Harry's Place

I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Gov. Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as a commissioner of public safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercie of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

It was likely? Boy, strong conclusion there Gene.

Just imagine someone want to to get rid of a cop with a drink problem and a history of child abuse, I suspect that most people would think he should have been promoted.
Now if she had supported him, she would have been accused of favoritism.

Of course it wasn’t her job to either support or fire him. And anyone with a shred of understanding of the responsibilities of holding political office would have kept well clear of it, even if only for the sake of their own image.

So will the Republicans throw Palin overboard in attempt to lighten their sinking ship and make port or is it time for all Republican candidates to make for the lifeboats, while McCain and Palin go down with the ship?

Perhaps the Republicans can learn to sing “Nearer My God to Thee”!

I would even go further and class the prosecutor’s conclusion as rather weaselly. The headline, of course, is crap. But as the saying goes, everyone likes the smell of their own.

I think Doc Martyn’s line is how they’ll try to spin it.

I don’t think it’ll work though, because Palin’s made a story of herself, and this finding fits her story too well, and too negatively: the Saracuda thing, the queen of mean image, and so on. This finding reflects those qualities, so not even her supporters can be surprised by the personal qualities revealed. But it casts those qualities in a completely unlikeable light: petty vindictiveness, arrogance, and corrupt abuse of power.

Some people like bullies, and like to think of themselves as being on their team. Some of the behaviour on her rallies suggests that that’s part of her core attraction, at this stage in the campaign. But people don’t admire bullies who get caught. It makes them look weak.

I’d expect her rallies to get even angrier in the remaining three weeks. But smaller: mostly angry white men, with unmarried/non-partnered men disproportionally represented. Family-type people will be staying away.

Excuse me, but isn’t an unavoidable fact that, as the report pointedly underlines, Palin did nothing illegal. Seems to me “abuse,” like obscenity, and beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.Most people would think an agent of the law found drunk on duty and to have tasered an 11 yr-old boy, deserved to be dismissed. And a close investigation of the “investigators” by anyone caring enough to take the time or the effort would reveal that the panel was packed with, and led by, Palim’s long-term political enemies. I for one would tell the feckless “commission” to go pound sand and stick the report up you-know-where.

It’s just politics, anyway.

Yet, in December, 2007, French had already held a press conference with Monegan, whom the senator considers a close friend, to announce their joint efforts to undercut the Palin Administration by having the Safety Commissioner present his own budget in defiance of the Governor’s instructions.

French headed up the legislative investigation.

“Palin’s made a story of herself, and this finding fits her story too well, and too negatively”

Indeed, looking out for a child is a terrible thing.

“Some people like bullies”

Indeed.

“The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession,” Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days.”

After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days.

But of course it is the abuse of power that worries you.

“Wooten was at the Mug-Shot Saloon with a friend. Wooten got into it with another man, whom he thought was causing trouble for his friend. Wooten’s friend had to hold him back, and the bartender held back the other man, the bartender told troopers.

Wooten told the bartender he needed to eject the other man, the bartender said.

The bartender thought Wooten was out of line.

“Then he whipped out his badge and said ‘Lemmie let me introduce myself. I’m State Trooper Wooten,” the bartender said, according to a transcript of his interview.

The other man took a cab. ”

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

How many cops did Governor and Todd Palin use the office of the Governor to try to get fired? Just one.

Now if this cop had been the worst cop in Alaska, the “he deserved it anyway” line might work. But no-one thinks that. The Palin family didn’t use the Governor’s office to try to get a trooper fired because he was a bad cop: they did it because he’d crossed the Palin family.

Now let’s imagine her as the unelected President of the US, when McCain becomes unable to serve. How long do you think the next “White House enemies list” would be, and how much would it cross over with the list of enemies of the Palin family?

“Sarah Palin abuses the power of the Governor’s office to settle personal scores, so let’s give her the powers of the Presidency” is not a compelling case.

The Republicans will make as much noise as they can to distract attention away from this, and people will understand why the volume is being turned up. It’s already past shrieking point.

On the other hand I’d guess that the Obama campaign will hardly use it. They won’t need to.

Also, there’s the irony of this happening to Palin, who was leading the negative campaigning and piously talking about character. There’s humour and justice to that, and it makes it a perfect talking point in bars and workplaces.

And the media may just point out that Palin said she’d cooperate with the investigation. And then she didn’t.

It’s a great political story. It’s even set on planet Earth, involves people who really are conected to each other, and it takes place in the present.

What gives it extra force is that Palin was focussing on “character” at exactly the moment the timebomb went off. It’s got some of the hoist-by-your-own-petard feel as those incidents where gay-bashing Christian Right figures get caught soliciting men in the toilets.

That’s why this story has legs. The media isn’t going to be the McCain/Palin campaign’s main problem with this. Their problem is going to be Joe Six-Pack, if you’ll excuse the term, in the office or bar with a stack of Palin jokes. And the fact that others will join in.

This is three weeks to the election, way too late to replace her. (Though McCain is both wacky and desperate, and nothing’s impossible any more. But it’s too late to get any benefit from replacing her.)

I suspect you are Mine’s a Newt. In which case McCain should look his noble best and go down with the ship like a good Captain.

Now if this cop had been the worst cop in Alaska, the “he deserved it anyway” line might work. But no-one thinks that.

Worst cop in Alaska? probably not. bottom 20? maybe. If he’s not in the bottom 5%, their police force is epically awful.

Sorry, in previous post, I meant to say: “I suspect you are Right, Mine’s a Newt.” Oy, I definitely need to proof read better!

Yes, the fact that both Gov. Palin and her hubby, the First Dude,* who seems to be the one who made the phone calls to pressure the State Public Safety Commissioner to fire this admittedly dubious trooper, are both stonewalling and refusing to cooperate with the investigation does smell

*Aparently Sarah Palin has no need to hire a thug like G Gordon Liddy to do her dirty work since she is already married to one.

Note: can you imagine the uproar if this had been the Clintons back when Bill was Gov. of Arkansas?

OT: Here is the death of someone whom I can not mourn:
“Austrian far-right leader Haider killed in crash” at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1028003.html

Note: can you imagine the uproar if this had been the Clintons back when Bill was Gov. of Arkansas?

You’d have thought Bill was running for president in 92

Don’t forget, by the way, that it wasn’t the trooper that Palin fired.

She fired the State Chief of Police for doing his job. Which was upholding the law, not giving the boot to the Palin family’s enemies.

I’m wondering what this does to the Ayers nonsense. McCain was already showing signs of being uncomfortable with it, and so were some important Republican voices, especially since it correlates with their losing votes. Polls showed it wasn’t helping, and analysis suggested it might have been causing some undecideds to drift away.

Still, Palin would probably want to carry on talking about “character”, if she can manage it with a straight face. (Yes, she can!) The smart thing would be for McCain to tell her to move on to issues that voters care about, and on which she could be seen to be credible. Therefore, based on the track record, it’s not what’ll happen. McCain will probably let her continue and occasionally get his own hands dirty, even though the “character” issue has turned into a Republican mine-field.

@ David: Yeah, re Haiders death. Mourning isn’t the first reaction that comes to mind. Not proud of that, but there it is.

Its difficult to know how Palins approval ratings will be affected, theyve already dropped through the floor.
The fact that Palin and her Husband are small minded bullies won’t really come as a surprise to anyone, so I suspect the political impact has already been discounted.

I’ll certainly be changing my vote after this devastating revelation.

This is clearly a witchhunt. If there was abuse why are there no consequences? Did Palin fire the police chief because he wouldn’t fire the trooper? The report says not – although they claim, without saying how they knew – it was a contributory factor. It said his claim for compensation was handled appropriately – which I assume means he asked for money and got none. So no injustice done there then. Do they recommend Palin face disciplinary action or charges? Not at all. Anyone else? Nope. So this is a “crime” with no victim and no criminals. It is a smear job and nothing else. If there was abuse there would be legal consequences but we have none.

You’re right.
All it has done is expose Palin as a smalltown bully with a tiny mind.
But we knew that already.

Yes tim, because grown men who use police issue Tasers to torture small children really really belong on the police force.

Anyone who says otherwise is a bully.

That wasn’t who got sacked.

A police chief was sacked for other reasons. As is Palin’s right.

Where’s the abuse again?

Even this report said his claim for compensation was handled correctly (which I assume means he did not get a nickle and shouldn’t have because his sacking was legal).

Where’s the bullying?

Again, even if every allegation were true, we would still be having a discussion between those who think it is right to try to get someone who tortures a child sacked and those who do not. This, to me, is bizarre.

Actually, the report goes to the Alaskan legislature, which then debates what action to take.

Just a note about about the McCain/Palin campaign’s claims about Wooten. The report ‘dismissed the Palins’ assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. “Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins’ real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons.”‘

Trooper Wooten was never charged, which he surely would have been if the Palins’ claims had checked out under investigation. And he’s still an Alaskan cop, which maybe says something about him.

So the Alaskan State Legislative Investigator, reporting on an investigation set up by bi-partisan committee, concluded that Palin had been, oh, economical with the truth, about Trooper Wooten.

What’s that word Palin’s been using a lot lately? Rhymes with “pants on fire”?

Apparently the Republican base (as opposed to the party apparatchicks who are going to have to pick up the pieces once McCain/Palin have gone) are screaming out for the campaign to use Palin more, front and centre, all the time. Will McCain give the base what they want, and serve an unbelieving public more Palin?

I’m sure the Republicans here will thoroughly agree with me, in hoping that the McCain/Palin campaign does just that.

The fact that Palin and her Husband are small minded bullies won’t really come as a surprise to anyone, so I suspect the political impact has already been discounted.

You’re a fucking asshole, Tim. Absolute. Fucking. Asshole. There is zero evidence to support any of your slanders, but I suppose little fascist scumbags like yourself have never felt the need for evidence. Fuck off.

That “charges” point was in relation to Palin’s claim that Wooten had threatened to murder her father. The Alaskan State Legislature Investigator concluded that Palin’s claim, on this not unimportant matter, was simply not true.

Oh, and thanks to Chuck, for demonstrating that this story isn’t having any impact at all.

Dry your eyes chuck.

“You’re a fucking asshole, Tim. Absolute. Fucking. Asshole. There is zero evidence to support any of your slanders, but I suppose little fascist scumbags like yourself have never felt the need for evidence. Fuck off.”

Congratulations on creating a flawless example of a particular type of post.

You’re totally fucking correct Tim. Totally. Fucking. Correct.

“There is zero evidence to support any of your slanders, but I suppose little fascist scumbags like yourself have never felt the need for evidence.”

is a tad ironic, given the fourth finding of the Palin report:

“Finding Number Four

The Attorney General’s office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails.”

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/abuse-of-power.html

So it’s only ‘fascist scumbags’ who aren’t interested in providing evidence, right chuck? I think you’re on to something there, mate.

Well Done Sarah!!!

You confirm that you are a Rottweiler with Lipstick and the sort of person who would root out the Washington corruption. The sort of person who sees injustice and does all she can to put it right. I expect this report will increase votes for you.

You saw a man who tasered a 10 year old, was drunk when on duty and who threatened to kill his father-in-law. As a family intimate you knew better this trooper’s fitness to hold his job and you lobbied when the system dithered.

I expect you to continue the same against Obama and his terrorist/radical connections and influences. No need for protocol just sink your teeth into him.

It is truly disgusting how Obama sent an army of lawyers to pressuer and secure this report and an indication of the totalitarian regime that Obama will impose.

We know this is a ’so what’ report but be sure that the Obama Media will be touting it and pushing it in a way that they wouldn’t question Obama’s connections for several years with a terrorist.

‘totalitarian regime’ said the fellow traveller

Dreary, predictable old Gene is one of the reasons I rarely read Harry’s Place now. Pity.

The self-proclaimed Rottweiler with Lipstick looks more and more like a railed up little pug-dog. Those railed up little pug-dogs can be annoying because their hugely inflated self-esteem and Rottweiler complex but hardly dangerous to the general public.

Don’t dis dogs. They are nature’s burglar alarms. Cats are worthless parasites.

“Don’t dis dogs. They are nature’s burglar alarms. Cats are worthless parasites.”

Boogski: wrong on politics, wrong on pets.

Don’t dis dogs. They are nature’s burglar alarms.

Not necessarily all dogs, we had a Labrador who would happily wag its tail to anyone coming in to the house, any time, would they stick him something to eat he would love them for ever and follow them to the gates of hell.

Just like John Pilger accusing Marko Atilla-Hoare of having agenda to expose him as a liar, how dare anyone expose Palin as small-minded small-town bullies!

I never fancied her, anyway.

I would be very interested to see if McCain repeats the Ayers accusation in the third debate. Apparently he has promised to bring this up. But if he does, he’s going to look really silly.

Re Ayers, McCain is screwed whether he raises it in the 3rd debate or not. If he does, he looks lost in the past, a loonytoons conspiracy nut, and a hypocrite on the character issue. And if he doesn’t, he looks like a coward.

I’d expect the second option: cowardy silence like last time. I don’t know about Palin thinks, but I have no doubt at all that McCain thinks that the Ayers thing is substance-free fluff. He’s just using it because he hopes it’ll work. But he knows that if he says it to Obama’s face, Obama will wipe the floor with him, and look good doing it.

Actually, the Obama-truthers are in for a shock after the election. Because in the real world McCain will shake President Obama’s hand and he’ll never mention any of the conspiracy fluff ever again. ever. It won’t be in his autobiography. He never believed in it, except as a tactic.

The Obama-truthers will still be fired up but the drivers will all step off the train and go home on November 5. Eventually they’ll realise that they got taken for fools and taken for a ride. And they helped. That realisation will be … embarrassing.

As for Troopergate, I suspect that there are more Palin stories due to come down from Alaska. But in politics as in comedy (and sometimes, as with McCain/Palin, they overlap), timing is everything.

Not necessarily all dogs, we had a Labrador who would happily wag its tail to anyone coming in to the house, any time, would they stick him something to eat he would love them for ever and follow them to the gates of hell.

No shit? A Lab? That’s a pretty square-jawed breed. It must have to do with upbringing. Most dogs will at least bark if something is out of place. Contrast that with the worthless, parasitic nature of felines.

“scumbags”, “disgusting”, “the Obama Media”, piles of exclamation marks all over the place… Republican supporters love reasonable debate dontcha think?

There’s another dynamic, about stories from Alaska.

(1) Senior Republicans are accepting, off the record, that McCain/Palin will lose. Therefore, they know they can quietly undermine Palin without making a difference to the outcome of the election.

(2) Palin has made a lot of enemies in Alaska. Most of those enemies are Republicans. Some were corrupt old hacks that she saw off. They won’t mind settling some scores.

Others are not so corrupt, but they saw Team Palin move in and be as corrupt as the old guard, but a lot nastier, including on small inter-personal stuff. They don’t want to spend years waiting on Governor Palin. Giving her a push on the way down is tempting.

(3) Governor Palin kept an enemies list. It was unwise to make it quite so long. Those Republican enemies smell her blood, and they can do her down without losing the election because it’s lost.

But the more dirt they release on Palin, the more the blame for the loss attaches to her. That opens up the Governor’s spot a little sooner than Palin intended. That makes a lot of Alaska Republicans happy.

Look for signs of hostile in-confidence briefings from Republicans, over the next couple of weeks.

It ain’t just Republicans, Muggs. Take a tour of the comment section at Daily Kos.

In the same way, I’d expect the far right religious loons to be trying to ensure that McCain carries the can.

Mine’s a Newt – “I have no doubt at all that McCain thinks that the Ayers thing is substance-free fluff.”

McCain might but of course it is not substance-free fluff. It is a very serious issue (and ask yourself how people would react if McCain had a similar history with someone who fire bombed Churches in the South in the 1960s). However the media seems determined to ignore it and the public does not seem to care much.

But that does not mean it is fluff.

It is likely that it is one of the main reasons Obama is not 20 points ahead at this stage. The Republicans ought to be polling less than Nader and they are not.

“It is likely that it is one of the main reasons Obama is not 20 points ahead at this stage.”

The story was confined to political geeks until a week or so back. Since it became a talking point, Obama’s lead has lengthened. It’s just not stacking up for you Subtlety.

True, Tim. But the Christian Right still believe they’ll win, so they’re not going to start attacking the campaign till it’s over.

Whereas bitter Alaskan realists have no such faith in Godly Victory, which is why they’ll be tempted to leak on Palin, quietly and off the record, so it’ll embarrass her before election day.

The post-election fight in the Republican Party is going to be incredibly vicious.

Y’know, if McCain hadn’t been talked into picking Palin, and taken the disastrous route that followed from having her and her baggage on board, he could well have won this election. Seems hard to imagine now.

But the Christian Right will probably win the blame game, because they’re good at ruthless. They could easily sieze control, leaving a lot of US socially liberal economic conservatives more or less unrepresented. Or maybe the secular conservatives will have had enough of the nonsense and fight back. Not really my problem.

I think you were right, some time back, in saying that the – I don’t remember what you called it – but the coalition of Christian rightists, ruthless party ideologues, old-fashioned conservatives and socially liberal money men that dominated US politics since 1968 is fragmenting. An era does seem to be coming to an end.

Not saying anything too apocalyptic. It’s not unlikely that the President in 2017 will be Republican. It’ll just be a different Republican Party, that’s all.

It is a very serious issue

Oh come on. Why, why, why? That Obama served on charitable boards with Ayers (a university professor) along with numerous others, including Republicans. That Obama was at a meet and greet hosted by Ayers? Ayers is well known in Chicago – not as a terrorist, but as university professor and expert on education etc., and has worked with Mayor Daley on educational reform.

There has been numerous investigations into this and nothing untoward has been found – there is nothing in this story.

Its a non-story. McCain knows it is nonsense. Palin probably knows that too. I suspect most of the Republican Party knows this is hokum.

Don’t be silly, Subtle. There was no relationship between Ayers and Obama, except for things that happen as a result of two men being on boards with a lot of other people. And don’t go all Maven on me; you just start sounding like a truther.

I’ve read the accusations and the supposed evidence, I’ve read the fact-checkers, and I’ve looked at original sources, where available, and found that the Obama-truther versions of what those sources say are a little on the creative side. There’s no there there.

I take it much less seriously than I take McCain’s actual friendship, in the present day, with G Gordon Liddy, who went to jail for conspiracy and has admitted that his plans included killing people. And I don’t really, seriously, give a damn about that either.

Though if a hysterically distorted version of the McCain/Liddy friendship got used against McCain, a little closer to the day, I’d think it was a pity because Obama would win better without it. But I couldn’t say it’d be unjust.

Content-free fluff is what it is.

Meanwhile, Palins plunge in the polls continues.

CANDIDATE FAV UNFAV
MCCAIN 41 51
OBAMA 58 32
BIDEN 58 30
PALIN 36 56

Tim
where do you get the VP ratings? Can’t see them on RCP.

Research 2000/Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/trendlines

http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/10/11

Sy – “The story was confined to political geeks until a week or so back. Since it became a talking point, Obama’s lead has lengthened. It’s just not stacking up for you Subtlety.”

I doubt it was. People have been talking about Ayers for a long time. The MSM ignored it until recently but that doesn’t mean most Americans didn’t hear about it. One of the reasons it is not making a fuss is that this came out in the primaries. People are used to it and have decided they can live with it.

Mine’s a Newt – “Y’know, if McCain hadn’t been talked into picking Palin, and taken the disastrous route that followed from having her and her baggage on board, he could well have won this election. Seems hard to imagine now.”

Blaming Palin is absurd. The media has had it in for her, but she did bring the theo-Cons on board and McCain is up against too much – and does not have the charisma or the stomache for a real fight. He could have picked anyone else and he would be where he is or worse.

Benjamin – “Oh come on. Why, why, why? That Obama served on charitable boards with Ayers (a university professor) along with numerous others, including Republicans. That Obama was at a meet and greet hosted by Ayers? Ayers is well known in Chicago – not as a terrorist, but as university professor and expert on education etc., and has worked with Mayor Daley on educational reform.”

Obama set up a charity with political aims with a known terrorist? Of course it is important. Ayers is still known as an unrepetent, anti-American terrorist whose only regret is that he did not do more. I know that with your politics you will not see as most people will, but if the boot was on the other foot and Ayers was a respected ex-KKK member who burnt a few Churches down, it would be news. Obama just gets a free pass.

“There has been numerous investigations into this and nothing untoward has been found – there is nothing in this story.”

There have been no investigations and the association is untoward. Again think of the boot being on the other foot.

Mine’s a Newt – “Don’t be silly, Subtle. There was no relationship between Ayers and Obama, except for things that happen as a result of two men being on boards with a lot of other people. And don’t go all Maven on me; you just start sounding like a truther.”

Now there’s an insult. Of course they were on just on the board together. They worked together to set it up and to funnel money to their favourite political causes in education. Obama picked his house to launch his campaign. Again if this was an ex-KKK member we would not be having this discussion.

“I take it much less seriously than I take McCain’s actual friendship, in the present day, with G Gordon Liddy, who went to jail for conspiracy and has admitted that his plans included killing people. And I don’t really, seriously, give a damn about that either.”

Liddy broke into a hotel room. If he planned to kill people he didn’t do anything about it. Ayers tried to kill people. He blew up bombs. All this is is a sign of the double standards of the Left. Ayers gets a Presidential pardon. Liddy is still smeared. Bet he did more jail time too.

Ah, okay, Subtlety. So you have no new evidence, just hot air.
Obama and Ayers were on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors, and the Board of the Woods Fund of Chicago – both reputable organisations with a mixed membership; neither were set up by Ayers or Obama.

You make it sound like a conspiracy between Obama and Ayers – what utter bollocks. They were on boards of organisations (with many others). These organisations were distributing money in a transparent process with full oversight and accountability, just like many charities do.

There have been no investigations and the association is untoward.

Wrong again.

CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic have all investigated and found nothing.

Ah yes, the liberal media – but it should really occur to you that the media are not going to run with this story when there is nothing in it. Apart from Sean Hannity who clearly has free reign to talk utter crap on Fox 24/7. But even his employers don’t regard him as a journalist.

“I doubt it was. People have been talking about Ayers for a long time. The MSM ignored it until recently but that doesn’t mean most Americans didn’t hear about it. One of the reasons it is not making a fuss is that this came out in the primaries. People are used to it and have decided they can live with it.”

So the MSM ignored it, but everyone knows about it.

People have decided they can live with it, but it’s cost Obama the difference between the 20% lead you say he should have and the 7% currently recorded by RCP.

Just keep still and I’m sure someone will come along to untangle your knots for you.

The point about Ayers/Obama links is that Obama must be stupid to not know Ayers was a terrorist. Michelle Obama worked with Dhorn at a law practice. These two savvy political legal didn’t know that Ayers was a terrorist bomber? Come on! What else is Obama completely naive about? A racist antisemite pastor for 20 years. A convicted crook Rezko who helped Obama buy a discounted house.

Obama’s anwers are “I was eight at the time” – so what!!!

But even MORE damaging was his comment “I thought he was rehabilitated”. Oh! So you KNEW he was a terrorist bomber – you just thought a quick shower washes it off! And on sep 11 2001 when Ayers said he regretted he didn’t do more and was photographed standing on an American flag – you missed it despite being an associate.

Obama is a liar and I hope McCain simply halts the next debate and gives Obama all barrels unfiltered.

I am shocked at how many people support Obama, knowing he is a corruptable liar, simply because you want Bush out. Doh! He’s out!

Obama’s Muslim Co-ordinator meets with Hamas and Brotherhood supporters (antisemites and terrorist supporters). I note that HP does a feature on a UK event where Ministers will meet the same type of people. But Obama gets a free pass!

Maven

Ayers is demonstrably rehabilitated. What you say about Ayers and Obama is incredibly thin. Obama had contact with Ayers in Chicago, as many people did (and do); this is entirely unsurprising as Ayers is involved in the community, charitable boards and is a professor at the university.

“But even MORE damaging was his comment “I thought he was rehabilitated”.”

He is rehabilitated. Or are you suggesting he’s continued to plant bombs these last 30 years?

Excuse me, but isn’t an unavoidable fact that, as the report pointedly underlines, Palin did nothing illegal.

The report says quite the opposite:

“I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act”

Has she been stitched up?

A Religious Right nominee with this waiting to come out. And now it has. So McCain can drop her for someone like Lieberman instead.

Just a thought…

This investigation began before McCain made the disastrous decision to pick her. It hasn’t “just come out”.

Is it a coincidence that your conspiracy theory leads back to the one possible candidate who is Jewish?

Just a question…

Lieberman is pro choice.
No chance.

But McCain doesn’t have to get him past the GOP now. The Convention and all that? Been and gone. This would be an “emergency”. And, moreover, a “reaching across the aisle”.

She’s been stitched up like a kipper. The measure of her will be how she responds.

‘OT: Here is the death of someone whom I can not mourn:
“Austrian far-right leader Haider killed in crash” at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1028003.html‘

I was a bit disappointed when I saw the headline ‘Far Right-Wing Leader dies in Car Crash’ and read the story. I was hoping it would be Nick Griffin.

Mr Lindsay, however, must be gutted by the news.

I have a whole blog post on Haider and how, inter alia, his views are really yours. Do give it a look.

On this thread’s topic, McCain is much less religious than, say Obama. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am: Palin was his way of appeasing the base, secure in the knowledge that this would come out too late for base to have any say over who then replaced her on the ticket.

And the GOP is not anti-abortion. That is just its con trick for getting white Evangelicals and blue-collar Catholics to vote for it. Look at the record, not the rhetoric.

So if McCain doesn’t drop Palin, you’ll be back to admit your conspiracy theory was arse?

Obamas supporters support him for no other reason than the colour of his skin, He uses his skin colour like a Romulan cloaking device.

But with more the true Palin is coming forth there is probably more than a few republicans and conservatives that start question what the bible trumping nutters have done to the party.

McCain have painted him self in to a corner, Palin becoming more and more deadweight, but if she is replaced it still reflect badly on McCains ability to make wise decisions. A serious wetting would of course have revealed the shortcomings of Palin. One wonders who have turned him down before he had to make the Palin Hail Mary.

McCain relay on GOP money for his campaign.

AFAIK – the only time a VP candidate was replaced was Eagleton in ‘72 and the convention had not ended.

Dump Palin or keep her – it’s a no-win for McCain. Lose with the base, lose without the base as things stand now.

AFAIK – the only time a VP candidate was replaced was Eagleton in ‘72 and the convention had not ended.

I think it was shortly after the convention.

Dump Palin or keep her – it’s a no-win for McCain. Lose with the base, lose without the base as things stand now.

He won’t dump her.

Several weeks later according to Wiki.

Of course McCain won’t dump Palin. It would make his choice of her, while investigation was pending, appear all the more shoot-from-the-hip irresponsible.

Since voting has already started in Ohio, isn’t dumping her legally impossible?

‘I have a whole blog post on Haider and how, inter alia, his views are really yours. Do give it a look.’

Come, come, David. You’re the one who talks about throwing a military coup, and the BPP’s ethos (well, it’s yours really, because the Party is just one man at the end of the day) is reminiscent of that clerical Fascist, Dolfuss.

Don’t be afraid to admit that you are who you are – a Roderick Spode of our time. Everybody else on this site can see it, so there’s no point keeping up appearances.

Gene,

Did you read the entire PDF? They also found that she acted within the legal powers of her office. If that is so, and it is, how can she then be said to have “abused” her office? The ethics law she is accused of “breaking” is so vague and overbroad as to be laughable,and would be the first thing to be ruled unconstitutional for those very reasons should the affair ever go to court. But then, having no legal leg to stand on, Palin’s enemies on the legislative “Commission” don’t dare go that route, do they?

Every state has an ethics code for office holders. The Repub dominated legislature chose the commission and will now review the findings.

Palin will get a reprimand or a censure by the Repub dominated legislature. Not a career killer but not something you want your VP candidate walking around with.

Did you read the entire PDF? They also found that she acted within the legal powers of her office.

Yes, when she fired Monegan. She had the legal right to fire Monegan if he wore a tie she didn’t like. That’s a different matter.

“I suspect you are Mine’s a Newt. In which case McCain should look his noble best and go down with the ship like a good Captain.”

Reminds me of another Captain – One John Smith (Master Mariner)

The last recorded words of Captain John Smith, refusing a place on a life raft as the RMS “Titanic” took her last dive.

“I am the Captain, I must follow the ship”

In 1912 this was known as honour. To be fair to McCain, as a former Naval Officer I suggest that he knows the diference.

I can see Palin ordering her bodygaurd of State Troopers to keep her lifeboat free and empty of riff raff.

“A45″!

Some notables and others check in on the ethics violation:
http://www.politico.com/arena/

Benjamin – “Ah, okay, Subtlety. So you have no new evidence, just hot air.”

I can see this working at a War Crimes Trial – after all we knew a lot of things back in 1945 but they aren’t new and all hot air too?

“Obama and Ayers were on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors, and the Board of the Woods Fund of Chicago – both reputable organisations with a mixed membership; neither were set up by Ayers or Obama.”

Umm, Ayers was one of the three co-founders of the CAC. So wrong on that one. Ayers certainly has been accepted by the Liberal elites, but I don’t think that makes him reputable outside those circles – or we would not be having this discussion.

“You make it sound like a conspiracy between Obama and Ayers – what utter bollocks.”

Which is a strawman. The mere fact he served with Ayers in so many boards is important. If this was McCain and he had done these things with an Abortion clinic bomber the media would be screaming for blood.

Benjamin – “CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic have all investigated and found nothing.”

I thought you were talking about Palin there for a second. Of course the MSM has found nothing untoward. Why would they?

Sy – “So the MSM ignored it, but everyone knows about it.”

The MSM’s monopoly has been weakened recently and it is surprising what word of mouth can do.

“People have decided they can live with it, but it’s cost Obama the difference between the 20% lead you say he should have and the 7% currently recorded by RCP.”

I said it was a contributing factor. Not the only one. So at worst what this shows is that some 14% of people can live with it. But most Americans have made up their minds. I can think of any other reason why Obama isn’t miles ahead. How much worse could it be for the Republicans and they are still, well until recently they were still, competitive.

Sy – “He is rehabilitated. Or are you suggesting he’s continued to plant bombs these last 30 years?”

So …. if an unrepetent Nazi hasn’t gassed any Jews lately, he is rehabilitated? Do you know what the word means? Ayers still thinks the US is a terrorist organisation, is happy to be photographed walking on the American flag, and says that he only regrets not doing enough. I can see that working in the UK prison system for the Krays – “Yes Gov’nr, I was young, but I am rehabilitated, I haven’t stabbed anyone in a long time but I still regret not killing more”

Gene – “The report says quite the opposite”

No it does not. Abuse is a vague term that has no legal meaning as such. There is no crime here. The report does not say that Palin should be charged with a crime. It does not even say that the Police Chief deserves any compensation for being fired – and given Palin was within her rights to do so I don’t see how he could. The report does not even say that Palin fired him for refusing to sack Wooten. In other words we have a bizarre situation where Palin acted legally, where there is no victim, there is no crime and yet there is “abuse”. This is a political smear job.

“This is a political smear job.”

By a committee empowered by her own party.

Subtlety

You are hilarious, still supporting the notion that there is something in Ayers/Obama thing. Its been debunked on numerous occasions. I am glad that you actually admit now that it has been previously investigated. However, without proper evidence, you use all the classic wingnuttery talking points, exaggerations, weak arguments, dubious analogies, and of course, as ever, the dismissal of the media as the “MSM”; for the wingnuts the failure of the “MSM” to pick up the story is put down to the idea that the “MSM” are all part of a liberal conspiracy.

The wingnuts cannot comprehend the prosaic reality: the “MSM” won’t run with the story because there is nothing in it. Okay, there is Sean Hannity, that shouty meathead on Fox, but he has no credibility.

Umm, Ayers was one of the three co-founders of the CAC

One of three who worked on a proposal, with many others, to secure a grant from the Annenberg Challenge, set up by well known raving leftist Walter Annenberg, former ambassador to the UK under President Nixon.

M.B. – “By a committee empowered by her own party.”

Last I checked Palin came to power by attacking her own Party for corruption. Payback time I guess.

Benjamin – “You are hilarious, still supporting the notion that there is something in Ayers/Obama thing. Its been debunked on numerous occasions.”

It has not been debunked at all. The Facts are not in dispute. Rather it is a difference of opinion about whether being pals with an unrepentant terrorist is a bad thing or not. Which in turn, I would guess, revolves around whether people think that Ayers did a bad thing or not. Those who think Ayers is a good guy see these facts and don’t care. Those who think he is not see the same facts and think it matters. I think that being friends with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber would be a bad thing in a President. And the same with Ayers.

“However, without proper evidence, you use all the classic wingnuttery talking points, exaggerations, weak arguments, dubious analogies, and of course, as ever, the dismissal of the media as the “MSM””

Which is amusing because in your dismissal you do exactly what you accuse me of. Projection I think.

“for the wingnuts the failure of the “MSM” to pick up the story is put down to the idea that the “MSM” are all part of a liberal conspiracy.”

For anyone with a shred of common sense of a vague idea of what impartial is, there is no doubt that the MSM is solidly against McCain and Palin and solidly for Obama. To the point of covering up for one and digging for dirt on the other.

“One of three who worked on a proposal, with many others, to secure a grant from the Annenberg Challenge, set up by well known raving leftist Walter Annenberg, former ambassador to the UK under President Nixon.”

If you wanted to say that the AC was not founded by Ayers you should have said so. You did not. You said the CAC was not. You were wrong. Accept it and move on. You point about Annenberg himself is irrelevant because, as is usually the way of such elitist foundations, they get taken over by the Left. It is an irony that the money made by the hardest of right wing figures tends to be spent by soft left liberals who run their foundations.

Palin gets Filthadelphia welcome:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/11/2008-10-11_sarah_palin_booed_as_she_drops_puck_at_f.html

I may have to rethink my attitude toward Philly. NY Rangers are 3 – 0 on the season.

Subtle,
You shouldn’t say “the facts are not in dispute” and then repeat a tired lie. It’s a lie to say that Obama is friends with, or pals with, Ayers.

That’s why no-one cares about this. It’s not about thinking Ayers is a good guy. It’s that he has no meaningful relationship with Obama. He’s irrelevant.

Every mainstream fact check that’s been done on this has concluded that Obama and Ayers have never been friends. Even Palin has backed away from that claim. Why would you want to stay on a sinking boat that even Palin’s abandoned?

Repeating a lie in the end it just makes you look wierd. That’s why this part of the McCain campaign has tanked so disastrously.

The Obama truthers are a bunch of internet-based nutcases, who got briefly and opportunistically taken up by the worst-run Republican campaign in memory. When the campaign drop it, you’ll have to choose whether to keep on obsessing feverishly, or whether to whistle, put your hands behind your back and walk away.

Those who stay will be entering the same psychological space as 9/11 truthers, Princess Di-was-murdered obsessives and the “moon landing was faked” crowd. And when you’ve forfeited the right to laugh at those guys, you will have made your life a slightly sadder place.

Serious advice. Look, people who thought Obama was or is the messiah were a bit naive, let’s say, and some of them were projecting unattractive cult-like fervour at an ordinary, though smart, politician. But the “Obama is a Commie Muslim Manchurian Candidate stuff” goes way past that. It’s full goose nutzoid. It’s the road to Larouchedom. Get away from it!

Rather it is a difference of opinion about whether being pals with an unrepentant terrorist is a bad thing or not

Obama served on two charitable boards with Ayers. There is no evidence to suggest they were particularly close. Do you condemn all the others that served on those boards too?

Ayers left the Weather Underground in 1980 and faced the music. Much water has passed under the bridge since then, and he has since become involved in projects in Chicago and is a professor at the university. You seem to be suggesting that people like that should somehow live entirely separately for the rest of their lives, and not communicate with anyone or serve with anyone.

I do not think this is the reality in America; even those who have done stretches in prison (Ayers has not) are encouraged to reintegrate into the community. In fact, his involvement in community charitable work and the university would be seen as success story by many probation officers. His work in Chicago would naturally lead him to come in contact with many interested parties in the city, including state senators.

There is simply nothing uncontroversial in the story. Even his so called lack of repentance is warped by the rightists. His views on his past a are lot more nuanced that that; this is unsurprising – from interviews I have seen with him he comes across as a sensitive, intelligent man, whatever one thinks about his stated political views and the wrongs he committed earlier. He is not the cartoonish demon as painted by the right.

Mine’s a Newt – “You shouldn’t say “the facts are not in dispute” and then repeat a tired lie. It’s a lie to say that Obama is friends with, or pals with, Ayers.”

I am not sure I did say he was friends with him. OK for the sake of argument let’s conceed he is not. He just sat on a couple of Boards with the guy, including the educational foundation Ayers set up, and launched his political campaign in Ayers’ house. What does it matter? The double standard of the Left is obvious – if this was all McCain did with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber, he would be toast. Obviously the Left approves of Ayers.

“That’s why no-one cares about this. It’s not about thinking Ayers is a good guy. It’s that he has no meaningful relationship with Obama. He’s irrelevant. ”

Well obviously if Ayers had bombed an abortion clinic we all would have a different view of what meaningful means. Perhaps you are right and there is no friendship. In that case Obama cynically used Ayers to further his own political goals. It still matters. Either way Obama’s judgement is problematic – unless of course you think that trying to blow up NCO dances and judges is no big deal. I think the American public disagrees.

“Every mainstream fact check that’s been done on this has concluded that Obama and Ayers have never been friends. Even Palin has backed away from that claim. Why would you want to stay on a sinking boat that even Palin’s abandoned? ”

You seem to be hung up on the word “friendship”. I don’t think that is the key issue here. It is one of judgement. Obama worked with these people. He socialised with them. He was very comfortable in their presence despite, or more likely because of, their views. That is what is at stake.

“Repeating a lie in the end it just makes you look wierd. That’s why this part of the McCain campaign has tanked so disastrously.”

If you use the word lie three time or more in the same sentence perhaps some people may even be fooled. What lie? The facts here are not in dispute. We all agree Obama served on the Board with these people, we all agree that he launched his campaign in their home, we all agree they are utterly unrepentent terrorists. That is enough, I think, not to vote for Obama. I think many Americans would agree with me if this were a normal year.

“When the campaign drop it, you’ll have to choose whether to keep on obsessing feverishly, or whether to whistle, put your hands behind your back and walk away. ”

Oddly enough I don’t define my reality by the need to serve someone else’s political campaign. One of the reasons this is one of the worst run campaigns ever is that McCain lacks the stomache for it. He never wanted it bad enough and so steered clear of pointing out how nasty people like Wright and Ayers are.

“Those who stay will be entering the same psychological space as 9/11 truthers, Princess Di-was-murdered obsessives and the “moon landing was faked” crowd. And when you’ve forfeited the right to laugh at those guys, you will have made your life a slightly sadder place.”

Uh huh. When someone turns to personal attack rather than deal with the issues I am pretty confident I am dealing with someone who is denying the truth about themselves. Look, whatever problems you have, abusing me on the internet is not a solution.

“But the “Obama is a Commie Muslim Manchurian Candidate stuff” goes way past that. It’s full goose nutzoid. It’s the road to Larouchedom. Get away from it!”

Needless to say there is precisely none of that coming from my posts. The facts, as I may have mentioned, are not in dispute.

Benjamin – “Obama served on two charitable boards with Ayers. There is no evidence to suggest they were particularly close. Do you condemn all the others that served on those boards too?”

Apart from the fact that Obama was invited to be Ayers’ lawyer for one of those Boards. They also sat on some academic panels together but that is not that important. Whether they were close or not (and clearly they were in my opinion) is not the issue. It is whether they worked together on this highly ideological programme. Again if a member of the Tory Cabinet had been sitting on the board of a South African company, or one devoted to showing Whites have higher IQs than Blacks with a known Racist, we would be having a very different conversation. I do condemn the others as it happens. I would not sit down and eat with the late Jorge Haider, nor would I sit on a board with Ayers. That is the divide here I think. However the others are not running for President so it does not matter.

“Ayers left the Weather Underground in 1980 and faced the music.”

What music? Ayers turned himself in, well after the WU had broken up, after other members had done so and got off with a fine and probation. He knew it was safe. He did not even get probation. Again we see the intellectual bias of the justice system.

“Much water has passed under the bridge since then, and he has since become involved in projects in Chicago and is a professor at the university.”

Not for Ayers it has not. He is utterly unrepentant. To quote the Boston Globe:

‘In Chicago the other day, radio producer Guy Benson discovered video recordings of Ayers and Dohrn speaking at a reunion of antiwar radicals in November 2007. To live in the United States, Dohrn told the group, is to be “inside the heart of the monster” that is such a “purveyor of violence in the world.” Ayers denounced America as an imperial warmonger steeped in “jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy . . . attacks on women and girls, violent attacks, growing surveillance in every sphere of our lives, on and on and on.”‘

He has not moved on. And such a nuanced view of America’s role in the world!

“You seem to be suggesting that people like that should somehow live entirely separately for the rest of their lives, and not communicate with anyone or serve with anyone.”

No I am not. I am suggesting that decent people ought to shun them – and that those that do not are not decent people. Nor should people who work with them and use their houses to launch their political campaigns be elected President.

“I do not think this is the reality in America; even those who have done stretches in prison (Ayers has not) are encouraged to reintegrate into the community.”

How nice. And what would your response be if McCain had regular meetings with some old men who had been convicted of lynchings in the South in the 1960s? Move on? Water under the bridge? Good for McCain for helping them reintegrate into the community?

“In fact, his involvement in community charitable work and the university would be seen as success story by many probation officers.”

Which says a lot about many probation officers given the nature of his work – which is mostly about keeping young Black males out of prison no matter what and attacking the police.

“His work in Chicago would naturally lead him to come in contact with many interested parties in the city, including state senators.”

And what was the nature of Obama’s work that would take him into contact with Ayers? Which is all that counts here.

“There is simply nothing uncontroversial in the story. Even his so called lack of repentance is warped by the rightists. His views on his past a are lot more nuanced that that; this is unsurprising – from interviews I have seen with him he comes across as a sensitive, intelligent man, whatever one thinks about his stated political views and the wrongs he committed earlier. He is not the cartoonish demon as painted by the right.”

His views on the past are the most unnuanced I have ever seen. I am sure he is a sensitive and intelligent man. So were most of Stalin’s henchmen from what I can see and three of the four main SS extermination groups were led by men with PhDs. None of which, even if true, would change the fact that Obama has very poor judgement when it comes to his friends – not just Ayers but Rezko and Wright as well.

Let’s put it another way, a leading politician can have his career destroyed because he says one nice but clumsy thing about a racist politician at a dinner. Obama sits on the Board with unrepentent terrorists and no one gives a shit. Come on, accept the facts, the media is biased. Trent Lott did far less than Obama.

Oh look, the analogies you make to Stalin, lynch mobs etc, are not accurate. Ayers no doubt has strong views on America as an imperial power, militarism etc; you may disagree with them, but they are not in the same category as white supremacism or Stalinism. Ayers was never a Stalinist. Obviously he felt so strongly about these views before (particularly about the Vietnam War) that he took violent measures against the state. But that was many years ago. He now simply expresses those views whilst positively contributing to the Chicago community and academic life there. Folk have different views – but they still work together.

Here is a letter from University of Illinois at Chicago Professor William H. Schubert, about Bill Ayers:

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2008/10/bill-ayers-i-know.html

Here is a letter from letter about Bill Ayers from University of Illinois at Chicago Professor William H. Schubert:

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2008/10/bill-ayers-i-know.html

Here is a letter about Ayers from University of Illinois at Chicago Professor William H. Schubert:

http://tinyurl.com/4gsxba

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8gQdCHDuags

(Says it all)
______________________

PS. Blocking IP addresses is a very crude form of censorship.

What about a compromise.

You change your website motto and I’ll stop bothering to come back here to see if the Hypocrisy Threat Alert is still on red.

All you need to add is: “Exceptions Apply”

One of three who worked on a proposal, with many others, to secure a grant from the Annenberg Challenge, set up by well known raving leftist Walter Annenberg, former ambassador to the UK under President Nixon.

And “it was Annenberg who introduced President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher, and the Reagans often celebrated New Year’s Eve with the Annenbergs.”

Even McCain have accepted money from the “terrorist” funding Annenberg.

One is surprised that there still is anything left of this dead horse, it have been beaten finely minced meat by now.

the McCain/Palin horsemeat mincers

Benjamin – “Oh look, the analogies you make to Stalin, lynch mobs etc, are not accurate. Ayers no doubt has strong views on America as an imperial power, militarism etc; you may disagree with them, but they are not in the same category as white supremacism or Stalinism. Ayers was never a Stalinist.”

They are entirely accurate. His views are not merely wrong, they are so fundamentally wrong they betray a mind out of touch with reality – and betray his affinity with Stalinism. Ayers may say now that he was not a Stalinist, but the differences are trivial. He was happy, as Stalin would not have been but many Stalinists have been, to use terrorism to impose his political agenda. That is kind of the key isn’t it?

“Obviously he felt so strongly about these views before (particularly about the Vietnam War) that he took violent measures against the state.”

Particularly about the need for victory by those Stalinists in Vietnam. Odd that isn’t it? He tried hard to murder people. People who burnt down Churches felt strongly. Ayers felt more than that.

“But that was many years ago. He now simply expresses those views whilst positively contributing to the Chicago community and academic life there. Folk have different views – but they still work together.”

I have seen no evidence he contributes positively. It was many years ago. And it was many years ago that George Wallace did bad things. So that’s all right is it? I am glad to see we are in agreement that Ayers is an unrepentent terrorist – and presumably his politics remain totalitarian. All sorts of people do work together but people who are friendly, if not friends, with terrorists rarely run for President.

The shrewdest move by the team McCain would be to drop Palin and get in another ‘maverick’ like Ron Paul. Though if this would be enough, who knows. Apparently there’s 4 million extra voters registered this time, vast majority will be voting for the Obama ticket.

Subtlety

What Ayers did wrong was help implement a bombing campaign. That was the potentially actionable offence. Holding views is not actionable. Nor does holding any views necessarily make an individual a bad citizen, or prevent them from working with others to achieve success in other ares of work. This is true of people with a whole range of views on things.

I have seen no evidence he contributes positively.

Well he has. You haven’t seen the evidence because you haven’t done the research. There is numerous evidence – read the link I provided. Professor William H. Schubert lists his achievements, and he was given the Chicago Citizen of the Year Award. He worked with Mayor on educational programs. He expanded the Woods Fund of Chicago. There are numerous, clear achievements.

I am glad to see we are in agreement that Ayers is an unrepentent terrorist

Not at all. His statements are very nuanced, and “we didn’t do enough” has been distorted by the right. I have no doubt he has regrets about things; but he has no intention of bending over backwards for a bunch of wingnuts, who want a convenient demon to try to get someone elected.

Scream “Communist, Stalinist, Islamist, Arab” at the top of your lungs as the economy collapses – see where it gets you. Join the ranks of the corn feds lined up at McCain rallies, their heads stuffed with lies, distortions, hatred, with a bit of racism thrown in too.

The shrewdest move by the team McCain would be to drop Palin and get in another ‘maverick’ like Ron Paul

Ron Paul would never agree to that.

“I said it was a contributing factor. Not the only one. So at worst what this shows is that some 14% of people can live with it.”

Since you claim it’s influencing their vote, I assume you mean *can’t* live with it?

So that’s effectively 7% of voters switching from Obama to McCain on this single issue, one which, until this week, they’d only come across on blogs and Fox, what with the dreaded, terminally-biased MSM never mentioning it.

7%…. Most likely more than the eventual swing on election day…On this one issue…An issue which has had more of an airing this last 10 days than at any other time, but has concided with Obama increasing his lead by about 3.5%.

Subtely, this isn’t just wrong, it’s head-against-the-wall, chewing-the-carpet, howling-at-the-moon crazy.

“So …. if an unrepetent Nazi hasn’t gassed any Jews lately, he is rehabilitated?”

Oh, get a fucking grip.

*Subtlety*

marvin – “The shrewdest move by the team McCain would be to drop Palin and get in another ‘maverick’ like Ron Paul.”

Yes because what McCain really needs is a fringe candiate with odd views on race. The smartest move would be to dump McCain. He was a bit of a Buggin’s Turn candidate anyway.

Benjamin – “What Ayers did wrong was help implement a bombing campaign.”

How generous of you to acknolwegde that. And by “implement a bombing campaign” you mean attempt mass murder. Although his political views were also wrong if not a crime.

“That was the potentially actionable offence. Holding views is not actionable. Nor does holding any views necessarily make an individual a bad citizen, or prevent them from working with others to achieve success in other ares of work. This is true of people with a whole range of views on things.”

It was actionable but the Government did not have the guts to punish it. Holding views is not actionable, but then who said it was? If Trent Lott can be driven out of office for an offhand remark, then obviously views matter when it comes to elections. Holding the views Ayers held does make him a bad person and refusing to rethink them in light of Solzhenitsyn et al makes him worse. But that too is not the problem. The problem is that Obama profited from their acquaintance, for want of a stronger word, and saw, sees, no problem in that. Obama is standing, not Ayers.

“Well he has. You haven’t seen the evidence because you haven’t done the research. There is numerous evidence – read the link I provided. Professor William H. Schubert lists his achievements, and he was given the Chicago Citizen of the Year Award. He worked with Mayor on educational programs. He expanded the Woods Fund of Chicago. There are numerous, clear achievements.”

You mean he is well regarded by the Liberal elite of Chicago. Well hooray. Who thought otherwise? They liked him when he was trying to kill people too.

“Not at all. His statements are very nuanced, and “we didn’t do enough” has been distorted by the right. I have no doubt he has regrets about things; but he has no intention of bending over backwards for a bunch of wingnuts, who want a convenient demon to try to get someone elected. ”

You don’t doubt but you don’t know because, of course, he had never, by word or deed, said he does. Almost as if he is, you know, unrepentant. He stood on the American flag to be photographed by Times. It is not standing up to normal Americans. It is continuing his on going hate of them. You can’t point to a single nuance in his statements either I’d bet. Keep trying to justify the unjustifiable.

“Scream “Communist, Stalinist, Islamist, Arab” at the top of your lungs as the economy collapses – see where it gets you.”

Why would I care where it will get me? It has nothing to do with me. I am merely correcting your mistakes.

“Join the ranks of the corn feds lined up at McCain rallies, their heads stuffed with lies, distortions, hatred, with a bit of racism thrown in too.”

A bit rich coming from the side that has yet to stop lying about Palin.

Sy – “Since you claim it’s influencing their vote, I assume you mean *can’t* live with it?”

That would be Obama’s lead now wouldn’t it?

“Subtely, this isn’t just wrong, it’s head-against-the-wall, chewing-the-carpet, howling-at-the-moon crazy.”

Well that would be what I am good at.

“You mean he is well regarded by the Liberal elite of Chicago. Well hooray. Who thought otherwise? They liked him when he was trying to kill people too”

Evidence please. Plus the bit about attempting mass murder too, while you’re at it – as I understand, most of their bombings were preceded by warnings. Not a defence, just a clarification.

So she had the legal right to fire him and she may hae fired him because
a) he wasn’t doing his job
b) he was a bent cop trying to protect a wife-beater.

Nice to see you sanding up for the good guys. Scumbags.

**
On Obama’s connections: if you think Livingstons patronage of the Far Left was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

**
“Evidence please. Plus the bit about attempting mass murder too, while you’re at it – as I understand, most of their bombings were preceded by warnings. Not a defence, just a clarification.”

They planted nail bombs you despicable piece of dirt.

“Nice to see you sanding up for the good guys. Scumbags.

**
On Obama’s connections: if you think Livingstons patronage of the Far Left was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Another example of calm and reason in the face of the forthcoming defeat.

“They planted nail bombs you despicable piece of dirt.”

Horrible. How many did these nail bombs kill and maim (other than their own members)?

He stood on the American flag to be photographed by Times.

I’m from the UK. If A British person was photographed standing on the Union Flag, I would not be personally insulted, nor would I necessarily think it is hateful. I would think it may be some sort of political statement, not necessarily an affront to the whole country.

You mean he is well regarded by the Liberal elite of Chicago.

Well this is your fall back response. Instead of examining any qualities that may have earned him respect, his contributions and work, you just fall back on your easy talk of liberal elites or the liberal media. Weak stuff.

The more I read about Ayers, the more I form the impression that he is genuinely idealistic individual who lost his way in the 1970s, but has come good since then. Whatever you think of his political views now (or then), there is no doubt that he has contributed much to Chicago since his days in the Weather Underground. He is certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, rehabilitated.

The Greenwich Village townhouse explosion moved the group away from attacking people, and they began attacking property with warnings, as discussed in the Weather Underground (documentary) of 2002 (which is on Google video in entirety). Of course destroying property is bad enough, but a decision was made to avoid death after the townhouse explosion.

And so how many did they kill or maim before that? Other than the SF police station which they may or may not have been behind?

It was actually a genuine question, but G and SMFS are too busy screaming about Nazis and Stalin to add a little persepctive.

Bill Ayers and Don Strickland speak together at the International Spy Museum, and take questions. Don Strickland was part of the FBI investigation of the Weather Underground at the time. The event is broadcast on CSPAN.

http://fora.tv/2006/01/26/Weather_Underground

Don Strickland, the FBI, CPAN etc are all “palling around” with a terrorist. Shocking stuff. I hope Palin and the Republicans are on to this!

And so how many did they kill or maim before that? Other than the SF police station which they may or may not have been behind?

Zero. If you include the police station – one killed.

However, the plotters at the townhouse may have been planning to attack people. But after that they drew back from that.

(Incidentally, in the video above Bill Ayers discusses his feelings on the whole weatherman period.)

The head of the Symbionese Liberatiion Army was also “rehabilitated” — he fled to South Africa and became a respected academic who worked with the poor. When he was finally outed, he went back to America and was jailed. How is Ayers different? Why isn’t he in jail?

As to the Palin “abuse” stuff. Look, I think she’s a disaster. I also think that the media have piled on her in a way no other candidate has been. And there are plenty of journalists who acknowledge that the personal stuff was way out of line.

As to the “abuse” of office. If you take the trouble to read up on this affair, you will find out that this is a political stitch-up. The finding by the panel chairman (a Palin foe) is utterly vague about what the abuse was and does not even attribute the resignation of Wootten’s boss to her desire to see her brother-in-law fired.

Frankly, I wouldn’t want to see a Republican elected. I don’t think Obama is the guy to get America back on track though. We’ll see.

“I’m from the UK. If A British person was photographed standing on the Union Flag, I would not be personally insulted, nor would I necessarily think it is hateful. I would think it may be some sort of political statement, not necessarily an affront to the whole country.”

But that’s coz you’re a knob.

Frankly, I’ve come across plenty of English lecturers with a tin ear for words and passion for politics that dwarfs whatever interest in Literature they can conjure up. I don’t imagine Ayers is any different, except most of them didn’t plant fucking nail bombs. Yeesh.

Also, I don’t think it is hysterical to point out the disjunction between these two facts
1) Harry’s Place spent months obsessing over Livingston’s associations with figures far less loathsome than Ayers.
2) Harry’s Place has an Andrew Sullivan style man crush on Obama.

How is Ayers different? Why isn’t he in jail?

Probably because the authorities screwed up the investigation and/or insufficient evidence. The simple fact of the matter is that he hasn’t gone to jail, nor will he. He’s moved on and is involved in solid work in Chicago. You’ll note from the broadcast I posted, that he even can hold a discussion and question answer session with his former FBI pursuer, and have it broadcast on CSPAN.

I don’t imagine Ayers is any different

I shouldn’t make a habit of talking to lazy right wing people in here. They don’t do any research, just come up with loose statements like the above, or easy generalisations about the “liberal elites” or the liberal “MSM”, when confronted with evidence that confronts there cookie-cutter views. The world is a far more complicated place than the inside of their heads, that’s for sure.

Huh, completely ignored after 100+ comments. You’d almost think I predicted this weeks ago.

Anyway, the final version of this story seems to be: Palin did the right thing by trying to get this guy fired, but it was unethical because she knew why he should be fired.

Some things are complicated, Benji, some things aren’t. One of the latter is that the halls of academia are scattered with scum of the Far Left who barely even pretend to give a rat’s ass about their subject and spend their time advancing their noxious views while sucking on the public tit. They are thieves who parasite of decent working people and live it up whilst claiming to despise the status quo. It’s not complicated.

Well, if you did any research into Bill Ayers, you might realise your rather frothing profile does not fit him:

“After leaving the underground, he earned an M.Ed from Bank Street College in Early Childhood Education (1984), an M.Ed from Teachers College, Columbia University in Early Childhood Education (1987) and an Ed.D from Teachers College, Columbia University in Curriculum and Instruction (1987).

“He has edited and written many books and articles on education theory, policy and practice, and has appeared on many panels and symposia.”

“Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education.” Wikipedia.

He is clearly deeply involved in his subject academically, through charitable work, and through the public authoritaties.

So again, G, no reference to facts on your part, just frothing rhetoric.

“He has edited and written many books and articles on education theory, policy and practice, and has appeared on many panels and symposia.”

So? They’ll all be shit, they always are. Anyone who loves, or even likes literature, hates lefist literature professors. End of.

It’s one of the few truly valuable things I learned as an undergraduate.

What the hell is Mandela doing free then??? And that George Washington, noted rebel and rabble rouser, people ought to be ashamed to give him so much publicity.

The various claims are that he doesn’t care about his subject, or he has contributed nothing. This is clearly not true, irrespective of what you think of his political views. The record shows he is involved in academic work, as well as charitable and civic work. He helped expand the work of the Woods Fund and also helped secure significant funds for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. I am not sure how rhetoric and bile on your part actually erases that positive record. You certainly have not challenged it.

“What the hell is Mandela doing free then??? And that George Washington, noted rebel and rabble rouser, people ought to be ashamed to give him so much publicity.”
Fine why doesn’t Obama just come out and say this then? “Bill Ayers is a great man, equivalent to Mandela and bombing the Pentagon was and is the right thing to do?” Simple, so why doesn’t he just fucking say it?

Benji, I’m not denying his record as a letist literature professor or his record diverting educational funds to radical groups. I am saying both of them make me loathe him more not less. It is not that he has contributed nothing to his subject it is that he and people like him contribute bad things to the subject and progressively destroy western civilization. Dime to a dozen every student of his who came with a love for words left with a love for uncovering postcolonial narratives of hegemonic injustice.

The problem with this report is that had this been a “proper” criminal case it would have been declared a mistrail as soon as the judge (the democrat in charge of this circus) promised to deliver an October surprise on the 29th!

Also, the report states that the Governor has to have a higher level of ethical standards than everyone else…only problem is this higher standard of behaviour seems to only extend one way. One would have thought that the group investigating the so called allegations themselves would also have a similarly high level of standards expected in such a politically sensitive investigation.

BTW, the geezer wasnt fired, he was reassigned.

So what is it? You cant have it both ways as this initial report has it. She either abused her powers or acted within her powers…it cant be both.

Scott

G

Clearly you have not done any research on this. He is not a literature professor, not has he diverted any money to “radical groups”. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for example, was funded by the Annenburg Foundation, set up by Walter Annenberg, ambassador to the UK under Nixon, friend of Reagan, who introduced Reagan to Thatcher.

“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for example, was funded by the Annenburg Foundation, set up by Walter Annenberg, ambassador to the UK under Nixon, friend of Reagan, who introduced Reagan to Thatcher.”
And Ayers then diverted the money to radical groups. Obviously Annenberg was a complete dumbass totally oblivious to the dangers of entryism.

What “radical groups” were those?

Read for yourself
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Kurtz is still working through the documents, but the preliminary evidence is pretty damning.

Annenberg was a moron, but then if you investigate where Bush’s faith-based-programmes money is going you find that this kind of stubborn blindness infects conservatives everywhere