quote:

McCain finds his own radical friend

Steve Chapman

May 04, 2008

Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology--and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers--in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history--and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. . . . Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy--or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.

That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
Fair is fair. McCain loves G. Gordon Liddy! McCain loves Bush AND Nixon, the two most disapproved of presidents in modern history!

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
It's tough to tell where Steve's grumpy rants end and his failed attempts at sarcasm begin. So we'll just put aside that for now.

Grumpy?????
Hell, it's you lefties locked into chronic outrage mode.
Of course the Ayers thing is over the top.
Still the hard left thinks on some level the weatherundergound was cool.

Liddy's a cooler guy yhan Ayers anyway.
WSS



The Ayers thing has always been a joke, aimed right at people who can't tell it's a joke, and who never knew who Ayers was or what he did until they were told to get mad about it.

No one who devises this stuff is actually concerned about Obama's supposed "radical ties". They just know that there are plenty of people who you can make concerned very easily.

You can play the loose association game with anyone who has been in politics as long as McCain has, or even Obama. Easier than the Kevin Bacon game.

Doesn't mean you should fall for it.

quote:

It's tough to tell where Steve's grumpy rants end and his failed attempts at sarcasm begin.

Only for tiny minds clouded with hatred like yours.
Most everybody else gets it whether they agree or not.

WSS

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
The Ayers thing has always been a joke, aimed right at people who can't tell it's a joke, and who never knew who Ayers was or what he did until they were told to get mad about it.

No one who devises this stuff is actually concerned about Obama's supposed "radical ties". They just know that there are plenty of people who you can make concerned very easily.

You can play the loose association game with anyone who has been in politics as long as McCain has, or even Obama. Easier than the Kevin Bacon game.

Doesn't mean you should fall for it.

quote:

Heck Liberals won't spend 10 news cycles pretending they're pissed off about Hagee or Liddy because it's stupid and embarrassing to pretend that Hagee and Liddy have some sort of influence on McCain's thinking, or policy.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Someone tried to equate Wright and Geraldine Ferraro? I don't remember that. Does anyone remember that?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/20/fer...ng_to_compare_1.html

But yes, Steve. Everything and everyone is the same. They all do it equally. No qualitative distinctions to be made. Ever.

quote:

For those who are unaware, Liddy helped plan the Watergate break-in that would cost Nixon his presidency and landed Liddy a four-year jail sentence.

But Liddy's career of inflammatory statements and actions exceed his Watergate actions.

Liddy, on Vietnam:

quote:

"I wanted to bomb the Red River dykes [sic]. It would have drowned half the country and starved the other half. There would have been no way the Viet Cong could have operated if we had the will-power to do that."

Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF agents during a radio show:

quote:

"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."

Liddy, on the impact Adolf Hitler had on him as a child:

quote:

When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body."

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
He's not equating the two there, either. Oy. He even explains how they're different in that very quote.

You see, Steve, words have meaning. "Equate" means something different than simply making a comparison between two unlike things. Obama is comparing the response to Wright's statements with the response to Ferraro's. He's not saying what Wright said and what Ferraro said were the same thing.

We know what equate means.
Trying to make Wright sound OK because of the horrible racise Ferraro.
Or Clinton the Klansman.
Or Grandma.
Or Ayers and Liddy.
Or Wright and Hagee.
Why the hell else mention it?

Or take example two: I never said that "only the rich" pay capital gains taxes, as you allege. I said that most capital gains taxes are paid by the wealthy. Because they are. As in, that's a true statement. Most capital gains taxes are paid by the rich.

"Well, raising the CG rate sensibly would help in the sense that it should raise revenue in a time of deficit. So it's not without reason. And the vast majority of people who pay CG taxes are wealthy."

There's the quote.
Old buddy.

And to suggest that I said "only the rich" pay them is dishonest. And you do it because the only way you can argue these issues is to twist what I say, and then argue against that as if I said it. We've been through this many times before. You're the ad hominem king, and when you're not you're intellectually dishonest.

And yes, Al Gore recommended that we not make the Kyoto treaty law, which I mentioned in another post. Because that's also a fact. Are you suggesting that this isn't true either?

>>Heck: Well, it's clear that Steve isn't aware that Gore was not in favor of making Kyoto law. He called it "Al Gore's dumbass Kyoto scam". <<

I did call it Al Gore's dumbass Kyoto scam.
You prefer boondoggle??


http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/CCC-Endorsement-9-18-06.html

Along with more of his crackpot ideas. Yes? No? You buy that? Or not?


Now, which of these do you have a problem with? You're presenting them as false statements.

Care to back that up? Or are we going to get another, "That's okay, Heck, ol' buddy" routine, the way you always do when you get called on your bullshit?

Nah, the old buddy's sincere.
I'm not nearly as irate as your guys.

WSS

quote:

Yes, Steve, there's my quote. So you'll admit you were wrong? I didn't say "only the rich" pay capital gains taxes. I said "the vast majority of people who pay CG taxes are wealthy."

Your statement is false. My statement is true.

Care to admit you were wrong?