The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:33:43 -0000

im4america2--

This is a public thread.

I'm perfectly happy to let readers decide which one of us is pathetic.

And I'm still waiting for CStanley's proof.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

im4america2 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:56:58 -0000

So, your sources are "new news" newspapers? How's life at the Department of Redundancy Department these days?

No sale; I don't buy it. Your comment was meant to be self-serving. Embellishing the weight of your so called root source and its subsets was an amateurish attempt to appear grossly more enlightened than CStanley.

Wikipedia? How pathetic is that?

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:47:04 -0000

My god, read the whole thing I wrote.

The Wikipedia has these things they call "sources" which they make reference to by these things they call "footnotes".

I made a direct link to the applicable footnotes, didn't I?

I made a direct link to the newspaper article's abstract, didn't I?

Oh, but I forgot, when any source conflicts with a belief, it can be disregarded because it's biased. I mean, if it contradicts your "gut feelings", it must be unfair.

What exactly is a contemporary newspaper?

It means a newspaper that published articles about the events in question at the time they happened. Look it up at dictionary.com--another easily availabe internet resource.

Be careful though--the dictionary may be biased!

And, you know, maybe the English language is also biased.

Maybe time itself is biased!!!

After all, its actions are speaking louder than words!!!

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

im4america2 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:33:13 -0000

To be completely fair to BO, he absolutely should not be linked to having relationships with terrorists. BO prefers to associate with anarchists. Let's be clear about the assertions being made.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

im4america2 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:23:56 -0000

Really, Wikipedia is now considered a credible source?

What exactly is a contemporary newspaper? Is it code for a newspaper that represents your bias?

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:03:33 -0000

And--I'm just guessing here--Bill Gates probably wouldn't give anyone $49.2 dollars without some due dilligence.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:00:50 -0000

CStanley--

CAC stands for Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (I added a little emphasis there, CStanley.) This was not some ordinary non-profit grant application. The Annenbergs gave over $49 million. Their daughter, Wallis Annenberg, presented the check.

My source is Wikipedia. Wikipedia's sources are a number of reports in the contemporary Chicago newspapers. (That link goes to footnote #11, a list of ten articles by my count.) It looks like only the article abstracts are available on the internet, but here's one from the Chicago Tribune indicating the involvement of none other than Walter H. Annenberg. Certainly, that's evidence that the Annenbergs were willing to hire Ayers and all the rest of them to do what they considered worth almost 50 million bucks!!

I do not appreciate you coming out here, CStanley, and claiming that I am talking through my hat, when this information is easily available--when the Wikipedia is the most obvious source of information anyone with an internet connection, when they post their own footnoted sources. When anyone who claims, as you have, to be looking for information about this could actually get it by typing the words "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" into Google.

You've already made one graceless apology to Rudi for misremembered facts on this thread, CStanley.

Do you care nothing for your own credibility?

And, yes, I would love to see you provide some proof. And instead of making some kind of 100 page document dump--like the kind you made to Pete Abel (with the comment, "Here's a compendium if you want to sift through."), please cite chapter and verse.

IOW indeed!

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:29:03 -0000

Uh, George? The CAC was a grant project funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Do you know anything about how that process works? I was a nonprofit Executive Director for three years, so let me just fill you in.

Major foundations like Annenberg announce that they wish to fund some initiative, in this case, an education project to take place in several urban centers. They advertise the opportunity (that's called a Request for Proposal, or RFP) and existing charities respond to the RFP with applications. I linked to the actual application submitted by Ayers and one of his partners yesterday- showing that this was addressed to a Dr. Valdan Gregorian who was President of Brown University- presumably he was the contact person listed on the RFP.

Likelihood is that Annenberg never saw these applications. If you wish for me to try to track down proof of that I will, but I speak from personal experience here. When we submitted RFPs to foundations like this, often foundations that bore the names of well known public figures, I never would have expected the famous individual to ever read my application. If I submitted something to, say, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I wouldn't expect them to be personally reviewing it and making the decision.

IOW, I don't believe that Annenberg had anything to do with this, other than having a boatload of money and a desire to improve education in inner cities. At the very least (in case on the remote chance that William Annenberg himself is one of the few philanthropists who is very actively involved in the RFP review and selection process) it's STILL not accurate to say that he 'hired' Ayers.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:12:23 -0000

CStanley--

And nobody "lets" guys serve on charitable boards except the people who set up the charity and then elect its leaders.

Hey CStanley, aren't you trying to gather information about this charitable board? The people who set up this charity are the Annenberg family. Walter Annenberg was Nixon's Ambassador to the UK. He gave the Reagans the house they lived in after they left the White House. They're not socialists, they're Republicans.

Yesterday, I posted a link from the Time Magazine blog on this very thread that said:

This morning John McCain put out a list of 100 former ambassadors who are supporting his campaign. Number two is Leonore Annenberg, the wife of Ambassador William Annenberg, the founder of the Annenberg Institute of Reform, which funded the Annenberg Challenge, which once had two famous board members: former "domestic terrorist" William Ayers and Sen. Barack Obama.

So either we should all be outraged that John McCain is supported by a family who funded a foundation that hired a domestic terrorist, or this whole William Ayers thing is just plain silly. I choose the latter.

To repeat:

So either we should all be outraged that John McCain is supported by a family who funded a foundation that hired a domestic terrorist, or this whole William Ayers thing is just plain silly.

By the way, Marc Ambinder wrote earlier today about ACORN.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:35:58 -0000

Which board are you referring to, George, when you say that a Republican appointed Ayers? These are philanthropic organizations, not government entities, and a board is elected not appointed. Generally party affiliation isn't a consideration, though certainly sometimes people who know each other from political circles end up nominating each other.

And nobody "lets" guys serve on charitable boards except the people who set up the charity and then elect its leaders. In certain fields like education, a huge proportion of the people involved in foundations and not-for-profits have a liberal leaning, from moderate left to socialist. As long as these groups aren't integrating with the functions of government, the political stuff isn't something that anyone has any say in- if someone wants to donate money to a cause, or a wealthy family sets up a foundation to promote charitable work, or what have you, they can do what they want.

The reality is though that some of these groups DO interface with government, and in ways that aren't always appropriate. ACORN is one example of a group getting government funds to register voters and then focusing almost exclusively on registering voters from demographic and geographic groups that favor one party. Even without the fraud that's recently been coming to light, that's not right. And then the fact that they also have a political arm, which has endorsed Obama, and that his campaign gave them $800,000, suggests huge conflict of interest.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:32:50 -0000

Polimom: I don't think Obama's a closet socialist, but I think he has a tendency to let other people who are (socialist isn't perhaps the correct term, but you get my drift) too close to him and to public money that he helps control.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:45:58 -0000

Quoting CStanley:

I've explained why I don't feel that politicians who pander to a certain type of voter (at risk of offending others) is as important to me as is an actual working relationship between a politician and someone who is controversial.

Pandering is certainly eternal, because each side is willing to forgive the politicians who pander to them. But Ayers was not controversial when he was on that charitable board. That's why a Republican appointed him to that board.

Ayers is now handy to Republicans for political reasons: they can say Obama is "paling around" with a "terrorist".

It's a lie for them to say it, all the more because they (as much as anybody) let him be the kind of guy who sits on charitable boards in the first place.

And--coming full circle here--it's a lie that's destructive, which is why even a Republican like Pete Abel is complaining about it.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:22:48 -0000

George: I find it interesting (really- I'm not being sarcastic) that we just find different things important. I don't mean that I find Ayers more important than Iraq, just mean that I've explained why I don't feel that politicians who pander to a certain type of voter (at risk of offending others) is as important to me as is an actual working relationship between a politician and someone who is controversial.

I've heard people discuss what makes different voters tick, and why Dems tend to think one way and GOP voters another, etc. I think there's a lot of truth to it, and in the end that's why we may never agree- we're starting with different assumptions about what we are looking for in a candidate and what information we feel is important.

While we don't agree, though, I still think these discussions are useful from time to time because (for me, anyway) it helps prevent one from thinking that the people who vote for the opposing candidate are just idiots or something. I hope that by presenting my point of view and explaining the thoughts behind it, that people will stop making assumptions about conservatives that aren't accurate.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

Polimom — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:19:34 -0000

"if the real concern is how much power those religious leaders will hold sway over McCain, he's shown no tendency toward creating a theocracy that I can see."

CStanley, that's a valid statement about McCain. But contrary to CW, Obama didn't actually fall off the most recent turnip truck, either. Have you seen a tendency toward socialism?

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:16:27 -0000

And listen, George...the most positive way I can view the things that trouble me about Obama is that potentially he's just really opportunistic. It's possible that he is pretty moderate/centrist in his own views but formed alliances that I find too leftist and unsavory (meaning corrupt) for political expediency.

That still doesn't make me happy, because if elected he's the only one standing between other people that I believe are highly corrupt (Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha) and a lot of practices which I believe will further ruin our economy. But perhaps he won't feel as beholden to them as he was with the Chicago political establishment- and to be honest, if you guys would take the time to look at all the CAC stuff you could make the case that there were some elements in the corrupt Chicago system that this group DID stand up to- it was sort of a case of choosing one devil over another, but at least Obama was involved in something that wasn't a complete front operation for Chicago croneyism. I do believe that he and probably most of the others in the project had good intentions, and that they steered clear of some activities that could have been far worse. I just don't think it was overall a good use of the $160 million, and even the internal evaluators of the project found fault with it and felt it didn't have a demonstrable effect on academics.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:14:35 -0000

CStanley--

Your questions are indented, my answers will follow>

If you don't think that the downplaying is going on, then what is it that is different about this situation (which includes records being sequestered from media requests, statements on Obama's website that aren't accurate or complete, etc) and any other where you think that a politician wasn't being upfront about something?

I don't think membership on a charitable board funded by a wealthy Republican is the equivalent of, say, the firing of US Attorneys for what looks like political (not performance) reasons.

Earlier in this thread, I made a rather contemptuous description of Ayers as someone whose privilege shielded him from the consequences of his actions. Ayers is not important to me. I think there are larger problems in America.

Would you honestly not be arguing the other side of this if there were a similar project in McCain's background, working in his case with a controversial right wing figure, and McCain's response to questions about it were along the lines of "You know, you guys must be desperate to try to question this" instead of just opening up the information for scrutiny?

I'm not really a big fan of counterfactuals. Though I do, in fact, think McCain has just plain skated on a lot of stuff that I think deserved more scrutiny. I think the fact that McCain sought the endorsement of John Hagee should bother every Catholic in America. I think McCain is a big flip-flopper. When Sarah Palin calls Obama's plans for Iraq "a big white flag of surrender" I wonder why the war has more-or-less disappeared as an issue. I wonder why Ayers' war matters to Republicans but questions about Iraq are a sign of surrender.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:09:29 -0000

George: McCain has a long track record in service so I compare his actions vs. his words. A lot has been made, for instance, about his reversal of his former criticism of evangelical leaders- and I can understand why that bothers some independent voters, but if the real concern is how much power those religious leaders will hold sway over McCain, he's shown no tendency toward creating a theocracy that I can see. Unless he's been surpressing his inner Dominionist for 26 years, I think we'll be OK.

As for level of information to make a decision- you do the best with what you have, but sometimes questions come up that you don't feel are answered- and worse, sometimes the answers don't seem to jive with facts. In those cases, again, I try to formulate the most accurate conclusion that I think is possible, but it doesn't feel 'settled'- I'm more open to rethinking it if something else comes to light.

Yes, I do feel that I'm 'winning the struggle' in this case. I probably wouldn't be posting a jillion responses about it if I didn't. ;-)

Does it give me pause that Pete and I disagree about this? Hmm. I'm disappointed that Pete has reversed his earlier conviction that it was most important to work on reforming the GOP from within, so if he and I are in disagreement over this, then it seems to me that he's the one who's changed, not me. I actually told him in another recent discussion, that I often believe it's harder to see the wrong that someone on your own 'side' does than it is to see it on the other 'side', and that as a recent convert he might be even more susceptible to that (who would want to admit that they may have made a huge mistake in shifting a position?)

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:50:32 -0000

CStanley--

Your answers bring up more questions.

When you agree that McCain's actual endorsement was just hollow words: How are you able to determine when McCain is saying things he doesn't really mean?

When you talk about your gut feeling being potentially inadequate: How are you able to know when you have sufficient information to make a truly informed decision?

You also said this:

I think that everyone (media, bloggers, and people like us who comment) either latch on to things that support our conclusions or we downplay things that contradict. It's a struggle to not do that, and I do believe some people try, and I feel I make an honest effort.

Do you think you're winning that struggle and the people who disagree with you about the importance of Ayers are losing that struggle?

I ask that because you and I have a history of disagreeing on a variety of topics. But you have generally agreed with, for example, Pete Abel. But on this topic, I am more in agreement with Pete than you are. Does that give you any pause?

By the way, I know you asked me questions and I will be answering them more-or-less immediately in my next comment.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

ChrisWWW — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:39:16 -0000

I know you tried to preempt that, but I still think it's a good criticism :-)

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:19:53 -0000

Well jeez, Chris, try reading my comment where I already discussed that.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

ChrisWWW — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:16:17 -0000

Okay... so we've moved from endorsement to tolerance. The next question is why mere tolerance of this guy would even make a blip on your issues radar.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:15:22 -0000

McCain's actual endorsement is just hollow words to you? And Obama's non-endorsement is a more real endorsement than mere words of endorsement would be?I'm not sure what part of "actions speak louder than words" was unclear, but yes, I guess you've got it now.

And your own words weren't an accurate description of your own opinion? And that's because there isn't enough information available for you to make a really informed decision? Not sure why this is so confusing to you either; if you have a small subset of information, you can draw whatever conclusion possible from it but you may not feel satisfied that your conclusion is accurate because of missing data points. Clearer now?

And the media is part of a cover-up by disingenuous downplaying? Not suggesting there's a conspiracy, but I think that everyone (media, bloggers, and people like us who comment) either latch on to things that support our conclusions or we downplay things that contradict. It's a struggle to not do that, and I do believe some people try, and I feel I make an honest effort.

And even people here at TMV are part of that disingenuously downplaying cover-up?See my answer above.

If you don't think that the downplaying is going on, then what is it that is different about this situation (which includes records being sequestered from media requests, statements on Obama's website that aren't accurate or complete, etc) and any other where you think that a politician wasn't being upfront about something? Would you honestly not be arguing the other side of this if there were a similar project in McCain's background, working in his case with a controversial right wing figure, and McCain's response to questions about it were along the lines of "You know, you guys must be desperate to try to question this" instead of just opening up the information for scrutiny?

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

CStanley — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:06:09 -0000

Is there anything I wrote that would give you the impression that that's what I actually meant?

By endorsement of Ayers I don't mean endorsement of his terrorism, but endorsement of the 'reformed' Ayers- IOW, it implies that Obama really did believe he was reformed despite Ayers' own declaration that he has no regrets.

Look, maybe our worldviews are just so different that you don't even get my perspective, but the reason I'm trying to explain it is because the lack of understanding leads to incorrect assumptions.

Conservatives definitely tend to have less tolerance against antigovernment dissent that is revolutionary in nature (well, that's not true of all right wing groups as there are some anarchist fringe right groups too.) But we're not inclined to believe that a person who has that degree of disdain for the elected government of our country can then be a valid partner in a political project, because we see a tendency in such people to believe that their ends justify the means and that they believe they know better than the majority of citizens what is in the country's best interest.

Can you understand that kind of distrust, at all, even if you don't agree with it?

So when I talk about Obama's implied endorsement, I guess maybe a better word would have been his 'tolerance' or something. He feels that people can be part of the process even with such extreme views, while some of us disagree with that.

Frankly, it's not that much different than something Jim S. often says here- he feels that conservatives hate government so much that they can't really be trusted to run it. Even though the reasons for that hatred of government are far different, it's kind of the same concept.

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:01:33 -0000

CStanley--

McCain's actual endorsement is just hollow words to you? And Obama's non-endorsement is a more real endorsement than mere words of endorsement would be?

And your own words weren't an accurate description of your own opinion? And that's because there isn't enough information available for you to make a really informed decision?

And the media is part of a cover-up by disingenuous downplaying?

And even people here at TMV are part of that disingenuously downplaying cover-up?

Re: Senator McCain: Encouraging the Very Mentality He Condemns

ChrisWWW — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:50:54 -0000

Obama's actions in working with Ayers imply endorsement

Serving with Ayers on a board dedicated to educational charity implies that Obama supported him when he planted bombs at public buildings 40 years ago? Is there ANYTHING else that would give you the impression Obama is a domestic terrorist sympathizer?