Real facts on Obama 2001 radio interview / McCain distorted

More wild accusations to dispel!!!
In case you've heard new accusations about Barack Obama, a 2001 interview and redistribution; which John McCain and rightist radio allies are twisting and exploiting:
FACT CHECK: McCain misreads 2001 Obama interview; By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama about "redistributive change" to argue that the Democrat's tax policy is built on "taking your money and giving it to someone else."

The McCain campaign and the candidate himself are pointing to Obama's comments during a Chicago public radio program in 2001 that dealt with the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court.

"It's always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments," McCain told a rally in Dayton, Ohio, alluding to Obama's now well-known exchange in Ohio with Joe the Plumber. "And, today, we heard another moment like this from Sen. Obama.

"In a radio interview that was revealed today, he said that, quote, One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society."

Obama never said that, according to an audio file circulated by Naked Emperor News, a Web site with many postings critical of Obama. Fox News also posted a partial transcript of the interview.

What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement's focus on the court, rather than on "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
. . . . [and more in AP story]

From MEDIA MATTERS:
Radio hosts echo Drudge's distortion of Obama's 2001 WBEZ interview

Summary: Numerous conservative radio hosts, including Chris Baker, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Jim Quinn, Michael Savage and Brian Sussman, echoed the false claim, originating on the Drudge Report, that Sen. Barack Obama said in a 2001 interview that he regretted that the Supreme Court has not addressed the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the "traged[y]" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to bring about political and economic justice.

On October 27, numerous conservative radio hosts echoed the false claim, originating on the Drudge Report, that in a January 18, 2001, WBEZ Chicago Public Radio interview, Sen. Barack Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealth redistribution.

Minneapolis radio host Chris Baker distorted Obama's 2001 remarks by claiming that he said "we gotta have economic justice and the Supreme Court ought to weigh in on redistributing wealth." Baker added: "Yeah, it's too bad you kind of stuck with the Constitution as it was. It's a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. Can you believe that?" In fact, Obama did not say, "It's a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court," or indicate, as Baker later claimed, that Obama "wants to use the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution in order to force the redistribution of wealth." Rather, as Media Matters for America has noted, the "tragedy" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to bring about political and economic justice. Later in the interview, Obama added:

You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way. ... You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

Several other radio hosts also falsely claimed that Obama said during the 2001 interview that courts should redistribute wealth.

[and then, Media Matters provides the various hosts and their falsehoods.]

Fight smear on Obama's visit to his grandmother

Have the rightists any shame?!?!

Their latest smear, which you can find on the posting portion of news pages on the Internet is that Barack Obama has no birth certificate. (e.g., go google the main keywords on AOL or Washington Post, for exsample to see this perverse argument.)
So the smear goes, in this latest vulgar whispering campaign, Obama has no birth certificate. He is taking the trip to acquire one.

First off, this is offensive to bring up.

Even if we give this charge credence, why would Obama wait until three days in the crucial, precious, last two weeks of the campaign, to make this trip? He has argued that the race will narrow in the last two weeks; so, why would he voluntarily suspend his campaign for three days in the last fourteen days of the campaign?

With his money, wouldn't he have a personal assistant take care of the errand?

Just sickening, especially to do this on the ocassion of Obama's seeing his grandmother (Madelyn Dunham).

UPDATE, from a posting on the "Washington Post" site: He was born in Hawaii. The birth certificate has been displayed close-up on the TV news and his grandmother has lived in Hawaii since she was in her thirties and his sister (Maya Sotero-Ng) teaches in Hawaii. He graduated from Punahou a private high school. Both of his parents and grandfather are gone so I hope his grandmother will see him win this for her and the rest of us. He lived with his grandparents for some time and she very much took part in raising him.

Weathermen prosecutor defends Obama

This letter in the October 10 "The New York Times" aptly addresses the distracting, vacuous William Ayers smear directed at Barack Obama.

To the Editor:

Re “Politics of Attack” (editorial, Oct. 8) and “Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths” (front page, Oct. 4):

As the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972), I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.

Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.

Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.

I do take issue with the statement in your news article that the Weathermen indictment was dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.

William C. Ibershof
Mill Valley, Calif., Oct. 8, 2008

Obama substantively responds to McCain's jabs and Palin's Ayers smears

Barack Obama has substantively responded to McCain's jabs and Sarah Palin's William Ayers smears.
Obama delivered a nice line against McCain's jabs about [the myth of] how America does really not know about him, noting that McCain isn't willing to make this attack to his face.
In his interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson, Obama said:

Well, I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn't willing to say it to my face . . . .
[And to the Ayers smear charge: ]
<< EXCLUSIVE TRANSCRIPT OF FINAL MINUTE OF GIBSON'S INTERVIEW OF OBAMA >>
Why don't we clear it up right now. I'll repeat again what I've said many times.
This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts forty years ago, when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. And we served on a school reform board together --a board, by the way, that was funded by Walter Annenberg, who had been an ambassador and close friend of Ronald Reagan's. So, I have talked to him about school reform issues, and the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign that he is an adviser of mine, that I've palled around with a terrorist- All these statements are simply made to try to score cheap political points. Look, I can handle these attacks for the remaining four weeks, but it certainly is not serving our democracy right now. We need to be having a debate about how we're gonna yank ourselves out of a very difficult situation. And that's what I'm going to spend my time talking about.

As Obama says, there it is. Let's let go of the subject. Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have thoroughly researched the Ayers connection, and there isn't anything new or earth-shaking.
BUT, we're still waiting and wondering: when will a journalist from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC or any other major broadcast media outlet interview John McCain about G. Gordon Liddy or John Singlaub (of the USCWF / WACL) or interview Sarah Palin about Joe Vogler (the founder of the secessionist AIP)?

Democrats to raise McCain associations to Keating and others

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Monthly:

Democrats To Raise McCain Associations To Keating, Others

05 Oct 2008 06:40 pm
Democratic surrogates say they've been given the go-ahead from the Obama campaign to mention John McCain's associations with S&L kingpin Charles Keating and other historically tarnished creatures when asked about Obama's connection to ex-Weatherman William Ayers.

A senior Democrat who has had contact with Obama's high command points to Democratic strategist Paul Begala's comments on this morning's Meet the Press.

Begala noted that McCain once "sat on the board of a very right wing organization," the U.S. Council for World Freedom, led by a retired Army Maj. General named John Singlaub. The Anti-Defamation League allegedly called the CWF's parent organization a gathering place for racists and anti-Semites.

Said Begala: "Now, that's not John McCain. I don't think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain's record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face."

Other potential negative associations for McCain are his long-time South Carolina consultant, Richard Quinn, a publisher of a Southern heritage magazine, and John Hagee, a pastor whose endorsement McCain solicited and later rejected.

OBAMA PREPARED FOR MCCAIN TO GET DIRTY: {from Ron Chusid at Liberal Values}
**Check out Obama camp's video at right.}**
With McCain on the wrong side of the issues and trailing badly in the polls, he is prepared to go even more negative in the hopes of pulling out a victory in November. This will include raising Obama’s ties to Ayers and Rezko even though these smears have previously been debunked.

Having learned from seeing such attacks used against John Kerry, Obama is responding by launching a preemptive attack with this ad:

“Three quarters of a million jobs lost this year. Our financial system in turmoil. And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy. No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject.

“Turn the page on the financial crisis by launching dishonorable, dishonest ‘assaults’ against Barack Obama. Struggling families can’t turn the page on this economy, and we can’t afford another president who is this out of touch.”

In addition to the ad, Obama has given surrogates an ok to go after McCain for his association to Charles Keating and involvement in the Keating 5 Scandal. Marc Ambinder notes other associations which might be harmful to McCain:

A senior Democrat who has had contact with Obama’s high command points to Democratic strategist Paul Begala’s comments on this morning’s Meet the Press.

Begala noted that McCain once “sat on the board of a very right wing organization,” the U.S. Council for World Freedom, led by a retired Army Maj. General named John Singlaub. The Anti-Defamation League allegedly called the CWF’s parent organization a gathering place for racists and anti-Semites.

Said Begala: “Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.”

Other potential negative associations for McCain are his long-time South Carolina consultant, Richard Quinn, a publisher of a Southern heritage magazine, and John Hagee, a pastor whose endorsement McCain solicited and later rejected.

Obama is also counterattacking on the stump:

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday charged that Sen. John McCain’s campaign is launching “Swift boat-style attacks” on him instead of addressing the country’s problems.

“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up,” Obama said at an event in Asheville, North Carolina.

“That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time,” he said.

The comments come a day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, claimed that Obama associated “with terrorists who targeted our own country.”

In return the Republicans are searching out yet more associations to use to smear Obama. Nate Silver compares this strategy to that of a football team which must resort to desperate measures despite the fact that odds are against them working:

It is a sad denouement for what was one to be a high-minded campaign focused around themes of honor and reform (themes that were resuscitated briefly during the Republican Convention), possibly accompanied by McCain’s taking a one-term pledge. It is also, however, Mr. McCain’s strategists would seem to have concluded, their only remaining hope.

I am not here to dispute that this is McCain’s best strategy — in the same way that an onside kick is a team’s best strategy when it trails late in the game with no timeouts left. But like the onside kick, it is fairly unlikely to work.

The problem for McCain is that resorting to this type of attack further damages the impression that McCain is different from other Republicans. Just as dirty attacks from Hillary Clinton backfired and helped Obama win the nomination, such dirty attacks from McCain will further demonstrate to voters that change is needed in politics, leading more independents to back Obama. Even Hillary Clinton was careful about using attacks based upon Rezko and Ayers, leaving much of this to the media. If less offensive attacks by Clinton backfired against her, there is a far greater chance that these attacks will harm McCain more than they will harm Obama.

Having announced to the media that this is his strategy will make it even more likely to succeed, and raises further questions as to the competence of McCain’s campaign. In recent years Republicans have been incompetent at governing but highly skilled at launching Swift Boat attacks. Currently McCain appears to be incompetent at both matters of public policy as well as at launching Republican smears despite turning to Karl Rove staffers.
AND THERE'S MORE {from daily KOS}

From The Coors Connection by Russ Bellant

When the Reagan Administration began organizing the Nicaraguan Contras in 1981, allied but nominally private groups were formed to build support for the Contra plans.

One of those groups, formed shortly after the first Reagan inauguration, was the US Council for World Freedom, headed by Major General John Singlaub. The USCWF quickly became the US branch of the World Anti-Communist League. The USCWF began building support for the Reagan policy of aiding not only the Nicaraguan Contras but RENAMO and UNITA in southern Africa and rightist Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. Singlaub informed CIA director William Casey and NSC staff of his actions and operated with their consent if not under their direct influence.

One of the early USCWF financial backers was Joe Coors, according to two former USCWF treasurers. Coors shared Reagan's enthusiasm for the Contras despite early indications of the unsavory background of certain Contra leaders and reliable reports of Contra acts of brutality. The Contras were originally known as the 15th of September Legion. Their earliest training came from Argentinean military intelligence, which ran death squads in that country and sponsored a Latin American conference of death squad leaders in 1980. That death squad network was also the Latin American branch on WACL. In 1982, Argentinean intelligence worked with Moon's Unification Church and fugitive Nazi Klaus Barbie to establish a Nazi-style state in Bolivia.

Honestly, if they try to hang Ayers around Obama, McCain, true or not, has a history of associating with ultra-right wing racists and paranoid fascist freaks.

UPDATE: Some have raised a point, one eloquently, on my comments regarding knowing McCain is racist, knowing the same part of the country etc. I just want to emphasize I know the type. I am not implicating everyone. I just know the type who would not be appalled by any of the following, (courtesy of FeastOr)

"I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live."
"At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt."
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
"As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
"..... Now, tell me, where's that fantastic gorilla?"

NYT's silence on McCain's Ayers: G. Gordon Liddy, John Singlaub

Yesterday "The New York Times" gave front page coverage to Barack Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayers.
(This is a shaky accusation. As Obama this Times story says, "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'")
Yet, the Times story did not reveal anything new, neither did the Wall Street Journal in a similar editorial last week, as "The Washington Monthly" online edition noted yesterday.
So, to stress the point again: Obama had no friendship with Ayers. Unfortunately, the net effect in the last 24 hours has been to lend renewed credence to this smear story. Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has cited the story in an effort to link Obama to Ayers and Ayers' radical Weatherman politics.

Why doesn't "The New York Times" give attention to the truly friendly relationship with the disgusting right-wing extremist G. Gordon Liddy?
To refresh your memory, Liddy was a burglar in the Watergate scandal, breaking into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's office.
John McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show and has expressed friendly comments to him.
These points are succinctly addressed by Cenk Uygur of Young Turks [a daily youtube Internet TV show], discussing McCain’s association with Liddy.
Back to Liddy, MediaMatters issued the equivalent of an online press release yesterday:

“Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis.”

MediaMatters went on to appeal readers to send letters asking "The New York Times" to give attention to McCain's relationship with Liddy.

Back in 1994, in the milieu of the early 1990s far-right Militiamen opposition to the federal government (remember, the people that feared "black helicopters"?), Liddy fed into the anti-federal-government hate with the following comment after the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." --courtesy of Steve Chapman of "The Chicago Tribune"
But let's get to the core of the McCain-Liddy relationship, clearly deeper than that between Obama and Ayers, again citing Chapman's column:

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

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

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

A DEMOCRATIC RAPID RESPONSE ON MCCAIN'S EXTREMIST ASSOCIATIONS
Let's be frank: When pushed in a corner, with presidential candidates having bad policies and weak poll ratings, the Republican campaign machines routinely pull an October smear. Ayles did this in 1988 with the Willie Horton smear against Michael Dukakis.
We cannot afford to let the Republicans off the hook with the Ayers smear. The Democrats' rapid response to the McCain campaign's use of Ayers should involve close scrutiny of McCain's associations with politically disreputable people.
On "Meet the Press" Paul Begala gave us a tip to more extremist association trouble for McCain,

And I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake [in citing Ayers]. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back, I have written a book about McCain, I had a dozen researchers go through him, I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League – the parent organization – which ADL said “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.”

Now, that's not John McCain, I don't think he is that. But you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin. And he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.

The Republicans will use the Ayers connection in crucial swing states. Expect powerful, late October television ads in select states. Bloggers and viral video makers at YouTube should broadcast the McCain connections to Liddy, the U.S. Council for Freedom and John K. Singlaub. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom as indicated at this site. (The U.S. Council for World Freedom was the U.S. affiliate of the World Anti-Communist League. The Council was founded by John Singlaub, who was an army general, highly decorated for his actions in World War II. He was famous for his public criticism of President Jimmy Carter's 1977 proposal to gradually withdraw 32,000 U.S. troops from South Korea. Carter dismissed Singlaub from duty for his public opposition to the withdrawal proposal.)
"Time" magazine reported on October 27, 1986 that the Council supplied funds for the Contras. (The Contras waged a civil war against the Sandanista government of Nicaragua throughout the 1980s.)
Now, as Begala counseled, I am not suggesting that McCain is of the same stripe as those with whom he associated. Yet there are questions that progressives and journalists should ask: How else did the Council (or "USCWF" for short) support military and civilian efforts at destabilizing governments in the 1980s? Were illegal or unethical actions being planned or discussed at the Council when McCain present for those meetings? Did McCain oppose or otherwise respond to unethical plans of action? As these questions bear on McCain's attitude toward policy and his possible knowledge of illegal or unethical doings, this are substantive questions to pose, as contrasted the the sheer guilt-by-association quality of the Ayers canard.
As Singlaub was the founder and one-time president of the Council, it is plausible that the organization took stands or actions encouraging destabilization of governments during meetings at which McCain attended. He is on record as supporting the low intensity warfare in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s.
He spoke publicly on his desire to actively wage an anti-Communist crusade:

"I am convinced that our struggle with Communism is not a spectator sport. as a result of that view, we have opted for the court of action which calls for the provision of support and assistance to those who are actively resisting the Soviet supported intrusion into Africa, Asia and North America. The geographic regions of WACL must not only provide support to the freedom fighters who are engaged in combat in their own region, but they must develop plans of action to support the resistance movements in other regions of the world."

Furthermore, we should ask, what are the range of actions that McCain suggests his proposed League of Democracies take? Is this League putting a euphemism on more government destabilization in the mold of the Contras and the Iraq invasion?

Again, why don't "The New York Times" or other major media outlets give attention to McCain and his connections to Liddy, USCWF and Singlaub? If Ayers is reappearing in the news, it is only fair that the Liddy and USCWF/Singlaub connections receive media attention. If Palin, Karl Rove, and company are exploiting the Ayers issue, then Democrats ought to at least publicize McCain's controversial political affiliations.

Book: was Jack Abramoff the fall-guy for Washington's ills?

Anytime there is a huge concentration of blame on one person --almost alone-- for the ills of a corrupt institution, one should exercise some skepticism.

Boston-based freelance investigative reporter Gary S. Chafetz began writing his book on Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff with an eye towards his culpability in corrupt lobbying practices. He concluded his research with quite a different perspective.

In his "The Prefect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff" (published last week by Martin & Lawrence Press), Chafetz asserts that Senator John McCain undertook an unduly vengeful crusade against Abramoff. He claimed that "McCain was retaliating against Abramoff for his role in the infamous 'black baby' smear campaign during the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary," as he summarized in the Huffington Post, on September 16, 2008. Abramoff had unwittingly funded the smear, by raising $3 million on short order for Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition. Without Abramoff's knowledge, Reed and George W. Bush advisor used the money to spread a smear by phone calls and flyers on windshields, to insinuate that McCain had an illegitimate black child by a prostitute. (The child actually is Bridget, whom Cindy McCain adopted from a Mother Teresa-operated orphanage in Bangladesh.)
Not only was Abramoff unfairly accused as producing this smear, Chafetz asserts, McCain produced a 373 page report rife with distortions and falsifications. The ills of lobbying and lobbyists' influence are more than one man; singular attention upon Abramoff was unfair. There is a different scandal within this story: the unrelenting abuse of power by a vengeful politician, Senator John McCain.