Between Obama, Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright:
Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected "the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation," a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See "No Liberation.")
And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC's Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard's or Carruthers's names, SSAVC's proposals are filled with references to "rites of passage" and "Ptahhotep," dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.
We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.
If McCain won't go after this, some 527s need to.
John McCain could win this election if he weren't John McCain. By that, I mean that some candidate with John McCain's history and record could win it if he were really willing to take the gloves off. But he's constitutionally incapable of it. Too many years "reaching across the aisle." Which is one of the reasons in general that Senators have a tough time being elected president. Unfortunately, we have no choice this year.
You are obviously not reading the internals on recent polls carefully. The WaPo poll for example shows that the attacks are not working except in that they are defining McCain negatively. Bill Kristol would not be advocating a major change in tactics if he thought the negative ads and the Ayers, Wright, Rezko stuff was working or could work. It isn't, they aren't. Kristol has reversed himself in two weeks. People have taken a good look at Obama and they basically like him. It's a connection at gut level that Kerry and Gore could not make.
So really, no one gives a damn about this stuff right now except the alredy converted which is the approximately 40-44% that McCain already has in the bag - the talk radio lemmings. It's preaching to the choir. McCain's best hope is to release Sarah Palin, do multiple town hall meetings, and perhaps stress the benefit of divided government while announcing his new economic plan.
The Quinnipiac polls in MI,WI,CO,MN show Obama's lead widening during the period the Ayers-Rezko ads have been playing. It looks like a blowout in those four states.
It's a failed strategy. A waste of money and hope.
It won't work.
That's likely because they've been doing it ineffectively, focusing too much on Ayers in the 1960s and ignoring him in the 1990s. They also have to expand it to Wright and ACORN. Once people realize that Obama's been repeatedly lying about his past, he won't appear as attractive to the independents.
Yeah they like him because they don't know him. Every time someone goes after him about his mentors and associates, the MSM attacks, branding that person or group as racist, xenophobic or angry or all three. I'm amazed by how disconnected people are about what Obama will do as President and what people say about why they want to vote for him. The only people I see that will be better off are those who don't pay any income tax and Socialist groups he's already giving money.
If you have a good job and good benefits, your disposable income is going to take a big hit. If you are a small business owner, your future plans will get scaled back as the cost of new regulations cut into your profits in a big way. The people in these groups voting for Obama are voting against their self-interest.
If McCain wins it'll be despite himself. It's amazing that he will criticize members of his own party and constituency for minor sins before he will call out his opponents for much-worse behavior. But that's McCain.
Or did McCain hurt himself very badly by his choice of running mate? I think the numbers wouldn't be as bad had he picked Romney:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302376.html
Palin's approval numbers continue on a downward trajectory.
McCain is one good tv add away from a win. He just has to make the case. Sarah is doing her job. The media is screwing up big time trying to say she's a combination of dumb Dan Quayle and evil Dick Cheney.
I thought Bush was the stupid genius evil hick mastermind?
He picks Romney and all we would get would be stories about off shoot Mormons living the polygamy lifestyle and his flip flops on his positions. Oh, don't forget 2 white men. With the kind of negative press arrayed against Republicans, a story to fit the narrative would be found and hammered on until the numbers turned. Palin is keeping the base, which were ready to stay home, engaged and active in ways Romney couldn't. To say Palin is responsible for Clinton voters going to Obama in the context of the economy problems the press blames Republicans for and Hillary on the stump for Obama is pretty far-fetched. It does fit the narrative Dana "hunter orange" Milbank was pushing.
Romney makes lots of sense as the top guy, but not as Number 2. He'd just be seen as Dick Cheney, the Svengali behind the throne. Does anyone think Mike Gerson is going to recommend a winning strategy to his political foes? Ha ha.
Sarah Palin was the right pick. She lends enthusiasm and verve to the ticket, which is what you want your Number 2 to do. Plus, win or lose, you position her for her own run later on. She's part of the Republican future, earning her chops. In four more years, she'll have left Hillary in the dust. Indeed, there won't be any woman on the Democratic side with near her stature. That's why they hate her so much. It's not so much that she might help McCain, but what an older, seasoned Sarah Palin might do to them in four or eight or even twelve (she's young!) years.
Give McCain credit. Not only will he rob the Democrats of a "mandate," he has done his part to help train the farm team. That's something Bush, to his eternal discredit, neglected to do. Even Reagan didn't do enough to bring up an heir. And Obama, that arrogant newbie, can you just see Joe Biden running for President in 2016? After eight years of making an ass out of himself? Against Romney, or an older Sarah Palin? Slaughter. I imagine the prospect makes senior Democratic ballsacks tighten up.
Indeed, there won't be any woman on the Democratic side with near her stature.
....
Give McCain credit. Not only will he rob the Democrats of a "mandate," he has done his part to help train the farm team.
Carl, seriously, are you effing nuts or just trying to get a rise out of someone? Read David Broder in todays WaPo. Palin is clearly a huge negative for McCain. If McCain loses a bigger reason than the economy will be the choice of Palin as running mate. McCain would have had the anti-Obama talk radio, pro-gibberish voters anyway. He didn't need Palin to get them.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you are actually a sly sleeper agent for our side. Heh-Heh.
I haven't cared what David Broder thinks in...let's see...well, actually, I've never cared what David Broder thinks.
Well, it's not what Broder says... It's actual interviews with people in PA. There's video that goes along.
Governor Palin is the ideal foil for the Obama campaign. The media organizations, already ideologically aligned with The Chosen One, are happy to critique every aspect of the governor's life, including the competence of the most recent tooth-filling. That leaves no airtime for comparable examination of Senator LightBringer.
Fortunately, elections like these are why God invented overseas bank accounts.
Crap MG, Crap. If you want to think she's the Great Vag, go ahead. People just aren't buying it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302170.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
She was, is, remains, will be a lousy choice and a gift to the Obama campaign. She brought the Hillary voters home and turned the indies.
It's actual interviews with people in PA. There's video that goes along.
So? One could also find and make videos of people who were completely unenthusiastic about McCain until he picked Palin. Anecdotes are not data.
Palin will make a big difference in enthusiasm, turnout and GOTV for the Republicans, because the evangelicals are on board now. There will be a lot of phone banks in churches that wouldn't have happened without her. What the George Wills and David Brooks of the world think doesn't really matter much to most Republican voters (particularly the latter) and they are completely indifferent, if not antipathetic, to what David Broder thinks.
Palin will make a big difference in enthusiasm, turnout and GOTV for the Republicans, because the evangelicals are on board now.
Keep making those predictions Rand, they make your blog worth coming back to.
Rand, clearly you still feel that the Palin choice was a good one. Exactly what about her enthuses you? Apart from the gun-rights issue I can't put myself in your shoes and see any merit. Why do I feel baffled?
I'm expecting an insult, but takng my chances.
From the CBS/NYT poll today, giving Obama a 14 point lead:
The top reasons cited by those who said that [they] thought less of Mr. McCain were his recent attacks and his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
She was and is an awful choice: McCain's nightmare date. If Obama wins one sincerely hopes for the good of the country that someone competent, intelligible and honest (like Romney) becomes the GOP standard bearer.
Hey Mike, How about small government, energy, a strong military and lower taxes. The opposite of the Uno.
To that Anon SH@THEAD,
That poll notoriously oversamples Dems. They don't break out the party affiliations for a reason.
Hmmm, well a friend of mine is a pretty fervent democrat but he is voting for McCain this time because Obama freaks him out. Obama just gives him a bad feeling. He says he actually likes Palin a lot. If some news outlet did a fluff piece on my friend, would that be indicative of a trend or just an anecdote of what one person thinks.
Similarly, what we really get a lot of is what I saw on the news yesterday. A news crew went along with some soccer mom carting her kids around in a minivan and asked, "What do you think of Palin?" The mom said, "I dunno, she just scares me. I can't explain it, it is just a bad feeling."
I'm just so glad they are bringing such in-depth analysis to the airwaves. Basically, this is what I get out of it, "Yea, she's a woman, but a Republican? That's scary." I would be willing to wager that in the minds of people like this they imagine a democrat would be the first woman president or VP. Same thing if the Repub's had carted out a black man this time around. Everyone would be like, "Uh, yea he is black but, Republican? Whats wrong with him?" It is people with this mindset that aren't going to be swayed either way unless they can identify with the identity of their political persuasion.