Guilty by Association?
October 10, 2008
By: Patrick Williams, contributing author
I am posting some articles that I think raise a serious question about Barack Obama and his continuous ties to radically liberal groups and people throughout his political career. I figure supporters will respond with their typical exclamation that this is nothing but typical right wing smear tactics….but as the SNL skit says, “Really?!” There has been link after link after link of Obama to these groups or people. I agree maybe one or two may have been a stretch but the majority of these are not, and I think its time for people to stop being blinded by the hype and start looking at these seriously. It is a question of judgment, leadership trust and flat out integrity. He has used these groups to help shape his political career and now that he is on top, he has renounced them claiming its “guilty by association”. I know people are mad about the economy and I think a lot of anger is driving the polls, but I think our leader needs to be open and honest about his relationships with radical and dangerous groups or people.
The first link is a CNN investigation on Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers. The rest are about his ties to a very dangerous group called ACORN which will do anything to help shift an election in their favor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIF2NDY0Ixc
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/acorn.fraud.claims/index.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the-acorn-obama-knows/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html
Some background to help you make your mind up:
ACORN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN
The National Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
Michelle Malkin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin
Feud between Obama and Stanley Kurtz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kurtz
Real Clear Politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Clear_Politics
More on Malkin: (ouch)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JoM90bAsr1M
you can try to smear the source of one article or the next…the facts are he has ties to acorn…i can post one source after the next if you would like…the fact is Barrack has a shady past and is not honest about it…The FBI is investigating ACORN as we speak
ACORN endorsed the candidacy of Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary.[58] Obama paid an ACORN affiliate, Citizens Services Inc. $800,000 for “get-out-the-vote” projects for his 2008 presidential primary campaign.[59] Obama’s campaign has stated that it is “is committed to protecting the integrity of the voting process” and is not working with ACORN for the general presidential election
Well here is my problem:
Facts:
“The Dow went down 500 points yesterday.”
Opinion:
“The Dow PLUNGED 500 points because George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States and smells like cheese.”
I have no problem with finding out who has ties to what organizations. But to litter the small amount of facts being used with ridiculously outrageous assumptions and slanderous comments, I draw the line. The real reason news organizations do not pick these stories up is there are very few facts to coordinate the stories into an actual point.
Some other insight into the Ayers case:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/mayor-daley-the.html
So we all know both sides use any argument possible to gain favor among voters. In the aforementioned discussion, Conservatives have used the “Barack Obama/Bill Ayers relationship” and Liberals have used the “Economy is Bush’s/the Republicans fault” argument. We could go back and forth all day making these statements — which is exactly what party supporters and media outlets do, or we could take a step back and look at what’s important here.
I think Pat’s point was that voters seem infatuated with Obama, without entirely considering how he might perform in office. To an extent I agree: he’s a politician many people haven’t seen before — young, intelligent, energetic and an inspiring speaker: A breath of fresh air for those used to old white guys running the country. This has definitely garnered a good amount of enthusiasm and “hype” among voters. I think (or hope) the majority of his supporters are familiar with his current stance on the issues, but I think the question remains that with only 4 years in the US Senate, and with a general unfamiliarity of his rise to Presidential nominee, how much can people trust him with leading the nation?
That was my point…an issure of trust and a question of “Do we REALLY know this guy?”
Conservative perspective? I’m in. Just wanted to say that I don’t understand this UNCONDITIONAL devotion to Obama. In all honesty, Mccain would not be my first choice for the Republican ticket. But it is astounding how Obama supporters aren’t even WILLING to question the integrity of a presidential candidate with such a “blurry” past. Is there anyone out there just a bit worried about the implications for our country if we do elect the “wrong” guy?
Just looking at McCain’s selection of Palin alone (although there is more) makes me question the integrity of him being a presidential candidate. Talk about implications for our country!
Here is an interesting rational for supporting Obama from a former Republican senator. It speaks to the comment about considering how Obama (versus McCain) might perform in office.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95465833
Renee, that is a great link. I would encourage every bipartisan person actually interested in the information and reality of this election to listen (there is a radio link on the page linked) to the excerpt on the page.
This is also a great article by Tom Friedman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin
This is a good perspective on the Obama-Ayers connection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09collins.html?em
Your post reeks of desperation.
“I figure supporters will respond with their typical exclamation that this is nothing but typical right wing smear tactics.”
If that is what you “figure”, then how can anybody dispute your claims. In your mind, you have already discredited the debate before it begins.
“There has been link after link after link of Obama to these groups or people.”
Well, if there are links and email forwards then it must be true. By your own logic, Sarah Palin practices witchcraft, is corrupt, and pals around with radical groups and people.
“…and I think its time for people to stop being blinded by the hype and start looking at these seriously.”
Not applicable to yourself, I’m sure.
“It is a question of judgment, leadership trust and flat out integrity.”
Agreed. All of which McCain lacks because he has reversed or “flip-flopped” from everything he stood for, which is an integrity question. And, his choice of Palin for VP is a serious judgment flaw.
“but I think our leader needs to be open and honest…”
Out of curiousity, who did you vote for in the last election?
nice work.
I think if you are a two-time, unapologetic Bush voter, then your voter registration should be revoked (because you are clueless at best). If you voted for him only once and regret it, then you should be on probation (because, obviously, your judgment is faulty–but you are aware).
If you say Obama is inexperienced and just hype but you support the oldest presidential candidate in history–who chose Palin for VP, then you are at the very least a hypocrite. Although, I fear you are probably worse than that…for example, “do we REALLY KNOW this guy? wink, wink.”
In the author’s defense:
“then how can anybody dispute your claims”
By posting a comment, just like you did.
“Well, if there are links and email forwards then it must be true”
Are you saying nothing is true or just certain statements and stories determined by you?
“McCain lacks because he has reversed or “flip-flopped” from everything he stood for”
Care to back your argument?
We’re trying to have a healthy conversation with different perspectives. There’s no need to belittle someone because their beliefs are different than yours.
Ha..thats the “typical” repsonse I was hoping for..I have a question…Can you explain to me how a person goes to church for TWENTY years with a pastor like Jeremiah Wright and claims he had no idea of his racially charged or radical sermons? He “must have missed that day”. Do you honestly in your heart believe that?
Again this is a BIG question of character…
you still didn’t answer my question? And your well thought out response has helped me understand the mindset of Obama supporters
Alright everyone, play nice.
lol. I thought it was pretty funny. Did I hit a sore spot? I’m sorry it’s just so easy. I will try not to be like the “typical” responses that you usually get to your ideas.
you want to talk pastors? Question: will you really watch or read anything you don’t already believe? (btw, I’m a registered Republican…is that the typical Obama supporter, I hope so!):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4824196.ece
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iox_Yq1rsno
To Thayes1:
Your defense of the author is very noble. So, regarding your defense:
“By posting a comment, just like you did.”
Thank you. I didn’t, actually, think I couldn’t physically respond. I was sarcastically noting it would be pointless (please see Pat’s response;).
“Are you saying nothing is true or just certain statements and stories determined by you?”
To the first part, no. I did not say that. To your second statement, that was my point to the author. This is fun.
“Care to back your argument?”
Why yes, I do (if you need more, please let me know):
Flip: Senator McCain has spent a great deal of time during his campaign in constant criticism of Senator Obama’s plan to subsidize tax cuts for the Middle Class by rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthiest Americans.
Flop: During the first Presidential debate on September 28th, Senator McCain admitted that his healthcare plan might benefit many low-income Americans at the expense of those with the most extravagant health care plans:
“Actually, my position is that it will be, it will give people actually more money to go out and purchase tax – health insurance on their own and only those with the Cadillac gold-plated health insurance policies today are the ones who might suffer from it.”
Flip: On several occasions, Senator McCain has cited on the campaign trail that he does not believe it is the job of government to bailout reckless borrowers:
“Some Americans bought homes they couldn’t afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates,” he said. Later he added that “any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t.”
Flop: During the second Presidential debate, Senator McCain announced a massive new plan (advance video to 7:15) for the Federal Government to “buy up millions of foreclosed mortgages” that would then be “renegotiated” with the defaulted home owner, in essence, making the Federal Government a “lender of last resort”, permanently bailing out millions of Americans… some of whom McCain himself would certainly deem “irresponsible”.
Flip: During an appearance on NBC’s “Today Show” on September 16th, Senator McCain opposed the idea of a bailout of “AIG” when asked by host Matt Lauer “what should the government do [about AIG]?”
“No, I do not believe that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for AIG and I’m glad that the Secretary Paulson has apparently taken the same line.”
Flop: The next day, on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, after-the-fact, Senator McCain supported the $85B bailout of AIG, responding this way when asked about it:
“I didn’t want to do that. And I don’t think anybody I know wanted to do that. But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here. They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption.”
Flip: On a number of occasions, Senator McCain has repeated the Party line that he “strongly opposes” government regulation of free-market enterprises. From the WSJ:
With regard to the current economic crisis, the McCain campaign is now arguing for “strong regulatory oversight of Wall Street.” McCain, however, has long held that he is “fundamentally a deregulator.” As he told the Wall Street Journal in March:
I’m always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. … But I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I’d like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.
Flop: On NBC’s Today Show, McCain told Matt Lauer:
“Of course I don’t like excessive and unnecessary regu — uh, government regulation.”
Less than an hour later on CBS’s Early Show, McCain tells host Harry Smith:
“Do I believe in excess government regulation? Yes. But this patchwork quilt of regulating bodies was designed for the 1930s when they were invented.”
There was a missed comment by Melissa yesterday…Check it out, two comments up….The system classified it in the wrong section.
interesting site: http://www.truthfightsback.com/
and re: ACORN, which by the way sounds like a great organization…
“ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.” (courtesy of http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342 (did anyone bother to actually look at their website?)
and this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/10/75639/882/410/626072
I know what ACORN does…or tried to do..What ACORN sets out to do is admirable…its a good cause…except over the past 8 years they have gone in the wrong direction in going about their business. This story is public now. It is being reported on by the major news networks now, so how people react to it is TBD.
Switching gears, lets talk economy and taxes. Below is a link to an Independent tax site which breaks down each candidates tax plan:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/
Here is the summary…decide for yourself
Here is a detailed look at each candidates tax plans for those who aren’t aware. These are family incomes. Again this is an Independent site with a factual breakdown of policies.
For People who make $2.78 million +:
McCain will cut their taxes 4.5% or $269,364
Obama will increase their taxes 11.5% or $700,000
For people who make $603,403-$2.87 million:
McCain will cut taxes 3.4% or $45,361
Obama will increase their taxes 8.7% or $115,974
For people who make $226,982-$603,402:
McCain will cut taxes 3.1% or $7,000
Obama has 0 change and will reduce taxes -$12 (don’t ask me how)
For people who make $160,000-$226,981:
McCain will cut taxes 3% or $4,400
Obama will cut taxes 1.9% or $2,800
For people who make $111,646-$160,000:
McCain will cut taxes 2.5% or $2,6000
Obama will cut taxes 2.1% or $2,2000
For people who make $66,000-$111,645:
McCain will cut taxes 1.4% or $1,000
Obama will cut taxes 1.8% or $1,290
For people who make $37,000-$66,000:
McCain will cut taxes .7% or $319
Obama will cut taxes 2.4% or $1,000
For people who make $18,000-$37,000:
McCain will cut taxes .5% or $113
Obama will cut taxes 3.6% or $892
For people who make $0-$18,000:
McCain will cut taxes .2% or $19
Obama will cut taxes 5.5% or $567
Average tax cut:
McCain cuts taxes across the board 2% or $1,195
Obama cuts taxes across the board .3% or $160
From $0-$111,645 Obama will cut their taxes more.
Again, these are only tax proposals. Congress holds the power of the purse. Obama’s tax cuts are more like credit checks from the federal government whichs sounds a whole lot like welfare..here is an WSJ analysis of those…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
You mean it sounds like a tax rebate?;) What sounds like welfare is the bail-out plan, but it’s corporate welfare or socialism–so who cares? There used to be a thing called fiscal conservation or responsibility. With increased spending–in the form of two wars and a corporate bail-out, you cannot expect to reduce tax revenues if you are fiscally responsible. Country First, anyone? The rich didn’t pay taxes in Venezuela and Bolivia (country first) and the middle class was destroyed. It’s a short-term versus long-term investment. In the short-term, you have 2-3% more in your pocket (unless YOU are the top 5%), but, in the long-term, you lose your security, infrastructure and country. I don’t see the difficulty in the choice.
Switching topics, below is a video of a 2004 hearing that was held concerning the issues we are facing today with the mortgage/financial crisis. Some of you might have already seen these excerpts, but I think it is worth discussing if we are all intersted in understanding the big picture instead of just blaming one person as Obama & Company have done so effectively in this campaign. The roots of these “deregulations” and subprime loans can be noted as far back as 1977 when Carter issued the Community Reinvestment Act. Frank Raines is one of two of Obama’s economic advisors. The other is Jim Johnson. Combined these guys made 114M in a span of 6 years. Obama was also on this “payroll.” If you have time, (it’s about 9 minutes long) watch through the end – Bill Clinton comments also.
Deregulation is different from lower credit standards. Deregulation is the elimination of the regulations that restrict large corporations, hedge funds, etc, in order to release the free enterprise characteristics of the marketplace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
The lowering of the credit standards to get a loan is a separate issue. That is where Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and others created their own little problem. The CRA was a product of this mindset in which it was thought that if the lower class owned their homes, they would have a better chance to be financially successful.
Both ideas are from people with their hearts in the right place but unfortunately with faulty ideas. “Freeing free enterprise” is a great idea except when it allows for fraudulent and inflated business practices in the marketplace. Lowering credit standards was thought to help eliminate the division of the classes but only flooded the market with bad loans.
Both parties are responsible for this crisis. Republicans have a history of supporting deregulation and democrats had a history of supporting low credit standards. I think we have learned our lesson in this matter and now we need to focus on how to make jobs so that when we do have decent loans, we can pay them.
amanguart:
If you would like to understand CRA’s and the bigger picture I would suggest you read this article. The debacle is bipartisan (and the underlying tone that minorities can’t own homes is racist). It is a good comprehensive overview…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789
Also, you should read about the Ownership Society on the White House website. The Bush Administration takes credit for everything that you claim is a democratic endeavor…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html
Fact Sheet: America’s Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities
“…if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country.”
-President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
President Bush’s Policies Promoting the Ownership Society
Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush’s initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatory control over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to place both companies under the control of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberal democrats led by Barney Frank. This is the message I was trying to get across by using the word “deregulations”. I will be more careful next time.
Another Melissa message was rerouted…please one message above.
Anthony,
You are focusing on one part of the problem, which was the initiative by those you are highlighting. But this initiative has been going on since the 1970’s as you noted and had not adversely effected the marketplace for the number of years it was in existence. This sub prime problem really hit the streets following a change in regulation from 2000.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html
This is what many feel led to the modern problem of the sub prime crisis. From my perspective, it is somewhat like the chicken and the egg, because the fact that sub prime lending was even going on is not a good idea but it was only completely misconstrued and manipulated when regulations were stripped from the marketplace.
I think we can all agree that lower credit standards for anyone is not a great idea unless you factor in a very conservative payback rate. I think even Mr. Deregulator, John McCain, can even agree that complete deregulation is not a good thing either. So we analyze the regulations and attempt to correct them and find other ways to elevate the lower class than giving them cheap loans….
All these are noble causes (in that we agree), but some of the participants involved did not have the best of intentions, they were merely looking out for themselves. My point, when things began getting out of control, it became a partisan issue because democrats directly associated refused to acknowledge that a crisis did exist and it was a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
Right. Partisan issues are never a good thing in my opinion. If it is an issue that is good for the nation, both sides should be able to agree on it. But be careful placing the entire blame on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is not accurate.
Jimmy, missed you previous comment regarding credit standards.
In 1995 Bill Clinton amended the CRA, forcing an increase in the number of loans and aggregate dollar amounts – Larger loans to people with less income in areas where the collateral value would go down instead of up. Later, in 1999, Cinton repealed the Glass-Steagall act (which is what I believe your article is referring to) and was replaced with the GLBA which is what allowed investment institutions to act as commercial banks as well.
But, yeah, I agree with you that both sides have learned their lesson, but a lot of corrupt people capitalized from these mistakes making the situation worse. With some bipartisan cooperation this would not become what it is today; although, I do agree it is narrow-minded to point the finger at Fannie and Freddie alone.
an opposing view of “deregulation” and it’s role in the current crisis. The overall message is that financial innovation, which would have occurred regardless of the 2000 deregulation of banks, raced ahead of the rules.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306716557967194
ACORN and Barrack Obama…building a better America…
Impressive Pat, you really stick to “talking points”;)
God forbid people have an influence on the agenda of the United States of America. Why would we want that?
On a somewhat related note, see the below non-partisan article from the non-political website Ars Technica (the art of technology). The basic premise is that ideology outweighs facts and once a person is given facts supporting a certain ideology, his or her ideology is reinforced notwithstanding a subsequent correction of the facts – in fact disputing incorrect information may tend to actually reinforce the incorrect information in the minds of people whose ideology is supported by the incorrect information. This is a technique that modern political parties have been practicing for some time to great effect – but maybe we should all resist our natural brain chemistry and turn a critical eye to all of the assertions from both sides of the aisle and make a truly informed decision. Or maybe I should stop questioning these things and just watch Fox News….
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html
Hey the talking points were about Barrack’s shady friends..Sorry if I got off track earlier…I question character and Obama’s character flaws are too hard for me to look past…here is some more fun reading on Barry and Friends
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/
JP, good to know capitalism stands a chance. The system was still abused though. Hey, maybe Obama can fix the problem with some help from his worldly friends?
Yes, I’m aware of your questions abt “Barry.” It seems that is all that is left to cling to (whispers and winks) since policy discussions have failed. Pat, fFear and inflamatory rhetoric went out of style last election with the swift boating. I do have a question: why don’t you have the same “curiosity” about Palin’s character and friends? Is it race?
Did you read the link I posted above about ideology?
here it is again, give it a read.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html
Pat-
I read your link, which was a commentary/ opinion piece, by Mark Hyman. This is Mr. Hyman’s wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Hyman
He is a partisan hack, who made the anti-Kerry film “Stolen Honor.” Appropriate that my comment above referenced swift-boating and inflammatory rhetoric.
Be honest Pat, you were raised republican. It’s about taxes and only taxes to you. It’s not country first. You vote by party not candidate. And, you vote for party over country. When your candidate fails on the issues, you turn to fear and rumor mongering. Is that right, Pat? Did you read the link I sent you above…it’s really good. I read your links and posts;)
well that was the topic of discusion. If anyone would like to talk about anything else you have the right to post a new topic…And the Kenyan story is not his creation. You can find this referenced in many places through google or in the book Obamanation which is heavily referenced on this topic. It is from the author who brought you the Swift Boat attacks, the book which ultimatley ended John Kerry’s run for President.
The race card is another typical response that I find very offensive. It has nothing to do with race. Sarah Palin does not have any associations with people who bombed America on American soil. Comparing the two is a very weak argument. And guess what..people vote for the top of the ticket.
Is this the first time you are proud to be an American? Because it sure sounds like you haven’t been for a while. I am always proud to be an American….country first
Again, did you read the link:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html
Alaska First?
Turns out hobknobbing with separatists IS something Palin can talk about with experience:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04party.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
America First or Alaska First?
Well this has been fun and exausting as well…at the request of the commish, time to move on to a new topic…and to the sadness of many, I will be bowing out for a while as I am not permitted to write on these blogs due to the nature of my job…u may be suprised what that is…i am not a fox guy…
Really? Guilt by Association… you rock!