G. Gordon Liddy: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/10/05/mccains-terror-connection-g-gordon-liddy/ Ollie North: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/12/mccain_camp_touts_ollie_north.html John Hagee; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04rich.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Lenore Annenburg http://cranegirl.newsvine.com/_news...you-know-annenberg-founder-is-huge-gop-donor- Marylin and Shelley Shannon http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/10/john-mccains-as.html http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html and more. McCain wanted to know the full story with Obama and Ayers, what of all his connections?
His connections are scary, especially considering that his whole campaign is full of Washington Insiders and Lobbyists. If by some fluke he wins, America will be in the hands of the very people that just screwed us over. The "flag wavers" don't see that. It is amazing to see so many people who have nothing actually believe that McCain and all of his lobbyist will miraculously do what is best for everyone in the country and not just completely rape and pillage what is left of the economy.
Well, if that's truly the case, some might be even a little more scared by the number Obama has on his staff. Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll. Not sure how these numbers have changed over the past year, but it would appear Obama hasn't necessarily been straight forward, as usual. PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise Lobbyists Give to Obama Campaign Obama Campaign Enlists Lobbyists Fear the Obama Lobbyists BTW, seems awful quiet around here. What happened to all the mud slinging?
Hmnn. Lobbyist for the dictator who sponsored terrorism, and according to the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11.
So we might conclude that "His connections are scary, especially considering that his whole campaign is full of Washington Insiders and Lobbyists." appears to be selective moral outrage, after discovering how many lobbyists are on Obama's team? I'll source mine. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_n.htm Next?
How about we start a thread where we talk about McCain instead of Obama? I mean this election has been all about Obama. Why is McCain even running? His entire campaign since the Palin bubble burst has been to talk about Obama and how he's not like Obama. Obama is different people! Wake up, can't you see how different he is?? I just think maybe in the middle of all this McCain might want to make the case why we should elect another Republican to the White House.
Selective outrage...indeed Sure, we can talk about socialist and marxist policies and how great liberals think they are.
So I guess not No take on that? You do remember he's a Republican conservative don't you? Psst: Maverick, is not a party It's an unpredictable lose cannon prone to making stupid decisions against authority just like the original Top Gun character.
It's a good point, George, and I hadn't actually stopped to think more concretely about this until now. Thanks.
Why? Are you afraid? Should I start quoting entire posts to be sure edits are not inserted? That sounds like a liberal democrat to me
Obama does not run on a campaign of taking on the Washington insiders, so you can't apply McCain's rhetoric to him. Sounds pretty selective itself. The bottom line is, every time someone points out the inconsistencies of what McCain say's and what he actually does, the only response is, "well, Barack obama did this.." The 2 campaigns are not the same, and they don't run on the same platform, so if McCain and Palin run on a platform of "shaking up Washington" the question is, "Why so many insiders on the campaign?" This is McCain's platform, not Obama's. There is no comparison of the two. Mccain's platform seems to be one of tactics and not strategies, and every time he tries to attack on a certain issue, turns out the skeletons in his own closet are worse. His supporters are the same as his campaign, never a defense of what he has done, only another attack on what Obama has done. In case you haven't noticed, it's a losing strategy. He has even lost the respect of Colin Powell, who I am sure, now that he has endorsed Obama is now less than "American". If it were the other way around you would be using that endorsement to prove a point.
As illustrated by the numerous sources provided, this simply isn't true. Invoking outrage about being scared of something McCain does, only to discover your own candidate is probably doing worse. Some are comfortable with a level of hypocrisy that suggests it's ok to point out something about one candidate, but not ok to point out the same about their own candidate. This is a fine example of such. It could be argued that while Obama and his army of socialists like to point out that McCain has lobbyists (actually former lobbyists) on his campaign staff, it appears Obama might actually employ more than McCain. However, as I've stated often, republicans are held to higher standards than liberals and this seems to be yet another fine illustration of that continued point. That was not the question. Let's not be so quick to rewrite the immediate history of this post. I realize that liberals believe making unfounded accusations is the same as "questioning," however, you made a statement of being scared of something McCain supposedly has done, only to have learned your own candidate is potentially worse, and suddenly we've moved from "selective outrage" and being scared, to suggesting it's OK for Obama to have extensive lobbyists on his campaign, but some how that scared you for McCain. I would call that a serious level of disconnect. Maybe such nuance is why I find it difficult to be "liberal." I reject protectionism and crying victimhood when it's masked openly in hypocrisy. I also reject the dishonesty in the statement regarding Colin Powell about McCain. I think it's great that liberals suddenly find Powell and Buckley honorable men for political expediency. I would expect nothing less.
That's not selective criticism. It's a question. Now if the answer is because he's not Obama, so be it.
IMHO Gordon Liddy is definitely a whacko and probably fits the description that William Buckley had in mind when he said something to the effect of spending a lifetime separating the whackos from the true believers. After committing crimes on behalf of Nixon and getting out of prison he definitely supported the right of extremists to fire on the the Feds. I suppose over a long period of time these candidates run into a lot of people including those on far extremes. Trying to make a case to rip the candidates on every meeting they have had with every human over a lifetime can get to be utterly stupid. Who is important and vital in their lives and in their policies becomes important not every interaction with every human who inhabits the earth. It speaks to the silliness of trying to make a big thing of Ayres.
I doubt McCain ever sit on a board with Hagee, nor do I think Hagee is anywhere near as radical as NY Times makes him out to be. He is no where near the radical that Ayers is proven to be. Even if he is, an endorsement is hardly an association.
Two things. One, I earlier mentioned that John McCain sat on the Board of the World Council for Freedom beginning in 1981. It seems disingenuous to me that people continue to raise Ayers, while ignoring the very real fact of McCain's board membership on the USWCF. The McCain ticket claimed he ended his term in 1984, though there is no record of his resigning and his name was on the organization's letterhead into 1986. The group's activities and membership stems from HUAC, the John Birch Society and the World Anti-Communist League, its parent organization. He served on the board. Yet his camp made Obama's "relationship" with Ayres the very centerpiece of its campaign, for several weeks, appearing only now to dial it back, after realizing it's a non-starter. Lengthy, below, but not irrelevant. source Secondly, knowing he was weak with the evangelical right of his party, it was McCain who sought Hagee's endorsement, as well as the endorsement of Rod Parsley. Hagee is a psychopath who views a pre-emptive military strike on Iran as divinely ordained, a piece of the puzzle leading to "Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ" as described in the Book of Revelations; that Hurricane Katrina was god's punishment on a kind of "Sodom" in America; and all the rest of the psychotically dangerous bunk. Rod Parsley believes, in part, that the United States was founded on a principle of "seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed," and seeks a literal, second Crusade: Christian war on Muslims worldwide. McCain, who once famously called assholes like Hagee and Parsley "agents of intolerance," vigorously sought the endorsement of those assholes for a political need; the same need that forced his selection of Sarah Palin at the 11th hour. It was only after the firestorms of both pastors' more nefarious views came out that McCain "rejected" their endorsements. Thirdly, yes, Hagee is that radical, and dangerous. See above.
NPT, personally, I don't care too much. I think both sides of the fence are blowing these types of things way out of the water. It just bugged me a little that Hagee was mentioned as a huge radical or something. Most people who believe that probably only know he is on TBN, they probably are not a christian, and/or perhaps never listened to a single sermon of his. I can't say I agree with everything he says. From what I have heard him say, he does take a literal viewpoint of the book of Revelation (which I am studying right now and have not seen anything regarding Iran). I have heard people who are not christians claim he was anti-semetic and the likes, which is about as far away from the truth as possible.
My only point was...the OP was about McCain, yet the defense was not about McCain, it was , "Yeah well Obama...." still no answer or defense...just pointing out Obama, as always, which is what the McCain campaign is....about Barack Obama. I personally think McCain's head of Transition having lobbied for Saddam Husein after the first Gulf War to lift the sanctions off of Iraq to profit from an oil deal worth $45 million, is waaaaayyyy worse, since the Bush Administration labeled Iraq a direct sponsor of terrorism and Al Queda.