Obama hounded by McCain, Clinton and ... neutral fact-checkers
This morning, Senator McCain appeared on Sunday morning television and criticized Senator Obama for his relationship with William Ayers.
William Ayers, a former domesitc terrorist who freely admits belonging to the Weathermen, a group with whom he bombed United States properties to protest the Vietnam War, and who admits he "wishes he had done more" bombings, such as the U.S. Capitol buidling and other high profile locales, is the latest in a series of individuals in Obama's circle that, to many, hate America. Ayers acknowledges he is unrepentant over the bombings.
McCain's criticism is Obama's refusal to condemn Ayers and the Weathermen for what they did and their approach to protesting war a generation ago. Obama stated in the last debate that Ayers is not "someone with whom I exchange ideas on a regular basis" and that Ayers "is a professor of English in Chicago." Obama further contended that "The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carry out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either."
This issue does not appear to be going away for Obama, however. McCain fired back, "To compare [Ayers] with Dr. Coburn, who spends so much of his life bringing babies into this world, that in my view is really - borders on outrageous." I tend to agree more with McCain on this point. Clearly Obama has polar opposite views with Senator, or Doctor, Coburn on abortion as they have voted oppositely on every abortion related bill. Obama lumping Coburn in with a convicted terrorist, however, seems rather bush league, as does his choice of words, refusing to calling him by his titles of Senator or Doctor. Coburn's statements were also taken out of context, as fact checkers report, as Coburn was referring to the scenario where if Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion made illegal so that unborn babies were protected with legal rights. In any event, Doctor Coburn has a very close personal experience with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of babies he has personally witnessed being born at a stage where abortion doctors have conducted, and Senator Obama supports in law the right to, abort partially born babies whose heads are out of the womb and have already breathed their first breaths of life. Nor has Coburn ever bombed or otherwise taken up arms against the United States like Ayers, or stated he wished he had set more bombs, like Ayers. Nor has Coburn ever engaged in any illegal activity or supported any illegal activity in the realm of opposing abortion.
Ayers received a highly controversial Presidential pardon from former President Jimmy Carter, but his bombings were not political discourse, they were acts of violence. Both opponents and proponents of Vietnam or Iraq wars can agree Ayers was, (and apparently still clings to the same views that make him), an extremist who must be denounced. Coburn, by contrast, has engaged in very legitimate political discourse, and even those who disagree on abortion can agree that those on the other side may have goodwill and are not the equivalent of terrorists.
This raises several questions which Obama should expect to be coming his way:
1. When he says he does not frequently talk with Ayers to exchange ideas, does that mean they do exchange ideas on a less regular basis? How important are those exchanges to Obama's way of thinking?
2. Why on earth would Obama not condemn Ayers' actions and stated views that he wishes he had bombed America more to protest America's involvement in a war?
3. Does Obama really put Coburn in the same category as Ayers? How can he possibly be a "uniter" who "elevates the level of discussion" on abortion by demonizing Pro-Life advocates?
4. Does Obama cite the fact that Ayers is a "profesor of English in Chicago" really end the analysis for him? Does that make Ayers past acts and current stated views irrelevant?
5. Obama stated he has not apologized for Coburn either - does that mean that Coburn's views are something that in his view must be apologized for?
These are not good responses. Obama's approach to the Reverend Wright scandal and this appear to be the same in that he seems to hope these questions will just go away and does not feel the need to engage on these issues. He has even gone as far as to say we must focus on "real issues," dismissing concern over these other questions, often with insulting and divisive comments along the way. Neither Clinton nor McCain are going to drop it, however, and he cannot "brush off" the questions as he did in the video in the below post regarding Clinton's arguments against him. Nor can he "brush off" the fact his favorable to unfavorable ratings have been roughly 47% favorable, 50% unfavorable for over a week now according to www.RasmussenReports.com.
Clinton has called out Obama on being "so negative" on the campaign trail. She claims Obama has sent "out mailers, he has run ads, misrepresenting what I have proposed," and Clinton added, "the last thing we need is to have somebody spending as much money as he has downgrading universal health care. We need to achieve universal health care -- not create political opposition to universal health care. That's what the Republicans do, not what Democrats do." Clinton also went after Obama hard in the last debate, full transcript here at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_pennsylvania_democratic_de.html, in what most pundits agree was a terrible performance for Obama.
The fact-checkers have also goaded both Obama and Clinton for their misrepresentation of McCain's statement regarding 100 years of war. McCain has repeatedly stated the two Democrats are purposefully taking him out of context. Obama has finally dropped the line from his stump speech, Clinton did so previously. The maligned comment was that McCain could see America establishing a military presence in Iraq for 100 years, comparing that presence to America's military presence in Germany, where we have had a base since World War II ended, in South Korea, where we have been present since the end of the Korean War, and in (Panama?) where we had a near century of military presence after the end of the Spanish American war. Clinton and Obama have used the line to suggest McCain wants there to be war in Iraq for 100 years and that McCain will never ever pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, even if we are bogged down for 100 years.
Fact check sites such as www.politifact.com, www.factcheck.org, and a slew of media outlets have reported this misrepresentation. Obama was confronted with it this morning on today show, where he acknowledged, "We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years."
Obama continued to struggle during the debate also on his comments on his San Francisco flap. Some have called it "bittergate" or the "bitter comment" but the real problem with it was not that he thinks small town people are bitter (though that is highly problematic), but that the comment was anti-religious, anti-2nd Amendment, and essentially called huge portions of the population bigoted, all because of their economic status. Obama's latest defense, not apology, for those comments suggests further the same mindset that people perceived behind the comments in the firstplace which is so problematic. He stated:
"The point I was making (last week at a private San Francisco fundraiser) was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion. They end up feeling 'This is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something that I can count on."
The problem is people don't "end up" turning to "religion or guns or antipathy to people who are different than them or antipathy to immigration or antipathy to trade" because of economic status, in small towns, or elsewhere. These things should not be grouped together as simply those things that people foolishly focus on when economics are bad. "End up focusing on" is not better than "cling to." He simply does not get it. Therefore, this issue will not go away.
William Ayers, a former domesitc terrorist who freely admits belonging to the Weathermen, a group with whom he bombed United States properties to protest the Vietnam War, and who admits he "wishes he had done more" bombings, such as the U.S. Capitol buidling and other high profile locales, is the latest in a series of individuals in Obama's circle that, to many, hate America. Ayers acknowledges he is unrepentant over the bombings.
McCain's criticism is Obama's refusal to condemn Ayers and the Weathermen for what they did and their approach to protesting war a generation ago. Obama stated in the last debate that Ayers is not "someone with whom I exchange ideas on a regular basis" and that Ayers "is a professor of English in Chicago." Obama further contended that "The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carry out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either."
This issue does not appear to be going away for Obama, however. McCain fired back, "To compare [Ayers] with Dr. Coburn, who spends so much of his life bringing babies into this world, that in my view is really - borders on outrageous." I tend to agree more with McCain on this point. Clearly Obama has polar opposite views with Senator, or Doctor, Coburn on abortion as they have voted oppositely on every abortion related bill. Obama lumping Coburn in with a convicted terrorist, however, seems rather bush league, as does his choice of words, refusing to calling him by his titles of Senator or Doctor. Coburn's statements were also taken out of context, as fact checkers report, as Coburn was referring to the scenario where if Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion made illegal so that unborn babies were protected with legal rights. In any event, Doctor Coburn has a very close personal experience with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of babies he has personally witnessed being born at a stage where abortion doctors have conducted, and Senator Obama supports in law the right to, abort partially born babies whose heads are out of the womb and have already breathed their first breaths of life. Nor has Coburn ever bombed or otherwise taken up arms against the United States like Ayers, or stated he wished he had set more bombs, like Ayers. Nor has Coburn ever engaged in any illegal activity or supported any illegal activity in the realm of opposing abortion.
Ayers received a highly controversial Presidential pardon from former President Jimmy Carter, but his bombings were not political discourse, they were acts of violence. Both opponents and proponents of Vietnam or Iraq wars can agree Ayers was, (and apparently still clings to the same views that make him), an extremist who must be denounced. Coburn, by contrast, has engaged in very legitimate political discourse, and even those who disagree on abortion can agree that those on the other side may have goodwill and are not the equivalent of terrorists.
This raises several questions which Obama should expect to be coming his way:
1. When he says he does not frequently talk with Ayers to exchange ideas, does that mean they do exchange ideas on a less regular basis? How important are those exchanges to Obama's way of thinking?
2. Why on earth would Obama not condemn Ayers' actions and stated views that he wishes he had bombed America more to protest America's involvement in a war?
3. Does Obama really put Coburn in the same category as Ayers? How can he possibly be a "uniter" who "elevates the level of discussion" on abortion by demonizing Pro-Life advocates?
4. Does Obama cite the fact that Ayers is a "profesor of English in Chicago" really end the analysis for him? Does that make Ayers past acts and current stated views irrelevant?
5. Obama stated he has not apologized for Coburn either - does that mean that Coburn's views are something that in his view must be apologized for?
These are not good responses. Obama's approach to the Reverend Wright scandal and this appear to be the same in that he seems to hope these questions will just go away and does not feel the need to engage on these issues. He has even gone as far as to say we must focus on "real issues," dismissing concern over these other questions, often with insulting and divisive comments along the way. Neither Clinton nor McCain are going to drop it, however, and he cannot "brush off" the questions as he did in the video in the below post regarding Clinton's arguments against him. Nor can he "brush off" the fact his favorable to unfavorable ratings have been roughly 47% favorable, 50% unfavorable for over a week now according to www.RasmussenReports.com.
Clinton has called out Obama on being "so negative" on the campaign trail. She claims Obama has sent "out mailers, he has run ads, misrepresenting what I have proposed," and Clinton added, "the last thing we need is to have somebody spending as much money as he has downgrading universal health care. We need to achieve universal health care -- not create political opposition to universal health care. That's what the Republicans do, not what Democrats do." Clinton also went after Obama hard in the last debate, full transcript here at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_pennsylvania_democratic_de.html, in what most pundits agree was a terrible performance for Obama.
The fact-checkers have also goaded both Obama and Clinton for their misrepresentation of McCain's statement regarding 100 years of war. McCain has repeatedly stated the two Democrats are purposefully taking him out of context. Obama has finally dropped the line from his stump speech, Clinton did so previously. The maligned comment was that McCain could see America establishing a military presence in Iraq for 100 years, comparing that presence to America's military presence in Germany, where we have had a base since World War II ended, in South Korea, where we have been present since the end of the Korean War, and in (Panama?) where we had a near century of military presence after the end of the Spanish American war. Clinton and Obama have used the line to suggest McCain wants there to be war in Iraq for 100 years and that McCain will never ever pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, even if we are bogged down for 100 years.
Fact check sites such as www.politifact.com, www.factcheck.org, and a slew of media outlets have reported this misrepresentation. Obama was confronted with it this morning on today show, where he acknowledged, "We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years."
Obama continued to struggle during the debate also on his comments on his San Francisco flap. Some have called it "bittergate" or the "bitter comment" but the real problem with it was not that he thinks small town people are bitter (though that is highly problematic), but that the comment was anti-religious, anti-2nd Amendment, and essentially called huge portions of the population bigoted, all because of their economic status. Obama's latest defense, not apology, for those comments suggests further the same mindset that people perceived behind the comments in the firstplace which is so problematic. He stated:
"The point I was making (last week at a private San Francisco fundraiser) was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion. They end up feeling 'This is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something that I can count on."
The problem is people don't "end up" turning to "religion or guns or antipathy to people who are different than them or antipathy to immigration or antipathy to trade" because of economic status, in small towns, or elsewhere. These things should not be grouped together as simply those things that people foolishly focus on when economics are bad. "End up focusing on" is not better than "cling to." He simply does not get it. Therefore, this issue will not go away.
