The Case for an October Surprise Sooner Than Later
Earlier, our own Michael van der Galien wrote about the switch in the McCain campaign to attacks on Barack Obama’s character, judgement, and associations. In particular, he discussed Sarah Palin’s questioning of Obama’s past associations with domestic terrorist William Ayers.
I seriously hope that ‘questions’ are not all the McCain campaign has. How many staff members do they have on their campaign? Surely there are people looking for any and all facts with which to destroy Obama? And if there is something, I would think that releasing it sooner rather than later would be the proper thing to do.
I’m an Independent who wanted McCain to win the Republican nomination because he was the politican from that party I’ve generally liked the most, despite my quibbles with him on many issues. But if questions are all that his campaign has, every day they bring up these questions without any proof of their accusations makes my consideration for the McCain/Palin ticket lessen.
If there is proof of an inappropriate association, then where is it? If Obama really got a radical outlook under the wing of William Ayers, proof must be out there. Questions are not enough. If questions were all that was required to prove something, law enforcement would have a rather easier time closing murder cases. If questions were all that was required to prove something, scientists would be able to prove so much in a short amount of time. But questions should never be a substitute for proof, and until the McCain campaign can provide some proof of inappropriate associations (being on an education-related board is not an inappropriate association), then they are still questions.
But what to do with such proof? Well, I think it would be best to release it as soon as possible. Release it too late, and there is no time to analyze it. Worse, it could backfire, being seen as a desparate attempt to sway the vote just prior to election. Releasing such proof sooner rather than later lets voter verify that this is indeed the truth. And politicans should never treat their voters as dumb, because that too often backfires (how many times did Clinton win primaries after the ‘common consensus’ was that she was toast?).
Besides, a relationship with Ayers where Obama is shown as a radical in the same vein as Ayers would spell doom for the Obama campaign. He simply wouldn’t be able to recover from it. Not even a month out.
Now, the same things I said above are just as true of the Obama campaign. If there is anything they have, sooner rather than later is better.
I can’t speak for all Independents, but I don’t sit well with “we have something and it’s coming.” A few months ago, we waited and waited for the ‘whitey’ video. It never existed. Verifiable evidence is fact. Anything else is fear-mongering.
Michael, here are the facts:
1. Obama served on a board of an organization created by Ayers. Ayers was the ‘boss’ of it. Letters have been found between him and others about who to appoint, etc. (see No Quarter blog).
2. When Obama ran for office for the very first time, who helped him launch his career? Right - Ayers organized a fundraiser at his own home, attended by Obama of course, where all jolly Chicago radicals came together to support their man.
3. Obama sat in the church of Rev. Wright for 20 years - a man who hates America.
And there are more - those facts aren’t talked about nearly enough. They are facts. You don’t think that should be taken into consideration? Of course it should. It should be talked about. People have the right to know what kind of person Obama is and what kind of individuals he chooses to associate with.
As for ‘influenced’ his views? How can someone prove that? It’s not doable. What people can do is show which friends and allies Obama chooses, and let people draw their own conclusions from that - in this particular case I think that a majority will look at all the dirty connections and think ‘either he agrees with them or they own him. Either case, bad news.’
MvdG: I think you hurt the case by referring to No Quarters, because he was a pro-Hillary hack and some of what he posts is nonfactual. I liked to two blogs that have extensively followed the story in a meticulous manner in another thread: Steve Diamond’s Global Labor and Politics and Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute. Plus, in addition to the WSJ piece by Stanley Kurtz, he has a lot of stuff up at NRO.
Oh, and here’s how the Obama campaign reacted to Kurtz’ appearance on a Chicago radio talk show.
Gee, I can’t imagine why no one is getting the facts out about this.
And in return, the other side can point out all the lobbyists who supposedly "own" McCain. They can point out Rick Davis, a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie. That guy (I don’t remember his name now) who is on (but doesn’t lead) McCain’s transition committee who lobbied for Fannie and Freddie.
Them there are those who’d bring up Keating 5, even though McCain was cleared. But hey, he was involved in a big scandal a long time ago. Must be bad, right? The fact that most involved were Democrats be damned.
I’m all for questioning judgment and what has been done by a candidate. But to insinuate a radical connection like some have been doing for a while and for some reason the McCain campaign has begun to do now, at least without all the facts included, or without proof of a radical outlook, is fear mongering.
That’s how I see it.
Steve Schmitt and Gramm, two other associates that tie McCain to the absolute worst of the past eight years in the eyes of independents. Obama has flak too, good flak.
What is the gripe with Gramm, exactly? I keep hearing people cite the bill which bears his name that partially repealed Glass-Stegall, but this was a truly bipartisan bill (Bill Clinton says that he agreed with it and signed it willingly, not under duress, and that he agrees with current economists who say it has probably helped, not hurt, in the current crisis.)
Here’s the Factcheck.org debunking.
Is there something else that I’m not aware of?
That factcheck article pretty much set me straight. I honestly didn’t know they had widened the breadth of their investigations that much, but I don’t mind being proven wrong.
"Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship."
WaPo and Chicago Sun-Times are not left-wing, unless that definition has moved even further to the right…
Let’s not forget the Obama campaign’s attempts to use the power of government to bully and silence critics. On top of the "swarming" attempts to shout down critics, that is.
Is that the HopeChange® we’re looking for?
Kaspar: thanks for having the integrity to admit that the fact check set you straight.
As for WaPo and Chicago Sun-Times, they don’t have to be left wing overall to be in the tank for this particular candidate. WaPo hasn’t lost standards to the degree of NYT, but that’s not a high bar. I don’t know enough about Chicago press and haven’t read the Sun-Times enough to comment on that one.
Palin can’t dazzle anybody with brillance but she can sure baffle people with BS. I knew this was coming, just a boring eye roller. Gidget goes to Washington. Yawn
I’ve already placed blame in my mind at both Democrats and Republicans, but the FactCheck article makes it all the more clear. Thanks Christine.
And the narrative on media coverage seems to be that Obama strong arms those who’d say anything bad about him while McCain ignores and demonizes those who’d say anything bad about him.
A third party vote is looking easier and easier to make…
I find it rather amusing to read these essays put by Michael Galien which invite opinion and other perspectives. He is often clear, articulate and his pov is clearly conservative. Which is fine, but from my perspective with his pov on this issue as with many issues the extreme conservative pov comes out again. When I read any essay, pov or whatever I automatically look for that flow and any diviation from flow can illustrate a person’s true nature and intent.
In that context, in the article about October Surprise to be another desperate fishing expedition. The conservative right doesn’t have anything conclusive, but will nonetheless go to an extreme to find something that will stick to Obama.
I have my disagreements with Obama, but in many cases they are a also a reflection of the larger society. Not enough time or space here for sure, so I’ll finish with this counter to your article. I refer to a diviation to flow of M. Galien’s article in which he says and I quote; Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years, a man who hates America. Sometimes I find it helpful to look at what is behind another’s pov. Here Michael Galien uses a charged expression and I am supposed to assume that his pov is somehow credible and worthy of establishing a forum on various subjects. The truth is of course he can. He can put any pov no matter racist or hateful and allow people to respond.
I have heard that same statement " a man who hates America" ever since 911. And anyone who spoke up and criticized this government for any of its numerous failures was attacked and ridiculed for hating America. So I categorically reject that statement, because it comes from ignorance. He who attacks another by saying that other person hates America has alot of hate in himself. These kind of attacks accomplish nothing except to further divide people.
I admit to being a bit of hippocrite myself with this diatribe, but sometimes I feel quite irritated by the conservative attitude in this country because it is often laced with ignorance and hate. McCain would be similar to some of the worst excesses of the Bush era.
Did you notice in the first debate how even though he may have responded decisively his facts were sometimes wrong. Sure Obama was wrong too, but Obama understands nuance and we really need in this government is a president who understands nuance very unlike the catastrophe that has been the Bush Reign. Enough said.
Are you responding to Michael’s comment or this article? I wrote the article, not him.