LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

Palin didn’t have to go there, but since she did, it’s time for a lesson in Keating Economics!

October 7th, 2008 · 7 Comments

Over the weekend Governor Palin brought up Bill Ayers, a founder of the radical 60s Weather Underground group, saying that Barack Obama has been “palling around” with terrorists. During the 60s and 70s, the Weather Underground wanted to blow up establishment buildings in protest of the war in Vietnam, but Ayers was never successfully prosecuted because of illegal evidence collection.

Ayers has since gone on to become an education professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago. I have crossed paths with many education professors, and I will say that all of the ones I have met, both conservative and liberal, are committed to increasing the education levels and accessibility of quality education for everyone. They are usually so busy with their research and teaching that they don’t have time for extensive political involvement unless they are being paid as consultants.

Also note that Barack Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was involved with The Weathermen, but the issue that Palin was referring to involved both men sitting on a charity board in the 1990s in Chicago and a gathering in 1995 at Ayers’ home when Obama was first entering politics. In 2001, Ayers donated $200 to Obama’s state senate re-election campaign.

I find it odd that Governor Palin, who is supposed to be known for her political “instinct” and savvy, not so much her substantive knowledge, decided to bring up the Professor Ayers’ connection. We’re talking about a Professor, who lives in Obama’s neighborhood, who had been more involved with the senator when he was embarking on a political career and gave a total of $200 to Obama’s political endeavors, when Senator McCain has a more clear and relevant connection to Charles Keating, a former banker who was a target of a regulatory investigation in the late 80s. McCain took in $112,000 from Keating and his associates and took his family on vacation to the Bahamas on Keating’s dime. John McCain was already in his 50s when he was associating with Charles Keating, a man who fleeced his savings and loan customers and then asked U.S. Senators, including McCain to have the regulators back off.

So in flexing its strategic wisdom, the Obama campaign released a video on “Keating” economics, which is really relevant to the financial crises we are enduring today. Blogger Ezra Klein points out that this video was not released from a point of weakness. A few weeks ago, when the media was abuzz about Palin and her rock star debut and McCain had built a slight lead, the Obama campaign kept working diligently and focusing on the issues. The Obama team didn’t panic and release this video, as they could have (note the high production value). This video looks like it was carefully planned and like it has been ready for viral distribution on the net for more than a few weeks. It certainly wasn’t slapped together overnight.

I find it ironic that John McCain has been damning the greed and excess of Wall Street and saying that he now wants to bring reform to big business having once been a crusader for deregulation for Charles Keating. Keating caused some 21,000 people to lose their investments and life savings in his failed savings and loan scheme. The Keating 5 scandal that John McCain was involved in makes both the Ayers and Rev. Wright drama seem like child’s play. Check out the video for yourselves and get a lesson in Keating economics:

Charles Keating is the epitome of greed and excess, and Senator McCain wanted to provide cover for him. What does this say about John McCain’s new stance on regulation and his criticism of corporate excess? You can learn more about Keating economics here.

Share

Tags: Barack Obama · Economics · Education · John McCain · Sarah Palin

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Camila Rivas // Oct 7, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    I love seeing all the angry rally people at Palin events–the ones who get red-faced and yell wildly at the very mention of Obama. These new attacks seemed to be aimed at them.

    Thanks for the support and for the site–there’s not really anything like it out there.

  • 2 Michaelr // Oct 7, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    It seems like an act of pure lunacy to begin telling lies like this. It surely says something about the limited cerebral capacities of Sarah Palin, and the contempt she must have for the American voter when John McCain has all that history with Charles Keating, Michael Milken, and that whole S&L scandal. If that isn’t telling of the content of John McCain’s character, only denial can get you through all this. McCain’s election can easily guarantee another four years of Bush policies, and corruption on a grand scale. More of your tax dollars at work passed on to those individuals who don’t need any more money.

  • 3 HispanicPundit // Oct 7, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    I’m curious, do you read Megan McArdle’s blog at the Atlantic? If not, you should…for example, on this point, she spells out the fundamental differences between the two here.

  • 4 jammer // Oct 8, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    I knew that eventually the republicans would resort to all out mud slinging and lying , but this is at a new level. Wasn’t it this spring that McLame got in front of the TV cameras and promised that he would not tolorate a dirty campaign. Maybe he did lose his honor at the Hanoi Hilton. When Palin incites the crowd to shout out “kill them both” at a rally and doesn’t attempt to stop them, and McLame doesn’t condemn that behavior their campaign has hit the all time low. Palin hits at Obama for his association with his pastor as treasonous…., How about her and her husbands palling around with the leader of the cult trying to pull Alaska out of the USA and has stated he hates the USA and will not be buried under it’s flag. Same thing except Obama broke with his pastor and condemned his words, to date Palin hasn’t. Both Mclame and Palin will began using the fear tactics and race as an issue in the coming weeks because they have nothing else to say. I see Mclame as a big failure and I would hate to turn this country to a person who is such anaccomplished failure. Failed at the Academy, Failed as a fighter pilot, failed as a warrior, and a legislator with a very pedistrian record after a long stint. In Obama’s short career in the senate he has become more of a force then Mclame. John McCain will get dirtier because he has nothing else going and he will use his surragates to do his dirty work so he can pretend that he is above it all. El es puro payaso.

  • 5 Reyfeo // Oct 9, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Must Latinos always fall for the Democratic rethoric? The bottomline is John McCain answered every question about the Keating 5 a long time ago; and its a matter of record…just google it. Can we get the same from Barack Obama? I have yet to see Barack Obama answer my question, “Why would you sit in the living room with known domestic terrorist, much less take his money (even if it is only $200 sir).

    And as for Jammer, get a hold of yourself before you tear off a finger with that insedious tone. It is this kind of blogging we should all turn away from. Senator McCain and Obama are both to be respected for all their accomplishments despite our disagreements with either candidate.

  • 6 EYES OF TEXAS // Oct 14, 2008 at 6:26 am

    This is the history of one Barack Obama that can not be denied and reflects well how he developed his socialist mind-set.

    Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

    INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
    Posted 7/28/2008

    Election ’08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called “economic justice.” He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

    This is the first of a multi-part IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism.

    During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

    And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

    It’s the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we’re launching this special educational series.

    “Economic justice” simply means
    punishing the successful and
    redistributing their wealth
    by government fiat.
    It’s a euphemism for socialism.

    In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama’s positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

    In his latest memoir he shares that he’d like to “recast” the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the “winner-take-all” market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

    Obama also talks about “restoring fairness to the economy,” code for soaking the “rich” — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

    It’s clear from a close reading of his two books that he’s a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

    Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

    Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means.

    Among his proposed “investments”:

    “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.

    “Free” college tuition.

    “Universal national service” (a la Havana).

    “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).

    “Free” job training (even for criminals).

    “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).

    “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.

    More subsidized public housing.

    A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”

    And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

    His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t.

    That’s just for starters — first-term stuff.

    Obama doesn’t stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

    You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he’s the most liberal member in Congress.

    But could he really be “more left,” as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

    Obama’s voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

    The seeds of his far-left ideology
    were planted in his formative years
    as a teenager in Hawaii —
    and they were far more radical
    than any biography or profile
    in the media has portrayed.

    A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.”

    As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis’ feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

    “They’ll train you so good,” he said, “you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.”

    After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences “for inspiration,” Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps, becoming a “community organizer” in Chicago.

    His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman’s a disciple of the late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America.

    The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama’s early political supporters.

    After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to “bring about real change” — on a large scale.

    While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky’s “agitation” tactics.

    (A video-streamed bio on Obama’s Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” — terms right out of Alinsky’s rule book.)

    Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father’s communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

    As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses “owned by Asians and Europeans.”

    His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn’t stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to “redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all.”

    “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed,” Obama Sr. wrote. “I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development.”

    Taxes and “investment” . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

    (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father’s communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

    In Kenya’s recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

    With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called “black liberation theology” and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

    Obama joined Wright’s militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of “black values” that demonizes white “middle classness” and other mainstream pursuits.

    (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values “sensible.” There’s no mention of them in his new book.)

    With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for “change” more effectively. “As an elected official,” he said, “I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer.”

    He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

    Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for “economic justice.”

    He’s been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

    Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as “liberal,” let alone socialist.

    Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate “outsider” (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a “breath of fresh air” to Washington.

    The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded “r” word.

    But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

    Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    A perfect storm of statism is forming,
    and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

    Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that’s made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

    ————————–
    © 2008 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. Used with permission

    ——————————————————————————–

    Barack Obama has styled himself a centrist, but does his record support that claim?

    In this series, IBD examines Senator Obama’s past, his voting record and the people who’ve served as his advisers and mentors over the years. We’ll show how the facts of Obama’s actions and associations reveal a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

    Socialism is not the direction our nation needs to be taken and Obama will be stopped before he can destroy America.

  • 7 Barista // Oct 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    It’s simple. The republicans are desperate, so they’re attacking the person as opposed to the issues. If you really believe that Obama actively associates with terrorists, then you’re just duuuuuumb. And I’m going to pass it through the committee to revoke your free thinking card..

Leave a Comment