Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Family last: The British press finds Barack Obama's aunt and uncle
It took the respectable British press to do what the entire American media -- even the evil Fox News -- could not do. The Times of London has actually located Barack Obama's Kenyan-American aunt and uncle. In Boston. Massachusetts. The story reflects so poorly on Barack Obama that if you saw it on a no-name righty blog you would write it off as libel:
Barack Obama has lived one version of the American Dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.
Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.
A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.
Is Obama deliberately ignoring the condition of his aunt and uncle, or are we supposed to believe that the assembled research capabilities of the first billion dollar presidential campaign could not have located them?
This is the best part:
Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city.
Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Ms Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the “Auntie Zeituni” in Mr Obama’s memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”
Apparently Aunt Zeituni's location was fully available to anybody doing even a superficial review of the contributions made to Obama's presidential campaign. Oh. Wait a minute...
This story is eerily reminiscent of the moment back in December 2007 when Obama seemed to brag that his grandmother lived in a "hut" back in Kenya. The press ate it up, but he dropped that talking point after conservative bloggers wondered why he had not helped the poor woman pay for a better house. Call me a bonehead, but we are beginning to see a pattern here. Indeed, I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family.
MORE: In response to various comments that defend Barack Obama on various grounds, I wrote a responsive comment that I liked enough to move into an update:
To those commenters taking the other side:
1. I completely agree that one is not responsible for the financial well-being of every relative.
2. I further agree that if one happens to have a lot of relatives from a poor country, be it Kenya or, for that matter, half of Europe circa 1945, it is unreasonable to demand that one locate them and ensure the well-beinng of all of them.
So I do not condemn Obama for deciding not to help his African relatives in the abstract.
But...
3. He has used these people -- his grandmother, his aunt and uncle, and so forth -- as props in his political narrative. He wants us to measure him in part by his relationship to these Kenyans, but -- and here is the harsh part -- only as that relationship is described by him. What if his characterization of that relationship is misleading? What if it turns out that while he is delighted to cite these people as evidence of his humble beginnings -- that is what I mean by using them as props -- he is not so delighted to consider them as part of his family? Is that not at least a potentially useful insight into the character of this man about whom we know so little?
50 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Oct 29, 10:29:00 PM:
He wants to spread your wealth around, but his own actions demonstrate that he doesn't really want to spread his wealth around. Now, of course, being shamed and reminded, he'll take good care of her, and put her on display as living proof of his generosity and good nature.
This election is really testing my lifelong faith in the good instincts of the American people.
By , at
Wed Oct 29, 10:48:00 PM:
Keep fighting! Start plastering your pro McCain/Palin statements in online newspapers in swing states especially. Go. Now. http://www.50states.com/news
By , at
Wed Oct 29, 10:50:00 PM:
This election is really testing my lifelong faith in the good instincts of the American people.
I know. I read the other day that one of Cindy McCain's half-sisters died penniless. Heck, I didn't even know she had siblings!Her bio claims she's an only child. Guess she didn't want to share daddy's multi-million dollar estate.
By , at
Wed Oct 29, 10:57:00 PM:
And what about George Obama?
Vilmos
By 
TigerHawk, at
Wed Oct 29, 11:08:00 PM:
Cindy McCain wrote a book about her family and claimed she loved them and used them as props in her political career, but lets them live in poverty anyway? I did not know that.
By , at
Wed Oct 29, 11:10:00 PM:
Last I heard Cindy McCain is not running for office. Furthermore, her kindness and compassion for the less fortunate are deep, well known and genuine.
What is shaking my faith in the good instincts of the American people is not The One's contradictions, but that so many seem so utterly fooled by his fraud.
By , at
Wed Oct 29, 11:22:00 PM:
Obama went to college around Boston, correct.
Maybe he should have spent less time in William Ayers' apartment a couple of houses down and not been only looking for black nationalist, marxist professors and fellow communist, then he might have discovered his aunt and uncle.
The "Chicago Dope" strikes again.
By , at
Wed Oct 29, 11:30:00 PM:
I'm sorry, but if the aunt is supporting his campaign and praying for him, she doesn't sound like she harbors any ill will.
Who, exactly, are we (and you) to judge?
And the uncle was a victim of a crime and has had financial problems. Have none of your family members had problems that you didn't know about or that they wouldn't have wanted you to help them with for reasons of pride, autonomy, privacy, whatever?
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Oct 30, 12:04:00 AM:
His lack of support for his family (the aunt and uncle in Boston, the grandmother in the hut and the half-brother in the shack in Kenya) clearly illustrates his belief system: he believes it is not the responsibility of the individual to come to the aid of the less fortunate, but the job of government. I think that belief system can be seen the analysis of charitable donations of Republicans and Democrats. Republicans, on average, donate far more than Democrats. Again, I believe this relates directly to who the two groups think should help the poor: one group sees it as an individual responsibility and another sees it as a governmental one.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 12:20:00 AM:
SOOOO obama says give me your taxes so i can give to the needy and yet he doesnt give to his needy family members. oh wait...thats what our taxes are supposed to pay for...his oversights in NOT helping needy family & relatives.
....and whats with the B.S. comments about his needy relatives dont sound mad....WELL WHY SHOULD THEY WHEN OBAMA WILL GIVE THEM ALL THE MONEY THEY NEED IF THEY KEEP THEIR BIG MOUTHS SHUT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.
oh please. this is just another example of obama needing the government to help his relatives when he has chosen not to.
instead of peopel voluntarily helping relatives, obama wants to use the government as a "charitable" insitution in order to hide his marxist state.
what a cold heartless inhumane unpatriotic and uncharitable individual.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 04:09:00 AM:
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Oct 30, 06:33:00 AM:
To those commenters taking the other side:
1. I completely agree that one is not responsible for the financial well being of every relative.
2. I further agree that if one happens to have a lot of relatives from a poor country, be it Kenya or, for that matter, half of Europe circa 1945, it is unreasonable to demand that one locate them and ensure the well-beinng of all of them.
So I do not condemn Obama for deciding not to help his African relatives in the abstract.
But...
3. He has used these people -- his grandmother, his aunt and uncle, and so forth -- as props in his political narrative. He wants us to measure him in part by his relationship to these Kenyans, but -- and here is the harsh part -- only as that relationship is described by him. What if his characterization of that relationship is misleading? What if it turns out that while he is delighted to cite these people as evidence of his humble beginnings -- that is what I mean by using them as props -- he is not so delighted to consider them as part of his family? Is that not at least a potentially useful insight into the character of this man about whom we know so little?
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 07:28:00 AM:
Just recently, Obama said of his grandmother in Hawaii:
“Most people understand that if you are not caring for your family, then you are probably not the kind of person who is going to be caring for other people.”
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 08:13:00 AM:
I would be on the side of this saying that Obama has done nothing wrong here. However, it still makes him a hypocrite. You would think that he would start with his own family for his beliefs and schemes.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 08:26:00 AM:
Has everyone missed what I think is the most important part of this article. She(Obama's Aunt) has said she can't talk about anything until AFTER the 4th. So appearantly, Obama, or someone from his campaign, has spoken to her, and has asked her not to talk to anyone. Wonder what info she might have??????
By AntiCitizenOne, at
Thu Oct 30, 08:37:00 AM:
> Indeed, I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family.
You're both wrong. The primary responsibility is to one's self to ensure you do not get into a situation that requires others to be made worse off for your benefit.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 08:38:00 AM:
Like others, I think this is just one more example of the Obama's belief in government as the solution rather than the individual as the solution. Obama, like others who believe that government should fix all social ills, looks at his relatives and views it as a failure of government. Those of us who believe in the individual responsibility look at it and see it as a failure of individuals.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 08:49:00 AM:
Great article. Regardless of the comments on here defending Obama, the bottom line is he is preaching about hope and change and unity and spreading YOUR wealth (income) around that makes this situation a big hypocrisy on his part. Practice what you preach to others. As for Cindy McCain,she is not running for office and has not preached to anyone about the gov't taking even more of your money.
Obama is a tool of leftist money, with a slick image with nothing behind it.
By Jeff Faria, at
Thu Oct 30, 08:55:00 AM:
" I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family."
So, charity begins at home, eh? I'm sure Jeremiah Wright must have said that at SOME point (in between America-bashing rants) during the many years Obama was in that church. But then again, Obama says he never heard a word Wright said, so...
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 09:04:00 AM:
From what I understand, his grandmother was the VP of a Bank and the leading female banker in the State of Hawaii (that's how he went to the most expensive prep school). I also understand that Obama has NEVER mentioned this fact in any book, speech or interview. H
By Colin, at
Thu Oct 30, 09:18:00 AM:
Obama likes to quote sad anecdotes about the struggles of Americans in his speeches, but it is apparent he could have been talking about his own family. Remember, liberals don't believe in charity and civil society, they believe in government:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
And Obama, being a good liberal, only started donating to charity in any significant amounts when he began entertaining thoughts of the White House:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
Furthermore, once he started giving, a lot of it went to none other than, drumroll please, Jeremiah Wright:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html
Just imagine if this was McCain, the greedy Republican who wanted to give more tax cuts to the rich. You think the attention this story has received would be a bit more?
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 09:23:00 AM:
Since we're slumming down here in Judgement Land...
What was all this I heard about McCain leaving his first wife who was suffering serious medical issues from a car wreck because she wasn't hot enough for him anymore...
Can we bring that up, or is judging peoples family lives only something available to the moral elite section of the Republican party.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 10:06:00 AM:
Sure Catchy, and McCain himself has said he is not proud of that aspect of his life. He admitted his own failure in his first marriage and has taken responsibility for it.
His first wife has forgiven him long ago, and has endorsed him for president. So yeah, let's talk about that some more.
****************
Obama is a puzzle to be sure. I think he suffers from some of the typical (not all) symptoms of a narcissist, mainly because of the abandoment by his biological father, and his own mother's haphazard efforts at raising him. He told his schoolmates in Indonesia that he was the son of an African prince. He created a persona for himself to project on the outside world. Go figure.
He craves the attention and the approval of the crowd, but I think he lacks a little in empathy, as is shown by his distance from an aunt and uncle who could surely use a little help, not to mention his half-brother George who lives in abject poverty in Kenya.
His half - brother, not some distaff cousin or absent aunt. And his net worth is well over a million dollars.
He is not a monster or weirdo, but an intelligent man with some troubling psychological aspects to his personality that makes one wonder how he will behave under a lot of stress and especially public criticism. He is auditioning for about the most stressful job in the world.
-David
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 10:08:00 AM:
Also posted on Krumm --
Tigerhawk might be on to something.
Does Obama hang with anyone who is inconvenient for him once the word gets out?
He's a people user. Ask Alice Palmer. (But she can't really talk until after the election either -- after all he's a Democrat and she has to wave his flag from under the bus.)
Of course we have only his description of the relationships!
Well, that's what good reporting is for. Not to destroy everyone's pet narrative and family story -- not just anyone who makes it to Oprah's favorite book list (and she's picked some winning liars, hasn't she)? -- but to check out those who want us to chose them to be POTUS.
It gets complicated when the narrative of the press and the reporting the people are looking for are at cross purposes.
Is he responsible for every relative? Of course not. But the wealth and influence he and Michelle have should be good for some trickle down benefit for relatives he has identified for his benefit.
Of course if he gave her something to boost her standard of living, it would affect her financially and she then would not longer qualify for some / all of the assistance she is getting from the people of Massachusetts and the Federal government and the rest of America's rich working stiffs. So he'd be assisting to his own detriment. ..
"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8
I'm just sayin'.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 10:13:00 AM:
I would be on the side of this saying that Obama has done nothing wrong here.
He also hasn't done anything right here.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 10:21:00 AM:
You could bring it up, but McCain brought it up before you thought about it. He wrote about it in Faith of My Fathers. He has called it "my greatest moral failing."
So sure bring it up. There is a lesson to be learned about John McCain in doing so. It is that he feels we are entitled to know who he is, where he came from and what he believes. He clearly has made some regrettable moves in his life. His sudden rediscovery of freedom after 5 years in a shit pit wasn't totally graceful and it hurt others.
Still, I feel that with McCain I can see the man well enough to know what his values are, that they are good, that he is honest about them, and that he will fight for them.
He is not a perfect man and does not pretend to be. He has not lived life in the abstract. This is a man of large abilities who has seen his limits.
His is a suitable character for POTUS.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 10:27:00 AM:
You're missing the point entirely- it's precisely because he desperately wants to help his aunt and uncle so much that Obama is running for President! Private charity hasn't been forthcoming. Only the government can help.
By JorgXMcKie, at
Thu Oct 30, 10:40:00 AM:
Boy are you in trouble. Criticizing Teh One will get you in trouble. You'll probably have *all* your files rifled through by local Democratic govt officials *and* the IRS when Teh One becomes President.
I also notice a few here not noticing that a good deal of McCain family bashing has been done by the MSM but they strenuously object to even bloggers doing the same to Teh One.
What hypocrites.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 10:47:00 AM:
re David at 10:06
There is some odd stuff going on in Obama's head. I haven't read his books -- just the excerpts and odd facts here and there (I do not know if I could sit through them. I can hardly handle listening to him speak -- there's something odd about it.)
So this is with a grain of salt here -- but I am a licensed professional mental health provider.
Most of us fit somewhere on the continuum of personality disorders, mood disorders and the like.
His "opaqueness" (NYT) and detachment are curious. His ability to spread that wide smile is certainly delightful. But his dissonance is really troubling.
He does a nuanced chameleon thing. (He's far more "nuanced" than John Kerry was, even sleeping.)
He says what one audience wants to hear, reverses himself with soft language, and then blames the listener / checker for noticing. ("I have consistently yada yadya... [insert lie] "I have clearly bla bla bla ...[insert lie])
It's a neat trick I have seen people do -- usually men, usually to their wives. And it doesn't matter what the explanation is for whatever, it's always acceptable, even if it is completely bizarre. It is an answer. That's all the script requires. The script also requires that the hearer accept it because it is an answer, not because of its content.
It requires that the audience play the game. Because of unique circumstances, some innate quality, the people around Obama are impressed by what they do not hear, so they play the game (Lawrence Tribe comes to mind).
I too wonder if he is elected how he will do. There is something "off" in Obama.
Let's face it -- he had a totally bizarre childhood. His mother -- well never mind his mother....
Anyway -- I do not think it has occurred to Barack Obama, that, in spite of Berlin, the whole world is not going to play his game.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 11:06:00 AM:
This just strikes me as another meanspirited way to bash Obama because that is the agenda.
Let's take TH's "point 3" in his comment above.
Can you honestly say, if Obama had sent checks to every extended family member positively portrayed in his personal narrative that you would not now be analyzing the form or motivation behind that "help" or its perceived sufficiency (or maybe its profligacy . . . depending on how the money was spent)?
To be frank, it is very hard for someone who has a demanding job like Obama to truly "help" others around him (even his immediate family) because the time constraints are so great. His job as a "community organizer," roundly pilloried by the right as not sufficiently serious a pursuit actually put him in a position to, well, help people.
Helping professions --and unpaid/volunteer pursuits (including parenting)-- are not highly valued in our society, in part because they are not highly remunerated. This is one of the many reasons that we can't merely judge people's worth by their paychecks.
This is also the reason that pursuit of more money, at the expense of all else, is not the highest good after all.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 11:10:00 AM:
A lot of armchair psychology going on here. It's fascinating. I never knew you guys were so in tune with people's psychological make-up. A group of Republican Dr. Phils.
Yes, it's true, Obama has ignored the suffering of his family, hidden his secret muslim/socialist/commie agenda so that he can give the middle class tax breaks... uh... I mean 'spread the wealth' and finally, blessed Finally, destroy America... praise Allah!
I see you guys have broken through here and discovered that everything Obama does has nefarious and destructive intentions. Therefore your phones must be tapped, email monitored, guns taken away by the newly created Obama Hippie Socialist Army.
It's time to uulate the Obama warning signal to alert my muslim-facist-socialist-deatheater breathren... LALALALALALALALA!
There on to us! LALALALALALALALA!
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 11:17:00 AM:
Muddying the issue with specualtion about psychology, or his true political beliefs, misses the point entirely.
Obama talks constantly in a moralistic tone about helping those who need help. It's the very basis of his life and campaign, according to him.
Yet, here, in one captured moment, it's clear he is lying. Humanism is a guise. Doesn't this bother you at all?
To the Obama supporters: Is there any aspect of his character that you find disquieting or hypocritical? Anything at all?
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 30, 11:30:00 AM:
He wants to use the instruments of state to 'spread the wealth around,' ostensibly to help the poor.
He is yet unwilling to do the same in his personal life, for his own family.
Typical political hypocrisy. *shrugs*
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 11:34:00 AM:
"Is there any aspect of his character that you find disquieting or hypocritical? Anything at all?"
I find him to be a politician, like McCain... like any politician. I see his faults/hypocrisy/pandering just as I see McCain's faults/hypocrisy/pandering.
I agree with Obama's stance on issues more than I agree with McCain. That's why I'm voting for him... well that and I think his selection of Palin is god awful.
I view this 'socialist/muslim/terrorist' debate as desperation and a campaign of destruction of character by the Republicans to win an election. I don't believe it and I have a feeling that many many other people don't believe it either. We'll find out on elections night.
So know, there's nothing here that causes me concern. That's why I mock it.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 11:47:00 AM:
Obama at the SaddleBack Church debate: “I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”
Using family members as props in Obama’s book and citing the Bible to build his narrative is standard politics. However he has clearly sought to elevate his moral status to a point where he can rightly be expected to set an example. I agree with TH that Obama’s failure to live up to his narrative is a useful insight into the character of the man.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 11:56:00 AM:
Catchy has caught the exact problem: Obama voters have decided to look past all of Obama's faults. Tax increases and increased protectionism going into a terrible recession. LALALA. Political opacity, bordering on disingenuity: LALALA. Corrupt campaign practices on a scale never before seen: LALALA. Thuggish legal actions: LALALA. Corrupt voter fraud: LALALA.
Nothing will convince some folks. Nothing at all. Weirdness.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 12:13:00 PM:
No Anonymous 11:56...
Just because I don't believe the constant barrage of attacks coming from Republicans, doesn't make me a blind follower. You missed the point of my last comment.
If you're so open, how come you can't even see the complete negativity being broadcasted by McCain, the lies, distortions, fear being broadcasted from your side.
So I LALALAaugh my ass off at the way you folks whip yourselves up into a little frenzy with every bit of propaganda fed to you by McCain Inc.
I know you believe it all. I don't. Doesn't make me a sheep. Your eagerness to buy the hype from McCain however is pretty suspect.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 12:30:00 PM:
Catchy, McCain hasn't broadcast this stuff, until perhaps this last week. He's hardly said much at all during the campaign, expecting his obvious virtues to carry the day. Lower spending and contained taxes, a strong defense, campaign finance reform, and a bipartisan approach to the environment and immigration have been the bulk of his platform. Some things I agree with and some I'm not so comfortable with, but at least I've considered his virtues and his faults.
You are a sheep. You yourself said you want to ignore any criticisms of Obama, figuring they are GOP inventions or perversions of the truth. Nothing more than mind-control manipulation. THis is frightening in it's slavishness.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 30, 01:04:00 PM:
"Just because I don't believe the constant barrage of attacks coming from Republicans, doesn't make me a blind follower."
Even though some of them are true?
Yes it does.
Voting for Obama because his politics match your own is fine. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work.
But simply ignoring legitimate (and serious, and factual) criticism because you already made up your mind *does* make you a blind follower. Labeling them all as "lies, distortions, [and] fear" is simply an excuse to not have to take any of it seriously, a license to tune them out.
By Escort81, at
Thu Oct 30, 01:10:00 PM:
Perhaps after Obama leaves office and pockets his first $100,000,000 (like the Clintons did after leaving office), everyone in his extended family will be treated to a new house and a new hybrid car.
I am not sure what to make of this. Everyone in my nuclear family has helped out relatives in our extended family, financially and otherwise, even those we didn't know well or didn't particularly like -- including those behind (while it still existed) the Iron Curtain. That's just what you do, at least that's how I was brought up. Maybe it is different in other families or other cultures.
In fairness to Sen. Obama, he really has only had significant liquidity since "Audacity" became a best seller, and he declared for his POTUS run shortly after that, so he had a fairly narrow window of time to send money to various relatives before someone could then claim that he was "buying off his relatives to keep them quiet" during his run. But you have to step up and do the right thing even under that circumstance.
It is interesting how many heads of state have limited or dysfunctional relationships with their fathers (Churchill, perhaps the most towering politcal figure of the 20th Century, had a father who barely spoke to him and died of VD; Clinton is, well, Clinton; and the Dowd / Oliver Stone take on W and his father is well known, though, really, who knows). The bottom line is that all true national politicians lie to some extent, regardless of their personalities or parental relationships. The dangerous ones, though, actually believe what they are saying when they are saying it. As George Costanza said, "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 01:54:00 PM:
It's called disagreeing with you. I don't ignore. I don't agree. Different.
By the way, they filmed some of you guys at a McCain rally.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=791_1225370495
Classy people you got on your team.
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 02:24:00 PM:
Will Obama agree to his relatives being deported if they are here illegally?
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 30, 02:39:00 PM:
"It's called disagreeing with you. I don't ignore. I don't agree. Different."
Oh, so not 'agreeing' with facts is not stubborn or unhinged or blind... merely different.
I hope you remember this the next time you get involved in a discussion about creationism.
"Classy people you got on your team."
Guilt by association, hmm? I don't think you really want to play this game. (Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Khalidi, Rezko, 'General Betray Us,' Recreate '68, et cetera) Or is it only ok when you do it?
You like to consider yourself an intelligent, reasonable, and fair person. Try to act like one. The bar is a little higher than, "I don't have to listen to you! You guys lie! Your team is evil! Nyah!"
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 03:06:00 PM:
First of all your facts aren't facts. That's the hole in the basis for you entire last comment. You're framing this debate as if 1. You're right. 2. I'm just too stubborn to listen to how right you are.
No, I don't agree with your perception of the facts.
Take Bill Ayers. They knew each other - yes Fact. What that fact implies is that they knew each other... that's it. Your "fact" is that Obama pals around with terrorists because he knew Bill Ayers. That's not true. How about the republicans that dealt with Bill Ayers and education? How come they're not considered paling around with terrorists too?
And yes, your party if rife with racists who soak up all these weak "facts" and run with it. Just like the "fact" that Obama is a muslim when it's been overwhelming disproven.
I don't consider myself anything, but don't try to tell me that because I don't agree with you and your take on the "facts" that I'm unhinged or blind. That's weak argument.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 30, 03:27:00 PM:
Anonymous 12:30
"McCain hasn't broadcast this stuff..."
"He's hardly said much at all during the campaign, expecting his obvious virtues to carry the day"
Good lord! Have you been watching the same campaign as everyone else. You do know that McCain doesn't actually have to physically say things, people say them for him like Palin, his campaign advisors, and political groups. They all have been overwhelmingly negative.
"Some things I agree with and some I'm not so comfortable with, but at least I've considered his virtues and his faults"
That's what I've done with Obama and McCain, like I said in my posts before. You chose McCain. I chose Obama.
And the sheep thing is silly. That argument is a Republican Wall. A talking point that no amount of reason and logic can get over.
I don't blindly follow any man.
By Jum, at
Thu Oct 30, 03:38:00 PM:
Are you really surprised that Obama has no concept of what a family is, or the responsibilities of family one to another?
By davod, at
Thu Oct 30, 05:19:00 PM:
"Perhaps after Obama leaves office and pockets his first $100,000,000 (like the Clintons did after leaving office), everyone in his extended family will be treated to a new house and a new hybrid car."
I think you are being a little pesimistic wrt to Obama's first $100,000,000. From the way his campaign is operating it is quite likely he and his accolytes in government will have made their money well before he leaves office.
By Escort81, at
Thu Oct 30, 06:07:00 PM:
Good one, Davod.
But wouldn't that undermine the "share the wealth message?"
Maybe he meant "share it with me."
By , at
Thu Oct 30, 07:41:00 PM:
Obama.
He will take care of us like family.
Remember that McCain had unfavorable coverage and was critized by Obama because he had bought houses for members of his family to live in?
By , at
Fri Oct 31, 11:32:00 AM:
Catchy, your last post is unreasoning and blind; you're left describing views opposite to your own as "silly", without even thinking seriously about them. While claiming you've thought hard about Obama's own "positives and negatives", you yourself describe any negative raised as mere GOP scaremongering or attempted manipulation.
There's no way to get through to you I suppose. All the talk of Obama' ruinous tax policies, his radical ideas for naive foreign policy changes (if the French President describes them thusly does that make him a Republican scaremonger?), Obama's arrogant views toward American ownership of NAFTA and other treaties ("I will change NAFTA unilaterally"), Obama's views of the Constitution as terribly deficient in "positive rights" along with the derivative belief he must hold in the State as the font of all wisdom and right, and his sad devotion to revolutionary thought generally, none of this bothers you? All of it is just scare mongering, is it? You, and voters like you, astound me.
