Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 8, 2008
By: Hilzoy

Round The Bend

The crowd at The Corner seems to have gone well and truly insane. It all starts when David Frum asks:

"Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical? And if not, then what is this fuss and fury supposed to show?"

There follow a series of posts at The Corner which basically answer: yes. Jonah Goldberg:

"Well, yes. Lots of people do. For me, it depends on what you mean by "radical" ..."

Mark Levin:

"How can anyone who actually follows this stuff, who reads Freddoso, Kurtz, and scores of other reliable sources of information, conclude that Obama is not some wild-eyed radical?"

Andy McCarthy:

"If you accept the premise that he was a radical, how has he changed such that he should no longer be considered a radical? Obviously, he is very smooth and he presents himself as a reasonable, moderate fellow. But that doesn't affect substance."

There follow several more posts, and then we get to the pièce de resistance, from McCarthy again:

"Obama's radicalism, beginning with his Alinski/ACORN/community organizer period, is a bottom-up socialism. This, I'd suggest, is why he fits comfortably with Ayers, who (especially now) is more Maoist than Stalinist. What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system. A key requirement of this stealthy approach (very consistent with talking vaporously about "change" but never getting more specific than absolutely necessary) is electability. With an enormous assist from the media, which does not press him for specifics, Obama has walked this line brilliantly. Absent convincing retractions of his prior radical positions, though, we should construe shrewd moves like the ostensibly reasonable Second Amendment position as efforts make him electable.

This is why Ayers is so important: it is a peek behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric."

So, if I understand this correctly: Barack Obama is in fact a radical; if not himself a Maoist, then at least someone who "fits comfortably" with people who are "more Maoist than Stalinist." But he is disguising this fact in order to infiltrate bourgeois institutions and implement his radical vision from within. A quiescent media does not press him for specifics, thereby allowing his centrist disguise to go unquestioned. Only his relationship with Bill Ayers allows us "a peek behind the curtain."

This is delusional. It would be interesting to ask, for instance, why so few of Obama's law students have come forward to talk about his attempt to transform them into Maoist cadres, or why the lawyers in his firm have not mentioned his commitment to cultural revolution, or how he has managed to conceal his desire to nationalize the means of production from, well, everyone. Was he secretly plotting to get asked, unexpectedly, to speak at the Democratic Convention, take a chance on running for President, and succeed, back when he was on the Harvard Law Review? That, plus absolutely iron self-control, might explain why no one caught a glimpse of Obama's secret radicalism: he has been concealing it for decades, the better to bore away at our bourgeois institutions.

There's only one problem with that hypothesis: if Obama were as stealthy as that, if he had lived a secret life for decades, completely concealing his inner Maoist, he would never, ever have blown his cover by getting on a board with William Ayers.

Corner: you're getting into When Prophecy Fails territory. Get a grip.

Hilzoy 11:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (105)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Unasked through all this, I gather, is how Ayers and Obama were able to sneak this by ALL of Chicago, for the better part of two decades. And, oh yes, the Annenberg Foundation....

Dumb. With a capital D.

Posted by: gwangung on October 9, 2008 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Obama a left-wing radical--if only that were true.

Posted by: jwr on October 9, 2008 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

The University of Chicago is known for its tolerance of market-hating leftist radicals.
--RiMac

Posted by: RiMac on October 9, 2008 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

But he didn't get on board with Ayers. That's the whole point. So since he was never really involved with Ayers, or at least that's his claim, The Corner peoples' theories ring true. And the more Obama denies he was involved with Ayers, the more it proves he's a secret radical Muslim. See how it works? These crypto Muslims are crafty, but not so crafty that the gifted folks at The Corner won't see right through them and heroically alert the rest of us to the danger.

Posted by: mg on October 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Funny, I thought the crazed Manchurian candidate theories would circulate about the former POW. Wouldn't being a conservative Republican be a better cover for an infiltrator?
--RiMac

Posted by: RiMac on October 9, 2008 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Nationalizing the means of production... radical? Geez, we've nationalized insurance companies... we're nationalizing the banks...

McCarthy hasn't thought this through. The Maoist infiltration is far more insidious, and has already climbed higher, than he has ever imagined!

Posted by: larry birnbaum on October 9, 2008 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

words (almost) fail me: these people are even nuttier than i thought, which hardly seems possible given how nutty i thought they were.

Posted by: howard on October 9, 2008 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Talk about projection! Isn't the MO exactly what the Neoconservatives did with their Powell Memorandum? Think about it:

"...infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system."
"...A key requirement of this stealthy approach...is electability..."
"With an enormous assist from the media, which does not press [them] for specifics,..."

Posted by: Varecia on October 9, 2008 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

In fact, Obama and Ayres are part of the Chicago machine. Mayor Daley is far more of a leftist than his father. The real story is Obama's rise in this corrupt machine. His radical politics is part of it but the bigger stories, which are being buried by the MSM, are about the corruption, like the Stroger election. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge should be a big story and may yet become one. The Chicago public schools badly needed help and they got none from the Obama-Ayres partnership. The ACORN connection may even get some attention now that their vote fraud is making news. There are still four weeks and Obama hasn't closed the deal.

Given the financial news, Obama should be far ahead. He isn't.

Posted by: Mike K on October 9, 2008 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

Truth is stranger than fiction, and the Corner transcends truth; they're just taking human experience to the next level. One small dose of dope and they'll be all set for total world and intellectual hegemony.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape on October 9, 2008 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

The extent of Barack's treachery knows no bounds. Somehow, between the time he was at Harvard and took his position at Chicago, he managed to install a small group of agents provacateurs at one of America's flagship conservative publications. By acting like batshit insane wingnuts, K-Lo's revolutionary avant-garde serves to make opposition to Obama look foolish and unpopular, as though it were the opinions of spoiled and dimwitted thirteen year olds with a marginal-at-best grip on reality, prompting the otherwise complacent bourgeoisie to embrace the closet radical.

So поздравляем comrades! Mission accomplished.

Posted by: jonas on October 9, 2008 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Go to the corner now and read McCarthy's lastest post...he might just be certifiably insane.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGI2YjZkNWRjM2ZjN2E3YzZjN2NlNTdhYWZkYjk5ODI=

Posted by: Patrick in IL on October 9, 2008 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

words (almost) fail me; mike k is nuttier than i thought which hardly seems possible given how nutty i thought he was.

watching crazed right wingers foam at the mouth while inventing incredibly stupid stories about obama and ayers isn't nearly as much fun as i thought it might be. i noted somewhere earlier today that what the ayers story reminds me of is this: there were some truly crazed new leftists in the late '60s, at least a few thousand of them, who lived in their own bubble.

but they are as nothing to the millions of truly crazed right wingers who live on a diet of limbaugh and hannity and coulter and whose brains really don't function at all.

Posted by: howard on October 9, 2008 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

*This* is 'stealth radicalism:'

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21

Posted by: Vareica on October 9, 2008 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

I'm proud to say I served on the Harvard Law Review when Barack was it's President. I knew him to be a sharp thinker, a good writer, and a strong but tolerant leader of a very difficult to lead institution. This NRO stuff is so childish I don't know what to say.

Posted by: Charlie Robb on October 9, 2008 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

"There's only one problem with that hypothesis: if Obama were as stealthy as that, if he had lived a secret life for decades, completely concealing his inner Maoist, he would never, ever have blown his cover by getting on a board with William Ayers."

I think you're being a bit generous here. They're not just saying Obama is trying to stealthily infiltrate burgeois institutions, they're saying this is what Ayers was about, too.

Yes, setting off pipe-bombs in half the government buildings in DC sure seems like a great way to stealthily infiltrate the Washington establishment to me. It's a wonder he could find the time with all the cocktail circuit invites he must have been wrestling with.

The Republican Party has truly become a disease - a semi-contagious form of mental retardation.

Posted by: Bill in Chicago on October 9, 2008 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

Mike K @ 12:27,
Wow, just sent in my absentee ballot, maybe I should have voted for the old guy with the flashbacks and his valley girl sidekick. Darn.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape on October 9, 2008 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

"I think Ron Paul has kinda proven that," he said. "He's a dyed-in-the wool libertarian, he came to Alaska and spoke as a libertarian, and put the Republican label on it to get elected, that's all there is to it. And any one of your organizations should be using that same tactic. You should infiltrate." - Dexter Carter, Alaskan Independence Party

It seems that once again the repub freepers are projecting !!!

Posted by: G.Kerby on October 9, 2008 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

So the candidate who's message and vision for the country have been consistent since he announced his candidacy in Feb 2007 is concealing a secret agenda, while...

the candidate who has entirely changed his message and his image, and who changes his positions on individual issues weekly (or hourly) is an open book.

Have I got it right? Straight talk!

Posted by: Rachel Q on October 9, 2008 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

The Corner is no more than a dressed-up version of this.

Posted by: JJF on October 9, 2008 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

OMG, that was, I am sorry to say, 'a peek behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric', on ice!!!!' And as I have been to numerous Session Meetings over the years, I can attest, in rural areas, THAT IS EXACTLY the type of statements you hear, and worse. She is like, well you betcha, I am a maverick, on a team of mavericks, and also, like Joe 6Pack (wink, wink ;) and the hockey Mom's out there like me know that this is all about sexism, and those network interviews asked all those 'gothcha questions' like do I read the paper to keep me informed about world events and can I name a Supremes court decision. Well, gosh darnit, there you go again, cus and also it so obvious (wink, wink, flirt , flirt, XXX magazine smile) that I'm not from Washington cuz I'm a maverick on a team of mavericks and also like boy howdy that was something so as I said it's really all about the country and putting it first unlike some people whose name rhymes with GoBama but thats like also that we are the consumate mavericks and goodness gracious me, also its all about reducing spending and reducing taxes because ummm,,,and deficit spending and all that and it was the great Reagan who showed it was possible but I read ALL the newspapers and magazines and Roe V Wade was a great decision because I can actually name it and also that like Todd, the first Dud is also so cool, so "Right On!", also it's a bad economic time so Putin may rear his head, and where do you think he flies???? Into Alaska...so I certainly do have international diplomatic experience because I can SEE Russia from my house and also Putin and I are mavericks....
Gov Phalin, the ultimate ignorant, fatuous, intransigent, raconteur. Her effrontery knows no end, her hackneyed, rote phrases embody her essence.

Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on October 9, 2008 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Mike K: "...The ACORN connection may even get some attention now that their vote fraud is making news..."

The ACORN problems are unacceptable, true, especially to those of us who take our roles as VRA's very seriously. Nevertheless, Republicans are no strangers to vote fraud. You might want to watch 'Stealing America: Vote By Vote'...if you have the stomach for it. Then ask yourself how many states are still using the same faulty technology for the upcoming general election? And why?


Posted by: Varecia on October 9, 2008 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

I was having a discussion with a very right wing friend of mine, and he declared to me that Reid and Pelosi were absolutely socialists (and this wasn't about the bailout.) At that point, I knew that discussion was no longer possible, because we didn't share the same reality. The Corner is filled with people just like him.

Posted by: Sherri on October 9, 2008 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

Every night I go to bed and pray that Obama is the socialist radical that conservatives like to pretend he is. For one thing, it'd allow me to vote for him in November, rather than Nader or McKinney.

And then every morning I wake up and discover that he's still just a center-left politician who supports capital punishment, warrantless wiretapping, Clinton's welfare "reform," apartheid in Palestine, an increase in the military budget, and a perpetuation of American empire. And who opposes single-payer health care and marriage equality. And all of the sudden I remember why I'll be voting for Nader or McKinney in November.

And then each night the cycle begins anew.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Posted by: Patrick Meighan on October 9, 2008 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Troubling is the number of true believers who take this sort of garbage for gospel.

The leaps in suspicion make many of these arguments incoherent. You need to be skilled in logistics or be a sheep to follow this mess (if X is X then...he's bad). Yet the rank and file will swear by these arguments: this true and I don't care what any liberal says.

Fine. Sheep.

After seeing Hannity was called out by Gibbs the other night, I have no doubt that he really believes (he can't be so stupid) his giving a platform to a disgusting hatemonger is in no way parallel to the discretions he insinuates Obama has committed.

Posted by: TBone on October 9, 2008 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

All I know was when I read the description of When Prophecy Fails, I immediately thought of my days as a republican. The "undeniable disconfirmatory evidence" did occur that the GOP was fraudulent and bankrupt from top to bottom, and I had to discard the belief that the governing party (as opposed to the voters) actually stood for the country.

But there is no doubt that the social support exists so that the belief can be maintained in the face of ALL evidence. I live with these people and you cannot convince them of the fiscal recklessness, corruption, incompetence, and evil that exists in the party upper reaches.

It's amazing. Facts are not enough to convince them. Asserting verifiable facts isn't in fact an effective tactic, because facts now are all suspect since they must come from the elite, biased media - disregarded completely whenever necessary.

I'm not sure if the people at NRO are themselves brainwashed or brilliantly manipulative, but it's one of the two, because their thinking isn't actually unusual in my world.

Posted by: Jasper on October 9, 2008 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, Stanley Kurtz DID argue with a straight face a short time ago that Obama and Ayers had been collaborating to "dangerously radicalize" Chicago's schoolkids -- and somehow sneaking it past both the Annenberg Foundation and the Cook County School Board.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/?iref=hpmostpop :

"The Annenberg Foundation gave the [Annenberg Challenge Project] a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.

"The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995. Annenberg Project Executive Director Ken Rollings said Ayers was not a member of that ad hoc group when the decision was made.

"For seven years, Ayers and Obama -- AMONG MANY OTHERS [emphasis mine] -- worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers.

" 'The specific job of the board of directors was to give out the money,' said Stanley Kurtz, a conservative researcher for the Ethics and Public Policy Center and frequent Obama critic.

" 'Instead of giving money directly to schools, they gave money to what they call external partners and these partners were often pretty radical community organizer groups,' said Kurtz, who also has been reviewing the Annenberg Challenge's recently released records.

"The board, for example, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers' small schools project. The project promoted alternative education, including projects like the Peace School -- where the curriculum centered on a United Nations theme -- and another school where the focus was African-American studies. [Eek!]

"The funding, according to Kurtz and records CNN reviewed, came directly from the Annenberg Foundation which Obama chaired. The project shut down in 2003 after achieving 'little impact on school improvement and student outcomes,' its [own] final report stated...

"Ayers has strong defenders in Chicago -- including Mayor Richard Daley, who called him 'a valued member of the Chicago community.'

"The city gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for his work on the Annenberg project."

So: not only did that snake Obama manage to secretly radicalize large numbers of Chicago schoolkids without anyone catching on; he managed to secretly radicalize MAYOR RICHARD J. DALEY'S SON in the process.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 9, 2008 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

If only, if only, if only ... I would so enjoy watching this secret left-wing agenda slowly start unfolding on Jan 21 ...

Posted by: JD on October 9, 2008 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

McCarthy: we should construe shrewd moves like the ostensibly reasonable Second Amendment position...

What does this poorly written drivel mean? Is he counseling the base to take up arms?

And my third question: Am I a paranoid moonbat for imagining a scenario where enough of these droolers start campaigns of public violence after Obama's victory that Dick Cheney declares martial law?

Posted by: henry lewis on October 9, 2008 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

It seems to me if there is a closet socialist in America it's George W. Bush or has anyone at the Corner been reading the business section lately?

Posted by: Guscat on October 9, 2008 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

And my third question: Am I a paranoid moonbat for imagining a scenario where enough of these droolers start campaigns of public violence after Obama's victory that Dick Cheney declares martial law?
Posted by: henry lewis on October 9, 2008 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

No, you're not. I NEVER underestimate the Repiglick'in party. They think 2 steps ahead, at least. We must think 3 - 5. They are in the dirt 24/7. Familiar territory, I suppose.

Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on October 9, 2008 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

"in essence, using the system to supplant the system"

Since the system is collapsing, that won't be necessary now, will it? Or should I say possible? Obama will have to find something to supplant the system, because the system will be gone. I guess this early radical came along at the right time.

Posted by: a on October 9, 2008 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

I think this shit is as ridiculous as the next critically thinking person, but all the left seems to be doing is laughing at it. Am I the only one that is getting the sense that there are forces at work behind the right's curtain that are trying to incite their fanged sheep into something quite unspeakable?

I don't believe that the people who believe this crap are a significant number at all, but that doesn't mean I'm not incredibly terrified of the fact that there IS a percentage of the population that is actually getting swept up in this "secret Muslim"/anti-christ crap. I shudder to think what those "righteous" true believers are capable of.

Posted by: beedee on October 9, 2008 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

This is their old trick. Blame your opponent for your crime.

It's Palin who belongs to Assemblies of God-style, dominionist, congregations who advocate rising to power in the established structure, so as to be in a position to hasten the end of days.

These viper and hypocrite Christians are doing everything they can to take down America.

http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/oh-speaking-of-whacked-out-fundamentalists-have-you-heard-about-sarah-palins-dominionist-connections/

And there's a major story for anyone interested.

Posted by: jim p on October 9, 2008 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Over at Politico Johnathan Martin is saying the McCain campaign has promised to make news in the morning, but won't hint at anyting else.

Sounds to my like they've realized the AK Supreme Court is going to deny the case they brought about the troopergate report and they're going to do something to get ahead of that news. Like a huge new policy program or maybe the "whitey tape" will surface.

Or maybe Pallin is going back to AK for family reasons and Lieberman has agreed to step in as a unity ticket.

Someone said Obama's Intrade went down a bunch but is now back up. Ya gotta wonder if someone is gaming the system there too.

Posted by: Dee Loralei on October 9, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

It must be understood that Obama was an unknown, small potato EVEN IN CHICAGO. He was a big frog but in a tiny black neighborhood. He was an unknown state senator, except among the political class and in parts of the black community. When he ran for US senator, this was I think the first time people became aware of him, because of his funny name in political ads. I live in Chicago, and I never heard of him before that. His primary and senate opponents self-destructed, and he became a US senator with luck.

So his reign may bring surprises, he being so poorly known to the public. Republican partisans may be all wet about his radicalism--he certainly seems a level-headed, reasonable fellow;, yet on the Dem partisan side there is an equally neurotic aspect of denial, about Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for ex. Seems like Rezko is in the process of changing from a stand up guy to stoolie, so new revelations wouldn't be all that surprising.

Posted by: Luther on October 9, 2008 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

Dude... McCarthy needs to lay off the ganja... It's making him *totally* paranoid.

Posted by: Limbaugh's Diabetes on October 9, 2008 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

radical is code for raising taxes on Corner columnists and, worse, their patrons.

Posted by: Andrew J. Lazarus on October 9, 2008 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

I always find it frustrating talking to my conservative friends how they believe in things like Obama being a secret left-wing radical, like the vast organized Gay Agenda, like the massive Liberal Media agenda, and all this other stuff.

But if you suggest anything like the Bush administration lying to sell a war or any of the Rovian machinations of the Republican party for the last decade or two, they display shock that anyone could even conceive of such an improbably conspiracy theory.

Amusing if it weren't depressing.

Posted by: Cooner on October 9, 2008 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Still more on Obama's downright mystical powers of hypnotic subversion ( http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/10/ayers-obama-and-the-chicago-an.php ):

"When the Annenberg Foundation announced that it was doing the Challenge grant program, Ayers got together with a couple of other education activist types (both of whom were already serving as advisors to the national Annenberg Challenge) and initiated the application for the [Chicago] Annenberg grant. Ayers was one of three authors of the initial application, but there was a 73-member Working Group of local activists and representatives of national school reform organizations involved in the effort. [Side note: that's an awful lot of Maoist radicals.]

"Chicago was one of five programs funded [nationally] by Annenberg. The project started in 1995. It was a public-private partneship. Each funded project had to get additional 2:1 matching funding or in-kind donations. Although the project was overwhelmingly funded by Annenberg, other contributors included the Bank America Foundation, Chicago Tribune Charities, the Pritzker Family Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.

"The organization of the CAC had two parts. 'A Board of Directors, composed of foundation and business executives, was responsible for fiscal operations, developing a procedure for securing matching funds and making grants, and hiring an executive director....More unusual was the body that came to be known as the Chicago Reform Collaborative, made up of the members of the original Working Group and others....The Collaborative had an important, if ambiguous role in the Chicago Challenge' which mostly ended up being 'continuing the conversation among the [73-plus] advocates.'

"Ayers was the chair of the Collaborative, the touchy-feely idea side of the effort. Obama became the initial Chairman of the Board of Directors, providing oversight of the business side of looking after millions of Annenberg money. Other Board Members included the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, the President of the Field Museum and the President of the University of Illinois" -- all of them, presumably, hypnotized by Obama into funding Ayers' (and those other 72-plus pinkoes') Communist-propaganda schemes.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 9, 2008 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Occum's Razor comes to mind here. The simplest, least complex reasoning here is that Obama is a the real straight shooter here.


As for the 'big news' being bandied about, I heard on Allen Colmes so drunk republican say it has to do with Obama's birth certificate.

Posted by: JWK on October 9, 2008 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

This is the headline in my New York Times "Economy" section:

U.S. May Take Ownership Stake in Banks

Who is doing this? Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

If Obama secretly wants to be the guy who nationalizes the economy, he better up before the Republicans beat him to it.

Posted by: brooksfoe on October 9, 2008 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

oooo oo o o ooooo.

That New Yorker cover was right on!

(personally, I don't believe these nuts really believe this. they just wanna keep their nutty nut jobs.)

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on October 9, 2008 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

JWK, Obama's birth certificate?

It doesn't say "Muslim" does it?

Or, maybe his given name was George Smith and he changed it to Barack Hussein Obama?

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on October 9, 2008 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

Remember when Bob Dornan and other whackos were convinced Bill Clinton was a KGB mole? They probably still think that. When you're paranoid enough the very reasonableness of the people you suspect becomes evidence.

Where is Bob Dornan these days? I miss him.

Posted by: Colin on October 9, 2008 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

Where is Bob Dornan these days? I miss him.

Appearing in documentaries alleging McCain was brainwashed by the North Vietnamese Communists and is covering up the ahem, fact, that the Vietnamese are still holding hundreds of our POW's from the Vietnam War. http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/09/randi-rhodes-launches-disturbing-attack.html >...

Rhodes gets this crapola from someone on the FAR RIGHT, Ted Sampley, who was deployed by the Bush campaign in 2000 vs. McCain in the S. Carolina primary. Sampley had a group back then alleging McCain had been brainwashed by the N. Vietnamese and was an agent of the Vietnamese Communists. Michael Isikoff in the 1st issue of Newsweek in the yr. 2000 wrote a good piece on McCain and the POW/MIA families who are extremely bitter vs. McCain. Nutcases like Bob Dornan can be found on YouTube videos (just google, "McCain traitor, " and "mcCain Manchurian Candidate") alleging all sorts of vile sheeit vs. McCain.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 08 September, 2008 21:25

Posted by: Michael Pugliese on October 9, 2008 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2r8xk4s5kM
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain
Dornan is here.

Posted by: Michael Pugliese on October 9, 2008 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK

This irresponsible behavior on the part of Republicans is clearly inciting the mob, to the point where their anger is both visceral and palpable. It is unacceptable, and it needs to stop, lest violence occurs. If it continues, perhaps upstanding citizens need to take it upon themselves to both file complaints with the Secret Service and make such complaints public, in order to embarrass the GOP into taking action to curb the malevolent enthusiasm od its most vociferous supporters.

Posted by: Out & About in The Castro on October 9, 2008 at 5:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Given the financial news, Obama should be far ahead. He isn't."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111040/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Over-McCain-Expands.aspx

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-108.html

Two weeks ago, before the credit markets melted down, McCain had moved into a tie in the national polls, had slight leads in the electoral college projections, and definitely had the momentum. Now, he's down 11 points in the national polls, and Obama is projected to have more than a 90% chance of winning the electoral college.

I can't think of ANY presidential election where the leads have swung this far, this fast. Maybe Reagan/Carter very close to the election? I think McGovern was always down, so I don't think that election had this kind of swing.

Posted by: DMoore on October 9, 2008 at 5:04 AM | PERMALINK

One of the biggest things that flies in the face of Obama-as-Manchurian-Candidate meme from the tinfoil hat types over at the corner is the fact that Obama turned down the opportunity to serve as a law clerk after graduating Harvard Law. Being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, Obama was on a very easy and very clear course to a top federal appeals court clerkship and an almost assured Supreme Court clerkship. If he really were looking to inflitrate the government, this would have been the easiest and most direct path to a number of the most powerful posts in government. On the other hand, eschewing the "keys to the kingdom" in order to go and community organize in Chicago doesn't seem like such a good way to infiltrate...unless that is when the brain washing occurred.

Bottom line is that they're just complete idiots.

Posted by: nobody on October 9, 2008 at 5:10 AM | PERMALINK

Humphrey in 1968 and Ford in 1976 closed pretty fast during their campaigns -- and both of them almost won. (McGovern never had a chance.) Nor should we forget Dukakis coming out of his convention with a landslide lead, having it evaporate to a tossup as soon as Bush Sr. was nominated, and then sagging back to an 8-point loss. Or Gore starting with an 8-point lead in September and blowing virtually all of it with his Bridge of Sighs debate. This particular race is very, very far from being over.

On the other hand, when George Will snarks you for thinking that you can turn an election around by talking about Bill Ayers, maybe it IS time to give up. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100802926.html :

"In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

"This, McCain and his female Sancho Panza say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seems surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, 'like being savaged by a dead sheep.' "

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 9, 2008 at 5:20 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans still complain about Jane Fonda and Jesse Jackson, for Christ's sake. Ahh, the right wing good ol' days.

People are fond of that statement about being doomed to repeat history if you don't understand it. Republicans understand a little bit of history and remain stuck in it forever.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on October 9, 2008 at 5:31 AM | PERMALINK

You know they're feeling cornered and pathetic when they trot out this malarkey. Republicans accuse Democrats of Socialism at the same time their policies have necessitated the greatest government involvement in financial markets since the Great Depression? McCain accuses Obama of being unsteady and running a negative campaign? It's called projection, right?

Hey Republicans, your party and your ideology are in tatters. Deal with it.

Posted by: clb72 on October 9, 2008 at 5:33 AM | PERMALINK

mike k is nuttier than i thought which hardly seems possible given how nutty i thought he was.

No kidding. That last post was quite a melt-down for him, even given the fact that he's already well-known as a purveyor of right-wing talking points as it is.

Posted by: Tyro on October 9, 2008 at 5:43 AM | PERMALINK

Sound like Corsi inspired nutjobs.

Posted by: RememberNovember on October 9, 2008 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINK

This, I'd suggest, is why he fits comfortably with Ayers, who (especially now) is more Maoist than Stalinist. What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system.

That's nothing like Maoism, though; that's Frankfurt School Marxism, if it's anything. The long march through the institutions. Not that you expect sense from these people.

Posted by: Alex on October 9, 2008 at 6:24 AM | PERMALINK

Members of the "media," promulgating an idea that identifies common-sense politics and reasoned, thoughtful policies as being "secret Communist plots" have graced the political stage once before, I believe; adding fuel to the fires of a brown-shirted, jack-booted, violence-embracing, right-wing radicalism that eventually transformed into National Socialism---and Godwin's Law be damned on this issue. This "Muslim Manchurianism" gambit reeks not of desperation, but of playing to the fears of others for profit.

The post-kitty sandbox boys over at the "round-the-bend" should revisit their history books, and rediscover what happened to the "journalists" who found themselves in the dock during the Nuremberg trials. Especially Lenin---who, given such a name, ought to be the last person on the planet making false allegations of being a Communist....

Posted by: Steve W. on October 9, 2008 at 6:39 AM | PERMALINK

I got a good Palin Style joke:

Whats the difference between Andy McCarthy of the Corner and 9-11 Truthers??????

T-Shirts!

Posted by: MLP on October 9, 2008 at 6:59 AM | PERMALINK

"There's only one problem with that hypothesis: if Obama were as stealthy as that, if he had lived a secret life for decades, completely concealing his inner Maoist, he would never, ever have blown his cover by getting on a board with William Ayers."

That's the same reason I've given to people who've suggested that Obama is a secret "sleeper" Muslim who hid away in Rev. Wright's "radical" church for 20 years. If they really think Wright was so radical, what kind of disguise would it be for Obama?

Posted by: Hokuto on October 9, 2008 at 7:05 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the motivation behind the retrograde brigade's more and more outlandish ramblings and rumblings is even simpler to parse out, in that Obama doesn't fit in (and deftly eludes being crammed into) the box of perceived expectations (narrow, stereotyped and/or simply bigoted) regarding presence and performance of a non-100% white politician among groups of tattered fringe-dwellers, evangelitists, Bell curvists and what we used to call the country club cocooned, many apparently nearly phobic about the occurrence of conceding power and the accompanying full access to the levers of real power to a trespasser on their hallowed turf, whether or not that turf is real or imagined.

Ipso facto then (and yes, it is a logical fallacy on their part), if he doesn't fit in the box and act as the detractors presume and expect he should, he must be programmed or controlled by some outside force or agency which is overriding his 'natural' (again, another fallacy) state.

Posted by: NotMax on October 9, 2008 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

Funny, I thought the crazed Manchurian candidate theories would circulate about the former POW. Wouldn't being a conservative Republican be a better cover for an infiltrator?
--RiMac

Go back and read "The Manchurian Candidate" or see the '64 movie. (Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra were great, and Angela Lansbury was evil personified)..Richard Condon certainly thought a conservative Republican war hero was the likely infiltrator, indeed, it's the point of the book..

Posted by: MR Bill on October 9, 2008 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

This is all they've got left. What this campaign has shown -- as if we needed to be reminded -- is that the Right has no "progressive" (defined as forward-looking or forward-planning or even forward-thinking) policy CAPABILITIES.

Political conservatism should be taken (linguistically) literally -- it is about preserving the status-quo, not serving the future. If conservatism is failing, then, it must perforce be because a nefarious secret cabal of socialists who have obviously learned the lessons of the Cold War are defeating it from within.

Conservatism has nothing to offer. No vision, no future -- just the past. Thus the race and economic status resentment on full display at Palin rallies. Thus the constant harping on "traditional values."

This isn't liberalism vs. conservatism. It's progressivism vs. regressivism. And regressivism seems to be losing the day.

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on October 9, 2008 at 7:12 AM | PERMALINK

This is delusional.

The Corner? Delusional? You don't say...

It's a sad commentary at how the authoritarians at the corner have moved the Overton window so much that even the suggestion that a centrist like Obama might not be a wild-eyed Maoist radical is considered heresy.

But I'd point out that Goldberg wrote his rancid little book partially because he's tired of being called a facist for supporting an authoritarian regime, and partially as a Rovian exercise in projection, insulating the Right from examination of its authoritarian leanings.

Posted by: Gregory on October 9, 2008 at 7:12 AM | PERMALINK

This is not at all "delusional." It is fact that Barack Obama was considered a member of the Chicago New Party by those who ran the Chicago New Party, affiliated with the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America. The goal of the New Party was to "fuse" far-left interests with mainstream Democrats, but their ruse was ruled unconstitutional and the New Party eventually dissolved.

When asked about his associations with Ayers, instead of just answering the question of what he did with the millions of dollars granted to the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, he deflects with sarcastic answers of being 8 when Ayers killed cops. He wasn't 8 when Ayers said he didn't do enough to kill federal officials and military personnel, but Obama did not disassociate himself from Ayers until many years afterward.

The only thing delusional in this whole scenario is the insistence that Sarah Palin is somehow hiding a radical past while denying that Barack Obama was once a member of a socialist party whose purpose was to defeat mainstream democrats through fraudulent "fusion" techniques.

Why doesn't Barack Obama just admit that while chair of the CAC, he and Bill Ayers diverted millions of dollars to ACORN? Instead of taking the opportunity they had to improve the education of Chicago children, they used the funds to build political coalitions. This is the extent of his executive experience and the American people deserve to evaluate his record.

Posted by: w3bgrrl on October 9, 2008 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, that article pales in comparison to this work of art:

"Will Obama Kill Science?
The unasked question."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=

Posted by: inthewoods on October 9, 2008 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

Soo, w3bgrrl, yer sayin' that a cop killer is running free, and corrupting the Chicago School System? and the Illinois Republicans have just now noticed this former radical was chosen "Citizen of the Year" by radical Richie Daley? And they stoled the Annenburg money to cause the collapse of the Mortgage markets? And now one of his disciples is poised to make America a Maoist hell?
Can I get some of what you are smoking?

Posted by: MR Bill on October 9, 2008 at 7:28 AM | PERMALINK

It is fact that Barack Obama was considered a member of the Chicago New Party by those who ran the Chicago New Party

Hey, I could "consider" Michael Jordan a member of my basketball team, but that doesn't mean he's ever heard of me, let alone shows up to play.

And, of course, by those vague guilt-by-association standards, it's a matter of record that the successionist Alaskan Independence Party "considered" Palin a member, and there's no doubt that she "associated" with them.

I'm still reeling at the notion of "fusing" a radical agenda with a mainstream political party being ruled unconstitional. I give you the Project for a New American Century and the Bush Presidency.

But pointing out the logical flaws in "w3bgrrl"'s post is unneccessary, as no sentient being should accept him / her / its unsourced assertions as fact.

Save one -- the American people do deserve to evaluate Obama's record, and they have, and they've concluded that the Republicans' slimy guilt-by-association whining isn't worth a bucket of piss.

Posted by: Gregory on October 9, 2008 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINK

This is delusional.

No, it's intentional. They are merely trying to delude their readers.

Posted by: e. nonee moose on October 9, 2008 at 7:48 AM | PERMALINK

When right-wing nutcases infiltrate and take over institutions (school boards, the Republican Party) and use them to espouse and enforce radicalism: The triumph of ideas in the marketplace.

When progressives take back institutions and govern in accordance with the ideas of the majority, and with the idea of the public good in view: Maoist socialism and well concealed radicalism.

The key to deconstructing the right's message is simply projection. Whatever they accuse progressives of doing, they themselves are ACTUALLY doing, as hard as they can.

Posted by: bluewave on October 9, 2008 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't Barack Obama just admit that while chair of the CAC, he and Bill Ayers diverted millions of dollars to ACORN?

Better yet, why don't you provide some proof to back up your wild accusations? I heard that you torture puppies. Why don't you just admit it?

Posted by: Jennifer on October 9, 2008 at 7:54 AM | PERMALINK

It isn't delusional. It's a circle-jerk.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 9, 2008 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone not read their history?

See what was written about (and the flyers circulated) John Kennedy in the weeks before his abortive journey to Dallas-- accusing him of being in the hands of communism, a 'Manchurian Candidate'.

Go back further and read what was written about FDR by his opponents.

How about what was written about Hilary Clinton in 1992? You know, Trotskyite, lesbian etc.

This is nothing new in American political history.

The danger, as David Niewert has well documented on his Orcinus blog, is what it does to the minds at the fringes of American politics and society.

See 'Talk Radio' or Oklahoma City for where this can take us.

Joe Biden has a greater than average chance of being the next Americann president. So does Sarah Palin, but for different reasons.

Posted by: Valuethinker on October 9, 2008 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

These are the same kind of people who were said there was something behind Watergate, who claimed that Hillary had Vince Foster killed, etc. It's simply noise. Details are exaggerated, links are contrived, and above all, the tone of hysteria is always fanned. Because there's an audience for this kind of crap. The hysteria is like the make-up at Peking Opera. If you don't have hysteria, you don't have an "argument".

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 9, 2008 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

It all comes down to perspective.

If I were to substitute Bush's name for Obama's in McCarthy's quote and my concerns of Bush's background and their implications for those of McCarthy's - I get it.

I don't agree with any of it, but I think I can start to understand why these people feel the way they do.

Here's another perspective - mine. Obama isn't radical enough!

The times require a serious re-evaluation of just about every system and precept we are ruled by. I fear that Obama will turn out to be just another "politician" swallowed up by the juggernaut of big business/big military and things will continue pretty much the same with maybe a little wrinkle here or there.

Result: the "people" are left with still no true representation and continue to get pillaged from all sides.

Posted by: ej on October 9, 2008 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

That's a lot of windy winding explanations attempting to get Obama's name in sentences with every major revolutionary figure of modern history, but what does it say?

Racists are peeing in their pants scared.

Posted by: Capt Kirk on October 9, 2008 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

These are the same kind of people who were said there was something behind Watergate

I'm not sure I understand you here -- there was something behind Watergate: A criminal conspiracy in the Republican White House. It's a matter of public record.

Posted by: Gregory on October 9, 2008 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

bluewave hits the nail on the head.

There's nothing new in this insanity from the corner. For ten years or more now, the right has been trying to shut up and/or shut down organizations that work to give people voice in government. I well remember how, when I was on the board of my state's Common Cause chapter, we were labeled as a "leftist" organization by the right media machine, because we were working for the radical idea that corporations shouldn't be allowed to own the government. Never mind that we were a non-partisan organization with many Republican members - we were in the way of the right's agenda of completely dispossessing the people of any voice in their government. I well remember speaking to a group one day when one of the members, clearly a Rush Limbaugh listener, advanced the argument that all we need is full disclosure, that rich people and corporations should be allowed to give as much money as they like to politicians as long as it's disclosed, and that it was really pointless to try to stop them because they would just find another way of funnelling money into the system if we shut down the way they were doing it now. To which I replied that if the government is bought by your health insurance company, and the government then passes laws that say your health insurance company has no contractual right to provide you with the services you have paid them to provide, I'm not sure that it does you much good to have disclosure about how much they paid to buy your government - you're still screwed. And that his stance that "they'll just find another way to funnel in money" was the equivalent of saying, "we know heroin is a bad thing, and people are bringing it in to the country on planes, but if we crack down on that, they'll just bring it in on boats, so we might as well not bother." We either recognize things that are evil and corrosive and seek to address them, or we don't. And the last time I checked, the Constitution said that it established a government of, by, and for the people, not of, by, and for the corporations or the highest bidders. Well, that ended that line of inquiry. But this is how these people have been schooled for years - into believing that fighting for government to live up to its promises and stated goals is somehow "radical".

We could also get into the right's attempts over 10 years ago to impose a gag order on all non-profits undertaking studies into issues which reached conclusions that don't fit with the right's agenda. They attempted to strip their non-profit status though thankfully, they ultimately failed.

Truly the bottom line here is that they don't believe in democratic government. Sure, they talk about freedom and democracy more than anyone, but they have a very different definition of what that is - it entails the freedom to STFU and accept whatever crumbs fall our way and the "democracy" to be ruled and at the mercy of those who have the most money. This is nothing new and we will never completely eradicate it, though it looks like this year for the first time in a long while we might manage to push it back a bit.

Posted by: Jennifer on October 9, 2008 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

So.... Guilt by association - with the Annenburg foundation. McCain had better denounce the Annenburg endorsement.

Posted by: JS on October 9, 2008 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

Veracia @ 12:30 AM is right

I was thinking the same thing when I read
"What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system."
isn't this exactly what the Christian Neoconservatives have been up to? These people really do telegraph their thoughts and motives by projecting them onto others. Psychotic is what they are, and the sincere Christians in this nation need to start talking more about it.

Posted by: on October 9, 2008 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Remenber; these are people that thought Kerry had purposely gone to Vietnam and wounded himself for the express purpose of using his service to become president of the United States nearly 40 years later.

These people are not nuts, they are not stupid, they are stupidnuts.

Posted by: marceaumarcea on October 9, 2008 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

I well remember how, when I was on the board of my state's Common Cause chapter, we were labeled as a "leftist" organization by the right media machine, because we were working for the radical idea that corporations shouldn't be allowed to own the government.

Shocking! You Commie! [/shark]

Seriously, though, I'm compelled to point out that Newt Gingrich, back in the late '80s / early '90s, gave his minions a list of perjorative words -- "radical," "leftist," "un-American," etc. -- with instructions to *always* use them when mentioning people or subjects out of favor with the Republican agenda. This subtle propagandizing from the authority of members of government, along with the less subtle brand peddled by Limbaugh and his ilk, have corrupted civil discourse in this country to the point that we need not apologize for calling movement conservatives a pack of shitheads -- especially in the face of such overwhelming evidence as the babble from the Corner.

Posted by: Gregory on October 9, 2008 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Were there no logic classes in the correspondence schools these folks attended?

If you start with a wackjob premise ("if we assume he is a radical..."), you end up with a wackjobbier premise (...then he's a Maoist mole attempting to overthrow the government!")

These are the same wingnuts who told us that Kerry was a wild-eyed antiwar radical trying to undermine the troops in Viet Nam (you know, the ones he risked his life for on several occasions) and that Gore was a far-left treehugging radical crying wolf about the environment (you know, before he was proven correct beyond any scientific doubt).

To these clowns, if you are the Democratic presidential nominee, you are de facto a radical leftist! Kind of like the way Ron Susskind quoted George Bush as saying something like, "If it's my policy, it is by definition correct."

Posted by: gradysu on October 9, 2008 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Truly hilarious. The Corner amazes me. It amazes me how semi-trained monkeys can type so well with their heads up each others rear ends.

Posted by: Run Up The Score on October 9, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

holy frijoles... if this is more than just hyperbole -- if they *really* believe Obama is some kind of Maoist radical Manchurian candidate -- then these guys are truly paranoid delusional batshit crazy! That isn't funny in the slightest... it's terrifying.

Posted by: donbux on October 9, 2008 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Veracia @ 12:30 AM is right

I was thinking the same thing when I read
"What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system."
isn't this exactly what the Christian Neoconservatives have been up to? These people really do telegraph their thoughts and motives by projecting them onto others. Psychotic is what they are, and the sincere Christians in this nation need to start talking more about it.
Posted by: on October 9, 2008 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks! Yes, it is PRECISELY what the Neoconservatives did, in concert with the Christian right, and for a long time Eurolegal Services had an excellent website detailing so much of it, but I can no longer find the pages that I found so (horribly) fascinating. The Powell Memorandum is the basis for a lot of it, as well as the 'Wedge' Strategy put forth by the loony Christian evangelicals. How many university departments now have faculty that are funded by the far right because of this radical Neoconservative agenda?

Posted by: Varecia on October 9, 2008 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

So when Obama is president for four years and he has not turned the country over the Stalinists, Maoists, Al Queada or the Weather Underground or Alaska Freemen, do these folks still argue it's his hidden agenda (he's still waiting to srping it on us in his second term)?

Posted by: mikey on October 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

They've all been drinking Kristol Lite

Posted by: RememberNovember on October 9, 2008 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Well, after these revelations, when do we start liquidating the kulaks? Ah, but comrades, we don't need to! GWB has already annihilated those middle-class bourgeois fascists. Haven't the Corner yet realized the true extent of our diabolical plans? First, get Bush elected. Second, let him purge our class enemies through economic sabotage. Third.. well, you and I both know, comrades, what stage three is! V narod!

Posted by: levbronski on October 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

If you are willing to accept an expert opinion I am a (not very) secret wild eyed left wing radical and Senator Obama is most certainly not. Of course to most of the folk over at the Corner anyone left of Ronald Reagan is a wild eyed left wing radical so they can hardly be trusted can they.

Posted by: yank in london on October 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

"How can anyone who actually follows this stuff, who reads Freddoso, Kurtz, and scores of other reliable sources of information...

Well there's the problem right there. These lunatics read Freddoso and Kurtz and believe their rubbish is "reliable". Boggling.

Posted by: ckelly on October 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting to ask, for instance, why so few of Obama's law students have come forward to talk about his attempt to transform them into Maoist cadres

On point as usual. The only part I would verify and restate would be to say that "...none of Obama's law students have come forward..." Saying "so few" implies that some have. This statement taken out of context could be used as as evidence againt your arguement. Most of his student respected him as a person who didn't interject his views at all, rather he taught by asking questions and presenting multiple approaches to analyze a subject.

I have not found one instance, article or account of a student coming forward saying that Obama is a Socialst/Maoist or that Obama abused his position as professor to indoctrinate students into Obama's underground movement. This is absurd. But I'm not a blogger, I don't do the research, and I don't claim to know the facts. But I would assume this would have come forward by now if it were true.

Posted by: Mick on October 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

It's hard to separate the genuine paranoia from the cynical exploitation of the public's fear of communism, socialism and all things liberal and progressive. I think it's probably both, depending on the individual.

Whatever, we're prisoners of a cold war mentality and irrational fear of socialism, and it seems to be getting worse. If Wall Street hadn't suddenly collapsed, Obama wouldn't have enjoyed this eleventh hour surge, and might have lost. It's definitely not 1932 all over again. And if he does win, he'll only slow the flow to the right. Liberalism is dead in America. Government's only role is to feed the military-industrial complex and to preserve and enhance the fortunes of corporate America and the rich. The only way to change is to confiscate the trillions that the rich have pissed away on Wall Street and put them to work building a better society, and that just ain't going to happen, no way, in America. Nobody would dare to suggest a 40% marginal tax rate on trillionaires, and it will take a lot more than that to rebuild this country.

Posted by: hark on October 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

In a just society, Andrew McCarthy would be getting the mental health treatment he so obviously needs, instead of being exploited to fill column inches for the entertainment of NRO's readers.

Someday, when I'm bored, it might be amusing to hear someone over there explain just what "radical" means, if it isn't working outside of the system. Working inside the system, playing by the rules, building a consensus among a large number of grass-roots supporters, that's not radicalism, that's democracy.

Posted by: biggerbox on October 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

"Obama's radicalism, beginning with his Alinski/ACORN/community organizer period, is a bottom-up socialism."

And as the intervention in the financial system has shown, conservatives like their socialism top-down.

Posted by: kw on October 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
The University of Chicago is known for its tolerance of market-hating leftist radicals.
Indeed! And no part of it more so than the Economics department, also known in some circles as the Chicago School. Posted by: kenga on October 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think what scares them is that he's "assimilated." He has no standard black, African American, affect. He must be hiding something.
If European Jewry had only stayed in the shtetl...

Posted by: Seth Edenbaum on October 9, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Obama is not a crazy Maoist, radical socialist.

I go to all the meetings and Obama hasn't shown up for years.


Posted by: Dicksknee on October 9, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think there are more people on the Right who believe that communism is in our future than on the Left.

The Right seems to simultaneously claim that communism won't work as a tool for organizing society and claim that it's a threat to overthrow (or takeover) the U.S. government.

While these ideas are not completely contradictory, they seem more at odds with each other than consistent.

I will also add that I have met various Leftists in Chicago who are willing to call themselves Marxists, socialists, etc. None of them has talked-up Obama or mentioned knowing him.

The people I know who know Obama tend to be... get this... mainstream Democrats and Democratic campaign contributors.

In fact this is how I first met Obama in 1998. I went to a fundraiser for Rep. Lane Evans. It was hosted by Marjorie Benton of Evanston, IL. Besides Evans, Sen. Dick Durbin attended.

I recognized Obama from his pic in the guidebook for Illinois legislators. I remembered his name b/c he was on a number of foundation boards. I had been doing research on organizations to approach for non-profit grants. Obama's name stuck in my head.

When I met Obama I told him he was better looking than his official picture which made his neck look skinny. He laughed as he shook my hand.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on October 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I think there are more people on the Right who believe that communism is in our future than on the Left.

Oh, certainly -- I've remarked before on the amusement to be had with the ridiculous obsession with Communism held by the John birchers who make up modern movement conservatism.

Posted by: Gregory on October 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Mayor Daley is far more of a leftist than his father.

Since Daley Sr. was a good, old-fashioned authoritarian demagogue in the Huey Long tradition, I think it's safe to say that George W. Bush is far more of a leftist than Daley Sr.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on October 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

he deflects with sarcastic answers of being 8 when Ayers killed cops.

That one is a regular Doug Piranha, he is! I'll bet he knows all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He's vicious.

Posted by: John Protevi on October 9, 2008 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Well, ok. Let's just for ONE SECOND assume *any* of this is true (and I will insist to my dying day that NONE of it is true).
Shouldn't this mean that *everyone* should vote for Obama? I mean, if he is THIS good - able to hoodwink the thousands of savvy political figures he has met over the years, is able to infiltrate anarchist-underground movements and connect with Maoists and Stalinists, etc etc etc - he is like an Evil Genius, right?? Why wouldn't we want someone like that to be president??!

Posted by: Quint on October 9, 2008 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

"I will also add that I have met various Leftists in Chicago who are willing to call themselves Marxists, socialists, etc. None of them has talked-up Obama or mentioned knowing him."

That just ignores the facts, doesn't it. Clearly, they at the very least knew him. Scroll to the block quote at the end. And yes, there are multiple independent sources for this information, so it's fact, sorry.

"Unasked through all this, I gather, is how Ayers and Obama were able to sneak this by ALL of Chicago, for the better part of two decades. And, oh yes, the Annenberg Foundation...."

Well, we can debate about Obama, but clearly, Ayers did 'sneak it by Annenberg', as he's been saying, at least as recently as 2001, that he's still open to violence to advance the socialist cause. Of course, after a few years with no results (educationally speaking) Annenberg pulled the plug.

At least be factually correct.

Posted by: douglas on October 10, 2008 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

OK, so it's nutty to say 8-year-old Obama was helping to make the bombs and all, and Ayers wasn't his BFF and best man at his wedding, and all the rest of Chicago's elite treated Ayers as just another professor and activist.

But am I the only one bothered by the fact that so much of polite society DID allow an "unrepentant terrorist," as some call him, to join the club so easily? If I were on the university hiring committee, I'd say no way to violent bombers, whether left-wing, right-wing, whatever. If imprisonment didn't take for whatever legal reason, shouldn't community shunning be in order?

If we expect the Right to cut off its looniest members, based solely on what those loons advocate or say, why the heck can't we cut off the extremists who, you know, want to kill people?

Posted by: cold war liberal on October 11, 2008 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

Ayers was not terrorist; he boasted about doing thousands of dollars worth of damage without hurting anyone.
Also, lets recall the other side of the story; the Vietnam war overseas, and this at home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

Posted by: Janus Daniels on October 12, 2008 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly