Saturday, October 11, 2008

Questions Which Should Be Asked, But Won't

The Beer: I'm getting ingredients for Winter Ale. I'll use some of the batch in my "Beer-for-Deer" program. Papa Sierra and Juliette Lima are the best participants.

The Bicycle: I'm having some ankle problems that are going to suspend any riding for the forseeable future.

The VRWC: Questions everyone should be asking, but the MSM won't:

  • If Sarah Palin is not qualified by experience to be Vice-President, how is Barak Obama qualified by experience to be President?
  • What is the relationship between ACORN and the Obama campaign?
  • Who is funding ACORN's voter registration program?
  • Why does any mention of ACORN and their relationship to vote fraud in Milwaukee (and nationwide) only rate a page 6 column in the Milwaukee paper?
  • Why is it not ok for Sarah Palin to fire a state trooper who is not (allegedly) a very nice person? He's a guy who (again, allegedly) tased his own child. What am I missing here?
  • What is the relationship between Bill Ayres and Barak Obama? How would the MSM treat a similar relationship between John McCain and a member of a far Right revolutionary group?
  • What is the relationship between Tony Rezko and Barak Obama?
  • Why is it racist to vote against Barak Obama if one disagrees with his policies?

Throw more down if you got 'em.

10 comments:

Merge Divide said...

I got one... why has the MSM tried to make the case that Palin is ignorant of the Bush Doctrine?

Merge Divide said...

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress.

I think that all political observers that accused Sarah Palin of not knowing about the Bush Doctrine need to reassess their beliefs. She may not have been able to communicate the principles intelligibly, but she has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she has internalized an understanding of the tactics that the approach involves. The McCain/Palin ticket are simply applying the Bush Doctrine to its political opponent. The accusations that Palin and McCain are making by insinuation have very real consequences, and they need to be held accountable for them.

Read SERENDIPITY.

Deekaman said...

I'm not sure I'm clear on what mergedivide is trying to say here. Is it that McCain/Palin are accusing Senator Obama of being a terrorist? I don't believe I've heard that inference. Care to provide an example?

Merge Divide said...

I suspect you are being facetious, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and spell it out simply for you.

The Bush Doctrine seeks to put people that "associate" with terrorists at the same level of threat as the terrorists themselves. By linking Obama to Ayers (even though the premises and the conclusions of this argument are fatally flawed), the McCain/Palin campaign is attempting to put them in the same category- i.e. as threats to the security of the US.

Deekaman said...

I don't see it that way (and no, I wasn't being facetious. Your argument wasn't clear to me). But let's put the shoe on the other foot here. If McCain had any association, no matter how slim or how long ago with a member of say, Posse Comitatus (did I spell that right?) or other Right wing revolutionary fringe group, don't you think the MSM would be on it like a duck on a June bug? And explain to me the fatal flaw you speak of. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

The divisive side is the Left. Right now you have Rep. Lewis claiming McCain is "sowing the seeds of hatred". How?
This is the most bi-partisan guy of the last 50 years. And I guess Lewis has never looked at the hate spewed from Democrat Underground or Daily KOS? In order to keep the eyes off of yourself, you must point and scream at the other guy. That's what the Left does and has done for nearly 30 years. The Left is unable to win on the merits of the argument, so they must change the subject. What they are unable to win at the polls, they must try to win through the (unelected) courts. I fail to see how this is representative democracy.

I realize I've digressed significantly here, but I was going on stream of conciousness.

I appreciate our differnce of opinion.

Merge Divide said...

I've posted a list of questionable associations (on other blogs) that McCain has had. I don't think that's what you are asking for here, but I will point out one specific figure that meets the general criteria that you mentioned- G. Gordon Liddy. The mainstream press hasn't explored his connection to McCain, and that might be analogous to whatever relationship Ayers and Obama have had.

The fatal flaw in the argument I was referencing is the context for an Obama/Ayers association. They were both interested in the reform of inner city schools. I don't see what's so insidious about that.

If you don't see how the strategy employed by the McCain/Palin campaign during the last week is divisive and "sowing the seeds of hatred", then I have to ask how closely you've been following along. Just by virtue of the frenzied behavior displayed at their rallies, it's quite obvious that (whether intended or not) the characterization is valid. McCain's confrontation of specific attendees is a virtual admission that this is so.

I don't agree that this "is the most bi-partisan guy of the last 50 years." Since 2004, John McCain has been on a steady trajectory toward towing the party line. His capitulation to Bill Kristol's choice of a running mate is blatant evidence of this movement. Sarah Palin is the most divisive vice-president candidate since Spiro Agnew, and in my opinion she may rise above that level.

neither the Democratic Underground nor Daily Kos has any influence over the Obama campaign. That's the difference. Steve Schmidt is the driving force behind the "dirty tricks" approach of the last week. Even John McCain himself is clearly uncomfortable with it.

"The Left" is not an accurate descriptor for Obama. Ask anyone who self-identifies with "The Left" and they will describe Obama as a centrist Democrat. Richard Nixon would be to the left of Barack Obama.

But as far as not being able to win on the merits of the argument- I completely disagree. Obama is clearly winning on that basis, and it is the virtual consensus that McCain is trying to change the conversation by going personal against his opponent. His own campaign staff has said that he can't win if the subject is the economy.

Our nations courts meanwhile are heavily skewed to the conservative side. Republican presidents have appointed the federal justices for 20 of the last 28 years. The Supreme Court has a more right-leaning make-up than at any time since FDR.

A New York Guy's View said...

Ok, I'm with you, for at least one day ..today being Sunday lets not think about the economy or the campaign or the stock market or the market. Think about
the leaves falling and the trees turning colors and the sun shinning. For a day, anyway. Have a great weekend.

Deekaman said...

We are all proxies for our candidate, whether it is this blog or Daily KOS. Whether we believe it or like it or not. Our respective candidates are viewed through the prism of those proxies as well as their associations.

The core of the Republican Party (guys like me) are Reagan Conservatives. Note I didn't say Reagan Republicans. We are holding our nose over John McCain. In fact, the last time I voted for a presidential candidate without holding my nose was 1984. I hate voting for someone to vote against someone else. (See there's that "hate" word) We don't see McCain as being sufficiently small-government or fiscally conservative. His actions as part of the "gang of 14" was a deal-breaker for many. I do not know of his association with Liddy, but I'm pretty certain they would hit that one pretty hard in the press. They're killing him over "Keating 5" (he was exonerated of any wrongdoing although I believe the Senate censured him), so a relationship to the Nixon White House would be blood in the water.

The far Left may see Obama as a Centrist, but that is only in relationship to their position on the political spectrum. For me, I'm more concerned about the lack of substance and the cult of personality.

I understand how the frenzy at rallies can be seen as "hate". But, what you see at Republican rallies is more of a frustration that the campaign doesn't seem to have the stomach to go toe-to-toe with the other side. McCain, like GWB, allows himself to get beaten like a pinata and doesn't bother to 1) defend himself and 2) go on the offensive. I am particularly disappointed in the unwillingness to confront the media over the Sarah Palin witchhunt and kangaroo court that actually found nothing, but, for the sake of politics, made her guilty of abuse of power anyway. If it was such a big deal, why did it take so long to bring it up? She was the governor after all. The Democrats like to use the term divisive for any candidate they don't like. The nature of politics *is* divisive. If it wasn't we wouldn't have two parties. The term is prejudicial and is used for political gain.

The Supreme Court is indeed skewed somewhat to the Conservative side. For the first time in my lifetime. Why is that bad? The Federal courts would be if the Democrats (and some Republicans - see McCain) hadn't blocked it. There is an interesting Wikipedia article on unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court. Blocking a nominee based on their actions has been a common theme, but based on their percieved political views is a fairly recent case (50-or-so years).

I don't really care what party the judges are from, but I don't like them making law. They are to interpret law (at least from an historical perspective) and view it from Constitutionality, not based on what the think is "fair". To make law from the bench is to subvert the separation of powers and checks and balances. Again, there is a major frustration with my side, and I think, if people were educated about it, most would see it that way. Unfortunately, much of the country is woefully ignorant of the way government works and the intent of the Founders.

As a side note, historically (again), politics in this country has always been bare-fisted, knock-down-drag-out, people-beating-each-other-with-big-sticks-on-the-House-floor stuff. It's only post WWII that it was somewhat more collegial and that was for only about 30 years.

Merge Divide said...

Well... here's a LINK describing John McCain's relationship to G. Gordon Liddy. You might want to reconsider your assumptions about the mainstream press.

Here is an excerpt:

"That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?"

To me that's a lot more damning than anything being alleged about Obama/Ayers.

My comments about the rightwing tilt of federal judges was in response to your assertion (and that of the conservative movement in general) that "the Left" legislates from the bench. It just doesn't make any sense to try to make that claim. For as many claims as I've seen and heard from pundits, I've never heard them acknowledge how heavily skewed the federal courts are in their favor. If people were educated about that they'd laugh at the tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracies of the Right regarding the "liberal judges".

Deekaman said...

I will take a critical look at the relationship between McCain and Liddy.

I think the results of Leftist legislation from the bench speaks for itself. Especially here in Wisconsin.