Letterman brings up Liddy with McCain

[chipmunk stew]

From an advance preview of tonight's show:

Quote:

Mr. Letterman also asked if Ms. Palin had said that Senator Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists.” Mr. McCain started to say he didn’t know, then said “Yes. And he did.”
Then Mr. Letterman raised Mr. McCain’s relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. “I’ve met him,” Mr. McCain said. After a segment break, he followed up: “I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison, he paid his debt.”

Will Liddy get as much attention from the media as Ayers?

[Cleon]

So if Ayers went to jail, this wouldn't be an issue?

That's a silly dodge.

[Whiplash]

Originally Posted by Cleon

So if Ayers went to jail, this wouldn't be an issue?

That's a silly dodge.

If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

[mr rosewater]

Wait, who did Liddy kill?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

Has Liddy repudiated his views or actions in any way?

Didn't think so.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by mr rosewater

Wait, who did Liddy kill?

The same number of people that Ayers did.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

You are so full of crap. While I think it's possible to mount a significant defense in favor of Ayers' motives, Liddy is the type of person who revels in being a nasty, nasty thug.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Cain

You are so full of crap. While I think it's possible to mount a significant defense in favor of Ayers' motives, Liddy is the type of person who revels in being a nasty, nasty thug.

So Left Wing Terrorist are more noble then Right Wing Terrorist?

Nice going, guy.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by dudalb

So Left Wing Terrorist are more noble then Right Wing Terrorist?

Nice going, guy.

Nice strawman. He'll look good at Halloween.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by dudalb

So Left Wing Terrorist are more noble then Right Wing Terrorist?

Nice going, guy.

I'm not sure I would not even classify Liddy as a terrorist. Bracketing out false left-right distinctions, I do not think it's remotely controversial to observe that some forms of terrorism are more noble than others. Or do you not make a distinction between bombing empty federal buildings to frustrate an immoral (one that claimed the lives of millions of Vietnamese) versus bombing a federal building in retaliation for Waco? If we're talking about burglaries, then I think it's obviously true the Camden 28 acted more nobly than Nixon's "plumbers." This is not to suggest you're even interested in, let alone capable of, actually thinking through these matters. Instead you want to patrol debate as usual. I think it was yesterday I had my Dudalb eye-rolling moment when you rebuked someone for "crossing the line."

Since we are talking about personal associations, I said Ayers seems like a more well-meaning than person than Liddy. From the latter's Wikipedia page:

Quote:

At CRP, Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. These included firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. (where classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored), kidnapping anti-war protest organizers and transporting them to Mexico during the Republican National Convention (which at the time was planned for San Diego), and luring mid-level Democratic campaign officials to a house boat in Baltimore where they would be secretly photographed in compromising positions with call girls. Most of Liddy's ideas were rejected, but a few were given the go ahead by Nixon Administration officials, including the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Ellsberg had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.[4] At some point, Liddy was instructed to break into the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel.

It also mentions guest appearances:

Quote:

Liddy remained in the public eye with two guest appearances on the 1984-89 television series Miami Vice, playing the role of "Capt. Real Estate," a character loosely based on himself.

I vaguely recall catching this episode in a re-run a couple years ago. Liddy plays this demented soldier frothing over Nicaraguan ears looped on a cord. Like I said, he revels in being a nasty person.

We live in a demented world with ********** up values, one where a brouhaha is made over a tenuous association with Bill Ayers while politicians BRAG about receiving foreign policy advice from Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

Maybe a better criticism of the Ayers/Liddy comparison is that Liddy did not commit a violent act. Ayers did. So even if Liddy hasn't apologized, he didn't blow anything up to apologize for and Ayers did.

This is not to say that in anyway the Ayers nonsense is remotely relevant to the issue of whether Obama will be a good president but it does seem like the Ayers/Liddy comparison isn't perfect.

And as an aside Ayers has essentially apologized. Not surprisingly people have worked and reworked his words into what fits their agenda and exactly what the situation with respect to how Ayers feels about what he did is difficult to know for sure. And of course it goes without saying whether Ayers is remorseful or not is not remotely relevant to whether Obama will be a good president.

THe Ayers thing, of course, is a made up issue for political purposes. The people that are pushing it don't have the slightest interest in what actually happened. They are just looking for anything that can be used as a means to damage Obama's image. That this is the best that they could come up with is strong evidence that Obama must be pretty clean or the dirt on him is really hard to find.

ETA:
If we're going down this guilt by association path does Sarah Palin's relationship with her husband count? Was he a member of the Alaskan Independence Party? Was that party founded by a guy who said:

Quote:

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by davefoc

This is not to say that in anyway the Ayers nonsense is remotely relevant to the issue of whether Obama will be a good president but it does seem like the Ayers/Liddy comparison isn't perfect.

I couldn't have said it better.

Ayers is a non-issue but it's use cynically for political purposes. I don't like it.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Cain

...

We live in a demented world with ********** up values, one where a brouhaha is made over a tenuous association with Bill Ayers while politicians BRAG about receiving foreign policy advice from Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger.

Are you referring to the Henry Kissinger that admitted that he and Nixon prolonged the Vietnamese war for political purposes?

[Puppycow]

McCain and Joe Lieberman also 'palled around' with real terrrorists

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Are you referring to the Henry Kissinger that admitted that he and Nixon prolonged the Vietnamese war for political purposes?

I don't think we've come to terms fully with Vietnam. JFK bears some responsibility. It would have been Truman's legacy if he hadn't gotten sick of the chanting, "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today".

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

We gotta stop believing that evil resides in a party and if we could only elect people from the right party.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't think we've come to terms fully with Vietnam. JFK bears some responsibility. It would have been Truman's legacy if he hadn't gotten sick of the chanting, "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today".

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

We gotta stop believing that evil resides in a party and if we could only elect people from the right party.

My post referred to what I believe his Kissinger's admission that he and Nixon decided to not end the war in 1972 because they felt that the ending it then on the terms available would not be politically popular and it might cost them the election. I am fairly sure that something like that came out a year or so ago but I couldn't find it right away.

I did find this from a book by Christopher Hitchens on Kissinger:

Quote:

Here is the secret in plain words. In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut both the talks themselves and the electoral strategy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The tactic "worked," in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign. In another way, it did not "work," because four years later the Nixon Administration tried to conclude the war on the same terms that had been on offer in Paris. The reason for the dead silence that still surrounds the question is that in those intervening years some 20,000 Americans and an uncalculated number of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians lost their lives. Lost them, that is to say, even more pointlessly than had those slain up to that point. The impact of those four years on Indochinese society, and on American democracy, is beyond computation. The chief beneficiary of the covert action, and of the subsequent slaughter, was Henry Kissinger.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ki..._Hitchens.html

I agree it is hard to sort out the right and wrong of the Vietnam war. People that write about it often have deeply ingrained biases, but Kissinger doesn't seem to look that good no matter who is doing the looking.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by davefoc

My post referred to what I believe his Kissinger's admission that he and Nixon decided to not end the war in 1972 because they felt that the ending it their on the terms available would not be politically popular and it might cost them the election. I am fairly sure that something like that came out a year or so ago but I couldn't find it right away.

I did find this from a book by Christopher Hitchens on Kissinger:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ki..._Hitchens.html

I agree it is hard to sort out the right and wrong of the Vietnam war. People that write about it often have deeply ingrained biases, but Kissinger doesn't seem to look that good no matter who is doing the looking.

My point is a bit of a Tu Quoque as it relates specifically to your point and I apologize about that. Many of the actions of Nixon and Kissinger are inexcusable. I grew up with folks saying that Nixon didn't do anything that others didn't do, he just got caught. That's BS and yet here I am seemingly doing the same thing. That wasn't my intention, consciously at least. It does bother me however that Vietnam has become an icon of Republican sins.

I've read and heard much of what Hitchens has said of Kissinger and I'm inclined to agree. I had planed on purchasing the book.

ETA: Wasn't the point of the point of the Pentagon Papers is that they revealed that the administration knew that war was a bust but Nixon didn't want to be the first president in American history to lose a war?

Good movie BTW.

[BenBurch]

BS. Ayers would be an issue now even if he had served 30 years in slam. And the reason he would be an issue is that the Repubs DESPERATELY need a "Gotcha" to use as a wedge between Obama and older voters who still remember those days.

As a result, McCain has to LIE to make the connection between Obama and Ayers strong enough to look significant.

Like when he said that Obama's political career happened in Ayers' Living Room, when the truth of the matter is that it happened in the home of a Rabbi. (Magz, you stay out of this one.) McCain was telling the American People a bald-faced lie right there and he KNEW that.

No, sitting on a board of a foundation is not "paling around" at all. How many of you here have sat on boards? I have. Hell, I didn't even LIKE most of the people on that board, but was there to do a job. You don't have a lot of choice on who else is on that board, because it is not a social circle. In other words, this whole allegation is a lie.

Its like saying that you once worked as a carpenter on a building where John Gacy was the plumber, and therefor you socialize with perverted killers.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

BS. Ayers would be an issue now even if he had served 30 years in slam. And the reason he would be an issue is that the Repubs DESPERATELY need a "Gotcha" to use as a wedge between Obama and older voters who still remember those days.

As a result, McCain has to LIE to make the connection between Obama and Ayers strong enough to look significant.

Like when he said that Obama's political career happened in Ayers' Living Room, when the truth of the matter is that it happened in the home of a Rabbi. (Magz, you stay out of this one.) McCain was telling the American People a bald-faced lie right there and he KNEW that.

No, sitting on a board of a foundation is not "paling around" at all. How many of you here have sat on boards? I have. Hell, I didn't even LIKE most of the people on that board, but was there to do a job. You don't have a lot of choice on who else is on that board, because it is not a social circle. In other words, this whole allegation is a lie.

Its like saying that you once worked as a carpenter on a building where John Gacy was the plumber, and therefor you socialize with perverted killers.

I agree. I said it was a legitimate political point and it really isn't. There's nothing there.

The Liddy analogy is still weak however.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I agree. I said it was a legitimate political point and it really isn't. There's nothing there.

The Liddy analogy is still weak however.

Concur. Libby is a nobody in terms of terrorism. Just another jerk.

[King of the Americas]

Letterman lite into McCain, last night...

I knew McCain wasn't going to be coddled and stroked kindly, but I could feel it coming, during Letterman's intro.

I don't think he was as harsh, as he 'could' have been, and I thought he should have hit the Liddy thing even harder.

Letterman 'thinly vailed' his disgust with McCain and even his pick of Palin.

Given the kinds of question posed to McCain, I doubt seriously that Palin would subject herself to that. McCain and his campaign would be foolish to do so.

There are good reasons why Gov. Palin has done NO meaningful interviews since Couric, completely discounting the "Fox News" ones. She simply can't give quality answers, that would appeal to anyone other than their base.

McCain in response to David's, "What happened?"- "I screwed up!"

If I had been Dave, I'd have followed up, with, "Could we expect the same kind of screw ups, once you are the President? I mean isn't this a demonstration of your lack of judgement?"

I'd have also hit him, with "...Liddy is just as "unrepentant" as Ayers, why shouldn't YOU be held responsible for his attitude?"

---

(Did Ayers 'himself' actually bomb anything, or did the group he founded do so? I mean 'he' was never convicted of anything, as far as I know, right?)

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Concur. Libby is a nobody in terms of terrorism. Just another jerk.

The plot to kill columnist Jack Anderson puts G. Gordon Liddy above the level of an ordinary jerk.

[gdnp]

Liddy's actions were a greater threat to the democratic system than Ayers and ACORN combined. It was an attempt by the Nixon white house to fix an election.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The plot to kill columnist Jack Anderson puts G. Gordon Liddy above the level of an ordinary jerk.

Hmmm... Was unaware of that, just of his Watergate stuff. I'll have to look it up.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Liddy's actions were a greater threat to the democratic system than Ayers and ACORN combined. It was an attempt by the Nixon white house to fix an election.

Rebubs would NEVER do something like that!!!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Liddy's actions were a greater threat to the democratic system than Ayers and ACORN combined. It was an attempt by the Nixon white house to fix an election.

"Fix"? I think you are thinking of Joe Kennedy or Chicago politics.

[davefoc]

More guilt by association:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_134595.html

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by RandFan

"Fix"? I think you are thinking of Joe Kennedy or Chicago politics.

Then perhaps you should do one or more of these three things:

1) reread what I wrote

2) end your post with one of these

3) review the thread from a few month's back about how statements of "X did something worse" do not excuse inexcusable behavior.

[mr rosewater]

Originally Posted by Cleon

The same number of people that Ayers did.

Well no we just disagree- On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of an officers' dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[21] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion. Thankfully they were stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather...lage_explosion

[JoeTheJuggler]

I saw Liddy speak once in the early '80s. I remember being pretty creeped out by his talk, but more than that, I remember an interchange during the Q & A at the end. A man stood up and introduced himself as a career law enforcement professional. (I don't remember the highest rank he attained, but he spent some time giving his resume.) He point out that on several occasions he had to take oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. He said he was pretty certain that Liddy had to have taken the same oath at different point in his career. How did he justify going against the constitution and breaking the law as he did?

Liddy's answer was a long-winded way of saying "everybody does it". The questioner took offense. He pointed out that neither himself nor most of his brethren in law enforcement took that oath so lightly. Everyone, in fact, does not do it.

[mr rosewater]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I saw Liddy speak once in the early '80s. I remember being pretty creeped out by his talk, but more than that, I remember an interchange during the Q & A at the end. A man stood up and introduced himself as a career law enforcement professional. (I don't remember the highest rank he attained, but he spent some time giving his resume.) He point out that on several occasions he had to take oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. He said he was pretty certain that Liddy had to have taken the same oath at different point in his career. How did he justify going against the constitution and breaking the law as he did?

Liddy's answer was a long-winded way of saying "everybody does it". The questioner took offense. He pointed out that neither himself nor most of his brethren in law enforcement took that oath so lightly. Everyone, in fact, does not do it.

And he went to jail.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Then perhaps you should do one or more of these three things:

Hmmm....

Quote:

1) reread what I wrote

Ok..., I did.

Quote:

2) end your post with one of these

No, wouldn't apply.

Quote:

3) review the thread from a few month's back about how statements of "X did something worse" do not excuse inexcusable behavior.

No Tu Quoque. There's no fix. I'm trying to illustrate to you what a fix is.

Nixon, via Liddy and the other group of idiots, did what every president did which was to try and gather intelligence on the opposition. In doing so they broke the law. That's NOT fixing an election.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by mr rosewater

And he went to jail.

But he never showed any remorse and he never repented about either the crime he went to jail for or the assassination plot that he never got to carry out. He went on to instruct people over the radio how to kill BATF agents. He bragged about how he used images of the Clintons for target practice.

Then McCain, who Liddy refers to as a "good friend", went on his show and told him how "proud" he was of him. McCain praised him for upholding the values and principles that make this country great.

The comparison to Ayers is not one-to-one, but they are definitely in the same league.

edit: And at the risk of Godwin'ing my own argument, Liddy has also on several occasions expressed a creepy admiration for Hitler.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

But he never showed any remorse and he never repented about either the crime he went to jail for or the assassination plot that he never got to carry out. He went on to instruct people over the radio how to kill BATF agents. He bragged about how he used images of the Clintons for target practice.

Then McCain, who Liddy refers to as a "good friend", went on his show and told him how "proud" he was of him. McCain praised him for upholding the values and principles that make this country great.

The comparison to Ayers is not one-to-one, but they are definitely in the same league.

edit: And at the risk of Godwin'ing my own argument, Liddy has also on several occasions expressed a creepy admiration for Hitler.

Interesting enough, Liddy was also a good freind of Abbie Hoffman. It's a very strange world we live in.

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Nixon, via Liddy and the other group of idiots, did what every president did which was to try and gather intelligence on the opposition. In doing so they broke the law. That's NOT fixing an election.

Semantics. Would you prefer steal an election?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Would you prefer steal an election?

No, it's not that either. It's not stealing an election to get information about the opposition. Hell, if we assume for the sake of argument that Nixon was behind in the polls and he would have lost without the break in there is no reason to think this information would guarantee the election or even necessarily give Nixon an advantage. That's not stealing and it's not fixing. It's simply trying to get an edge which is what every politician does. Though to be sure it's illegal to break into campaign headquarters of the opposition.

I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with this concept.

If someone steals ballots or changes the vote count by altering ballots or electronic equipment then THAT would be fixing or stealing an election. If SCOTUS in 2000 acted contrary to law or legal precedent then THAT would be stealing or fixing the election.

[Oliver]

The clip in question:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Malerin]

Liddy was given a 20 year sentence for his crimes (served 5 years before Carter commuted it). He advocated shooting federal agents in the head (because their pesky body armor blocks center-mass shots). Liddy did not say this in the 1960's. He said it in the 1990's.

Mccain has repeatedly taken money from this guy and been on his radio show, where he expressed how "proud" he was of Liddy and the "principles" he upholds.

Obama has repudiated Ayers. Has Mccain had anything to say about Liddy other than fawning all over him on Liddy's radio show?

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No, it's not that either. It's not stealing an election to get information about the opposition. Hell, if we assume for the sake of argument that Nixon was behind in the polls and he would have lost without the break in there is no reason to think this information would guarantee the election or even necessarily give Nixon an advantage. That's not stealing and it's not fixing. It's simply trying to get an edge which is what every politician does. Though to be sure it's illegal to break into campaign headquarters of the opposition.

I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with this concept.

If someone steals ballots or changes the vote count by altering ballots or electronic equipment then THAT would be fixing or stealing an election. If SCOTUS in 2000 acted contrary to law or legal precedent then THAT would be stealing or fixing the election.

Let's say a baseball team places an employee in the stands who watches with binoculars the signs that the catcher gives to the pitcher and relays these back to the batter so that he knows what pitch is coming. Let us say that a football team puts someone in the stands to relay information about the team's defensive formations. Let us say said teams end up winning close games. Would these activities be considered an attempt to steal or fix the game? If caught, should they be forced to forfeit? Or would you say that they were just trying to get an edge like any team does and let it go?

Should we hold politicians, who are playing for much higher stakes, to lesser standards than professional sports teams?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Should we hold politicians, who are playing for much higher stakes, to lesser standards than professional sports teams?

Let's be clear, do you think it's unethical of Obama or McCain to use legal methods to obtain inteligence from the opposition?

You better sit down because I've got some bad news for you. Campaigns from both parties routinely gather information about the opposition by using private detectives and that includes trying to figure out strategy and tactics.