McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd

[Tom Wetmore]

...Obama is the most liberal Senator. He is the farthest to the Left of any candidate for President, bar none...

This part of your monotonous mantra (straight out of the McCain/Palin/RNC/FOXNoise playbook...) against Obama appears to be Republican monkey poo that isn't sticking to the wall:

"Nor has there been evident progress for the GOP campaign to label Obama as an extreme liberal: Fifty-five percent of voters see the Democrat as "about right" ideologically, and although 37 percent see him as "too liberal," that is about the same as it was in June. By contrast, the percentage seeing McCain as "too conservative" is up to 42 percent, higher than it was four months ago."

Obama Up By Ten Points

So give it up, it's not working! And the whole bogus socialist idea is just a more extremist variant of that impotent political tactic.

[Dr. Shane]

Obama is up an average of 6.8 points which is actually down a little from where he was on Friday but still comfortably ahead. See RealClearPolitics

[Tom Wetmore]

So Shane, how come you felt a need to correct in this topic the link headline of a 10% Obama lead with the downgraded average from RCP, but didn't feel a need to correct with an upgraded percentage Redwood's "Footsteps" posting of the FOXNoise poll number of a 5% lead?

I think your biased Red Republican underwear is showing again...

The 10 point lead of Obama wasn't the point of what I posted, but I am happy to highlight it anyway! Thanks for helping me draw attention to it one more time, Shane! TU

[Woody]

Obama's lead is slipping SO fast that Fox is just not able to keep up !!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...Obama is the most liberal Senator. He is the farthest to the Left of any candidate for President, bar none...

This part of your monotonous mantra (straight out of the McCain/Palin/RNC/FOXNoise playbook...) against Obama appears to be Republican monkey poo that isn't sticking to the wall:

"Nor has there been evident progress for the GOP campaign to label Obama as an extreme liberal: Fifty-five percent of voters see the Democrat as "about right" ideologically, and although 37 percent see him as "too liberal," that is about the same as it was in June. By contrast, the percentage seeing McCain as "too conservative" is up to 42 percent, higher than it was four months ago."

Obama Up By Ten Points

So give it up, it's not working! And the whole bogus socialist idea is just a more extremist variant of that impotent political tactic.

Which Senators have been more liberal and further to the Left than Obama during the time Obama has been in the Senate?

He is considered to the Left of Bernie Sanders, who identifies himself as a socialist and has run as such.

Obama personally campaigned for Raila Odinga, a Marxist and socialist in Kenya.

Senator Obama, on the basis of his voting alone, apart from his having campaigned for these men, is certainly very liberal. That cannot be denied. That is my point here.

It may not "work". America may want a very liberal president. That will be up to Americans. But Americans need to know just how liberal he is and what his positions are. That is really my only purpose: to tell the truth about Obama as I see it. And the truth is that he is very liberal.

[Woody]

John. I think your point is well taken by all honest observers. Obama is clearly the most liberal of all senators. He has voted for liberal causes more than any other senator and this has been documented.

[John317]

Here is a partial list of the Leftists, socialists, Marxist, etc., who have expressed support for Obama's candidacy:

Hamas

Hatem El-Hady

The New Black Panthers

William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn

FARC

Fidel Castro

Daniel Ortega

Hugo Chavez

Jodie Evans

Maria Isabel

Ali Abunimah (anti-Israeli activist)

Louis Farrakhan

ACORN

Carl Davidson

Sam Graham-Felsen (Marxist, Obama's Official Blogger on his website)

Father Michael Pfleger

Arab American Action Network

Moammar Qaddafi

Mike Klonsky

Marilyn Katz

Dr. Jamal al Barzinji

Dr. Khalid al-Mansour

My point in posting this list is that there is a reason why these people and groups support Obama, and that reason is that they recognize Obama's views are similar in some essential ways to theirs. Such a list needs to be considered when choosing who we want as our next president.

Sam Graham-Felsen, hired to run Obama's blog, writes about Noam Chomsky in a Marxist publications that openly calls for revolution against the American government. This is a Presidential candidate's choice to run the on-line portion of his campaign. That speaks volumes of his character and worldview.

The adults in the Obama campaign expect us to believe that a campaign staff filled with Marxists and radicals does not reflect the candidate.

[Dr. Shane]

So Shane, how come you felt a need to correct in this topic the link headline of a 10% Obama lead with the downgraded average from RCP, but didn't feel a need to correct with an upgraded percentage Redwood's "Footsteps" posting of the FOXNoise poll number of a 5% lead?

TU

I haven't read that thread yet. I just pop in and out of here during my breaks in the office. I might read that thread tonight depending on what's going on with the family.

[Neil D]

Which Senators have been more liberal and further to the Left than Obama during the time Obama has been in the Senate?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I have looked for this report, and can not find it to save my life. I have found where Raila claims a kinship ["cousin"'], I have found where Obama called on him to resolve some of the disputes and violence going on in Kenya regarding the recent elections over there. But to actually campaign for a socialist....no, not true...

See the following information:

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/0...the-true-story/

Quote:

The mainstream media has justified ignoring this story based on a “conspiracy theory” chain email (politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/465) making the rounds from some African missionaries. Politifact.com examined the email—which claims Obama gave $1MM to Odinga’s campaign—and declared it “a pants on fire”.

However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one (Codel Obama) (“Codel Obama” The Hill 9/7/2006) While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’), who was running for President. (“Senator Rebukes Kenya’s Corruption” Chicago Sun Times 8/29/2006) Because of his African heritage, Obama was treated as a virtual “Head of State” in Kenya While campaigning with Odinga, Obama was openly critical of governmental corruption under President Mibaki –usually a fair, if undiplomatic, criticism from an objective observer.

However, Kibaki’s government has been better than most—and Odinga has his own corruption issues.(

“Loud and Populist, But No Political Outsider” The Guardian 12/29/2007)

Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was considered so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06) And, “…we earlier thought he was mature in his assessment of Kenyan and African politics,” Mutua told AFP.”We forgive him because it is his first time in the Senate and he is yet to mature into understanding issues of foreign policy,” he said.”(“Obama’s Kenya Honeymoon Ends Abruptly After Graft Rebuke” 8/29/06) Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)

See above link for whole article and evidence.

Source of following article: http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/

Quote:

Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.

"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama's August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama's father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, "Barack Obama's father is my maternal uncle."

President Kibaki requested a meeting of all opposition leaders in early January in an effort to quell the violence. All agreed to attend except Mr. Odinga. A month later, Mr. Kibaki offered Mr. Odinga the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government, in return for an end to the attacks. Mr. Odinga was sworn in on April 17, 2008.

Mr. Obama's judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.

See video:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/odinga-and-obam.html

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama-...cid=VIDURVHOV07

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picke...nt-raila-odinga

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Which Senators have been more liberal and further to the Left than Obama during the time Obama has been in the Senate?

You source also has a habit of charging all democrates who run for president as "the most liberal with the most liberal voting record". It voted Kerry as the most liberal with the most liberal voting record. And yet, when one goes to the votes and looks them over, they are not liberal. They are common sense...I have given John sites to go look at that show Kerrys and Obamas and Sanders voting record. It takes a lot of work to go thru them, but it is there...

My basic point is beyond question, and that is that Obama is a very liberal Senator. I believe there is convincing evidence that he is a socialist in Democratic clothing.

But Americans need to know that Obama is a very liberal Senator.

If they know this and they still elect him, fine. But they need to know the truth.

[Woody]

Quote:

Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)

This is shameful. Is this the way Mr.Obama intends to conduct his international relations? Stickin his nose into the elections of other countries is not the way to do it.

Quote:

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama's August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.

Mr Obama's 'palling' around with Mr. Odinga .... is just another example of poor 'pallin' judgment. I know that McPalin would not show such poor judgment.

[Neil D]

See video:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/odinga-and-obam.html

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama-...cid=VIDURVHOV07

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picke...nt-raila-odinga

I've looked at these videos....I see nothing out of Barrack Obamas mouth saying anything that closely resembles " I support Raila Odinga and/or his political ambitions to rule Kenya", nor do I see first hand reports where Obama says to reportors, " We need Raila Odinga in office to stablize the goverment of Kenya."

Atlass video comes from a very bias source that is anti-Obama.

The AOL video is much clever in its railings against obama...It has actual footage of his visit and Obama with Raila Odinga, who Obama did met with. Interestingly enough, there is NO mainstream media that shows him verbally campaigning for Raila Odinga in the sense that Raila Odinga is the best man for the job of President of Kenya. It does have allegations....for which I can find no substantiation.

As for the Newbusters video, it is nothing more than a video rag put together by Newsbusters whose primary purpose is stated to "neutralizing liberal media bias"...

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

The question comes to mind "What if the media is not bias in it's reporting?" IOWs, what if the facts are damning to the republican cause? Is it really LIBERAL media bias?

I am sorry, John...but this evidence is showing that you are deliberately basing your reasoning on faulty evidence....I can not let you continue to say that Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist without defining the context and what Bernie means by "socialist". You brought it up and you have to make the definition from Bernies words. Which are not available, suprisingly. Frankly, Bernie, imo, was being self-effacing... And when you say that Obama is at least as socialist if not more so than Bernie, you are making claims that are not substanciated. That dishonesty.

Dishonesty will continue to show itself and it does in these videos that you have shown here. This is not right...

[John317]

Would it make any difference to you if Obama did campaign and support Raila Odinga?

There were people who were denying that Obama was the most liberal Senator, and then others who denied that he campaigned for two socialists. Then when it was proved that he was very liberal and that he campaigned for socialists, the response was, so what? Who cares?

Now you don't want to accept the evidence right before you nose. Sanders ran as a socialist. Maybe he got the name wrong. Maybe he's a moderate Democrat. Maybe he actually loves capitalism. You could be right.

Maybe Obama went over there to Kenya and people didn't understand Obama's English so they thought he was supporting Raila Odinga when he actually didn't care who won.

Could be. Looks like it, doesn't it.

[John317]

"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Barack Obama explained to Joe Wurzelbacher in Ohio earlier this week. But Joe the Plumber, as he has become known thanks to Wednesday night's presidential debate where his name was invoked no fewer than a half dozen times by both candidates, isn't buying it. And Wurzelbacher is right to be skeptical.

In an interview with CBS' Katie Couric after the debate, Wurzelbacher said he was worried that Obama would be the one deciding who was wealthy and, therefore, should be taxed more. Obama says only those earning more than $250,000 will see their taxes go up. But Wurzelbacher worries, "When's he going to decide that $100,000 is too much, you know? I mean, you're on a slippery slope here."

Wurzelbacher's fears are well founded. Obama was unable to name a single significant program that he would scale back when asked by debate moderate Bob Schieffer to do so. Obama will have to come up with the money to pay for some trillion dollars in new spending in his first term -- including what he calls a "tax cut" but which will really be a check from those who do pay taxes to low-income Americans who already don't pay any federal income taxes.

The wealthy already pay a hugely disproportionate share of all federal income taxes. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation using the latest IRS figures (for 2006), taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $153,542 and above made up the nation's top 5 percent of earners. But this top 5 percent paid nearly 60 percent of all the income taxes collected in 2006, while earning about 37 percent of AGI. For all the talk of middle-income earners paying most of the taxes, the facts suggest otherwise. Those in the 26-50 percentiles of AGI pay about 11 percent of taxes and earn 19 percent of income.

So when Barack Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth around," what he's really talking about is redistributing wealth through the tax system by forcing higher income earners not only to pay a disproportionate share of taxes but to fund cash transfers to those earning less. Sen. Obama's proposed tax plan includes provisions for what he calls refundable "tax credits" for low-income Americans, many of whom don't pay any federal income taxes. In other words, those who already pay no taxes would be sent a government check equal to the "credits" in Obama's plan, including 6.2 percent of income of those earning up to $8,100 and a refundable "credit" of 10 percent of mortgage interest paid by those who don't itemize.

Obviously some people think this is "fair." Obama told John McCain in the debate on Wednesday, "Well, I don't mind paying a little more." But Joe the Plumber might not feel quite the same way. As a small businessman, Wurzelbacher will likely take those earnings to invest in a bigger company -- that's what he told Obama he wanted to do when he asked his original question on the campaign trail.

By growing his business, Wurzelbacher is creating wealth. And by "redistributing wealth," as Obama wants the government to do, he's actually reducing overall wealth in the economy by taking away capital from those who can invest it efficiently in direct job creation. And the real irony is that if Obama is elected and succeeds in raising taxes on the top 5 percent, he's likely to collect less tax, not more, if history is a guide.

Obama says he wants to return roughly to the tax system in place during the Clinton years. But in 1994 (after Clinton raised the top tax rate in what was the largest tax increase in history), the top 5 percent of earners paid only 48 percent of all taxes, not today's 60 percent. Even after the boom years of the late 1990s, the wealthiest 5 percent were shouldering less of the tax burden than today's wealthy, about 55 percent. And the total revenues collected from them were less than today as well.

One of the great successes of America has been the realization of people like Joe the Plumber that one day they, too, could be "rich" if they worked hard, invested, and grew their own businesses. Now Sen. Obama and the Democrats want to replace that American Dream with a fantasy that wealth is static and must be redistributed in order to ensure fairness. If Sen. Obama's plan becomes reality, it could well turn into an economic nightmare by punishing the most productive in order to reward the least productive in our society. Spreading the wealth doesn't sound all that different from Karl Marx's famous dictum: From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

[Bravus]

Joe the PLumber doesn't have a business and doesn't provide any jobs. He works for someone else, and earns nowhere near enough to have to worry about this issue. If all the Republicans talking points are as substanceless as Joe the Plumber they're in even more trouble than I thought.

[John317]

I don't view Joe the Plumber as being important here.

Here are the parts that I would emphasize. The essential points are unaffected by who Joe the Plumber is and whether he's rich or poor:

1) Obama was unable to name a single significant program that he would scale back when asked by debate moderate Bob Schieffer to do so. Obama will have to come up with the money to pay for some trillion dollars in new spending in his first term -- including what he calls a "tax cut" but which will really be a check from those who do pay taxes to low-income Americans who already don't pay any federal income taxes.

So when Barack Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth around," what he's really talking about is redistributing wealth through the tax system by forcing higher income earners not only to pay a disproportionate share of taxes but to fund cash transfers to those earning less. Sen. Obama's proposed tax plan includes provisions for what he calls refundable "tax credits" for low-income Americans, many of whom don't pay any federal income taxes. In other words, those who already pay no taxes would be sent a government check equal to the "credits" in Obama's plan, including 6.2 percent of income of those earning up to $8,100 and a refundable "credit" of 10 percent of mortgage interest paid by those who don't itemize.

2) .... by "redistributing wealth," as Obama wants the government to do, he's actually reducing overall wealth in the economy by taking away capital from those who can invest it efficiently in direct job creation. And the real irony is that if Obama is elected and succeeds in raising taxes on the top 5 percent, he's likely to collect less tax, not more, if history is a guide.

Now Sen. Obama and the Democrats want to replace that American Dream with a fantasy that wealth is static and must be redistributed in order to ensure fairness. If Sen. Obama's plan becomes reality, it could well turn into an economic nightmare by punishing the most productive in order to reward the least productive in our society. Spreading the wealth doesn't sound all that different from Karl Marx's famous dictum: From each according to his ability to each according to his need.