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.
I'm just poking fun at the doom-and-gloomers who are trying to demoralize the voters here. And they probably don't realize I'm joking and are patting themselves on the back, thinking they've bagged another one for Obama.
No such luck. ;-)
The whole world is going to hell in a handbasket!
Oct 2004 CNN: Bush lead
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/index.html
Not saying that means much except that CNN is no obscure poll, and at this time in the 2004 election they had Bush winning--and he did.
Whew, thank goodness! LOL! I REALLY couldn’t see you as the give up and die type, but sometime our “job” here at FReeRepublic is to encourage each other when we get discouraged! Which happens to all of us at one point or another.
YOU be safe, and GO, ALLEGRA-—one of my personal heroines!
I had problems with him as a candidate (but imagine him debating Obama? wow!), but my pick for RNC chair would be Duncan Hunter.
At this time I would prefer a technically proficient, nuts and bolts, organizer type Chairman, as opposed to a policy person, unless the chair is a figurehead with actual control with an organizer type. (By the way, McCain would still be the ‘nominal’ party leader, but that means nothing these days.) IMHO Sarah Palin would be the grassroots choice for favorite republican leader.
You make a lot of sense regarding the "truthiness" of the polls. The "Racist!" thing is really, really getting old--my only hope is that everyone else is getting as tired as I am by this being the response to every criticism of the guy. Does the average American realize this trap--that it's the ultimate Get Out of Jail Free card for Obama? "The economy sucks? Oh, what a racist you are, trying to blame the greed and the Bush economy on the black man." Zzzzzzzz...
They know they are not going to change any conservatives mind by yelling “Racism”. Instead they are going to label us “Racist” so that they can tell their own side “If you become racist you have gone over to the Republicans!” It’s really a tactic designed to keep their own racist bunch in line without having to confront them directly. Viewed in this light the republican = racist nonsense actually makes sense.
America will make me puke also, if it elects Obama.
The question to Obama really should be, not just why he associated with such radical loonies as Ayers and Wright, but why wasn't he appalled and disgusted by their anti-American radicalism, class and racial hatred?
There is an element of moral relativism and "ends justify the means" in his answers to questions about these. As if it doesn't really matter if someone bombed their own country or engaged in domestic terrorism, as long as it was a few decades ago. "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they're young." There is a pattern of excusing and downplaying Far Left anti-American radicalism as just another lifestyle choice. "I know lots of people," he told Bill O'Reilly. "Ho, hum..." It doesn't matter if someone said "God damn America" or belonged to a Marxist Socialist party or, you know, set off a few bombs when they were in college. This kind of lack of seriousness, lack of judgment and responsibility doesn't belong in the White House of the United States of America.
If the internals are cooked (and they are), of COURSE the maps are going to look bad.
Look at the ground game, look at reality.
Start with the Dem Primaries.
The superdelegates had to push Obambi across the finish line, against Hillary, *AFTER* he had an almost insurmountable lead in delegates.
He won mostly in "caucus" states where his loud "in your face" supporters could dominate things: in secret ballot states he got *trounced*.
Also he had trouble in places like Pennsylvania and California in the Primaries.
Then there's operation Chaos, when people registered Dem in large numbers, who are (Rush listeners!) NOT going for Bambi no matter what.
Then there are the PUMAs -- one PUMA site estimated five million PUMA votes (normally Dem) going for McCain nationally.
Remember, last couple of elections have been (maybe) 51%-49%. The internals of the polls are giving the Dems anything from a 9% to a 14% headstart -- and still Bambi is up by single digits?
This is not the makings of a landslide groundswell: that was deflated by Sarah Palin's "Styrofoam columns going back to some Hollywood lot" line during the convention.
Look at Obama's crowds, and Biden's. All the TV shots of Bambi are close shots of the stage; when you look at the people behind him, they are staged extras -- no enthusiasm, no joy: and often (watch for it) row after row of identical union thug T-shirts. Bussed in on orders. And the close-ups of the stage are to try to hide the small numbers.
Biden is drawing -- zilch. That is not the sign of a groundswell.
Compare that to the Pubbies. We are getting reports of site after site filled past capacity, with venues of 10,000 people attracting crowds of 20,000 or more. Without a massive TV push (God knows the press despises Sarah and would not lift a finger if she were drowning).
So those crowds ARE word of mouth.
Finally, look at the TV.
The Dem spinmeisters are all crying "landslide Obama" -- if he carries all of these in-play states and takes North Carolina, Florida, Ohio.
Democrats engage projection.
If Bambi were ahead, you would not hear -- think, don't absorb like a sheep!!! -- cries of racism, ridiculous accusations of "kill him" and "terrorist" happening at the GOP crowds. Sarah is a HAPPY person, so are her speeches. I have attended one, so have other FReepers.
Hint: Dems engage in projection, look at the videos of the "Obama youth" and other such.
Look at Carville darkly promising race riots if Obama loses.
Hint: did anyone ever speak of such a thing during Reagan's 1984 race. That *was* a landslide.
Finally, look at Obambi buying a half-hour of airtime on Oct. 29.
If he were up by 11 points, he wouldn't be doing that.
And if he were up by 11 points, the Dem talking heads would be crowing about HIS coattails, and how he would have 62 votes in the Senate and 2/3 of the house.
Not. A. Peep.
Compare what the Dems have been like when they have been cruising to a victory, to what they have been like this campaign.
You can feel it in the air.
...postscript.
The Feds and the states are ALL OVER ACORN. They won't be getting their "thug thizzle" this campaign: and the supposed wave of early voting fraud in Ohio for Obambi. Ain't happening, unless by absentee: which can be checked and challenged. And the shill, whore, and (in my mind) guilty of treason SecState of Ohio, just got bitch slapped by a federal court. If she tries it again, the same lawyers who won Florida for Bush in 2000 will have her for lunch in any aftermath.
Cheers! Cheers!
His middle school and High School years in Hawaii were mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a communist USA party member. No one seems to talk about that very important fact. Being mentored in his very formative and abandoned by his father years by a communist party leader makes it possible later in life to pal around with the likes of Ayers, Rezko, and (he is no reverend) Wright.
I want FR to help win this election.
Dig?
If you have to lie to win, you don't deserve to win.
Dig?
That's a great post, but come on--"The internals are cooked!" is the cry of the person who knows his side is losing and doesn't like it.
Please--we ALL know all about internals around here. Please respect my intelligence, and I'll respect yours.
If I were only looking at polls with lopsided samples, I sure wouldn't feel the way I do now.
I know, I know. But the economy is going to crash like a wave over this election. And when I heard McCain's comments about Obama, and the "Palin found guilty" thing...
It's not impossible, but it sure will be a surprise to me if McCain wins.
Your already decided it’s lost.
You cannot see a win you said.
You have kneeled before the MSM polling gods and given them that power.
I will not kneel.
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.