executive experience.
I'm actually not attacking Palin or her experience. I don't agree with her politics, but that's a different issue. I'm questioning the decision to put her on the ticket - McCain's decision.
I don't conceed that Palin has more experience then Obama - she has at best the same amount. So if Obama's experience is problematic for McCain, Palin's should be.
It seemed reasonable to expect McCain to match his words with his actions. I don't think he did so.
> I don't conceed that Palin has more experience then Obama - she has at best the same amount.
Ran a state vs watched Axelrod run "his" campaign with covering fire from the MSM? (Getting MSM on board was brilliant, but Sen. Clinton eventually figured out what had happened and started to break through, but ran out of time.)
Then there's the Annenberg Foundation's $100M education program. By Obama's standards, it was a roaring success. It didn't do much harm, didn't cost the taxpayers much (it was mostly private money) and it funnelled money to cronies.
the source I found for the Developing Communities Project said it was founded by local Catholic parishes.
Chris,
From the link you provided of Obama's wikipedia page:
He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993 to 2002.
From that link, you can click the Woods Fund of Chicago, which shows the board of directors in 2001 including Barack Obama and Billy Ayers.
DCP wasn't founded by Catholic parishes. Read the text from the link you provided:
Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes.
So I researched Woods Family Foundation, because you failed to, and found:
The Nation: Obama Under the Weather
I also found the NYT article on Billy Ayers published ironically on 9/11/01: No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives
To answer your other question:
since when is it a problem to make money selling coal to a power company?
I don't know, who is claiming it as a problem? I simply corrected your misreading of who founded the DCP. Since when does a coal company = catholic parish?
So unless you provide a link with facts otherwise, I will assume you are misinformed.
Well, I could assume you are illiterate, but if so, you have made an aweful career choice. If you are literate, then you don't comprehend very well, which is pretty much the same as illiterate. If you are not illiterate and can comprehend, then I'm left with you deliberately misrepresenting facts.
Leland - With all due respect, the only individual suffering from an inability to comprend the written word is you. Specifically:
If an institution "originally comprised" eight Catholic parishes, doesn't that mean they had to found it? In addition, The Nation article sited is written as if the Fund gave a grant to an existing entity.
Obama was not on the board of the Woods Foundation when he was working with DCP, nor was Ayers. They both joined later, which was what I said. (In fact, Ayers joined after Obama had joined.) I don't see why it's a problem for somebody to accept a grant from an institution when they are not affliated with it, which is what DCP and Obama did.
As I also said, and is repeated in The Nation article, Ayers was all over Chicago society at the time. Such radical people as Mayor Daley knew and associated with Bill Ayers.
Chris you're coming across as intentionally dumb now, i.e. that you're playing stupid. We're not even discussing politics any more but simple comprehension of facts.
Snippet from dict.org
"Syn: To embrace; include; comprehend; contain; encircle; inclose; involve; imply. [1913 Webster]"
So no it doesn't mean that they had to found it, or fund it, or be in charge of it, or in any way be associated except as a geographical delimitation.
Now let's say they did even so, it doesn't change anything. As certain people usually love to shout: follow the money. Did it come with strings attached? Or is it just coincidence that Obama and Ayers stayed so close? Considering what else is known about Obama there seems to be little cause for reasonable doubt but I'm all for finding further details.
As for McCain I'm not worried about it being one year or one day because he and Palin have both already said the magic words when talking about leadership. Not only that but McCain has beyond any doubt tried to live those words for decades as has Palin during her far fewer years as mayor and Governor.
For that matter McCain got perhaps the toughest crash course possible on true leadership long before his squadron command. You can ask his brothers in arms whether he failed or passed.
Obama has nothing that compares to any of this, absolutely nothing.
About that pipeline yeah it hasn't been built yet. So what? Are you snapping your fingers? ^_^
Likewise I'm not done with my daily training yet (late as it is, only got twenty crunches left) but that doesn't mean I'm not intending to and planning on doing just that as soon as I've posted this. Teaspoons: you haven't made an argument.
Habitat & Leland - you say that the DCP was founded by the Wood Fund. You have no proof of that. I say that "originally comprised" implies, under the normal usage of English, that the entities which originally comprised it founded it. I further say that the construction of English "gave a grant to" (from The Nation article) means that the entity receiving the grant is already in existence.
Not that receiving a grant from or even being founded by the Wood Fund should be a problem. I see no indication that it is anything other then a small charitable organization. The only problem anybody seems to have with it is that, after it funded the DCP, it included Bill Ayers as a Board member. Since Bill Ayers was heavily involved in non-profits in Chicago, that doesn't seem problematic to me.
I say that if you start from the premise that something is evil, you can twist facts and language to support your beliefs. You two are obviously doing that here.
The question of "executive experience" is not personal bravery. As Fred Thompson said, "being a POW does not qualify you to be President." I have no doubt McCain is personally brave.
I do not know what his abilities are to manage a large organization, such as the Executive Branch. Nor for that matter do I know what Obama's abilities are in that regard, although it appears they have equivalent experience levels. Since I am personally displeased with the current management of the Executive Branch, I am willing to take the risk of somebody who will clearly do things much differently then the current President is doing.
At any rate, it appears that neither of you is willing to be persuaded. Since it is obvious to me that I am wasting my time and yours with this discussion,I will withdraw from it.
Chris Gerrib posted:
"Habitat & Leland - you say that the DCP was founded by the Wood Fund. You have no proof of that. I say that "originally comprised" implies, under the normal usage of English, that the entities which originally comprised it founded it. I further say that the construction of English "gave a grant to" (from The Nation article) means that the entity receiving the grant is already in existence."
No what I did is point out that "originally comprised" does not by itself say anything about who founded it or funded it or anything else. It says something about original scope and delimitation and that's all. Sure it can imply lots of stuff but it's not explicit and you shouldn't treat it as such unless you can back it up somehow. Can you?
Leland quoted Wikipedia's Obama page, here's the full sentence:
"He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993�2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994�2002.[12]"
The [12] refers to:
"12. ^ a b c d e f g Chassie, Karen (ed.) (2007). Who's Who in America, 2008. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who's Who, p. 3468. ISBN 9780837970110. Retrieved on 2008-06-06."
So that's the source according to Wikipedia. I don't have that book and I'm not buying it either ^_^
If you're saying the source is wrong then please provide the details. Can you?
The DCP "About Us" page says:
"Developing Communities Project (DCP), the largest church-based community-organizing agency on Chicago's far south side began in 1984 as a branch of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC)."
That's very light on the details but at least we have a rough idea that it was in some form conceived in 1984. Usually it means they filed the appropriate papers at that time.
DCP is incorporated and says it's faith-based but their home page doesn't give any details on what it is incorporated as. I kind of would have expected them to be some kind of 501(c) and seeking donations publicly. I get a 403.6 message ("Forbidden: IP address rejected") when I try to go to the State of Illinois website (I know for a fact that the states of California and Florida don't do anything that silly) so I can't look up the details without hassle. Maybe one will find out elsewhere.
So what's the CCRC?
Here's a description from an article called "The Agitator" in The New Republic:
"A year after graduating from Columbia, Obama spotted an intriguing help-wanted ad in The New York Times. The Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC), a group that aimed to convert the black churches of Chicago's South Side into agents of social change, was looking for a community organizer to run the group's inner-city arm, the Developing Communities Project (DCP). Obama soon arranged to meet in New York with the organizer heading up the job search."
Hmm "a group that aimed to convert the black churches of Chicago's South Side into agents of social change"... that does not sound like the local parishes coming together, it does sound like hijacking. It would be nice to have more details on what the CCRC really is and who is behind it. After all names can be deceiving on purpose.
On funding (not founding) the Nation article Leland linked to called "Obama Under Weather" says:
"The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago's economically depressed South Side."
It could well be that this funding in 1985 was the first funding for DCP, things take time to get running.
So who hired Obama? A guy named Jerry Kellman. Here's how he is described by The Rocky Mountain News in an article called "Obama's 'change' could be more than a coined phrase":
"Jerry Kellman came to Chicago, a product of the '60s and the anti- war movement, to learn how to organize under the legendary Saul Alinsky - who, interestingly, was the subject of an undergraduate thesis by another presidential candidate from Chicago, a woman named Hillary Clinton."
Ok so yet another Alinsky acolyte...
Who's Saul Alinsky? Wikipedia page.
Now of course if you actually take a look at his "Rules for Radicals" you'll understand that the Wikipedia article is heavily watered down.
However his Wikipedia page had an interesting tidbit at the end:
"Thirteen years after Alinsky died, some of his former students hired Barack Obama to a $13,000 a year job as a community organizer in South Chicago.[12]"
The [12] refers to:
"12. ^ For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone by Peter Slevin, The Washington Post, 2007-03-25."
You'll find that The Washington Post article here.
I've merely scratched the surface with the help of Google and lightly looked over some of the results/articles --nothing in-depth, there might be much more in the links I've given-- but I already know enough and I don't think you should fool yourself about this stuff.
Chris Gerrib posted:
"Since Bill Ayers was heavily involved in non-profits in Chicago, that doesn't seem problematic to me."
So it would be problematic if a terrorist only partook in a single non-profit but if he plays a part in many then it isn't an issue?
Please think that one through again. Read that Alinsky book to get a grasp of the "rules" they're following: the tactics and strategies of communists, socialists, and national socialists. They're not stupid and they'll eat you alive with the rest of the "children of the revolution" if you and enough others let themselves be tricked. Your choice.
Hopefully you'll find something soon enough that you instantly recognize as flat out wrong and disastrous, I liked Obama better than Hillary before I did (not that it matters much since I'm not an American). No, it wasn't the topic at hand.
Chris Gerrib posted:
"I say that if you start from the premise that something is evil, you can twist facts and language to support your beliefs. You two are obviously doing that here."
Sure you're not projecting? Don't give me an answer on that as it's immaterial, instead try to look at all this without that last quoted sentiment of yours.
I can't change your mind for you, I can only show you mine.
Chris Gerrib posted:
"The question of "executive experience" is not personal bravery. As Fred Thompson said, "being a POW does not qualify you to be President." I have no doubt McCain is personally brave."
No disagreement at all but I was talking about something entirely different; there's nothing brave about breaking. There's nothing brave about being rescued.
Confessing to the fact of it and admitting you broke has a small amount of bravery because it hurts and shames but it's beyond the point I was making.
No, what I'm convinced McCain understands is what happened when his fellow prisoners rescued him after breaking, that he knows what it was. It was many things but among them it was pure condensed leadership stripped of all fluff and trivialities. Maybe it would help you understand if I said personal leadership but no other kind of leadership exists. He at the very least learnt that leadership has little --and often absolutely nothing-- to do with being on top of a hierarchy.
Why is leadership important? If one takes leadership and the understanding it embodies and removes it from executive experience one is left with nothing but administrative experience. Administrators manage.
I said an awful lot with very few words in that last paragraph, spend some time thinking it through until you see how it can make sense and you should get it.
Chris Gerrib posted:
"I am willing to take the risk of somebody who will clearly do things much differently then the current President is doing."
Congratulations! You can't lose this election no matter what, I think you should ask for more though, I sure would if I was a US voter.
Chris Gerrib posted:
"At any rate, it appears that neither of you is willing to be persuaded. Since it is obvious to me that I am wasting my time and yours with this discussion,I will withdraw from it."
What were you trying to persuade us of?
Thanks HH. AS for Chris:
I say that if you start from the premise that something is evil, you can twist facts and language to support your beliefs. You two are obviously doing that here.
I never took such a premise. I know you claimed that I suggest something wrong about selling coal and providing grants, but I never made such a suggestion. You did. I do think Billy Ayers is evil, but I didn't say that Obama was evil for associating with him. I would like to hear Obama say he doesn't trust Billy Ayers, but that's another story.
My premise from the beginning was restated several times:
I remind you that comparing Obama's experience to Palin's experience is not a winning argument.
When I was in HS, I had a much bigger guy try to bully me into a fight. I didn't back down, but I did posit that it wouldn't work out for him. If I bested him, then he got beat by a smaller kid. If he got the better of me, then he beat up a smaller kid. He decided there wasn't much in it for him to fight me.
Obama's at the top of his ticket. Palin's at the bottom of her's. Of course, you don't want to convince me that Palin has better experience. Even if you can convince me Obama's experience is better, then all you've done is convince me he would make a good VP. You decided to go down the road anyway.
Any moment Chris, I expect you to remind us about Obama's executive experience as Director of the Joyce Foundation, and how that is exactly like Palin's experience as Governor.