Scot Lehigh piles on in today’s Globe, discussing a photo first brought to public attention here at BMG that shows Charlie Baker playfully gesturing to Bill “Obama/Osama” Hudak (I can hear him now: “And how about this guy, huh? I love this guy! Don’t you love this guy?”) at a fundraiser supporting Hudak’s bid for the MA-06 congressional seat.
A rational person might assume (and, in fact, did assume) that Baker, having not only shown up but actually spoken at a fundraiser for Hudak, was backing Hudak’s candidacy. But oh no, says Baker spokesman Rich Gorka – Baker “stopped by the Hudak event just to speak to voters.” Whatever that means.
What really astounds me about all of this is the sheer cowardice shown by Baker, and by Hudak himself, when asked simple questions about stuff that’s been in plain sight all along (the Hudak/Baker photo is publicly visible on Hudak’s facebook page, and Hudak’s Obama/Osama sign has been online for nearly two years). Baker, having spoken at a Hudak fundraiser, apparently refuses to say a word to anyone in the media, instead hiding behind his spokesman, who in turn refuses to commit to backing Hudak, while also refusing to brand Hudak’s ridiculous Obama/Osama views as “offensive” (apparently, they are “outrageous” but not “offensive”). UPDATE: Actually, as an alert reader points out to me, it appears that Team Baker cannot even get its story straight on whether Hudak’s Obama/Osama views are “offensive.” Gorka told the Globe that they were, but he refused that exact same characterization to the Phoenix. Hey, we report, you decide.
Hudak, for his part, is backpedaling like a champ from his embarrassing birtherish views, insisting that he was misquoted, and that he “never really considered” the implications of equating Obama with a terrorist responsible for thousands of American deaths when he put that sign on his lawn. Um, sure Bill. Sure you didn’t.
Let’s think for just a second about who is the equivalent on the left of the “Obama/Osama,” birther crowd on the right. 9/11 truthers, maybe? Now ask yourself this: does Deval Patrick show up at their events?
FURTHER UPDATE: Here’s a video of Charlie Baker apparently denying having attended the Hudak event, despite photographic evidence of his presence. What a maroon.
Mary Connaughton’s palling around with Hudak too.
http://www.hudakforcongress.co…
If Hudak wants to show up at a Connaughton event, that’s his business. But that’s quite different from Baker showing up at, and speaking at, a major Hudak fundraiser.
She also accepts money from his campaign staff:
<
p>http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us…
I’ve never liked the idea of judging a candidate by who gives them money. You really can’t expect a candidate to agree with all their donors on everything.
The name of our first Black president isn’t “John Green”.
<
p>OK, fine.
<
p>So what.
<
p>In the schools, they should make sure that the kids know the difference between a RACE, a RELIGION, and a NATIONALITY/ETHNICITY.
<
p>You know Nikki Haley, the Indian woman who has a Sikh background but is a Methodist now, who is the GOP candidate for SC governor?
<
p>Some “empty-head” called her a “raghead.”
<
p>I do not support Haley or her agenda. All I’m saying is that Purple is not a day of the week.
<
p>If Asian and African candidates are going to be questioned about the “Faith of Their Fathers”. then European candidates ought to have to talk about Odin/Woton and/or Jupiter/Zeus, pagan gods worshipped in much of Europe before Christianity.
<
p>But I suppose scaring up BOOGA BOOGA for the uninformed is a good way to get votes. It is no way to deal with threats in a complex world.
at least to your last point, David.
What’s iokalayar?
It’s OK as long as you are Republican.
<
p>In elections, you sometimes tell turned out people nonsense to get votes.
<
p>Maybe we should talk about who’s ancient ancestors had more rancid butter in their hair instead of today’s issues?
<
p>Get rid of old chief Bongo-Bongo!!!
<
p>All of these gimmicks are absurd, but they can get the votes of “boneheads”.
<
p>You’ve got to make these people look REALLY RIDICULOUS in a way that is SUPER-SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.
<
p>After all, these are campaigns for Congress and Governor, not Prom King and Queen.
This probably deserves its own thread and discussion but I always thought of 9/11 truthers as mostly libertarians and anarchists. Far right meets far left easily, as in almost every case, but I don’t see the “movement” as even pretending to be progressive, liberal or left.
During the 1980’s, the United States supported Sunni fundamentalists and opposed both Shia fundamentalists and Communists in the Middle East.
<
p>In the 1970’s and 1980’s, that Mean Ole’ USSR was trying to control Afghanistan.
<
p>And we funded and aided the anti-Soviet “Mujahedeen”, including OSAMA BIN LADEN.
<
p>At that time, which side stood for women going to school, secularism, beer, and blue jeans for the most part?
<
p>THE USSR.
<
p>And our boy Bin Laden helped defeat them in Afghanistan, leading to Taliban control.
<
p>Real good.
<
p>Time when on, and Bin Laden got REALLY PISSED that our troops were in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I, a war sold to the public based on lies from Kuwait’s PR firm, Hill and Knowlton.
<
p>And, on 9-11-2001, we REAPED THE WHIRLWIND.
<
p>If we didn’t “Charge in there” to Afghanistan and Iraq back then, if we asked…
<
p>1. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
<
p>2. WHAT DO THEY WANT?
<
p>3. WHO REALLY BENEFITS?
<
p>It never would have happened.
<
p>The foreign policy of respectable, blow-dried, polished politicians created Al-Qaeda and all that happened, not the ravings of a few lone nuts.
<
p>
In the 70s and 80s, the (false) dichotomy was “Communist vs American”. Nothing else mattered.
<
p>I think the proponents, across the spectrum, weren’t just “respectable, blow-dried” and “polished” — they were simply demagogues who knew better and pandered to ignorant voters anyway. There are some among us who still believe that St. Reagan brought down the Soviet empire — ignoring the reality that, in fact, President Reagan’s posturing (especially SDI) kept the Soviet government in power long after it would otherwise have collapsed by providing a convenient excuse for massive Soviet “defense” mobilization against a US saber-rattling.
<
p>Let’s not forget that the US was perfectly happy to ally with Hitler while Hitler was anti-Communist (and therefore anti-Soviet). So long as Germany threatened the Russian border, we were fine. After WWII, we were quite happy to (secretly) aid ex-Nazi Communist hunters like Alger Hiss.
<
p>Ho Chi Minh, the equally-vilified leader of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, was trained and supported by the US during WWII because he was, at that time, staunchly anti-Nazi.
<
p>The US has a LONG history — some would say “habit” — of supporting TERRIBLE dictators so long as they oppose whoever we are currently fighting. Saddam Hussein comes to mind, not to mention legions of despicable tyrants we have kept in power in South and Central America and the Middle East.
<
p>Our issue in Afghanistan is, today, the question of who controls the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan. I don’t believe that blue jeans, beer, literacy, women’s rights, or even 9/11 have anything to do with it.
…is the alliance you mention between us and Hitler. I’m pretty up on my history and I don’t recall the US being allied to Hitler in the 30s.
I don’t mean to suggest that any formal alliance existed.
<
p>I mean that the US ended up on the same side as Hitler and against the Soviets in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), where the US joined Hitler (and Mussolini) in supporting Francisco Franco — against factions supported by the Soviet Union.
<
p>There is a reasonable argument, I think, that the now-infamous Munich Agreement of 1938 was motivated at least in part by a commonly-held view of France, Britain and the US that the Stalinist Soviet Union was a greater threat than the emerging Nazi Germany. There is strong evidence that Stalin viewed it that way — it influenced Stalin’s participation in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.
<
p>I think I need to also observe that choosing Stalin as an ally over Hitler itself supports the argument that ms presents — Osama Bin Laden is a Frankenstein of our creation.
It occurred to me later that the one thing I did remember was that Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact. (Is that the same as Molotov-Ribbentrop – I guess I am a little fuzzy). The US didn’t officially participate in the Spanish Civil War right? The only American I know was involved was Ernest Hemingway. Was Chamberlain’s Munich sellout backed by the US? I know Joseph Kennedy was willing to give Hitler a pass, but I wasn’t sure if that were official policy. I think you’re right about Stalin in the last paragraph. I’ve always found it ironic that for all the Cold War attitude about the USSR being evil, the one Soviet dictator with whom we were allied was also arguably the most evil of them all. So I guess there are nuances of which I wasn’t aware. Common history tends to present the USA as not really caring what happened to or in Europe on way or the other between the world wars.
Baker was just following Scott Brown’s lead! Hudak was Scott’s main man on the north shore…used Hudak’s digs for a headquarters and availed himself of every kind of Hudak assistance before he was elected. Scott never once disavowed anything his lead cheerleader/operative was doing or saying…but he could not have missed the sign on the front yard tree!…or the bumperstickers plastered right next to his own on Hudak’s weird car!
<
p>After election Scott backed off and reneged on his pleadge to endorse Hudak for Congress. So maybe Charlie is just following in Scott Brown’s playbook, hoping no one will notice until it’s too late! Hopefully voters have wised up, but don’t count on it!
How the heck does he deny going to birtherpoloza with Hudak when there are photos of him on stage giving a speech?
Gee folks, if you don’t like Baker or Hudak, don’t vote for them. You seem offended that they have the temerity to even be running.
Nobody is suggesting that they not speak. I, for one, am happy to see Charlie Baker loudly and very publicly demonstrate what a dishonest demagogue he is.
<
p>Charlie Baker can tell whatever lies he likes. I am happy to see the media belatedly reporting the factual dishonesty of those lies.
I’m sure you do enjoy revealing how we meets your definition of a dishonest demagogue but when all semblance of balance is lacking the output reads as shrill and partisan. Baker is not a perfect candidate but, then again, neither is your guy. As I said, his greatest sin would appear to be having the temerity to run.
That after all that has been posted on this site about Baker’s embrace of the Republican way of funding (borrow and spend, let the future generation pay the bill) as exemplified by the Big Dig, after his attempts to have it both ways on social issues…
<
p>that you can say that our main problem with Baker is that he has the “temerity to run.”
<
p>Once upon a time MA had some very decent Republicans, such as Leverett Saltonstall, Ed Brooke, John Volpe, Frank Sargent.
Just to see if you can do it, try saying this out loud:
<
p>”That after all that has been posted on this site about Patrick’s embrace of the Democratic way of funding (borrow and spend, let the future generation pay the bill) as exemplified by Obama, after his attempts to have it both ways on social issues…”
That the last three Republican administrations added $9 trillion to the national debt? That Charlie Baker borrowed against future federal highway funds? That Obama’s stimulus (which did indeed add to the deficit) was required by the economic disaster that he inherited from the Republicans?
<
p>BTW, do you support keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? These have been paid for by borrowing and anyone who continues to support them has no business criticizing anyone else for deficit spending.
Web guy, you should stick to wedding photos:
<
p>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…
<
p>Looks like the fabulous one has added more than $2 trilion to the debt in his first 421 days in office. Well on his way to overtaking the hated warmonger Bush.
<
p>I particularly like this part: “In the 2011 federal budget released last month, the [Obama] administration projects the National Debt will soar ever upward to over $25 trillion in the year 2020. The total debt will amount to more than 100 percent of the national economy as early as 2012.”
<
p>And yes, I absolutely support keeping the Bush tax cuts. I’m in that upper category and the 1% that pay 40% of the freight are tired of supporting the close to 50% who pay nothing
<
p>That’s as good a statement of the basic ethos of the Republican party as I’ve seen in a while – because they almost never admit it, instead substituting some bogus theory about small business or job creation. So thanks for that.
I like to think Margaret Thatcher captured it best: “socialism is a great idea till you run out of other people’s money…”
<
p>And in this mess, reasonable people actually expect the unemployment rate to drop anytime soon? I fear that talk about when the “double dip” will occur is moot. It’s here now.
…like the offense people here take to Baker’s getting a little too close to a candidate that has said some outrageous things regarding the President. There was a time not too long ago when it was possible to be a Republican, or to be the loyal opposition without being a nut.
…Baker what he thinks about Hudak’s more colorful side. But I don’t see how anyone can honestly conclude from this appearance that Baker joins Hudak in his nut jobbery.
since it seems that you have a problem with comprehension. Where do I say that he cannot speak at a Hudak event? I’m saying that he’s a fringe nutjob and Baker has associated himself. There are a few issues here, but the one I pointed out was that he DENIED IT, when there are photos and news stories about him speaking at the event.
<
p>Heck, all the power to Baker if he wants to latch on to the crazy birther freaks. It will make November a lot easier for Patrick.
Your use of “seem” signals that a closer reading is in order.
In the Globe piece linked in this post, Scot Lehigh smears Baker for attending a Hudak event, suggesting he is trying to “have it both ways,” by appealing to both moderates and Tea Party types.
<
p>Well, Scot’s trying to have it both ways by resorting to “guilt by association” against a Republican (Charlie Baker) after having denounced its use against a Democrat (Obama), in 2008.
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/pol…
<
p>
<
p>I am surprised at this double standard, because I believed that Lehigh was a more moderate columnist, not just another moonbat… but I see now that he is perfectly willing to contradict his own writing as long as the target is a Republican.
that is a very silly equivalence. Do I really have to explain how attending and speaking at a major fundraiser for an active candidate with extreme fringe views is not exactly comparable to the faint threads connecting Obama and Ayers?
According to the New York Sun, Obama accepted a $200 political contribution from Bill Ayers.
<
p>http://www.nysun.com/national/…
<
p>
(bold mine)
<
p>Now, I’m not trying to pick on Obama– the ONLY reason I even brought this up is to point out Globe columnist Scot Lehigh’s hypocrisy– two years ago, he criticized John McCain’s “guilt by association” tactics for using Obama’s connection to Ayers to smear him as a radical.
<
p>Fast forward to 2010, and what does Lehigh do but use the exact same “guilt by association” tactic against Charlie Baker for appearing at an event trying to pick up some votes on the north shore. The only thing “silly” about the equivalence is that at least as far as I can tell, Bill Hudak would never dream of bombing anything, let alone the US Capitol and Pentagon.
Are you willfully distorting my point, or did you just not understand it?
<
p>Of course Ayers is fringe. But accepting a $200 donation from a fringe character 7 years earlier is a hell of a lot different from actively boosting his candidacy at a fundraiser for a current campaign. Surely you can see that.
<
p>As for your extraordinarily tired out-trotting of Obama’s years-old associations with Ayers in a couple of academic settings, well, zzzzz.
Baker made an appearance at an event where he might be able to pick up some votes, I would hardly call that “actively boosting [Hudak’s] candidacy” — I’ve never heard Charlie even mention Hudak at any other events.
<
p>And thanks for your snide characterization of my comment– see, I expect to have my intelligence insulted here on BMG. But it’s more than I can bear to see it happening in a newspaper that has as big a readership as The Globe.
<
p>To sum up MY point, if you want evidence of media bias, Scot Lehigh’s article is a prime example– he resorts to guilt by association to smear a Republican gubernatorial candidate after denouncing that same tactic when used by John McCain against Obama 2 years ago.
<
p>The hypocrisy and double-standard amount to media bias, pure and simple– and for those of us who were gullible enough to hope for something different out of Scot Lehigh, I guess we won’t get fooled again.
<
p>
You wouldn’t? Really? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree there. But suffice it to say that if Bill Ayers had ever run for office, and Barack Obama had shown up and spoken at a fundraiser for that race, methinks you’d probably characterize it pretty differently from your take on Baker/Hudak. Hypocrisy and double-standard indeed.