If someone would kindly comment on any inaccuracies of this ad, it would be greatly appreciated by me. It would also set my mind at ease a bit. Several stations, including Fox News, has refused to run this ad, for the time being. (This ad was put out by the non-profit group, American Issues Project.)
This is an article about how Obama is trying to get this ad removed altogether.
Here is the rebuttle ad the Obama team has put out.
Yet again, Obama doesn't address any of the direct affiliations with Ayers later in his life. That's the part that concerns me.
21 comments:
The "damning" quotes from Obama describing his opinion of Ayers are sourrounded by elipses (...), meaning they were taken out of context, and probably in no way reflect the meaning of what was actually said. The quote could have been "I think that Mr. Ayers does not, and never has, had a respectable position on instituting social change." If the entire statement's tone and message was as the ad says it is, why didn't they at least include a full sentence as a quote?
From what I have read Ayers was someone very peripherally involved in the Chicago nonprofit community activist scene at the time Obama was active in it. That doesn't mean he and Obama are best friends.
great points.
I guess you're right, the quote COULD have said that....thus rendering the ad useless.
Ayers helped Obama get off the ground politically. I guess he hosted an "informal campaign" event at his home in 1995.
Did Obama attend the event? If he did, that should raise questions about judgement shouldn't it? That's like a no-brainer isn't it?
Oh yeah...what does this say about the University of Chicago that this guys is a professor there?
Hosting a political event does not mean that Obama is in any way beholden to Ayers, or even ideologically similar. Following your logic here would indicate that Dubya is in league with Bin Laden. You can't have it both ways, try again.
By the way, the Bush family IS in league with the House of Saud as well as the Bin Ladens. The link between Obama and Ayers is much more incidental than a business relationship, and involves MUCH less money and influence. So you tell me, who should we really fear?
we should fear the reaper.
reaper: john kerry could've used you on his campaign team in 2004.
but didn't. b/c he feared the reaper.
Obama urged supporters to innundate WGN radio with calls and emails to protest Stanley Kurtz's interview.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html
Obama campaign said they should offer fair rebuttal, but declined to appear on the show.
What's that all about?
I think he's saying that he plans to shut down the right wing noise machine one scumbag hatchet man at a time.
Here's the actual email, reprinted in the Chicago Tribune, not some half-wit blog:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-obama-wgn,0,3744149.story
He does address the lies in an appropriate way, that is, indirectly and diplomatically, to an audience that he is reasonably sure does not have mental illness, i.e., his supporters. People who still listen to AM radio are obviously clinging to some very antiquated technology and ideas.
So what are you talking about again? Why would a PRESIDENTIAL NONIMNEE would go on air to be screamed at by a moron? Basically, Kurtz is beneath Obama's contempt, and does not deserve to interview him.
no, no, no...i'm not saying Obama himself would have to go on the air. but he needs to put this thing to rest ASAP, and their are tons of Obama supporters that are in the business of going on these shows that he could call on to have the debate. instead, he chooses not to have the debate and "get all kindergarten" on the radio station by having people call and email.
there is a legitimate debate to be had, and he doesn't want to have it. that is scarry. this guy is probably going to be the most powerful man in the world, and it's amazing how little we know about him, his associations and his policies.
Wrong again; a lie in its very essence is not capable of starting a legitimate debate. But, to even further demonstrate your inablility to comprehend the written word, the email does address these points.
It would be like me saying you're a bank-robbing pedophile Islamic sympathizer. Want to debate that?
It's not the same at all. Kurtz is a PhD that contributes to major, albeit mostly conservative media outlets...plus he's a fellow at two major intstitues. (i just googled him.)
You're anonymous, thus no credibility. I'm not saying that to be insulting, it's just the facts.
The point is that a lie is a lie, and is not worth the time. Debating it gives it traction.
actually, the point is that it's another example of the democrats not being able to debate issues, so they apply alternate tactics... such as trying to suppress free speech.
The Fairness Doctrine sounds good on the surface, but this is a prime example of the dirty underbelly.
Whatever.
So you want to debate the fact that you're a gay Islamic child molester?
i guess if somebody with credibility accused me of that, I would be forced to debate the issue... especially if I were running for president.
but since you have no credibility, I won't be debating that with you.
It almost sounds like you're finally getting it, but I somehow doubt you are.
I think people who post slanderous drivel on blogs and who don't have the balls to put their name on the line are not only gay Islamic child molesters, but also drink puppy blood and sodomize rooters.
:)
There are plenty of reasons to question Obama's judgement... his ties to Ayers, his ties to Tony Rezko, his refusal to distance himself from a church whose pastor was alarmingly bigoted (Oprah had the good sense to leave that church, by the way)...
By the way - if you really think that I believe you are any of the horrible things I said above, then you are clearly an imbecile. If you realize that I was just being bitingly sarcastic, then you're right on the money... but you are still a gutless milquetoast for not using your name.
This just came to me: posting anonymously is almost like voting "present" while working as a legislator. Both are equally cowardly, especially when portrayed as "smart political moves."
My work forbids me from posting on the internet if there's a way to discover my identity. It's an IT policy.
Does it really matter though? You're scott, I'm anonymous, so what? I still don't know you or need to, and you don't need to know who I am to have a debate on this stuff. You're not at all making a relevant point.
@ anonymous - Then why are you posting on blogs whilst at work in the first place? In a word - convenient. I think people like to hide behind a shroud of anonymity online. It makes it easy for them to say things and to shirk accountability for having said them. It also makes me far less inclined to ever want to take anything they say seriously, but that's my issue I guess.
And trust me - as someone who works in the IT field, your employer can easily figure out where you have been during work hours... so please just be careful. Spouting off at me is definitely not worth losing your job. ;)
Peace out.
I think you misunderstood. My employer doesn't care if I spout off, as long as the spouting doesn't lead back to them. I have tried to post with my name before, but the system here is set so I can only post anonymously. I'm frequently bored at work, and thus I try to bring Eric back into the fold of rational thought in my spare time. Thanks for your concern though.
Post a Comment