I'll See You An . . .

. . . Ayers and raise you a Keating.  *sigh*

Two can, and do, play that game. 

But McCain admitted the Keating Five scandal was the biggest mistake of his career, and apologized!

But Obama was a little kid when Ayers bungled his bomb-making, and grew up to denounce it!

Go on, go on down to the ocean and bring back some of that water that went under the bridge twenty or forty years ago.

I know.  McCain is at a disadvantage right now, primarily because people tie the economic meltdown (which the bailout so far has failed to freeze) to a Republican administration.  Presidents always get the credit or blame for the part of the business cycle and/or the greed-and-denial cycle that overlaps with their tenure.  So McCain is going negative in a big way -- it worked before -- and is obviously counting on a significant number of voters just now tuning in, voters who, not being political junkies, are virgins when it comes to Bill Ayers.  And Obama has been told he has to hit back, that swift boating must be answered in kind.  So they're digging up old Charles Keating.

From the point of view of a political junkie, like your average blogger, all of this is astoundingly warmed-over.  We have to remember that we are not the audience.  But I wonder whether swing voters really are the audience, either.  Indecision is uncomfortable, and leads to obsession out of a desperate eagerness to resolve it.  Swing voters are probably better informed than party line voters, and if so, all this is old news to them and may only turn them off. 

As Vin Weber just pointed out on TV, the real problem with the Ayers association is not his playing rich-kid terrorist back when the Obamas were in footie pajamas.  That was just the early acute phase of a chronic disease.  The real problem is the continuing radicalism of Ayers' ideas when, as a hereditary member of the Chicago establishment claiming his birthright, he worked with Obama on education reform.  No sane person seriously thinks Obama is a terrorist or condones terrorism, Weber said; the real question is whether he is the farthest left presidential candidate ever nominated. 

Palin:  "Ayers was a domestic terrorist . . . "

Crowd:  "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!" 

Way to fight terrorism.

Comments

[Sissy Willis]

I wish they'd forget the bombs of yore and focus on the current, insidious, Gramscian march of Ayers's "critical pedagogy" through the (educational) institutions.

[amba]

Yeah, but that doesn't release a happy "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!" For most voters, more of a huh??

[Peter Hoh]

McCain was an active member of the Keating Five. He wasn't someone who worked with Keating some years after the scandal.

McCain has the apology lines down pat, but that doesn't change the facts about the Keating scandal, and it doesn't change the fact that he dumped his injured wife for a younger, richer model.

Meanwhile, here are some sleazy smears against Obama put out by a leader of McCain's team in Virginia.

[PatHMV]

Actually, Peter, McCain was entirely exonerated in the end of any impropriety in his dealings with Keating. He was only included in the investigation because the many Democrats caught up in it were desperate to tag a Republican so it would be a "bipartisan" scandal.

[Danny]

I agree with your post but your "yeah, but" to the wild claims about Ayers' education agenda is FAR too generous. The charge that Ayers' work represents a "conspiracy to keep the 'masses' poor and stupid" and that he is working to "indoctrinate America's future teachers in the revolutionary cause" reveals a mind-boggling ignorance about Ayers' work in education.

[Peter Hoh]

Pat, if that's the case, why has he apologized for his involvement?

[Donna B.]

Peter, he apologized for attending two meetings with regulators investigating Keating -- and the perception of impropriety his attendance caused.

Apparently, since he was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee, he didn't do or say anything in those meetings that was unethical.

And he hasn't tried to cover it up, has he?

Why is Obama so worried about his relationship with Ayers on the board of the Annenberg Challenge? I suspect it's the goals and performance of the project itself that Obama would rather not bring to light.

Maybe no one wants to shine a light on the inner workings of Chicago politics that pushed him into the limelight. Groomed him, so to speak.

[RW Rogers]

For someone who says he was a big supporter of John McCain in 2000, your concerns about McCain and Keating as well as McCain and his former wife are somewhat mystifying. Why bring up the ex-wife story? That was over a quarter century ago. Should we examine in detail what everyone else was doing 25 years ago, including the candidates and everyone opining about it here? Give the wife story a rest. She's voting for him anyway, you know.

[Melinda]

the current, insidious, Gramscian march of Ayers's "critical pedagogy" through the (educational) institutions.

I'm going "huh?" and when you squeeze me, you get "Eau de Geek."

[Melinda]

Meanwhile, here are some sleazy smears against Obama put out by a leader of McCain's team in Virginia.

Peter, I read about that and I think it's supposed to be somebody's ugly-ass idea of a joke. Less "smear" and more "Comeback for Andrew Dice Clay!"

[amba]

Peter: those "sleazy smears" at Yglesias sound to me like they were lifted from "The Onion." They are so laughably parodic that they're about as "anti-Obama" as that New Yorker cover was, and in the same way.

I was going to say something about dredging up McCain's marriage story again, but I'm too tired. Show me the guy in public life, with the usual vanity and opportunities that entails, who wouldn't do some version of the same if his wife lost her attractiveness and perhaps her enjoyment of or even ability to have sex. John Edwards, anyone? Harrison Ford, who dumped Melissa Matheson for no injury worse than menopause?

The fact that he didn't is one of the things I love about Mario Cuomo. (But he never ran for president, so we don't know the whole story about him -- thank God.)

[Peter Hoh]

In 2000, I felt that McCain stood above the rest of the candidates. I'm pretty sure that I knew that McCain was divorced and remarried. I don't think I knew all the details.

Neither the adultery or the Keating involvement is enough to disqualify McCain, but in both cases, he says something that looks like he's taking responsibility, but there are no consequences. I've had enough of that approach the past 8 years.

I suppose I can assume that Obama hasn't done anything wrong, as he hasn't even been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee.

Of course that's tongue-in-cheek, but no one's going to give Ted Kennedy a pass about Chappaquiddick just because he wasn't charged with anything.

[michael Reynolds]

So, let me get this straight: Obama worked with Ayers. McCain worked with Keating. (And Pat, cut the b.s.: McCain took campaign contributions from Keating, flew on his private jet numerous times and used his resort home.)

Neither of them seems to have done anything wrong. McCain was exonerated, and almost certainly deserved to be. But McCain's relationship to Keating is at least as close as Obama's to Ayers.

Obama and McCain both had a relationship with assholes. Neither committed a crime.

This isn't going to work, my Republican friends. I don't think you'll be able to smear your way out of this. Democrats have learned to play this game, and we now have more money. Welcome to the exciting world of political blowback.

And by the way, McCain is not just a victim of the economic crisis. He's a victim of his own actions. McCain destroyed McCain. The old McCain would have been a guy to turn to in a crisis: the new McCain is a reckless smear artist who has embraced a burned out party.

[PatHMV]

Well, Keating never tried to blow up American citizens, and never expressed regret that he wasn't more successful at bombing innocent Americans.

And Michael, you would be busy tarnishing the "old McCain" just as much as the "new McCain," just because he's running against a Democrat.

[PatHMV]

Peter, McCain, unlike other Senators involved, was found not to have broken any laws or any of the Senate's ethics rules by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five affair. Moreover, Democratic attorney Bob Bennett, who led the investigation for the Senate committee, had recommended that McCain not be named in seeking a special counsel. The Democrats, anxious to have just 1 Republican included with the scandal, insisted that his name be included.

If the Ethics Committee had investigated, say, Obama's dealings with Tony Rezko and found him not to have committed wrong-doing, that would be comparable.

[RW Rogers]

LOL! As we can see here, some people have a difficult time dealing with facts and questions about those facts. Some would have you think they are smears. They prefer no one ask any legitimate questions so they accuse everyone indiscriminately of engaging in smears. Of course, these are the same people who smear anyone who asks a question a racist, so one has to consider the source. Yet one more example of the politics of personal destruction being carried to new lows by dishonest messengers of innuendo, rumor and intentional misrepresentation.

[RW Rogers]

"No consequences," Peter? Of course, there were consequences. McCain-Feingold is a direct consequence or did that escape your notice? It certainly didn't mine. What consequences did you have in mind? What consequences do you want imposed now, when you oppose the man, that you didn't think fair when you supported him? Everyone knew about the Keating scandal in 2000. Are you now reduced to pretending he broke the law and got away with it? Do you have any evidence at all that McCain should have been indicted but wasn't? Others were, Peter, so if his involvement rose to the level of an actual crime, you can be damned sure that a then inconsequential sitting US Senator from Arizona would have been considered a delightful trophy for a prosecutor and he would have been sitting in the dock. Unlike you, I'm glad I didn't support the bastard in 2000 and am not supporting him now so I don't find it necessary to rewrite history in order to validate my current opinion.

[Meade]

from Wikipedia:
[John] Glenn was one of the five U. S. Senators caught up with Lincoln Savings and the Keating Five Scandal after accepting a $200,000 contribution from Charles Keating. Glenn and Republican Senator John McCain were the only Senators exonerated. The Senate Commission found that Glenn had exercised "poor judgment." The association of his name with the scandal gave Republicans hope that he would be vulnerable in the 1992 campaign. Instead, Glenn handily defeated Lieutenant Governor R. Michael DeWine to keep his seat.

[Outis]

Unlike you, I'm glad I didn't support the bastard in 2000 and am not supporting him now so I don't find it necessary to rewrite history in order to validate my current opinion.

For the record, RW Rogers and I are NOT the same person! (I? Me? Whatever. Randy probably knows the difference.) Don't be fooled by similar levels of vitriol directed towards McCain.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

McCain was an active member of the Keating Five. He wasn't someone who worked with Keating some years after the scandal.

Who was cleared by the investigation. Along with John Glenn.

[Meade]

What I find revealing is the feckless use, by Obama supporters, of a poorly presented McCain/Keating history as an attempt to further obfuscate and defend Obama's continued lame deception of the true nature of his association with William Ayers, unrepentant former enemy combatant of the democratic nation Obama seeks to lead.

[RW Rogers]

LOL! Outis. LOL!

Charlie, facts are not allowed these days. It is all about feelings.

[Peter Hoh]

Well, then let's use the same standard for both men. If I have it correct, it only counts if he broke a law, was prosecuted, and found guilty. Ergo, McCain and Obama are both ethically pure.

One can operate within the law and still fail to exercise good judgment and sound ethics. I thought conservatives understood that.

In 2000, I was ready to believe that McCain learned something from his association with the Keating scandal. I no longer believe that to be true.

Randy and 9:52, when I referred to consequences, I meant consequences for McCain.

Melinda at 5:23, yes, of course that was a joke, but it's a racist joke, published in a local newspaper. Now I wonder if Randy will accuse me of unfairly raising accusations of racism.

Annie at 5:25, show me the prominent Democrat who retained (or attained) his position of prominence after he left his wife to marry the woman with whom he was having an affair.

Charlie at 11:01, are you willing to give Ted Kennedy a pass with regards to Chappaquiddick? After all, he was effectively cleared by the investigation.

Meade at 11:30, I don't think it's wrong to ask questions about Obama's relationship with Ayers. I'd like to know as much about Obama-Ayers as we know about McCain-Keating. And I'd like both put in perspective.

I happen to think that the Obama-Ayers connection is about as significant as the McCain-Keating connection. If you want to claim that one is a big deal, well, then the other is in play.

[RW Rogers]

No, Peter, I won't accuse you of racism. That's Michael's forte. I will accuse you of failing to comprehend the difference between something that happened a long time ago and for which the person involved was fully investigated, whose activities were made public, and who has accepted responsibility, and something that happened much more recently for which the person involved makes no explanation, attempts to hide the relationship and and refuses to publicly discuss the legitimate concerns of the citizens of the United States of America about their likely next leader. That you insist on equating the two defies logic.

[RW Rogers]

I happen to think that the Obama-Ayers connection is about as significant as the McCain-Keating connection. If you want to claim that one is a big deal, well, then the other is in play.

Works for me. Looking forward to the full public disclosure of all correspondence and telephone calls between Ayers and Obama over the years.

[RW Rogers]

And Peter, about those Democrats who left their wives, you can start with Ted Kennedy himself. There's always John Kerry. Then there's Chris Dodd. How about Jim Webb or Tom Carper? Washington Senator Maria Cantwell was "the other woman" in an infamous divorce case involving her payment of thousands in hush money.

[michael Reynolds]

I'm curious, Randy, what exactly is the statute of limitations for past associations? Do you have a specific number of years in mind, or is the answer, "whatever works best for the GOP."

Keating and Ayers are both in the past. When Ayers was a terrorist Obama was the same age as my youngest: 8. Whereas McCain's close association with Keating -- campaign contributions, corporate jet, beach house sleepovers -- all occurred when Keating was an active criminal.

And of course the reason McCain was "cleared" and Obama was not, is that McCain was accused of a crime, and Obama was not. Nothing Obama has done with Ayers is remotely criminal.

So, 'splain it to me, Randy, how is it that McCain's close money-exchanging history with an actively criminal Keating is hunky dory but Obama's less intimate relationship with a former criminal -- a man who's criminal past occurred when Obama was still playing with action figures -- is highly relevant?

[RW Rogers]

Oh, Michael, you can't really be such a twit. Did I say McCain's association with Keating was hunky-dory? Was McCain's association with Keating publicly investigated Michael? And Michael, you're pretending that when some of those things happened, McCain knew Keating was a criminal. That is just another one of your many lies you regularly engage in when confronted with the actual facts. Your candidate is doing everything possible to hide information about his association with an unrepentant terrorist who continues to espouse extremely left-wing views.

[RW Rogers]

Some of us just want the truth, Michael. You just want your candidate elected at any cost.

[PatHMV]

And unlike Sen. Obama and Ayers, Sen. McCain has never been unwilling to talk with the American people about his role in that mess and what he learned from it.

Sen. Obama, however, refuses to answer any significant questions about his connection with Ayers, tries to dismiss the subject entirely as inconsequential, and has, essentially, defended his willingness to work with Ayers to further the political causes of that domestic terrorist.

[Peter Hoh]

Randy, I'm asking not for divorced and remarried, but divorced and married to the person with whom they were having an affair at the time of their divorce.

I don't know the details about Webb or Carper. Carper doesn't strike me as nationally prominent.

Cantwell doesn't even come close to Giuliani/Gingrich/McCain territory.

[Peter Hoh]

McCain erred in keeping Palin sequestered for three weeks post-convention. She's his best asset, and he kept her back.

Now, when it's clear that he has failed to make a positive case for himself, he is launching a full-out negative campaign, whipping up anti-elite sentiments. This from someone who is a member of the elite.

Among other ironies, while Palin is bashing the media elite and the east coast elite, she's hanging with the elite elite -- Queen Noor, Rupert Murdoch, Henry Kissinger.

[amba]

At this point there's really nothing left to do but laugh.

[Melinda]

Here's something">http://www.borowitzreport.com/">something that cracked me up when I should be working:

Palin Blasts Obama's Ties to Weather Channel

[RW Rogers]

You're right, Amba.