Presidential election may be up for grabs

[a_majoor]

Instapundit notes there is a lot of internet "scrubbing" going on. Winston Smith's workplace called it "The Memory Hole". Luckily there is still the Google cache and the "Wayback Machine", for now, anyway....

http://www.patterico.com/2008/10/20/evidence-of-obama-ayers-tie-sent-down-the-memory-hole-almost/

Evidence of Obama-Ayers Tie Sent Down the Memory Hole . . . Almost!
Filed under: 2008 Election, General — Patterico @ 7:05 am
The best evidence that Barack Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers’s living room has disappeared . . . down the memory hole.

Well, not quite. The Wayback Machine and I have both saved copies.

On Thursday, the L.A. Times claimed that there is “no recorded basis” for John McCain’s statement that Obama launched his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room. That same day, I wrote a post that proved them wrong. I linked a January 27, 2005 blog post by Maria Warren, a political liberal who attended the function. In that post, she said:

When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.

I originally read about this post at a Politico piece about the Ayers-Obama relationship in February 2008. That post identified the name of the blog, and Maria Warren as the author. But Politico did not link Warren’s post; I found it and linked it based on the evidence provided by Politico. Yesterday I sent the link to the L.A. Times as part of a request for a correction of the error in their editorial.

As far as I know, I was the first blogger to directly link Warren’s blog entry — and I did so last Thursday.

Now it’s Monday, and this blog entry — which had been around since January 27, 2005 — is suddenly gone. (H/t Jim Treacher.)

I thought there wasn’t anything to the Obama-Ayers relationship. I guess somebody thinks different — and is taking pains to delete the evidence.

Well, you’re going to have to do better than this. Turns out the Wayback Machine still has a copy. You’re going to have to scrub that, too.

Oh — and then you’re going to have to crash my site and come get my laptop. Because it turns out that I saved a screenshot:




(Click the image for a full-size shot.)

What . . you think I didn’t see this coming?

 

[CougarKing]

If Obama is elected we may see the greatest challenge to the Constitution since the Civil War.Obama is out to force the US into a marxist box.His big stumbling block will be the states.The one's that are already blue states will be less of a problem for him than the red states.

As for General Powell if he thinks the McCain campaign is negative he obviously is blind to the outragous lies,fraud and intimidation that is the Obama campaign.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/07/16/oklahoma_rebellion

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Key's resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."

Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.

State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.

Wait, so let me get this straight from what I am reading and inferring  above- so you think the right to secede is a state RIGHT? So you think the 1st Republican President- Abraham Lincoln- was wrong to try to keep the Union together simply because he didn't think those states had a right to secede simply becasue they disagreed on things like slavery?

And just because the CSA didn't try to take over Washington DC and the rest of the Union doesn't mean it shouldn't be called a Civil War. The fact of the matter is that there was still a conflict of governance of OVER PART OF THE COUNTRY over who ruled- the states themselves with their own Confederacy or the US Federal goverment which didn't allow them to secede.  Obviously your definition of a Civil War must be strictly a conflict where it involves the whole country and central goverment control being fought over. But regardless it is the victors who write the history and the CSA never gained independence. Therefore it will still probably be called the American Civil War for generations to come and not a "2nd War of independence for the Southern States" no matter who is right on this thread in this clash of definitions.

And for God's sake, Obama is not a Marxist. Socialist undeniably, but definitely much closer to the socialists of Europe (Scandinavian Socialism etc.) than the various Marxist/Maoist regimes or rebel factions that have existed throughout the world. To suggest that someone like Obama is anything like Marxist like Kim Jong Il is plain absurd. Obama is not calling for an ABSOLUTE one-party system as a Marxist government would require; he has mentioned he has worked with Republicans in Congress in on a number of times- does Congressman Dick Lugar  of the Foreign Policy committee and his work with Obama on limiting nuclear proliferation ring a bell?   If you're gonna use labels you should ones that more accurately reflect someone without resulting to such extremist labels.  Like the extremist voters of the GOP base who called Obama as a "terrorist" in a Ohio rally presided over by Palin. Living in the same neighborhood with Ayers or even meeting him does not make Obama a terrorist. You convince people through facts and persuasion as you well know, not slander and reductio ad absurdium as stegner pointed out earlier.

 

[muskrat89]

For someone who likes to set people straight about things going on in China, you sure seem to get excited about someone who lives in the US expressing their opinions...

???

As far as this:

If you're gonna use labels you should ones that more accurately reflect someone without resulting to such extremist labels.  Like the extremist voters of the GOP base who called Obama as a "terrorist" in a Ohio rally presided over by Palin

What about these?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/pds-mobsters-in-philly-lets-stone-her-old-school/

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/blatant-anti-palin-bias-in-the-liberal-media-a-collection/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/16/baffled-secret-service-cant-find-anyone-to-corroborate-reporters-kill-them-claim/

 

[CougarKing]

For someone who likes to set people straight about things going on in China, you sure seem to get excited about someone who lives in the US expressing their opinions...

???

If I come on as being overenthusiastic, then it's perhaps I believe there should be a balanced perspective when discussing the United States as well, having studied taken my undergraduate studies and half my high school there(1999-2005). T6 is entitled to what he says, but I do not seek to silence his opinions. And what I say is moot anyways as I cannot vote in that country, while he can.

And as for China, I base what I write here on my experiences as an expatriate living not only in Hong Kong for 3 years (1994-97) before the handover back to the mainland and Taipei, Taiwan for 2 years (1997-1999), but also on that semester abroad I spent in Beijing (2003)during my undergrad. I have strong opinions on both China and the United States, having studied in both nations, although I have called Canada my home since I became a landed immigrant (originally from another country in Southeast Asia, not China or Taiwan, which I prefer not to say) here back in 2006.

But enough justification and boasting of credentials that no one cares about. Back to TOPIC.

(back in Taipei in December 2002 return visit)

 

[muskrat89]

And as for China, I base what I write here on my experiences as an expatriate living not only in Hong Kong for 3 years (1994-97) before the handover back to the mainland and Taipei, Taiwan for 2 years (1997-1999), but also on that semester abroad I spent in Beijing (2003)during my undergrad

Which is my point. Your opinions of things far eastern are given "ooomph" by your life-experiences there. It just really irks me when opinions of people who live in the US are brushed aside, ignored, mocked, or generally declared irrelevant by "experts" on US Policy and History, who do not live here (not you, specifically - it happens a lot on this board)

I think I have a pretty good feel for what is on topic, and what is not, thanks.

 

[George Wallace]

If I come on as being overenthusiastic, then it's perhaps I believe there should be a balanced perspective when discussing the United States as well, having studied taken my undergraduate studies and half my high school there(1999-2005). T6 is entitled to what he says, but I do not seek to silence his opinions. And what I say is moot anyways as I cannot vote in that country, while he can.

And as for China, I base what I write here on my experiences as an expatriate living not only in Hong Kong for 3 years (1994-97) before the handover back to the mainland and Taipei, Taiwan for 2 years (1997-1999), but also on that semester abroad I spent in Beijing (2003)during my undergrad. I have strong opinions on both China and the United States, having studied in both nations, although I have called Canada my home since I became a landed immigrant (originally from another country in Southeast Asia, not China or Taiwan, which I prefer not to say) here back in 2006.

So following your above logic, I should be an Expert on Western Europe having lived in France for four years (1959-1963) and Germany for three years (1980-1983) with numerous visits in between and since.  I am far from that, and have watched your rhetoric here and have come to a similar conclusion about it.
Hope that helps.

 

[CougarKing]

So following your above logic, I should be an Expert on Western Europe having lived in France for four years (1959-1963) and Germany for three years (1980-1983) with numerous visits in between and since.  I am far from that, and have watched your rhetoric here and have come to a similar conclusion about it.
Hope that helps.

Alright, I am by no means an expert on either country right now (although I hope to emulate such China experts like David Shambaugh one day). I am just adding my input from experiences, though to contribute. Not trying to impose on anyone although I apologize if some of my rhetoric has come across as that way.

 

[Kilo_302]

Colin Powell's comment on allegations that Obama is a Muslim was right on the money, and needed to be said by someone as respected as he is. The incident at the Q & A period was equally alarming. In denying that Obama was an Arab, McCain said, " No he's a decent family man,"  suggesting of course that the two are mutually exclusive. This incident and others are indicative of the extremism of some of McCain's supporters, and the fact that the MSM did not pick up on McCain's less than honourable answer is disturbing.

link to Powell backing Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8

 

[Kirkhill]

Fly shyte from pepper.  There seems to be an awful lot of Nelsonian eye-patches being turned by the media towards Obama and his acolytes while McCain is picked up before he can fall down.

It is NOT irrelevant to look at a candidate's circle of acquaintances and supporters and draw inferences from there.  My problem is that the only people that seem to be doing the investigating are those that seem to be labelled extreme by those that aren't doing the investigating........and that includes a whole pile of people that are paid to do the investigating and claim it as their right to be the sole investigators.

Well, if they stopped playing favourites and applied resources equally then I think the respect quotient would rise exponentially.  Too many people are telling only the tales they want to tell leaving it up to the opposition to refute them.
That works fine if it is the candidates' people that are doing the telling and the journalists are just doing the reporting, but IMHO way too many columnists, editors and journalists have decided how they want this election to turn out.  And they did that a long, long time ago.

 

[muskrat89]

Thanks Kirkhill. One moron yells something at a McCain rally, and people are screaming "foul". Yet, look at all the crap dished out to Palin, and that's different. Heck, they even went after Joe the Plumber.

Yet, stuff like this is "irrelevant":



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/

A blogger unearthed the Dec. 21, 1997, endorsement in the Chicago Tribune and posted photographs of the praise for Ayers' book on Zombietime.com Saturday.

Featured next to a smiling photograph of himself, then-State Senator Obama called Ayers' book, "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court," a "searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair."

The book, which details life at the Chicago Juvenile Court prison school, mentions Obama by name on page 82 when it describes Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood:

"Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama. Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of 'safe neighborhood watch': the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four-hours a day."

The Obama campaign said the blurb was not a full-fledged review of the book.

"He didn't do a review. He provided one line about the book to the Tribune," campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

A month before the item appeared, on Nov. 20, 1997, Michelle Obama, then dean of student services and director of the University Community Service Center, held a panel at the University of Chicago that featured both Barack Obama and Ayers.

"Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system," the University of Chicago Chronicle reported on Nov. 6, 1997.

Obama has been criticized for refusing to elaborate on the extent of his relationship with Ayers and for claiming to have had no idea Ayers was a co-founder of the Wesather Underground, which claimed responsibility for bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a New York Supreme Court justice's home in the Sixties.

The Obama campaign has noted that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers and the Weather Underground were active and has no link to their activities. Ayers has said he has "no regrets" about his participation in the domestic terror group.

"A Kind and Just Parent" was in stock at Amazon.com and ranked 51,273 in sales on Monday.

 

[tomahawk6]

Early on I referred to Obama as a marxist.His friends are communist radicals.His father was a communist.He studied Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals.His view of taxes as a redistribution of wealth is right out of Karl Marx. So I think I am safe ground when I characterize Obama as marxist. He definitely wont be to Canada's liking as he seems to wqant to redefine NAFTA which I think is insane.Harper seems to be hedging his bets with Sarkoozy and a trade deal with the EU.

http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

Senator Joe Biden :........

The Political Radar reported:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Gateway Pundit


Most curious - must be one heck of crystal ball Jobama's got.  Not so much to predict that he will be tested - every President is tested early on.  But that despite 4 or 5 possible scenarios he has a single magic bullet that will cure them all - and it is one that America won't like.  Heckuvadeal.

 

[tomahawk6]

The two candidates transition teams were given classified briefings last week.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Despite this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CNN web site, that shows that the race may be getting closer, and while I think McCain would be the better choice for president, I’m guessing that Obama will be the “people’s choice:”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/cnn.poll/index.html

Poll shows presidential race may be tightening

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Barack Obama has five-point lead in new poll, down from eight points
• John McCain may be having success differentiating himself from President Bush
• Obama retains six-point advantage in CNN Poll of Polls
• "The economy remains the number one issue," pollster says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With two weeks and one day until Election Day, a new national poll of likely voters suggests the race for the White House may be tightening up.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday, 51 percent of likely voters questioned Friday through Sunday back Barack Obama for president, with 46 percent supporting John McCain. That five-point advantage for Sen. Obama, D-Illinois, is down from an eight-point edge he held over Sen. McCain, R-Arizona, in the last CNN/ORC national poll, conducted October 3-5.

One reason behind the tightening of the race appears to be a drop in the number of people who think McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out President Bush's policies. Forty-nine percent of those questioned in the new survey say McCain would mostly carry out Bush's policies, down from 56 percent in the previous poll.

"It's clear from the final presidential debate that one of McCain's top priorities was to distance himself from Bush," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "It looks like McCain has convinced growing numbers of Americans that his policies would be different than Bush.

"The next task is to convince voters that his policies would be better than Bush's, and, on the economic front at least, that may be a more difficult task."

CNN is also updating its Poll of Polls of the national general election, thanks to the new CNN/ORC survey, plus the release of other new surveys Monday morning. Obama retains his six-point advantage in the new Poll of Polls, with 50 percent of voters saying the Democratic presidential nominee is their choice for president, and 44 percent backing McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Six percent of voters are undecided.

The CNN Poll of Polls is an average of the latest national surveys. The polls included in this newest edition are the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Survey (October 17-19), a Reuters C-SPAN/Zogby poll (October 17-19), a Gallup poll (October 16-18) and a Diageo/Hotline survey (October 17-19).

The new CNN/ORC poll also indicates that Americans think Obama would do a better job dealing with the tough economic times. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say Obama would better handle the current financial crisis, with 38 percent saying McCain would do a better job. And 63 percent feel Obama would better handle helping the middle class, almost double the 32 percent who feel McCain would be of better service to the middle class.

"The economy remains the number one issue, and Americans appear to be more confident in Obama on that topic," Holland said. "Both candidates tried to pitch their plans as the best thing for the middle class. Obama appears to have won that argument."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone, with 1,058 adult Americans questioned. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

According to CNN’s electoral vote predictor McCain has a HUGE climb: he must take all the tossup states and take one or two of the states that are leaning towards Obama – and he has only two weeks to do that and Obama will get a sympathy bounce as he leaves the campaign trail to visit his ailing grandmother.

I suspect we will all have to deal with President Barack Obama – Americans, Canadians, Chinese, all of us. But, I’m sure that every single person standing for election and every US senator who does not need to face the people this year is getting an earful from Wall Street, Main Street and K Street (the home, in Washington, of the big lobby groups and firms) on the topic of “slow and steady” being required to “win” the economic race.

My guess is President Obama will:

• Push through a fairly quick withdrawal from Iraq – combat brigades out before end 2010;

• Add combat brigades (I wouldn’t want to guess how many) to Afghanistan – to no great effect;

• Continue, broadly, the current interventionist economic policies; and

• Not be able to add new or increase existing social programmes because the deficit will be too high and will continue growing during an Obama administration.

 

[-dikweed-]

Early on I referred to Obama as a marxist.His friends are communist radicals.His father was a communist.He studied Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals.His view of taxes as a redistribution of wealth is right out of Karl Marx. So I think I am safe ground when I characterize Obama as marxist. He definitely wont be to Canada's liking as he seems to wqant to redefine NAFTA which I think is insane.Harper seems to be hedging his bets with Sarkoozy and a trade deal with the EU.

http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm

Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of the civilized world.  Nearly every single Western country with the exception of the United States  has a socialist capitalist system. Even the US has many socialist aspects.  It does not make us all a bunch of Marxists.  Please, enough with the rhetoric..... 

 

[OldSolduer]

Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of the civilized world.  Nearly every single Western country with the exception of the United States  has a socialist capitalist system. Even the US has many socialist aspects.   It does not make us all a bunch of Marxists.  Please, enough with the rhetoric..... 

That is somewhat true, however, it sure sounds like "take from the rich, GIVE to the poor". Who is the arbitror who sets that rich/poor line? I know in some people's eyes I'm wealthy, while in others eyes I'm not wealthy? Who decides?
I don't mind giving a helping hand up, but not a hand out.

 

[a_majoor]

Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of the civilized world.  Nearly every single Western country with the exception of the United States  has a socialist capitalist system. Even the US has many socialist aspects.   It does not make us all a bunch of Marxists.  Please, enough with the rhetoric..... 

No, redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of Socialism, and the long term history of socialist nations isn't very pretty. Actually, what is being proposed/implimented is even worse; it is redistribution of income, which means the industrious and productive are being punished and held back, while the champaign socialists and limosine liberals have their positions in life secured from competition (which explains why we see rich socialists like Bob Rae or George Soros).

The short to medium term result is economic stagnation (the EU despite having a larger population and similar resources to the continental United States has a per capita GDP @ 25% below that of the United States) to social disintigration (the UK under New Labour is a pretty chilling example). Although the correlation is difficult to prove, nations with greater levels of Socialism have far lower birthrates than nations with lesser levels of Socialism, to the extent that the former USSR, the EU and Canada are facing mi9d to long term demographic crashes, and "Blue" states have far lower birthrates than "Red" states (since the overal birthrate in the United States is at the replacement level, the inference is that in a generation the "Red" staters will outnumber the "Blue" staters).

The collapse of Socialist nations isn't a fun event either, as watching the fall of the wall and the decade of turmoil engulfing the former USSR (or the rise of authoritarianism as the aftermath) should warn us.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good one Thucydides. Good explanation.

 

[Drag]

When the median incomes of bottom 95% of the population are dropping in real terms compared to the top 5% some form of socialism becomes more and more attractive.  The more this trend continues, the bluer the US will become.

 

[OldSolduer]

The problem with "income redistribution" is that it provides no incentive to work hard, improve or become educated. You can sit on your duff and the hard workers will provide for you. Why would you work hard only to have the money YOU earned taken from you and handed out willy nilly?