Hannity and Colmes and Morris on Ayers and Obama—wow!

At YouTube, a remarkable segment of Hannity and Colmes, with guest Dick Morris, concerning the Ayers-Obama friendship. In this discussion, you can see how Morris’s fierce opposition to Hillary and his desire to see her lose is making him say one absurd thing after another in a losing effort to lessen the importance of the Ayers connection. But even he has to admit that it could be serious.

Then there’s Alan Colmes, whom destiny has cruelly assigned the thankless task of defending the liberal side of the issue in every situation and at all costs, thus depriving the poor fellow of the opportunity of ever saying anything rational.

- end of initial entry -

Hugh B. writes:

I just think this whole line of discussion about Obama’s friends is little trivial. Bottom line is that Obama is not saying anything; only using platitudes which are part and parcel of the speech-craft of politicians who don’t have an agenda and work on emotionalism. The people who are attracted to Obama don’t care about Ayers. Taking apart Ayers, or for that matter any past association, is more like throwing gas into a puddle: no consequences.

If Obama and Hillary were smart (which they aren’t) they would harp on the “illegality” of the war, the high price of gas—and rising, and how unfair the new bankruptcy laws are. In effect, they would become the populist candidates everyone wants them to be. But they aren’t true populists but just hack politicians seeking personal fame, fortune, and prestige.

There are a million ways to strike lightening with the electorate. Democrats, with few exceptions, are afraid to do that. Part of their reluctance is that their mother’s milk—campaign money—comes from the same group of evildoers as the Republican, the wealthy class. Even Al Gore was mild as a pussy cat when he campaigned.

This just reminds me of how off the wall the Republicans were calling Bill Clinton a “socialist,” when in fact he was a milquetoast middle roader. Nothing more, nothing less.

More reason to believe the Birch line that the Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin.

LA replies:

This just reminds me of how off the wall the Republicans were calling Bill Clinton a “socialist,” when in fact he was a milquetoast middle roader. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your analysis is askew.

In the first two years of his administration, Clinton sought to socialize medical care in America. (Not through outright government ownership, but through government control, which comes to the same thing.) That was the main domestic initiative of his administration. It crashed. Then he changed course and moved center. He pursued rational economic policies under Robert Rubin, and ultimately, if very reluctantly, he signed welfare reform.

During the last six years of his presidency Republicans did not call him a socialist. They acknowledged the fact that he had put his wife to the side on policy and that he had moved center on economic issues. They continued to oppose him for his treasonous relations with the Chinese, for his cultural leftism, for his not doing anything about Islamic terrorism, for his constant lying, for his debauching of American standards, for his crimes, etc.

Let’s not forget the first initiative of the Clinton presidency: allowing open homosexuality in the military. He fought for that as hard as he could, and was finally beaten and had to give in. If he had had his way, the U.S. would have had open homosexuality in the military. Yet you call him a milquetoast middle roader. So you sound to me like a left-liberal who calls left-liberalism “centrism.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 25, 2008 01:31 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):