Palin's Attack On Obama's Patriotism Legitimizes Questions About The Palins' Association With Group Founded By America-Hating Secessionist
Sarah Palin attacked Obama's patriotism today over his association with former Weatherman Bill Ayers -- a move that makes it perfectly legitimate to raise questions about the Palins' associations with a group founded by an Alaska secessionist who once professed his "hatred for the American government" and cursed our "damn flag."
In Colorado today, Palin seized on the big front-page New York Times story about Ayers and Obama, which concludes that the two men "do not appear to have been close," to launch her most vicious attack yet on the Illinois Senator -- a harbinger of what's to come.
"This is not a man who sees America as you and I do -- as the greatest force for good in the world," Palin said. "This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."
If Palin is going to say this, it is now perfectly legitimate to point out that she repeatedly courted a secessionist group founded by someone who openly professed hatred of the American government, cursed our flag, and wanted to secede from the Union. Sarah's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of this group, which continues to venerate that founder to this day, for years.
As you already know, the group is the Alaska Independence Party, which sees as its ultimate goal seceding from the union. Todd was a member, with a brief exception, from 1995 until 2002, according to the Division of Elections in Alaska.
And though Sarah Palin herself was apparently not a member of this group, there's no doubt that she repeatedly courted this secessionist organization over the years. In 1994, Palin attended the group's annual convention, according to witnesses who spoke to ABC News' Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group's 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.
The founder of the AIP was a man named Joe Vogler. Here's what he had to say in a 1991 interview, only a few years before Palin attended its convention: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."
He also said this: "And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."
Vogler has also said: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
McCain apologists will argue that Sarah Palin was not a member of this group. But Obama wasn't a member of any Ayers anti-American group, either. And again, Palin repeatedly courted the AIP, and her husband was a member for years.
The main takeaway from today's Times story is that Obama's ties to Ayers are, if anything, less substantial than commonly alleged. So if the Ayers association means Obama "palled around" with "terrorists," as Palin put it today, surely Palin can be said to have "palled around" with a secessionist party whose founder openly professed hatred of America.
If Palin is going to directly question Obama's patriotism over his association Ayers, surely all these facts are now fair game and freshly relevant.
O Greggy, anymore you are just too much fun!
Let's let em rip -
October 4, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. From your lips to Axelrod and Plouffe's ears.
But this sick crap is going to go over like a lead balloon anyway, when voters are terrified about whether they'll be able to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads.
October 4, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. That galloping sound you hear is the small herd of still undecideds running our way as fast as they can.
October 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this bullshit only reinforces the feeling in the country that the McCain camp wants to talk about anything except the problems facing Americans today.
The rightwing base is on the verge of checking out for this election. Maybe an all out assault on Obama's character will get enough of them out of their Lazy Boys to prevent McCain from pulling a Mondale in November.
But I'm no longer afraid of this garbage having a significant effect on the race.
October 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
On CNN today the way they led into it was to say that they were taking the gloves off. It is being framed as a character attack, rather than the "when we come back, is Obama palling around with terrorists? we'll let you know."
October 4, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I am still perplexed that CNN/360 aired the Fox infomercial with Palin as "news." If Palin won't grant interviews to CNN, should they be giving her free publicity? It's a basic question.
October 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to the campaign, but send it to the players in the MSM. That is who will make a story of it. They just need a push.
October 4, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the way she put it: ""This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists..." -- as if America did the paling (or palin', as Sarah would say) around. Which it manifestly is. "Imperfect enough." What a phrase!
Even when she's being vicious, the woman is an incompetent nitwit. Thank god.
October 4, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget "exceptionalism." We're apparently perfect and exceptional. Wow! For some reason we all got born or arrived in this paradise. And now we get to Lord it over the world. And why doesn't Obama see that?
What don't I see it????
October 4, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know when I heard her use that phrase, the thought I had was that she didn't understand that the the phrase was coined in the context of scathing criticism.
October 4, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really, really hope I am not proven wrong, but I somehow doubt that this will rescue McCain's campaign. The financial system is on fire, and his solution is a mix of confusing statements, absurd grandstanding, and attacks relating to an incredibly tenuous relationship between Obama and Ayers. It'd be one thing if they had this backed by some major policy, even a bad one, but it seems as if they have nothing. Thus, I think the press is more likely to call them on it.
October 4, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm glad palin and mccain are bringing change to washington. it's about time the baseless personal attacks and partisan bickering stopped.
October 4, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Yes! And the Mavericky Tax Reform - by two people who don't pay their taxes.
October 4, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear! Who but the laggards could teach us to be on time?
October 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the negative stuff is going to work ironically because of the race issue. If people have gotten over that hurdle, I don't think the other stuff sticks. If people have made the choice to embrace diversity and change they aren't going to get scared away by some "terrorist" they've never heard of.
October 4, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Because the hidden subtext is that Obama is not American enough because he is Black. Or maybe because his daddy came from darkest Africa.... (can you hear those drumbeats??? in the jungle???)
October 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Obama doesn't see "the same America that you" and I do while speaking to a mostly white crowd. There is a racial undercurrent in that.
October 5, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct!
As I pointed out in a similar thread over at KOS:
ANYTHING that the McCain camp tries, they are open to the exactly same charge. They are truly in a Catch-22 situation.
There is NO negative topic that McCain himself is not open to attack on.
October 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They still don't know that there is Google, and that people can type anything onto their browser and get, instantly!, varied views on the McPalin lies.
October 4, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what about John McCain and his "good friend" Gordon Liddy, a "great American" and convicted felon who advocates shooting federal agents?
October 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY!!!!!
AFAIK, Ayers was never charged with anything; never spent time in prison.
McLame is very close to a man who spent 5 Years in the Federal Pen for all kinds of crimes against the United States of America.
October 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about McCain deep ties to Keating?
Does no one remember the Keating Five and McCain's political wrangling that got him out of the fire of the $50 Billion S&L bailout? Which, ironically, was about the time he became the great 'reformer' that he claims to be.
October 4, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am waiting for Palin/McCain to denounce and renounce Alaska Independence Party & Vogler.
October 4, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Russert-coined phrase was Denounce and Reject.
October 5, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans hate America.
October 4, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
""Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists""
Can Hillary now bring the boom down on Palin and just thoroughly decimate her as being unfit and scary?
October 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that smoldering piece of shit Jon Voight being interviewed at that same Sarah Palin rally today, basically smearing Obama. Not for nothing, but if your own children refuse to talk to your sorry ass, why should anyone take your political opinions seriously?
October 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is his daughter?
October 4, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And after this I would suspect, she goes for the big O.
October 4, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
kawika:
Angelina Jolie is his daughter.
October 4, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why the question...I suspect a BIG Boomerang!
October 4, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just shows to go the depth of the steers thought process.
He is not a Maverick he is a STEER!
October 4, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon's Ying Jole's Yang...Chess vs. Checkers!
October 4, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain blew his wad too early. All this shit is like what -- 5 months old?
Now would have been the perfect time to release the "Celebrity" ad. Unfortunately, he's already played that card.
October 4, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, the image of McCain "blowing his wad", as you put it, is somewhat frightening.
October 5, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone read over at Huffpost about McCain filing false income tax returns in that he did not report his gambling income, and losses,,,, and now we know, thank you NYT, that he is a compulsive gambler, so he has both something to hide that is also required to be reported to the Infernal Revenooers.
So now we have it,,,,,, both Geezer and Gidget are truly mavericks,,,,, at least in terms of filing true and accurate income tax forms. Whudda thunk? Make a nice TV spot as it relates to the economy, methinks.
Serious note of concern about the go all negitive game plan. That is a dangerous and possibly deadly course. It can, and will, give off 'dog whistles' to all manner of loose screws out there to go after the n_____r in their own way to help out the cause. McCain et al are playing with a man's life here, much more so that the RFK thing in the primaries which was more stupidity than anything else. An ongoing, officially sanctioned demonization of a candidate, let alone a AA candidate is truly a receipe for murder.
McCain needs best step back before it's too late.
Better yet,,,, someone or somehow take him by the nape of the neck and shake some sense into him.
October 4, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tie that right to Palin and the First Dude's being active members of that anti-tax Alaska secessionist wacko group -
October 4, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this has nothing to do with the article above but, why haven't we heard anything about the racist skinheads in Colo during the DNC?
Any information at all?
Sure looks like it WAS organized, denied by Colo officials.
October 5, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is really much of a point in going after Palin on this stuff. The McCain camp may not realize it yet but she is really just a bit player on all of this now. The voters who count don't really take her seriously and the crap about Ayers is pretty transparently stupid even if they did.
I get that everyone has got the fighting spirit now but honestly, this particular bit of nonsense isn't worth sweating. Ignore her.
October 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's your opinion.
So far I've been told: you can't attack Palin for any reason; you cannot talk about her kids; you can't say she's dumb; you can't talk about troopergate, you can't talk about this, you can't talk about that - this isn't worth it, this is cheap -
Fuck all that - every piece of information is worth something to the American electorate in order that it can make an informed decision.
What is with this goddamn censorship all the time?
October 4, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. I haven't the slightest idea where censorship comes into this at all. My point was pretty simple: Obama/Biden doesn't have much to gain from attacking Palin on this. She is pretty irrelevant at this point. Indeed the idea that she ever was especially relevant was mostly an illusion. Obama's team has had the right approach all along which is to pretty much ignore her and let her expose her own ignorance and lack of qualification. Other than a few horny wingnuts, she is not really convincing anyone.
Now for some reason, my relatively innocuous suggestion has you in some sort of high dudgeon about censorship. So let me just say that if you feel so strongly that Palin ought to be treated as some sort of dangerous nemesis and that every piece of possibly negative info needs to be chased down and dragged into the light, than by all means have at it. In terms of convincing anyone to vote for Obama, I have no idea what you think you will be achieving but hey, its your time and it goes without saying that I am not the boss of you.
I feel comfortable that Obama and his people will continue to let Palin chase her own tail while they focus on McCain and try to have a grown up discussion with the American people.
October 4, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with you mostly, but from what I understand some of Obama's gains in the past two weeks have been (in addition to the financial crisis) attributed to people's growing unease with Palin -- her inexperience, vapidity, etc -- and with McCain for picking her. If I remember correctly (and don't hold me to this), this was playing out in states such as Florida with older voters and their skepticism towards this type of thing (like what we saw in the primaries, when they preferred Hillary over the new, relatively untested Obama).
Obama's strategy not to attack her directly has played out well, but it doesn't mean they have to do this indefinitely. Attacking the top of the ticket is more relevant, but she's not exactly America's sweetheart anymore, and if the reason does present itself..
October 5, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's proof that Sarah Palin was a member (and may still be) of the Alaska Independent Party.
Greg, PLEASE check out this video at the 6:00 mark. It's from a meeting of the AIP where the speaker (I believe it's Dexter Clark) says unequivocally that Sarah Palin was a member of the AIP but had to become a Republican "to get along".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NK2sFJebGc
October 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
that isn't proof by any definition.
aip had long claimed her as a member, but have no supporting documentation despite their best efforts to support the claim.
October 4, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hell it's not -
If she says she isn't a member, that's evidence otherwise.
October 4, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ironic thing about this is, McCain would have *no problem* putting up ads insinuating that Obama was a member if the situation were reversed...
October 4, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It drips with irony doesn't it? For the last 8 years I've been saying that irony is dead for this very reason.
Essentially, I've arrived at the conclusion - maybe we should call it the Tena Principle, since she so often says this - that whatever a Republican says out loud you can safely assume that the exact opposite is the truth.
October 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena Principle.
Has a nice ring to it.
Sarah, what do you think of the Tena Principle?
uh... in what respect, Charlie???
October 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyone can SAY that palin is a member. they can SAY she has fifteen toes and a vestigal tail. saying something is proof of nothing.
aip has been unable to provide any documentation to support their previous claims that she was an official member of the party. party membership is a very specific claim and is distinct from party association and party identification. party membership requires a paper trail.
October 4, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the First Dude seems to run Alaska, I guess it's guilt by association in spades for Sarah. No question about his membership.
October 5, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
'evidence' and 'proof' are two very different matters.
October 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed - and I should have said it was evidence rather than proof.
And it is and so is everything else that has come out about their association with this group which is pretty clearly more than just a passing glance.
October 4, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
indeed.
October 4, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's next?
She actually hates mooseburgers?
Never referred to Todd as First Dude?
Can't stand being called a Maverick?
Some people fib to get by in the world (e.g. you look great in that outfit). Others lie when the truth would be swell enough. She clearly falls into the later category. I'd argue she's being told to tell these tall stories and has neither the dignity nor backbone to say no.
October 4, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the evidence that Barack, as a 9 year-old, was a member of the Weather Underground?
And for that matter, what about the fact that Ayers has turned his life around and does good works for society? Isn't that kind of like McCain turning his life around after he got away with selling his votes to Charles Keating?
October 4, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That only works if you're a Republican.
October 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
She must have practiced that line quite a bit to have delivered it so cleanly. It's amazing that this tart is now going to throw bombs while going into hiding from the press.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 4, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tart. Yes, she is. It's like Vamp. But more enticing, perhaps.
October 4, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't go overboard on this yet. When Biden's back, he should take a nice rip at Palin; question her authority to question anyone's patriotism. Obama shouldn't do it b/c it only dignifies her. Could be time to start rising above: I think the populace may be ready based on the polling and Palin's embarrassingly low status. No one pays attention to her except Bush's 20%. Of course, one must be ready for the counterattack, but I bet O-Man keeps his powder dry for now.
October 4, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
let biden do it and do it dismissively.
something along the lines of 'this bill ayers stuff is a bunch of nonsense, especially coming from someone who has openly courted alaskan secessionists. the mccain camp wants to scare americans into imagining that barack obama is unamerican because they're desperate to distract people from the issues. john mccain doesn't have any solutions to offer the american middle class - of course his campaign wants to change the subject. but the american people are smarter than that. they know a smear job when they see it. barack obama has a plan for the american economy and the middle class and that plan is to -insert econommic policy talking points-...'
October 4, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be "down home." Call it "a bunch of hooey!"
October 4, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a trap Obama shouldn't fall into. They want him to bring up her and her husbands past associations so they can change the narrative. McCain & Co. want a back and forth of this patriotism thing so they can easily bring up Rev. Wright and run a character assassination campaign for the few remaining weeks.
October 4, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama camp response was that this was just an attempt to avoid talking about the economy and brought up the WaPo article today quoting McCain person that this is exactly what the McCain camp wanted to do.
October 4, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sort of agree with you HusseinIsMyName, engaging just helps change the narrative away from the economy and gets Team Obama down in the mud with the fucking pigs. All Obama has to do is just broadly reference their character assasinations in a "look what a desperate campaign does!" sort of way.
October 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
October 4, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosine squared.
Feeding this story line is not helpful. contrast obama message of economic policy turnaround with mccain trashing his opponent. (Mr. I want to run an honorable campaign and decry partisan politics)
who has your back?
Who will piss away his entire brand in order to get elected?
October 4, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking Palin will take the focus on the economy and health care. The McCain Camp wants to get into a mudslinging war - anything to change the subject.
I agree that it does make it fair game, however question if it would be right to bother "going there". Why not just appear above it all, slam Palin for claiming to be a Washington outsider, but how she seems at home playing the old Washington game.
I still like the G. Gordon Liddy tie to McCain, but doubt it will ever be used either.
...Unless Obama brings a gun to this knife fight.
October 4, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be a non-starter. We don't get anywhere by sinking to the level of an airhead like Palin. These McCain attacks are NOT going to work in a world where everyone is scared silly about their economic futures. If anything, they will only turn people off. The old Repub tactics haven't worked all cycle - why think that's going to change now?
October 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama Campagain's Response:
October 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, not Obama campaign response. But that is a post from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, that kinda helps reinforce the Obama statement.
Here is the Obama statement:
I think the Obama campaign's statement is a good one. I think that Obama's current strategy of sticking to the economy and healthcare is a better way of putting McCain on defense. And make no mistake, it's statements like these that let you know that the McCain campaign is on defense. The Obama campaign should not let McCain change the message which is what they are trying to do with statements like these.
October 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamb. Even if they changed the subject. what subject are they on the right side on?
October 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but - the Obama campaign has never yet let one of these smears go unanswered and that's the right way to handle it - Kerry ignored the whole thing - look what it got him.
Obama has answered every smear in some way - not necessarily an ad - and he's done it very quickly and that was the right thing to do and continues to be the right thing to do.
You cannot let those things sit out there unanswered.
October 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Handled them right away-but with a calm demeanor, one that makes McCain and Palin look like ridiculous children
This is, I will say it again, and amazingly well-run campaign!
October 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Masterful! Awe-inspiring.
October 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best ever.
October 4, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the one thing they should change in their response is that they should refer to Ayers as "Professor Ayers".
October 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that would make a difference here. Part of the Right wing's talking points are two things: A)Obama is a product of leftist academia and B) nearly all of academia is infested with left- wingers.
October 4, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good answer. They've developed a Narrative on McCain's attacks that he wants to talk about anything other than the Economy, and all he can come up with now are Attacks. It's a brutal time for McCain to roll this out since he's pimping Maverick and Reach Across The Aisle and putting the end to Partisanship.
The trick here is that Tuesday is a Town Hall Debate. Brokaw may have some affinity for McCain, but as a moderator of a debate formatted like the first one, he was unlikely to go to the well on this stuff like Step and Gibson did on the horrid ABC Dem Debate. But this format lets them get around Brokaw as a gatekeeps - "voters" get to ask questions. There's little doubt that the McCain camp is going to be working overtime to get some of their plants through to ask hard questions to Obama.
If the Obama camp is smart, they will be practising for them. Obama should respond to them with short answers. McCain may then try to press the attack of the planted question, and having left time on the clock with his short response, Obama can tell Brokaw "I just need to respond to what Senator McCain said" with another short answer to grab the last word on it.
October 4, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great response. They are so good at responding to the facts and keeping their eye on the ball.
October 4, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Youe point is?
October 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're
October 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Round 3: Your
October 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
They still have Reverend Wright - they've been very disciplined about using that card and have saved it for late in the campaign. The McCain Camp wants an excuse to play it, so they want Obama to fire back on Ayers so they can say "Obama brought this upon himself" when they finally unleash the Wright ads and attack campaign.
Also didn't Palin make a big deal about Biden and Obama "living in the past" during the VP debate? Bush is the present, Ayers and the Weathermen are 40 years ago. The campaign doesn't have message discipline.
October 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't need an excuse to play the Wright card. The media is already warning that the campaign is going all negative from now til November 4th.
It is indeed important to stay focused on the issues, but ask Kerry or Dukakis if they would have responded differently to the smears made against them.
October 4, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't need one and they'll certainly play it anyways, however they need to pretend they had a reason,l that Obama "went there" first and brought it on himself. That McCain is simply defending himself. I mean they're going to make up a reason reguardless - real or imagined.
October 4, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone on the previous thread mentioned that Tucker on MSNBC used the excuse that Obama lied about McCain's policies and thus this means they go after Obama's character.
October 4, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't the populace already been vaccinated against the Rev. Wright bit?
What's going to shock anybody in that line now?
October 4, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think so - this was already hashed out in the primary and it's a big who cares at this point, I think.
October 4, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless they pay the weasel Wright himself to do something damaging to Obama. Clearly Wright is bitter towards Obama and clearly he loves the spotlight. I wouldn't be surprised if they got him to do something really gross.
After the election no one will care what Wright might have to say.
October 4, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
they aren't lacking in message discipline, they're lacking in message coherence. they really have no message so they're throwing everything against the wall and hoping something, anything sticks.
if mccain didn't want to talk about the past he would have shut the fuck up about being a pow already.
October 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! At this point it will be exceedingly difficult to come up with a consistent narrative that can use tom build a case against Obama. I know that there's still a month left, but it takes a week or two just to throw enough shit at the wall, see what sticks, and then build on that shit.
I can't see the McCain people coming up with something in time. And it certainly isn't Wright.
As for Palin: who, really, is listening to her but the base? Are her opinions on Obama really significant to independents? I don't think so.
October 4, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Huge mistake for them to go negative. (of course that's their platform!) But so many people are now for Obama, there is such a perception that he's going to win and be our next president, that attacks at this point will only enrage the people who are convinced he is our best hope. So... how does it help them to enrage over 50% of voters?
October 4, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
They still have Reverend Wright - they've been very disciplined about using that card and have saved it for late in the campaign
John McCain publicly denounced the NC GOP for running a hit piece tying Obama to Ayers. Perhaps that is why the campaign has not used it?
October 4, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was mistaken in the above comment - it was a piece on Wright that McCain denounced - but the question remains the same.
October 4, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
They bring out Wright, Obama or surrogates bring out Thomas Muthee. I like you allusion to bring a gun to a knife fight. I think Obama needs to heed that advice. McCain would.
October 5, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is a man who does not see America as you or I do."
Thank god for that. Cuz he's gonna win.
October 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gordon Liddy HMM.......,alaska secessionist HMM..... Ok so for every rev.wright and bill ayers mccain and palin brings up obama camp needs to fire back those 2 things at them,not 2 mention palin called Obama a sambo and Hillary a bitch,palin is a white trailer trash hockey racist mom's!!!
October 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way OT here, but Nice Avatar!
October 4, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second! I love that moment!
October 4, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As tempting as it is to go after Palin, for the next 30 days, the entire Republican party is going to throw out as many distractions as they can to keep the focus off the issues.
The upside: Obama and Biden both have developed a masterful technique of re-framing attacks, linking them to issues, and dumping them back on McCain. Sarah Palin has plenty of fodder to lend to reciprocating attacks as well. This technique cedes no ground to McPalin. Rather, it consistently exposes them for the desperate, power-addicted, lowlifes who care more about their aspirations than the welfare of the country. I hope it's used at every opportunity.
October 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is making a big mistake by questioning someone's association. She herself or at least her husband was part of the Alaskan Independence Party. Again, she is making a huge mistake.
October 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up.
I keep being told that Sarah is a distraction.
O really? Sarah Palin is cement overshoes - she's destroying everything about the McLame Campaign and adding to the fractioning of the Repug Party.
She's not irrelevant. Yet. She will be as soon as they lose - after they spend months blaming her.
October 4, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's relevant insofar as she's a proof of his terrible judgment and reckless decision-making.
October 4, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly - the worse Sarah looks, the worse McLame looks. You can't get one without the other.
October 4, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Sarah Palin quoting an "an organization that is completely, totally 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate..."?
October 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ayers? Weatherman?-?
Perfectly honorable profession.
Sometimes they get stuff wrong, but...
***********************************************
This is what happens when you are fighting the culture wars from the 60s/70s in a new century. There are several generations of people for whom this Ayers thing makes absolutely no sense.
In fact, I am 54 years old, and I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
It is interesting how history gets reconstituted by the Republican fringe as a political weapon. The most bizarre instance for me was the attempt by Coulter and others to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy. Geez...
I wonder (and this is an honest question) how the fringe makes this stuff relevant and important to, say, 30-50 year-olds??? Did they leave the rally fired up about Obama's "terrorist associates" when they would have very little memory of that time?? Why would they care?? Don't you have to "explain" Ayers?? Can you do that at a rally?? Don't you need a Discovery Institute of sorts for history (like for science)??
And since Palin does not seem to be too good with details, I just don't know how this sort of thing plays...
While I spent much of the spring and summer saying very, very unkind things about the Clintons, I am now so grateful for the long primary.
Ayers?? Been there - done that.
As others have said, beyond the fringe - who would want to work to make sense of it all??
October 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it shows their desperation that this is a strategy aimed at the base, not the undecideds. They're worried about even the base turning out to vote at this part.
October 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Look at how few people cared about even O.J. Fucking Simpson this time? Who thinks they care one fig for some Weatherman?
October 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The better tactic might wait to broadside McCain in a debate. Ayers will be brought up (Brokaw will make sure of that), what better time to brush it off with his "I was eight years old at the time and read the NYT article - I barely know the guy" and then parry into an attack on McCain's shady acquaintances - I think McCain would throw a tantrum.
October 4, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That assumes Brokaw will even give Obama the chance to rebut before moving the dialog on to another subject. Remember that Brokaw has already taliked about his close friendship with McCain.
October 4, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
talked
October 4, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And going after Todd and his AIP membership would be a no-go by the Obama campaign as it's "hands off" families.
Maybe the blogosphere needs to push the AIP connections again.
October 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy.
that's all I can.
and why are you so goddamned worried about Wright and Ayers? This is old news.
October 4, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a heads-up - I answered your question in the other thread and posed one of my own.
On this matter, I've thought Ayers was ridiculous from the moment it was ever mentioned, however it's not old news if it's getting MSM coverage again. However we disagree on Rev. Wright being old news, because it has not been played in the GE yet. The GOP Machine didn't use it yet - it was a Dem primary matter at the time.
I think Florida, NC, Virginia will have have issues with Rev. Wright which is why I'm not counting any of those States for Obama yet.
I was a proponent of Obama bringing up Wright much earlier in the GE, as it stands now, McCain is going to use it in late October/early Nov and hope folks vote emotionally after hearing "God Damn America" for the last week.
October 4, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rev. Wright is playing the race card without having to explicitly play the race card.
October 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you charging the GOP for all this advice you're giving them?
October 4, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok - gotcha.
I'll look for your answer - thanks by the way, for answering.
If you scroll the thread, somewhere I posted a comment that every single slur and smear has been answered quickly and will be - because you can't let them sit out there - you cannot ignore them.
So I agree with you somewhat about Wright; I think that's pretty much dead.
October 4, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain publicly denounced the NC GOP for running a hit piece in April on Wright. At the time he said, "Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning."
Sounds like more media ridicule is what the result would be for McCain - at least to me.
October 4, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it would make a nice ad/debate rebuttal (?) to juxtapose April with now...
October 4, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole thing will boil down to what the media decides is the story to report. Kerry did not ignore the swiftboaters, he made a decision on how to spend the limited Federal $ he had. The media opted to keep giving the swiftboaters ink and air time. The Baltimore Sun gave Chuck the entire front page of the opinion section to cover his spiel, with no counter point presentation, the weekend before the election .
The media is acting somewhat more journalistic this year. Even Katie is pitching harder. The first question will be how they choose to frame the story and then how and who best to reframe it. I agree Obama has done an excellent job on these. (So does Drew Westen)
Biden is also very good and after the debate may get more coverage and people paying attention to his comments. Depending on the time frame of whatever family illness is taking him away from the campaign*, blogs, email and word of mouth may need to step up the grass roots countering of the smears.
*Any other news on his canceling appearances? The only pieces I've seen is that there is a family illness issue, that 'Hospice had told family members to stay close' and that it is most likely his mother in law. That kind of Hospice warning usually indicates the individual is likely to die within 48 hours. But if it is Jill's mother.... tough spot for both of them.
October 4, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the pith of the Palin message is "This is not a man who sees America as you and I do" and they will use that in numerous ways hoping to highlight what is self-evident to them, that this guy is the wrong color, from the wrong party. It's going to be all about the worst of the e-mail forwards. And it won't work, because Obama will be up over 50 percent where he needs to be, and McCain's reputation is too low for defending by his old media pals.
October 4, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course - it's about race, really - that's what they're pulling the stops out on.
They're going to make a lot of people mad.
October 4, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain was ahead in the polls, say, 48% to 45%, this might be an effective strategy, because it makes those who haven't decided hesitate going to your opponent even if they don't come to your side. But since Obama is ahead in the polls enough of the swing states, not to mention the national polls, this strategy is pretty pathetic.
October 4, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
the question becomes: to what extent do the polls under-represent undecideds and over-represent leaners...
but i do think the polls showing a majority supporting obama makes the argument that 'obama isn't like you' a bit less persuasive. if he only led with a plurality or if it were neck and neck with obama slightly behind it could have some resonance and could help mccain put it away. but if i look at the polls and the polls say a majority of americans think obama is okay i don't see how i would be persuaded to imagine that obama is somehow un-american....
but then i'd rather not underestimate latent bigotry and xenophobia... it is a powerful force in the american psyche...
October 4, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everywhere you go, people are supporting Obama. The mcShame supporters are kind of lying low... at least around by me.
It's hard to make a case Obama isn't "like us" if "us" is a pretty big group of vocal supporters.
Which reminds me. On my bike ride late this afternoon, someone across from the park has a huge home-made painted sign: OBAMA. All walkers, bikers, and people who drive on the parkway will see that sign!!!
Hard to say he's "not like us" when a parkway resident has a huge Obama sign!
October 4, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And if you are correct - which I think you are - the implication is that if Obama is somehow un-Americian, yet most Americans support him then most Americans are un-American. It winds up in the brain's bit bucket - rejected out of hand.
October 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got the nugget here.
October 4, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary tried using the Ayers thing - it died with Obama saying "I was 8 years old..."
If we're all going to delve into relationships with terrorists throughout history then I wish Obama would point out that McCain was a big supporter of the Contras - a terrorist group if there ever was one. For that alone he should rot in Hell.
October 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a visual reinforcement.
October 4, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A kid with a bat? Dangerous!!!
And smiling too. Wow, scary!
October 4, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ayers and Wright are old news. If Americans haven't heard about those two men by now, they've been living under a rock for about year. Palin and McCain are plagued with their own questionable associations.
Obama should let the campaign war room, surrogates and the 527s deal with counter attacks.
October 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Greg.
While I can understand why Obama isn't going after Palin on the secessionist group, I wonder why it hasn't gotten any coverage in the MSM.
October 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably for the same reason the the MSM doesn't want to cover Vicki Iseman, Keating 5, Gordon Liddy, etc. But I'm an optimist - there's still time.
October 4, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Think of it this way: what if Michelle was a member of a similar group?
October 4, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
October 4, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama will answer this attack beyond what they already have done unless it appears to be gaining traction.
October 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does guilt by association actually work in politics? It can't compete with attacking the guy directly. The swift boat attacks come to mind.
October 4, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
has'nt hurt Mac or Bush till now has it.
October 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If guilt by association works, I'm going to make a few confessions. I went to school with someone who attended an SDS convention the summer before our senior year - and she later lived with a man from Ethiopia. Her roommate went to Poland (in the late 60's mind you) and studied medicine there and married a Polish man, also a doctor. They were in the Polish underground and worked for democracy there. Plus, I shook Nancy Pelosi's hand at a College reunion two years ago (she was 5 years ahead of me and likely that all relates, right?). And another person in my class was in love with a gay man for many years - this was woman's college so she was not gay, just in love with him. But several people in my class have "come out" as gay. And we accept them and love them (and it was a Catholic college)>
There... is that enough guilt by association? I could give more: My husband demonstrated against Franco during his college years. My son was born in Canada.
Now you see the picture. See how dangerous I might be???
Dear God in Heaven, what have we come to????
October 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
O shit - when I was in high school, I used to crash SDS get togethers at UT Arlington looking for drugs. If they weren't passing joints I left.
I lived right around the corner from Black Panther Nat'l HQ in '69.
We knew members.
October 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took part in the last People's Park Riot in Berkeley.
October 4, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I was in college in DC. SNIC. The Panthers. Didn't they all start in DC???
And now I know you??? We are really sunk!!! It's the pits now.
October 4, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was supposed to reply to one post up. But even the software is rattled by this!
October 4, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is really the pits! It's all over!
October 4, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Tena doesn't see Americans the way you and I do. I mean, look at her TPM blog name: HusseinTenaX. X as in Malcolm X of course-she must've broken bread with him, right?
October 4, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget. I went straight to the Mosque to demonstrate my solidarity after receiving that "Obcession DVD." (I was among the first...what does that say?) so.... full disclosure... I'm likely tarnished by that too!
Probably I simply don't see America correctly as Palin wants me to.
And now you're tarnished by posting close to Tena and me.
It's all over for you!!!
October 4, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute! I've worked with the mentally ill, for god's sakes! Now you're all gonna reject me for that. And I've tried to help Obama. And so he's gonna get tarnished by his guilt by association to my guilt by association.
6 degrees of separation, folks! We're all tarnished now by all the people who have tarnished Josh Marshall over the years.
Face it... we're sunk!
October 4, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always known I'm sunk. LOL!
You couldn't pay me enough in a bribe to make me run for any office.
Hell, I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU - I send them $25 every single month.
Plus I was a criminal defense lawyer - we're all suspect.
October 4, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gosh, Tena. That means you've associated with criminals! Or people accused of being criminals!
And The ACLU??? Well, you're for civil liberties? The Constitution?
God love you!!!
October 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it legitimizes to question Cindy McCain's association with terrorism.
Cindy held $2 million in investment funds owning shares of Sudan-linked companies, thus she supported terrorism in Darfur. His wife's "funds had ties to the Sudanese regime, which has armed and supported militias considered responsible for killing, raping and torturing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the country's Darfur region" (quoted from ABC).
In an effort to quickly suppress her association with terrorist genocide, she sold those holdings only after a reporter's inquiries.
It also legitimizes to question Palin's another act of terrorism that her son is involved in ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Iraq, thus helping to embolden Shia Iraq and, by default, Ahmadinejad's regime in Shia Iran.
It also legitimizes to question Republican party's political platform of state's sponsorship of social, religious, and unilateral military terrorism in the entire world, against whoever does not agree with the Empire's idea of democracy.
October 4, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The adultress who screwed First Dudes business partner is calling out people. I bet ya she screwed every judge just to come in 2nd in Miss Baked Alasksa
October 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Palin is tarnished because he name's been in the National Enquirer, for goodness sakes! And not in a good way, mind you. How can mcShame possibly be associated with a woman who has been investigated by the National Enquirer? I am simply appalled! And shocked!!
October 4, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, where's that libel suit against the enquirer we were promised for publishing the name of bible spice's back-door man?
October 5, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a lame messenger McCain has. People who already support him may or may not listen to Palin. Who the hell else is going to consider her even the slightest bit credible? If you're not already with her, you're not gonna switch over. You betcha.
He's going to have to do better here, not just with the message but also with the messenger.
October 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see both sides of the argument, to sling mud right back at them or take the moral high ground, assuming the independent voters wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for this crap.
But remember Kerry 04? He was leading the poll until the SwiftBoat attacks, bit by bit it puts doubt in people's mind about his character. And we lost by a few EVs.
Best strategy is to dispute and discredit the attacks, but leave the messenger alone. The blog should also focus on reminding the MSM to be fair when bringing up these phony charges.
Obama can't look like he's dragged into the mud with those filthy pigs with lipstick.
October 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign - I think you are exactly correct because that seems to me to be exactly how the Obama campaign has been handling it.
October 4, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink