Posted on 10/09/2008 10:40:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I realized something after Tuesday night's debate: If (big if) Barack Obama is not elected president next month, it will not be John McCain who defeats him.
McCain may be Obama's official opponent, but he isn't making the core case against him: namely, the case against Obama's deep roots in radicalism, which the Democratic nominee has never pulled up and grown away from. This is why if Obama loses on Election Day, it won't be McCain who defeats him. Like a flashy third-party candidate who ends up drawing just enough support from one candidate to put the other over the top, it is Obama's connections to anti-American extremism -- his incubation in a radical comfort zone home to ex-Weather Underground leader William Ayers, ex-PLO mouthpiece Rashid Khalidi, anti-white-and-anti-"middleclassness" minister Jeremiah Wright and others -- that will doom his presidential ambitions.
McCain, Obama and, coming up on the outside, Obama's radicalism: This three-way race has created a weird dynamic as the candidates turn into the final stretch. Blinkers on, McCain hobbles after Obama, who is now desperately trying to shake off the radicalism that could trip him up before the finish line. Again, no thanks to McCain, whose winks at Obama's radicalism, Sarah Palin's stumpside references notwithstanding, are not what has brought it to the fore. The fact is, Obama's ties to radicalism are taking on a life of their own.
Such a "life" is in no way documented in the mainstream media (MSM). Just consider our leading journalists' idea of professional responsibility when it comes to, for example, Obama's connection to unrepentant Pentagon bomber William Ayers.
Ayers -- a violent, 1960s militant who later decided that radicalizing education in the guise of "reform" was the front-line of revolution -- is infamous for a New York Times interview published on Sept. 11, 2001 in which he not only declared America "makes me want to puke," but also discussed his group's violent attacks on American military and civilian targets, asserting, "we didn't do enough." His working relationship with Obama, as documented by Stanley Kurtz, goes back to the 1990s when Obama served as chairman of a $150 million charity, which Kurtz describes as Ayers' "brainchild," that doled out money to far-left groups such as ACORN. Funny, as Kurtz has noted, Obama never mentioned these five years of what is his only executive experience in either of his two memoirs. Not so funny is Obama's dishonest description of Ayers as "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
MSM coverage of the relationship has been hardly more forthcoming. It runs from demonstrable whitewash -- as put over in the New York Times, which, in nixing notable ties, omitted all mention of copious, previously published evidence to the contrary -- to overt damage control, as conducted by the Associated Press. The AP actually argued that Palin's reference to the Obama-Ayers relationship as Obama "(palling) around with terrorists" conveyed a "racially tinged subtext." Huh? According to the AP, Palin's remarks were racist because "terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims." Therefore....
Are they kidding? In a word, no. But such efforts may signal a desperate response to growing, inchoate unease in the land, a silent, or sighing, or very privately discussed queasiness over the prospect of making an American president out of a man who not only didn't cross the street to shun a punk like Ayers, but was so comfortable with Ayers -- who, not incidentally, in 1995 described himself as "a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist" -- that Obama launched his political career from Ayers' living room, also in 1995.
This relationship continued, as even the New York Times perhaps inadvertently reported: Obama "said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005." Ask yourself: What American president -- any party, any era -- would have maintained correspondence with Mr. America "makes me want to puke" for that long? And about the year 2005: Isn't that roughly when Obama decided to run for president?
Americans may be fuzzy on the details -- and how could they be clear, given the media's pro-Obama activities -- but some are realizing, slowly and with no corroboration in the public square, that such radical ties don't pass presidential muster.
Or do they? In the end, the answer will decide the election. Meanwhile, we, the people, are on our own. Once, America's political and media and social institutions would have reflexively rejected a presidential candidate with an alliance with, or even an affinity for, an unrepentant terrorist and anti-establishment revolutionary. No more. The line between the establishment and the anti-establishment has vanished -- at least as far as our political and media and social institutions are concerned. But there remain citizens for whom such distinctions matter.
Writing at National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy pegged the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection: "Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him `want to puke.' The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental `change.' But what they're talking about," he wrote, referring to their complementary visions, "is not materially different. Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable."
Actually, such sentiments should make Obama radioactive. But ours is a culture of relativism in which one "belief system" is considered as valid as any other. Democracy? Marxism? Whatever! Lawful elections? Bombing the Pentagon? What's the difference? So greatly transformed by relativism is our society that not even elder statesman and veteran John McCain is alarmed by Obama's radicalism. If he were, this patriot who puts "country first," would be doing everything in his power to warn the American people against it.
Not that it matters, not now, not since Obama's radicalism entered the race. If this stalking horse finishes strong, Obama loses and America wins -- despite the other candidate.
It is a frightening thought indeed that Obama, as President, would have immediate, unquestioned, access to our most secret secrets, yet on his own merit he would be ineligible for a top secret security clearance.
Senator Obama couldn’t gain entrance into the military if his past associations were known, much less be given access to any type of intelligence or weapons information.
Yeah, I'm sure Tom Brokaw and Olberman and the rest feel such a sense of accomplishment that one person has a contrary view around FR.
I've never understood why some people don't dig it when someone tells the truth as they see it just because it differs from the prevailing desire. If you want FR to be nothing but a bunch of yes-men, you'll have to just read the other 99% of posts--if a tiny percentage of us don't see this mirage you do, why does that bother you? You're in the majority.
Of course. There's no reason not to vote, and anyone who WOULD be dissuaded because someone else senses doom is another of the sheep.
I was never very good about living in denial. But a prediction of bad possibilities rule doesn't rule me. That's for the emotion-based people I have no use for.
I do. I was telling that to someone just today, in fact.
But come on, if the polls were flipped, we'd be crowing proudly.
We can be saying 'Yeah, but the internals say...' all we like. One thing keeps popping up--we keep saying Obama can't close the sale, but he's been pretty consistently ahead of McCain. And you must be seeing some electoral maps I haven't. And I've seen a half dozen different ones, not one of them with anything even vaguelly hopeful.
Yeah, I was saying long ago "McCain, you are seriously deluded if you think the news media who love you so much are going to support you now." I recall Chris Matthews oozing love for McCain long ago--the last bit I saw on Youtube, you'd think McCain had just bashed Matthews' puppy with a shovel.
McCain was just shockingly unequipped to deal with Obama at these debates. McCain's "suspending his campaign" can now be seen as a complete mistake, and since then he's been failing, and looks it. Obama is calm--like the mannequin he is. That's what these "nonideological" swing voters want.
You're right, of course, we may see people split the vote if McCain and some 527 ads can get people wondering about Obama. But this is cutting it very close.
I give up.
I'm not going to bother to vote. It's just a waste of time. This thing is over.
Right?
If he gets the white and thw women's votes, it won't matter. And the Hispanic vote isn't going to be enough of a factor in the Bush states he could potentially swing.
Sky-high gas prices were bad enough, but McCain seemed to be getting past that situation and perhaps even pulling ahead of Obama. But not after the financial meltdown.
Very sad and very scarey to think of Obama appointing a wagon load of federal judges, who serve for life, from the SC on down. let's all learn how to say, "Goodbye to 250 years' worth of social capital and hello third world" status where elites make out like bandits and everybody else is part of the dependent underclass.
Now, please step aside. The adults with backbone will take it from here.
It seems Mexican immigration has put New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada (they think) into play. Obama is making a big lunge for them, trying to bust the Finkelstein Box in the West. But he has to open his own offices to work around the existing cadres, who, being older, are slow to cooperate with a black candidate, it turns out. Older Hispanics are cool to Obama, so he's trying to register and motivate young Hispanics to vote for him.
I'm certainly not voting for McCain out of enthusiasm for his policies; I'm voting for McCain as a way of stopping Obama. It's kind of like using a parachute as opposed to leaping out of the plane without--either way, we're heading for the same place.
Blah blah blah.
If you're such an adult, why don't you have the self-control to not read my posts? Do you have to respond to every post you disagree with, neurotically?
For an "adult" you sure come off like a spoiled child who can't stand the free flow of opinions.
Why would someone else's opinion cause you "despair"? How is that anything approaching an adult control of one's own emotions?
Too many people have this weird idea that the nuances that make up the truth will somehow get through to people who are so thick-headed they STILL haven't made up their mind who they're going to vote for (i.e. the undecideds).
very scarey to think of Obama appointing a wagon load of federal judges
Back when McCain first got the nomination and people were complaining, my tagline read "The one reason to vote for McCain: SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS".
We can all thank Mike Huckabee for cutting into Romney's vote just enough to give us McCain. No Republican would have an easy win in this cycle, and one could say Romney'd be called a fat cat. But he would have, simply put, demolished Obama in the debates about the economy. He would talk rings around him on the subject of what's happening and what can be done about it. He would ENERGIZE people, and Obama's "cool, calm demeanor" would have been exposed as the dullard's silence it is.
What if, what if...
I hope we have some real conservatives ready to run in the midterms. Because if what my friends in finance and business have told me is accurate, the storm's gonna really get wild in the second quarter next year (one friend just reported that his business is booming because people have their budgets now to spend, and they won't have that kind of money when budgets are drawn up NOW for early next year), and Obama's gonna be one clueless community organizer paddling a rowboat atop a tidal wave.
This 'poisoned chalice' prediction as to how terrible things will be next year that whoever wins in November will lose in the future, may very well be true, but it does not reduce our obligation to do what is best for our country. Of course, if we lose, we can start the 'Impeach Obama' campaign in anticipation.
Then, God forbid, that imbecile does win, I plan to make his life miserable. Email, phone calls, calls to Rush & Hannity, by every avenue available to me, I will let Obama know my displeasure. The media can't protect him forever.
Talk about a lame silver lining, huh? :(
On the bright side, maybe we can reconstitute as a CONSERVATIVE Repubican party, but first we need a wholesale cleaning of the RNC. I don't see that happening with McCain as the head of the party (how does that work if the candidate doesn't win?).
If 0bama is elected, we are going to have serious, serious problems. Nightmare may not be too strong of a word.
I think that’s kinda the point: “the polls” NEVER ARE “flipped” though. Every election I can remember, where polls were a factor, the Dem has had the lead position. That is the reason I can never put much stock in what they say.
If 0bama is allowed to constitute an administration, there will be serious trouble. The mood of the right opposition will be much darker than it was in 1993-95.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.