Yesterday, Sarah Palin brought up the Obama-William Ayers connection , saying Obama was “palling around with terrorists.”  Then hours ago, Politico had a report about Obama’s return volley in the form of the Keating 5 scandal, which McCain was embroiled in some years ago.  Our own Michael ver der Galien discussed this development in another article.

Both are misleading at best.  But both are the types of things I thought I’d never see from both campaigns.  And thus, my support for them is lost.  On November 4th, my vote goes to Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr.

The gloves are off.

But what about Sarah Palin’s associations with the Alaska Independence Party?  Is her various levels of association with them not just as bad judgment?

The AIP’s website states as their goals a vote on one of the following options:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

These goals were laid out by party founded Joe Vogler, who once these said such provocative statements:

I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.

There were some reports earlier that Palin was once a member of the party, but this turned out to not be true.  Palin has always been a Republican since 1982.  However, there is one who can claim past membership: Todd Palin.  The First Gentleman was a member of the party from 1995-2002.  He then apparently become an Indpendent (go Todd!) until recently, when he registered as a Republican.

Then there are conflicting statements about Palin’s exact level of involvement with the party.  Some say she attended the 1994 and 2000 AIP conventions, though Palin says she never has.  Undisputed is her video address to the 2008 AIP convention, apparently in her capacity as Governor.

Now, obviously, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that she holds the secessionist views of the AIP.  But as with any other unknown association, it brings up more questions than answers, yes?  Wife to a former AIP member, and reportedly an attendant at two of their conventions?  Hmm…

What is it with the relative political newbies and their questionable associations?  I don’t see any history of possible radical associations in the histories of John McCain or Joe Biden.  Must be something about Gen X.  Says this Gen Yer.

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.

While George is turning up the heat on Iran, he’s also authorized attacks on Pakistan – a move that Bernard at Moon of Alabama reminds us is:

This is an open declaration of war against Pakistan.

The commander of Pakistan’s armed forces understood that and promises to fight back:

“The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan,” [Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani] said.

That grave sentence is the last one in the AP report.

Have the people of the United States understood what Bush is doing here?

He just started a war with a nuclear armed nation of some 170 million people….

General Kayani just announced layed down a marker: “The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost.”

It is time for people to understand what “all cost” includes. People may be more familiar with the term “all options are on the table.” That is, what I think, Kayani meant.

An open declaration of war on Pakistan?  Now, I’m not a foreign policy hawk like Michael and some of the other writers here on Poligazette, but it looks like Bush is finally doing something right: going after the people who killed Americans on Sept. 11, 2001!

To the point: Pakistan has let these people have a safe haven for far too long.  They’re clearly never going to do anything about them, so why not us?  Even the left’s darling Barack Obama has said raids into Pakistan are not off the table.  While he initially made a pretty strong statement for unilateral action no matter what, he later backed off a little, making a “last resort if they’re unable or unwilling” statement that seems to pretty much fall in line with the Bush administration.

The administration left it up to Pakistan for six years to go after militants and bin Laden, and they’ve done nothing.  It’s time for us to go in and take these people out, and for doing this Bush is right on track.

The ex-White House deputy chief of staff also said Obama is fair in suggesting that McCain is a longtime Washington insider — since McCain has been in Congress since 1982 — but went over the line in attacking the Republican candidate as out of touch because he doesn’t send e-mail or use a computer.

He also made mention of the “lipstick statement,” correctly noting that while it was meant for John McCain, or could be perceived as denigrating Sarah Palin.

On McCain:

Without specifying, Rove said McCain’s campaign has also gone “one step too far” in some of its ads by attributing to Obama some criticisms that don’t meet “the 100-percent-truth test.”

Rove said that the campaigns don’t have to tell 100 percent of the tale when trying to score points but they do have to be careful about claims that are flat out wrong.

That he wasn’t specific about where McCain went wrong is true.  You can see the transcript with Chris Wallace at this Politico article.  Yet, I think it’s quite clear what he means.  The “Education” and “Fact Check” ads were both huge news last week, and I went to factcheck.org to find the truth.  I also looked at some claims that Obama has made that are untrue.

Rove went on to give some suggestions as to what the campaigns should do to ensure they’re putting out factual ads:

There ought to be an adult who says, ‘Do we really need to go that far in this ad?  Don’t we make our point and won’t we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don’t include that one little last tweak in the ad?’

I think he makes a good point.  There definitely are ways to craft an ad that attacks your opponent on an issue without it coming back to bite you.  Basically, it means not taking quotes out of context.  That’s what happened in the “Fact Check” ad when they attributed words supposedly criticizing Obama that actually never referred to him at all.  Or in Obama’s “Fix the Economy” ad when he tried to portray McCain as out of touch of touch on the economy by using old and incomplete quotes.

What the campaigns really need are people who are researching the validity of what they’re saying in the ads.  Since, with the Internet age, debunking a claim is just a click or two away.

McCain

Education: First, an ad McCain released yesterday, entitled “Education.” The ad claims that Obama is undistinguished on education, and would like sex ed taught to kindergarteners.  Sounds bad, right?  However, it doesn’t tell the whole story.  As FactCheck says:

The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be “age-appropriate” for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.

And the crux of the ad?  Well, the bill wanted to teach them how to respond to pedophiles:

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape.

These accusation began back when Obama was running for the Senate against Alan Keyes.  They were repeated earlier this year by Mitt Romney, and then Obama said Romney supported the same policy, which is also untrue.

Fact Check: The newest ad from the McCain campaign quotes FactCheck themselves as saying that Obama’s attaks on Palin were “misleading” and “absolutely false.”  FactCheck did say these things, but not about Obama.  The FactCheck report (which I’ll get to later) is about an email being sent around by someone completely unconnected to the Obama campaign.  FactCheck:

Our article, posted two days earlier, debunked a number of false or misleading claims that have circulated in chain e-mails and Internet postings regarding Palin. There is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued. There is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a “racist,” or that he is proposing to tax water. The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown.

Obama

Never: Proving that two can play the “link them to bad guys” game, this Obama ad tries to link McCain to Jack Abramoff-connected Christian Coalition exec Ralph Reed.  The ad says McCain never called Reed to testify, and that Reed is now fundraising for McCain.  FactCheck says the fundraising thing is true, but misleading:

The ad says that Reed is “now raising money for McCain’s campaign.” That is true. The Hill newspaper reported that Reed sent out an e-mail to friends and associates urging them to contribute to McCain’s campaign and attend a fundraiser for him. But there isn’t any formal connection between McCain’s campaign and Reed’s activities. McCain flatly told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that, “I neither seek nor want his support.” Reed appears to have gotten the message. He didn’t even appear at the fundraiser he told friends to attend.

On not testifying and being part of the Abramoff scandal:

That’s all true, but what’s not said is that McCain’s report caused Reed political embarrassment, making public evidence that contradicted Reed’s claim that he hadn’t known that his lobbying activities among anti-gambling Christian activists had been paid for by casino-owning Indian tribes who wanted to suppress competition.

Basically, Reed drummed up anti-gambling sentiment amongst anti-gambling Christians to oppose operations that would have competed with Abramoff’s Native American clients (who got scammed, too).

Fix the Economy: In an ad from a few weeks ago, Obama uses old and out of context quotes to portray McCain as out of the loop on the economy:

The ad opens with video of McCain saying, “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession.”

Trouble is, McCain said this in January, and as part of a bigger explanation.  Says FactCheck:

McCain’s quote is followed by a clip of a man from Ohio saying, “I think we’re absolutely in a recession.” While that man and others shown in the ad are talking about economic conditions now, this quote from McCain and another in the ad are from seven months ago, a fact that may not be apparent to viewers if they miss the fine print.

Here’s more of what McCain said in January:

McCain, Jan. 10: … And by the way, I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America’s greatness lies ahead of us.

Another quote used portrays McCain as saying the economy is just peachy.  Not so fast!  McCain really said

I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.

Though he does think conditions are better overall, he says that times are tough right now.

So, excuse me while I sneeze.  I’m allergic to lying politicians, see?

Unrelated to McCain or Obama

• As noted above, FactCheck looked into some of the smears being spread about Sarah Palin.  They’re all either exaggerations or outright lies.
• And indisputable proof at last that Obama is a natural-born citizen.  They’ve seen, touched, and smelled the real thing.

The stories that have gone around largely involve Larry Kroon, the Senior Pastor at WBC.  The two passages I’ve noticed today were brought up by Max Blumenthal, who’s a left wing journalist and blogger.  I know right that’ll be enough for many people to disregard this entry, but hear me out.

Of the two passages, I think at least one is of no concern.

The first passage came from a sermon he gave on July 20th, where he makes the case the sin is “personal to God” and that when the time of ending comes, no person, state, or nation on Earth will be spared.  Here’s what Blumenthal chose to take out of the eight page sermon, “Sin is Personal to God“:

Kroon placed Zephaniah in a modern context, warning that the sinful habits of Americans would invite the wrath of God. “And if Zephaniah were here today,” Kroon bellowed, “he’d be saying, ‘Listen, [God] is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There’s no exceptions here — there’s none. It’s all.”

Sounds bad, doesn’t it?  Yet another conservative pastor saying America will pay for its acceptance of homosexuality and promiscuity, right?  Lets read the entire paragraph from the sermon (2/3 of the way down pg. 3):

He has to be emphatic at this point; he has to get specific at this point, because the people of Jerusalem had the prevailing attitude—and it’s stated in Zephaniah—that ‘God won’t do anything to us, good or bad.’ And what Zephaniah says—‘Listen, He is going to remove everyone from the earth. He is gonna deal with all the inhabitants; so, as a result, understand He is going to deal with you, Jerusalem and Judah. There’s no exceptions here.’ And if Zephaniah were here today he’d be saying, ‘Listen, He is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There’s no exceptions here—there’s none. It’s all.’

After the Reverend Wright debacle, I decided the best way to understand anyone’s pastor was to actually hear or read what they have to say.  Indeed, in any conversation or interview or speech, you must get things in context, because you can be sure the media - liberal, conservative, or otherwise - will take out the parts that sound the worst.

The passage is only a small part of an eight page, about 30 minute sermon that Kroon gives where he says that people cannot become complacent about waiting for the time of ending, even if that time isn’t right now.  He says that it will come, and people ought to be ready, and not stray from God.

Basically, Blumenthal took the passage out of context.  I read the entire sermon, and listened to it, and I see nothing of any concern there.

Where I do place my concern is in another sermon that Kroon had given the week before.  In it, he says that God may strike if people stray too far from him.  Specifically, he may decide to take down the nation by sending in another nation to do it.  He started with by going over another Old Testament book, Habakkuk, who remained loyal to God, even though God was sending the Babylonians to take down Israel.  After speaking of that historical time, Kroon set his sights and the U.S., and I thought he got pretty specific in what could happen.  Emphasis mine:

Ok. You’ve been patient with me. You walked through the book of Habakkuk, and you got to that final point, that crucial part of what I call a wet-water exit, when we say, ‘Ok, what are you gonna pull when everything’s upside down. What is it you’re gonna grasp?’

And my response is you go to God. You go heart-to-heart with Him. That’s important. I need you to grasp it, because when I look at the future of America, my hope, my prayer, my desire is it looks like this [shows the first slide with sun and everyone rafted together]. It really is. But I want you to be prepared. In fact, I have a pastoral responsibility to make sure you’re prepared if it goes like that [slide of upside-down kayak]; and it could. It could.

What if…right now, God chose to respond to our nation, God chose to respond to our moral slippage, our persistent moral slippage? In fact, let’s be more precise—our persistent moral rebellion. What if God chose to respond to our chronic greed, that we don’t even recognize as greed anymore? What if God responded to our pervasive, our pervasive personal and national pride? What if God chose to respond to our epidemic gluttony? In a starving world Americans are trying to figure out how to get thinner. What if God responded to our multiple addictions? What if God responded to our endless excuses? What if God responded to our persistent self-absorption? That in any circumstance and any situation we’ll say ‘me-first’, no matter what it does to our family, no matter what it does to our friends, no matter what it does to our community? And what if God chose to respond to our casual and careless worship? And yes, in America worship is casual and careless! What if God chose to respond to that by raising up a modern version of the Chaldeans? It’s possible.

It’s so very possible that God, instead of responding by granting spiritual renewal and sustained prosperity, He could just as easily…it’s conceivable that He could just as easily, for example, raise up a revived, prosperous and powerful Communist Russia with a web of alliances across the Middle East. And our gas pumps would go dry. The dollar would collapse. And the markets would crash. The kayak could go upside down. And it could happen in a matter of weeks. That could happen. It could happen by this fall.

And do not think that God has ever guaranteed it would not. And don’t think that God would not. If He was willing to raise up the Chaldeans in ancient Israel, He’s willing to go to any extreme. We could find ourselves living in a land of foreign investment like tenant farmers, begging for scraps off the table of some other new superpower’s prosperity. That could happen, and it could be God’s doing.

It could happen this fall?  Under what conditions?  I don’t know…perhaps if Barack Obama is elected President?

On initial review, it seems like the conservative version of “the chickens have come to roost” or rather “the chickens might come to roost under the certain conditions.”  I’ve will admit, it’s a passage that makes me ask questions.  Like, what else is Palin’s pastor saying about the United States?

Now, to be fair, maybe the use of “It could happen this fall” is mere coincidence.  Maybe, as in the first sermon I covered in this entry, is only using the United States as an example in a broader context.

But, at first glance, it doesn’t seem like that.  It doesn’t seem like that because of the second paragraph I quoted.  Kroon gets specific.  He talks about America as he sees it, a moral-less, greedy, “me-first” nation.  Then he says that God may respond to our current situation by bringing on an enemy force like that of the Babylonians.  A doomsday scenario is what he outlines.  And then says it could happen as early as this fall.

Why not the day after?  The week after?  Why must is be this fall?

So is this Sarah Palin’s Reverend Wright?  That’s for you to decide.  To all those who are screaming, “This is irrelevant,” I don’t think it is.  Obama’s pastor was rightfully scrutinized earlier this year.  Why not Palin’s?

Now, I don’t think a pastor necessarily defines a politician’s world views.  Just as Obama claims not to share Wright’s views, Palin may not share Kroon’s views.  She’s only been there for six years, after all.

Moreso, though, I think what it outlines is that you need context, and context is what we didn’t get with Reverend Wright.  Clearly, Kroon doesn’t always say things like the second passage, but sometimes he does.  That doesn’t make it the whole of his pastoral history, however.  But it does raise questions, and it rightfully should.

He said many things I agree with, and a lot of things I liked.  For example, energy.  While I think the Republicans are more right on it, that we need the smorgasbord of options developed, I still think they focus too much on drilling.  Yes, we need more domestic drilling.  The problem is that they emphasize it too much.  Drilling is not a magic wand that is going to end all of our energy problems for a while so that we can defer the other options to the next generation.  If you really are for everything, please show it.  The Democrats similarly have a problem with emphasizing too much on alternatives and completely ignoring oil.

I also liked his attacks against his own party.  Now, while the conventioneers were going wild, I think a lot were shaking their heads, because they don’t want to admit the party needs reform.  McCain realizes the problem and is calling his party on it. *cough*Barack Obama could take a few lessons from McCain on this.*cough*

Another place I think conservatives, or at least some conservatives, were shaking their heads, is education reforms.  McCain talked a lot about school choice, but largely framed it in terms of public school.  No talk of vouchers for private schools (though he has talked about them in the past) or homeschooling.  I know more than a few conservative bloggers are going to call him out on homeschooling.  I don’t really have an opinion one way or another on the issue.  I did public school and while it had problems, it largely worked for me.  If someone wants to homeschool children, more power to them.

There was a two second moment when he mentioned all about Sarah Palin’s executive experience.  So much for cringing whenever he hears someone mention it. He didn’t dwell on it, though, like some of his colleagues, which is probably a good thing.  I don’t think he wants people to start making the comparisons.

Finally, defense.  Here I’m a little disappointed.  Just as I’ve been disappointed with Barack Obama’s “4 more years of Bush” meme, I’m disappointed with the “he puts country second” meme.  But, it looks like this race will defined in those terms for the next two months.  And neither candidate should let the other just get away with saying these things.  They both have an excellent opportunity to say why what the other says is wrong.

On aesthetics, I liked the crowd surrounding McCain thing.  He does best at town hall meetings, so trying to make it more comfortable for him is only a good thing.  But, that screen!  His speech was in danger of the puke green screen that accompanied the first part of the speech.  The screen, while okay for when you’re at a huge convention hall, doesn’t work when aired on TV.  I think the Republicans got it after a while, sort of.  They changed to a less puke green screen, that, while still distracting somewhat, made it easier to focus on McCain.

I thought they had it down, until they changed to a screen with a flag to the right side, and sky blue on the rest!  It was just as distracting!  I highly expect Stephen Colbert to make a new green screen challenge tomorrow night or next week, where you can pick from your choice of green or blue chroma keying.

So, I think they speech was good, for a man who doesn’t usually do well with prepared speeches.  It was pretty exciting and all.  He had a tough act to follow with Gov. Palin.  Do I think he surpassed it?  No.  It could have been somewhat better.  The problem was that McCain spent a lot of time explaining things in great detail.  Now, explanation is a good thing, but dwelling on a subject for too long can make your audience lose attention.  Basically, he should have used this kind of stump speech at Saddleback, and that one here.

Yet, in the end, I think it was an okay end to the convention.