On Tuesday’s Hannity and Colmes program top Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs displayed the latest example of the Democratic campaign attempting to whitewash their opponents. When co-host Sean Hannity asked him about Obama’s connections to William Ayers, Gibbs shot back, "Are you anti-Semitic?" He then changed the entire subject of the discussion to whether Hannity was anti-Semitic for recently interviewing Andy Martin, who in 2000, accused George W. Bush of using cocaine, has been a candidate for various offices in several states, and is accused by the Washington Post of starting the rumor that Obama is a Muslim.
This charge by Gibbs caused a three-plus minute back-and-forth argument in which the Obama spokesman continued to charge that Hannity was anti-Semitic, and also asked at one point, "Why am I not to believe that everyone who works for the network is anti-Semitic because Sean Hannity gave a platform to a man who thinks Jews are slimy?" The argument was finally stopped by co-host Alan Colmes, who defended Hannity as "not anti-Semitic" [see video at right; direct link to video here].
This kind of shout-down-your-opponent-to-shut-him-up strategy by the Obama campaign has been used on at least two other occasions. Just over a month ago on August 27, 2008, the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago got word of an upcoming interview of Stanley Kurtz, a critic of the Illinois senator, on a local talk radio program. They first refused an offer by the radio station, WGN, for equal time on the program. The headquarters then sent out a flash e-mail to their supporters asking them to call and "[t]ell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse" and to "[t]hen report back on your call" on a link on the Obama campaign website. In effect, the Obama campaign and their supporters tried to shout down WGN and Kurt in order to shut them up. They attempted to do the same thing when "The Case Against Barack Obama" author David Freddoso appeared on the same WGN program over two weeks later on September 15.
The relevant portion of the exchange between Sean Hannity and Robert Gibbs, which began at the bottom-half of the 11 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Hannity and Colmes program on Fox News Channel:
SEAN HANNITY: Why would you sit on a board -- would you sit on a board with a guy who bombed the Pentagon [William Ayers] and wasn't sorry about it?
ROBERT GIBBS: He sat on a charitable board and a board that funded by a conservative Republican and a friend of Ronald Reagan.
HANNITY: Was that poor judgment?
GIBBS: That was Walter Annenberg.
HANNITY: I didn't ask you -- was that poor judgment on Obama's part?
GIBBS: I don't think that was poor judgment at all. I think what Barack Obama has done throughout his career is talk about the big issues that are important to him --
HANNITY: All right, you're giving me spin now. I'm asking you --
GIBBS: Okay -- let me ask you one question.
HANNITY: All right. You ask me a question.
GIBBS: Okay. Are you anti-Semitic?
HANNITY: Not at all.
GIBBS: Okay. On your show on Sunday --
HANNITY: Uh-huh --
GIBBS: You -- the show that is named after you, right? The show with -- the centerpiece of that show was a guy named Andy Martin -- right?
HANNITY: No -- I know you're reading your talking points regarding --
GIBBS: No, no --
HANNITY: When I interviewed -- hang on one second. Let me answer your question.
GIBBS: No, no. I don't have talking points --
HANNITY: When I interviewed Malik Shabazz; when I interviewed Al Sharpton --
GIBBS: Right.
HANNITY: When I interviewed all of these controversial figures -- you see on Fox, we actually interview people of all points of view, whether we agree or disagree.
GIBBS: So --
HANNITY: I -- the statement you're about to read --
GIBBS: Yeah, Andy Martin --
HANNITY: I -- I totally, completely --
GIBBS: Called a judge a crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and theiving -- comments (unintelligible) --
HANNITY: Here's my answer to you --
GIBBS: Martin went on to write that he understood better why -- better why the Holocaust took place, given that Jews [sic] survivors are operating as a wolf pack (unintelligible) --
HANNITY: Here's my answer to you. I find those comments despicable. But wait a minute --
GIBBS: You put him on your show!
HANNITY: We put Malik Shabazz on the show --
GIBBS: It's the Hannity -- it's the Hannity show!
HANNITY: I put Khalid Muhammad on my show. I put --
GIBSS: Why am I not to believe that you're anti-Semitic?
HANNITY: Let me -- here's the answer --
GIBBS: Why am I not to believe that everyone who works for the network is anti-Semitic --
HANNITY: Here's the -- here's the --
GIBBS: Because Sean Hannity gave a platform to a man who thinks -- who thinks Jews are slimy?
HANNITY: Mr. Gibbs -- Mr. Gibbs -- Mr. Gibbs -- I's a journalist who interviews people that I disagree with all of the time, that give their opinion. Fox has all points of view. We're allowing you on the program, and I do not agree with hardly anything that Obama says.
GIBBS: (Laughs) Well --
HANNITY: So let me answer -- no, no, no --
GIBBS: How can you give a platform to virulent anti-Semites --
HANNITY: Here's -- I will tell you this --
GIBBS: who can't even get a law license in Illinois?
HANNITY: That I -- I'll make a deal with you. If Barack Obama admits that what he did by sitting on a board with -- giving speeches with -- having Ayers -- going over to Ayers' house --
GIBBS: You'll admit you're anti-Semitic?
HANNITY: No, no. I'll admit to you that -- I will tell you that Barack Obama wants to be president. It's poor judgment. It is irresponsible --
GIBBS: (Laughs) Well --
HANNITY: And it's reckless to -- no, let me finish -- to be friends with a guy that bombed our Pentagon, was at war with our country, whose motto was to kill our children and kill your parents.
GIBBS: Well, I think it's deplorable that you had some on TV that's anti-Semitic --
HANNITY: And it's deplorable that your candidate for president has not been honest with the American people.
GIBBS: That calls Jews slimy, and understands the Holocaust better because of the way he views --
HANNITY: I'm explaining --
COLMES: (unintelligible) We have a short time here --
HANNITY: Let me finish first. Let me finish (to Alan Colmes). I'm explaining to you --
GIBBS: I can't believe you would give a platform --
HANNITY: So you do not want to want me to interview anybody I agree, dis[agree] -- I can only -- I can only interview people you disagree with?
GIBBS: You put the whole show around him, Sean!
HANNITY: Barack Obama --
GIBBS: You had to believe only that you agree with each and everything that Andy Martin says.
HANNITY: Listen -- Barack Obama, the president [sic] sat in the pew of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, a guy who hates America.
GIBBS: I think -- I think you're changing the subject -- will you do me a favor?
HANNITY: Barack Obama -- Barack Obama is friends with William [sic] Pfleger --
GIBBS: Will you do me a favor?
HANNITY: I have one last question.
(Crosstalk)
HANNITY: Did Barack Obama ever sit and meet with Louis Farrakhan? Has he ever met with Louis Farrakhan?
GIBBS: I don't -- I don't know the answer to that.
HANNITY: Will you give us an answer by tomorrow?
GIBBS: Will you get back to me on whether you're anti-Semitic?
HANNITY: Ah, I'm not anti-Semitic. I am the biggest supporter of Israel.
COLMES: (unintelligible)
HANNITY: Benjamin Netanyahu blurbed my book.
GIBBS: Let me tell you -- I don't think -- I don't think your Jewish viewers are going to take it very well when you had someone like that on your show.
HANNITY: Excuse me. Excuse me. I am the biggest supporter of Israel --
GIBBS: I think it's bad that you gave him a platform.
HANNITY: And I've got a 30 year history of -- on the record of it.
GIBBS: Well, ask them and their friends about what Andy Martin said. You used that guest --
HANNITY: And listen -- I am not friends with a guy that bombed the Pentagon. I'm not friends with a guy that bombed the Capitol --
GIBBS: Here, you take this (hands Hannity a card) -- take that.
COLMES: Well, let me jump in for a second, Robert.
HANNITY: Your candidate is friends with him, not me.
GIBBS: You're friends with someone who is a virulent anti-Semite. Ask someone -- ask Benjamin Netanyahu about that!
HANNITY: Your candidate is friends with a terrorist!
GIBBS: That's not true.
COLMES: Hey guys --
HANNITY: He sits on a board with a terrorist.
COLMES: Guys, stop it. First of all, he's not anti-Semitic.
HANNITY: Thank you very much.
GIBBS: Well, (unintelligible) --
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
When you catch a liberal red
October 8, 2008 - 14:30 ET by MrSnugglesWhen you catch a liberal red handed, the only reaction they have is "RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That shout people down
October 8, 2008 - 14:39 ET by mrbucketThat shout people down garbage drives me INSANE. It happens from the kook base straight up to the top. Put Hannity on the defensive, force the topic to change, than waste the rest of the interview on some pointless exaggerated claim.
The sad part is, all the kooks will likely be cheering that garbage on and still not caring one bit about Ayers, Wright, etc...
McCain's no winner, but hell, he's worlds better than Obama who only has his media poster boy status and millions of wide-eyed moonbats in his corner. Hopefully the Conservative base will come out in force this time and finally put the MSM Lib mandate on the defensive.
At least
October 8, 2008 - 14:49 ET by NorthCoasterAt least my local Dem. friends recognize the stupidity of this blustering approach. They are disappointed that points that they wish to be made get ignored when this sort of interview occurs. From what they say I would figure that this approach to political discussion is why the Congress has a 9%+- approval rating.
OT re: Jews
October 8, 2008 - 14:48 ET by RackieIt is really hard to feel sympathy for the Jews anymore when they insist on backing politicians and policies that are not in their best interests. Are they trying to commit suicide or what?
no you didn't yes I did no you didn't
October 8, 2008 - 14:50 ET by KC MulvilleI rarely watch Hannity & Colmes anymore, but the Phillies had a travel day before the NLCS, so I was surfing. I happened to catch this stupidity last night, and I was stunned by it. This was Huffington-Post level thinking. And this guy, Gibbs, is one of Obama's chief lieutenants?
I guess Gibbs was hoping that MSNBC would give him "Person of the Week" or that the Huffington Post was cheering him. That and a bucket of spit will get you a bucket of spit.
I saw this
October 8, 2008 - 15:47 ET by NorthCoasterI saw this and had to turn to another channel because I had seen this jerk get under his skin before. Then good ol' Alan lets Hannity get rolled without stepping in instead of helping to control the time and sending him packing. I think Alan sort of enjoyed the action. I turned back and it was still on so I saw the Colmes rescue.
I love the argument clinic
October 8, 2008 - 19:16 ET by ThatDudeI love the argument clinic reference. Tis one of my favorite sketches by the group. Unfortunately, this is how things work with most leftists. They attempt to shout down any point you make with baseless attacks and refuse to make coherent thoughts or responses. Can someone explain why the man was on the show in the first place? Was the intent to help get out Obama's message and better clarify the man's stance in his absence? From this exchange it seems like the only reason the man went on the show was to level a baseless character attack against his host.
Gibbs ... what a slime
October 8, 2008 - 14:54 ET by LionKingThere is a difference from interviewing an anti-Semiteand being friends with one. This DIMocrat obviously does not understand the difference -- that's why he cannot connected the dots between Ayers and the Obamamessiah.
Panic Time
October 8, 2008 - 15:20 ET by NoMoreClintonsThe 0bama campaign and their enablers in the media are in a panic over the Ayers thing, and rightly so. After all, they can't deny that 0bama launched - that's LAUNCHED - his political career in Ayers' living room. And they gave away $50 million of Annenberg's money together to radical and left-wing organizations under the guise of education. Yes, it's panic time and McCain should pour it on from now 'till Election Day because they have no valid response.
Saw gibbs on Fox & Friends
October 8, 2008 - 21:03 ET by TN MomSaw gibbs on Fox & Friends yesterday. Gretchen asked him why obama wrote a forward in ayers book (published in '97) She said 'you have to be close to someone to write a forward/blurb in their book'. Wow! gibbs was stunned! He stammered like a child caught cheating on a test!
How dare he...I could not
October 8, 2008 - 15:26 ET by bigtimerHow dare he...I could not of sat there and took that...let alone Gibbs saying that about all of Fox network...
I know full well he had a usual leftist tactic...switch the subject...but the vile, the lying vile that came out of his slimy mouth would of been pushed right back in by my fist.
Obviously I couldn't make it as a talking head if you had to take this BS.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Could Not Believe It
October 8, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Gat New YorkI did see that and could not believe how ignorant Gibbs is or how ignorant he believes American people are.
There is NO moral equivalence between Hannity (who is not running for President) interviewing anyone and Obama spenidng 20 years in THE most anit-Semitic church in the country or Obama having a direct and symbiotic relationship with Ayers.
15 years ago as a young
October 8, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Hero Squad15 years ago as a young reporter I worked on a story about a member of the KKK who was using public access TV to basically recruit for his hate organization. I interviewed the guy, watched him tape one of his programs, even visited his home/meeting area (which was in a significantly non-white section of town, oddly enough.) To say it was a disturbing experience (particularly when he did a little racist puppet show for me).
I guess in Gibbs' mind, I'm a racist since I actually did in-depth research into this very unsettling topic I was covering.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
shut him up
October 8, 2008 - 15:30 ET by cassratWhen that slimy retatd brought up the subject of anti-semitism Sean should have pulled the plug on him.Instead he tried to get back to the subject of the original question. He should have known that the idiot was not interested in answering the question. He just wanted to slime Sean and everyone at Fox.
Semper Fi --- Jethro Gibbs for President!!!!
fix error
October 8, 2008 - 15:34 ET by cassratI can't spell!!! It's RETARD not retatd
NOTE there is NO relationship between Jethro Gibbs (Character on NCIS) and this buttwipe.
What about Jethro from the
October 8, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Clear thinkerWhat about Jethro from the Beverly Hillbillies?
Do You Feel Better About Your Candidate After Last Nights Debate?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
That this moron would
October 8, 2008 - 15:34 ET by ckc1227That this moron would even make that argument is outstounding. I mean, it's gotten to the point now where those speaking for "the one" can and will say anything they want, no matter how ridiculous because they know they won't get called on it. And this wasn't an "off the cuff" remark, he actually came PREPARED to make this, possible one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
Scary, very scary.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
ckc1227
October 8, 2008 - 22:47 ET by Indiana Joe"That this moron would even make that argument is outstounding."
"Outstounding?" Hey, I like it, it's a great word! A combination of "outrageous" and "astounding." Very inventive!
Was that intentional? C'mon, 'fess up.
Either way, kudos!
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
the point is guilt by association doesn't work
October 8, 2008 - 15:50 ET by nicholas nicklebyMatt,
Gibbs could have made his point better--and I notice you cut off the transcript where Colmes went on to make clear the actual point that Gibbs was arguing. Thanks for the spin, Matt!
So, if you missed that part, here's the actual point:
If you sit down at a table with someone to work on a project, it doesn't mean you agree with everything they say in all other areas.
Posters at NB have said, "Why didn't Obama denounce Ayers before?" to which I've pointed out that that would be a ridiculous non-sequitur--can you imagine a memo from Obama that said, "The education reform proposed by Ayers--whose terrorist acts I absolutely deplore!--is very promising."
Do you see that? One thing doesn't have anything to do with the other.
Now, Hannity did sit down with a raging anti-Semite, and at no point did Hannity say, "My guest, Andy Martin--a raging anti-Semite whose beliefs in that one area I absolutely deplore!--is here to talk about Obama's connections with Ayers."
Do you see that? One thing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.
So, if Barack Obama is a terrorist or has terrorist ideas because he sat on a board with Ayers without denouncing his past, then Hannity is an anti-Semite or has anti-Semitic ideas because he sat at a desk with Martin without deploring his anti-Semitic present.
Get that Matt? That was Gibbs' point: that guilty by association doesn't work, and if it did, Hannity would be an anti-Semite. (And if you read the transcript carefully, Gibbs never actually called him an anti-Semite, he just asked how Hannity could prove that he wasn't since he associated with Martin--it's the same question you guys ask about Obama. Double-standard much, Matt?)
And if you think I'm stretching in any way, you should watch the part where Colmes actually does explain that--which you, Matt, conveniently left off.
"Guilt by association does
October 8, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Clear thinker"Guilt by association does not work?"
Ok, let's try an experiment. WW, I want you to find a child sex offender in your neighborhood. Then grab a couple of chairs and set them up in his drive-way. Then the two of you just sit there and shoot the breeze while driniking beer and watching the neighborhood kids play. Once someone in the neighborhood finds out your new bestest buddy is a sex offender, I want you to stick around with him for a couple more days. Then come back and tell me that guilt by association doesn't work.
Do You Feel Better About Your Candidate After Last Nights Debate?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
what's with cons and pedophiles?
October 8, 2008 - 16:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyif GbA works, then Hannity is an anti-Semite because he palled around with an anti-Semite on his show--he gave Martin a forum, he never called him out on his anti-Semitic views.
on the other hand, if GbA really works, then the fact that so many posters here immediately go to examples with pedophiles should really make people think. What's so darn attractive about pedophiles to you cons?
(I kid about that last part, Clear--I know it's just because it's an extreme example about which we can all agree: pedophilia is wrong. But your example doesn't work--you see, Hannity knew Martin was an anti-Semite (if you've ever heard Martin's name, you know he's an anti-Semite), and he invited him on to his show. So, in your example, Hannity has befriended the anti-Semite in the past, then he learns that he's an anit-Semite, and... he still hangs out with him/invites him to his show. So, by your logic, Hannity is an anti-Semite.)
What's with libs and terrorists?
October 8, 2008 - 18:35 ET by ckc1227I mean, they say they are against terrorism, but turn a blind eye to the fact their candidate seems to be okay with palling around with one who regrets not killing more Americans. And I don't mean just being on a radio show together once, I mean a 15 or so year history of working together. Their kids have even spent the night at each other's house.
Wait, this just in....Hannity is now a Democrat. He actually had a Dem on his radio show once. He is also a racist, America hater because he's had members of The Nation of Islam on. You know, because all these things are the equivalent of the Obama-Ayers relationship, or the Obama-Wright relationshio, lol.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
good jab
October 8, 2008 - 18:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyckc,
You're right, there's a difference between a short association and a longer one.
Now, I've already refuted the idea that Ayers wants to kill Americans or doesn't show regret over the violence he was a part of--in fact, you can look it up: no bomb of his ever did kill anyone. That's not to excuse what he did, but it is important to get the facts right.
And the facts are, they worked together, and Ayers is a respected professor 4 decades after his detestable acts. Obama is not "palling" around with Ayers (no matter what his kids do--that's still GbA: "Obama's daughter is friends with a former terrorist's daughter therefore Obama supports terrorism!" Please.) And Ayers is not now "a terrorist." Therefore the entire phrase "palling around with terrorists" is entirely false.
Or, for another example, let's look at this question: Was Rumsfeld a Baathist because he used to work with Saddam in the 80s--not a simple meet-and-greet, but a long working relationship?
Ayers is still a terrorist.
October 8, 2008 - 19:06 ET by cocodrieAyers is still a terrorist. He proclaimed it himself and said he is proud of it.
Guilt by association. How
October 8, 2008 - 19:02 ET by cocodrieGuilt by association. How many atheists will you find in church. How many gun control freaks will you find at NRA headquarters. If Hussein Obama is not a racist he would not be in Wright's church. If Hussein Obama is not a terrorist he would not be on boards with Ayers. Remember the man driving the car is just as guilty as those who do the murder or the robbery.
Sarah Palin's husband
October 8, 2008 - 19:07 ET by nicholas nicklebySarah Palin's husband belonged to a secessionist Alaskan political party. Is Sarah Palin a secessionist?
Or, how about this: how many crazy left-wing people will you find on a crazy right-wing website? Does that ipso facto make them into right-wing crazies? (Or vice versa: who here goes to HuffPo sometimes?)
Sorry NN - this has been
October 8, 2008 - 19:14 ET by cocodrieSorry NN - this has been proven to be a lie put out by Hussein Obama
Read first, talk second
October 8, 2008 - 19:23 ET by nicholas nickleby"But Fenumiai adds that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP
from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000.
He is currently undeclared."
http://blogs.abcnews...
Ok NN
October 8, 2008 - 19:28 ET by general companySo we will mark in down that you dont mind a Socialist as President , no problem, now we know.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Read first, talk second
October 8, 2008 - 19:46 ET by cocodrieThe Alaskan Independence Party is not a secessionist party. The first plank in their platform is "1- To effect full compliance with the constitution of the United States of America and the state of Alaska."
now we're talking!
October 8, 2008 - 19:55 ET by nicholas nicklebyCocodrie,
The ultimate goal of the AIP--as per their website ( http://www.akip.org/... )--is a vote on whether Alaska should be a state, a commonwealth, a territory, or a separate nation.
"Secessionist" may be too strong--would you rather "pro-secession choice"?
(Also, did you check out that, in their platform, 1 is to obey the constitutions, and at least one other plank (5) is to amend the constitution. Dig it: We want to obey all the laws of the land, but we want to change some of those laws first before we obey them.)
I would like a couple of
October 8, 2008 - 20:14 ET by cocodrieI would like a couple of amendments to the constitution my self. What someone puts on their website is not the party's platform. "change some of those laws first before we obey them" is a gross distortion by you. America desperately needs to give the individual states back their rights.
Forgot to tell you the
October 8, 2008 - 20:20 ET by cocodrieForgot to tell you the constitution they want to ammend is the Alaska state constitution not the U.S.
Not to mention it is irrelivent
October 8, 2008 - 20:24 ET by general companyComplaining about "Todd" to justify Obama is as pitiful as it comes. Todd is NOT on the ballet. But please feel free to believe it is NN
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
not the issue, GC
October 8, 2008 - 20:34 ET by nicholas nicklebyyou're misunderstanding the argument: I'm arguing that guilt by association doesn't establish guilt.
So, in effect, we agree--I'm arguing that Todd's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party is not really an important issue.
Please read more carefully, GC.
NN
October 8, 2008 - 20:38 ET by cocodrieIt's never important when you're proven wrong
I'm arguing that guilt by association doesn't establish guilt.
October 8, 2008 - 20:49 ET by general companyNo I understand perfectly, guilt by association can be very importaint. Expecialy if you are prepaired to ignore it. Obama has a consistiant history of bad apples in his bushel, Todds bushel doesnt matter at all. You folks seem to think that you can justify some ones elses poor decisions by metioning someone elses. Very poor anology, in my estimation. But please feel free to continue
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
oh, my bad, but then...
October 8, 2008 - 21:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyOh, then I misunderstood that part GC, my bad.
But still, we agree on this much: Todd Palin's associations aren't so important.
But if you want to play GbA with the candidates, you know for every Rezko, there's a Charles Keating; for every Wright, there's a Hagee (whose endorsement McCain solicited, then rejected). Also Phil "Mental Recession" Gramm, Rick "Fannie-Freddie" Davis. For every Chicago Annenberg Challenge there's a US Council for World Freedom--and only one of those organization funneled money so that guerillas could fight.
And, although Todd Palin's connections to AIP don't matter, you know that Sarah Palin recorded a speech for a conference of theirs only a year or two ago?
But if you want to play GbA with the candidates,
October 8, 2008 - 21:30 ET by general companyWhat ever GbA means? So, I get it NN, you dont care that Obama hangs with terrorist or USA haters. Fine, so what, who cares?
McCains supposed crimes have been investigated compleatly, have Obama's? No they havent, Obama doesnt give out any info on his self with out lawyers involved. Get a grip will you.
GbA = guilt by association
October 9, 2008 - 18:36 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey GC,
Obama has been in the spotlight for over 18 months, with almost everything about him being fully investigated--we know about his associates, we know about his voting record, we know about his birth certificate, we know about his personal life (1 mother, 1 car, 1 very nice house)--this whole "who is the real Barack Obama" meme that the conservatives are trying to push is ridiculous.
Especially because when the media ask questions about Sarah Palin--a woman who most people hadn't heard of until a few weeks ago--conservatives are all up in arms: "What, you're asking about a power-abuse scandal, that's sexist!" (Meanwhile, the really sexist comments that go on in these threads go on, and no one seems bothered by them enough to say anything.)
For reals, GC, conservatives don't seem to know what fair looks like. (For the record, fair means that if your side is the one doing the lion's share of the lying, then your side is going to do get the lion's share of the fact-checks.)
But, to address your first point, the accusation that I don't care who Obama hangs out with--well, I do, but I think it's ridiculous to say that because Obama worked with a guy who once was a terrorist but is now a well-respected professor of education who works on charitable boards, that that means that Obama is somehow unfit for command.
Seriously, GC, you saw the debates--who looks like the erratic, risky candidate, and who looks like the guy who is ready to calmly correct the course of the ship of state? (And remember, only something like 9% of Americans think we're going in an okay direction.)
Hey Nick, this is just for
October 9, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Clear thinkerHey Nick, this is just for you... *Obama - Communist Puppet*
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Nice try NN
October 9, 2008 - 19:10 ET by general companyObama worked with a guy who once was a terrorist but is now a well-respected professor
Well respected by who? Look, Obama was a state Rep, did he leave his district better then when he got there, NO he didnt infact it is worse. The only one who has benifited from Obama's representation is Obama. That is a fact. Palin and McCain have left their former position in far better shape then when they arrived , especialy Palin. The crime, drop out rate, taxes, and overall quality of life is pitiful, infact worst in the nation in Obamas district, I for one would like to prevent him from "improving" the rest of our lives
But like I said, you dont care, fine.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Nick
October 8, 2008 - 22:15 ET by well99John Glenn working with Obama is ok right.
"If Barack Obama is so outraged at John McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal, why is John Glenn, another Keating Five member, doing surrogate work for Obama?"
Hmm, sounds like Texas
October 8, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Indiana JoeWere you aware that Texas, under the agreement whereby they became a state, retains the right to secede, or to divide itself into up to 5 states? But why we talking about this? Sarah didn't belong, Todd may have. Ohhhh....GbA. Okay. I get it.
Here's another shocker: the Constitution has provisions for amendments. We've passed 27 of them, last time I checked.
Horrors!
Thought you guys were for "change."
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
heh
October 8, 2008 - 20:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyAnd Texas is also the only state allowed to fly its flag at the same height as the US flag--it has to do with the weird way it became a state: fighting for independence from Mexico and only later joining the US.
But Alaska--we bought that sucker.
(I'm just joking about Alaska. I don't really care about their secessionist movement. (I actually think it is good for politics for people to come up with ultimate goals which are hard to realize.) As you noted the whole point of my original comment is that GbA doesn't work--even if the AIP were totally intent on secession, that doesn't make Sarah Palin a de facto bad choice for VP.
But from there, we seemed to have slipped into an argument about whether the AIP is secessionist, or whether I approve of Amendments. For the record, it was dumb of me to engage in this minor argument since it doesn't necessarily have bearing on my actual argument re: GbA.
And for the record, I like most of our Amendments (esp. 1-10), except maybe the 18th, and I like that we can amend the Constitution, because it means we got the 21st--to repeal the 18th! Better late than never! And on that note, I'm getting a beer. Will be on later to continue. (I've got a longer response to one of your posts, Joe.))
"Slipped," Nick?
October 8, 2008 - 22:58 ET by Indiana JoeWe didn't "slip" anywhere. You took us there, trying to establish some "equivalence" with Bill Ayers, Todd Palin, John McCain, umm, Cheney and Saddam was it? And various others. No "slipping" involved.
Glad to hear you approve of the ability those who supposedly govern themselves have to actually affect that government. The way you seemed appalled (I know, you "didn't say appalled") about the idea kind of made me wonder.
Only one of my posts, Nick? Well, if I was real curious about which one, I'd stay up to see. But I'm off for bed soon. I may check back tomorrow, but there's been so much going on lately, I pretty much abandon old threads for the new ones each day. But, hey, give it a shot. I may be back tomorrow.
(I see your post is almost an hour old, so figuring that's plenty of time to get a beer, if you meant going to the fridge, that is, maybe it's up now. Quick look, then I'm gone.)
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
Geez, Nick, do you know
October 9, 2008 - 13:01 ET by RESTLESS 1Geez, Nick, do you know anything? Or are you just grist for the rumor mill?
No, Texas is NOT allowed to fly it's flag as high as the American flag. The right to secede with the consent of Congress is also untrue, though the way things are going, I just might be in favor of putting something in writing to that effect, but as long as Texas remains a state, it is not allowed to fly it's flag any higher than any other state.
If you can't figure this out, the rest of your posts are just more pablum as well.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
But I heard it from a (lying) Texan!
October 9, 2008 - 14:05 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey restless1,
you're right--the Texas flag does not get totally special treatment--it's an urban legend that I heard from a Texan friend.
But, Restless, the Texas flag bit was part of a joke about the difference between TX and AK--it has nothing to do with any arguments I made.
But thanks for putting paid to that urban legend.
delete
October 9, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Indiana JoeClear, Although You're Not Clear*.......
October 8, 2008 - 17:30 ET by.... I believe your point is that guilt by association DOES work but it's often not right nor fair and should not be used in situations where the person associated w/ the guilty is NOT guilty themselves. Like Hannity in this case and Obama in Ayers' case.
*Maybe you meant being buddies w/ a pedophile makes you guilty too?
Good grief Abe
October 8, 2008 - 19:37 ET by general companyHannity does not "hang" with this guy. Obama receive favors from his guy. Hannity is NOT running for office, Obama is. The comparison is ridiculous. Obama has been "hanging" with bums most his life,,,geez , you dont care, fine you deserve what you get. But dont try and justify it by us.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Abe,
October 8, 2008 - 23:06 ET by RESTLESS 1Follow the money will you? They have both been paying each other off for years.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Nick
October 8, 2008 - 15:58 ET by NorthCoasterPart of what the better talk shows do, is bring on people they disagree with to discuss issues. Sometimes they even do it to expose their warped view of things to the world.
Obama and Ayers were partners or collaborators on boards and projects that eventually led to Barak 's political, "coming out party", at Ayers home. How is it the Barak has so many of these radical friends and associates that he has to distance himself from? What does it say about his perception of the world and his understanding of people that allowed him to associate with these folks for years before realizing that they were radicals?
Personally, I think he knew all along and thinks that the rest of us are stupid enough to believe that he wasn't aware of their positions.
Great Lakes area poster?
October 8, 2008 - 16:24 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey NC,
Why don't you ask those question about Hannity?After all, Hannity was the guy who had a raging anti-Semite on his show--Hannity gave him the platform to speak--and then never called Martin on his anti-Semitism. In fact, Hannity only tried to "distance" himself from Martin's deplorable anti-Semitic remarks when Gibbs brought them up.
I mean, it's almost as if Hannity thinks that you're so stupid that you don't know about Martin's anti-Semitic positions.
(Gosh, sound familiar? Isn't that almost your description of Obama?)
Oh, sure, a good tv host associates with people he doesn't agree with to get the job done
Well, NC, good politicians also sometimes have to work with people they may not totally agree with to get the job done. In fact, isn't that what McCain has been touting for the last few months--he's so bipartisan, he'll reach across the aisle, etc., etc.
So, Hannity isn't an anti-Semite just because he talks to anti-Semites (although we might ask why he associates with people who are anti-Semites in the present), and Obama isn't a terrorist-sympathizer because he talks to Ayers.
Hey Nicholai Novikov-
October 8, 2008 - 16:34 ET by R D HelmSean Hannity isn't running for POTUS.
Dumbass.
-Dave
not quite Dave
October 8, 2008 - 16:41 ET by nicholas nicklebyno, no, no, we're not talking about something like, "Can you name a supreme court case that you disagree with?" which your average person might not be able to answer, but which your candidate should be able to answer.
We're discussing the logic of a particular mode of thought. If guilt by association is true, then Hannity is an anti-Semite, Palin is a secessionist, and McCain is a terrorist anti-Semite (thanks to being on the board of the Council for World Freedom--an organization which the Anti-Defamation League called "a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites." That was in 1981, when McCain was on the board).
Obama is a anti-semitic socialist
October 8, 2008 - 17:12 ET by Gat New YorkWe are not speaking about passing and incidental aquaintances. We are talking about a man (Obama) who with intent sought out these associations while at Columbia, used them to further his political ambitions. used them as his mentors and followed their beliefs, and even used them to get himself with barebones grades into Harvard Law.
Most importantly, Barack Hussein Obama, as a full grown adult joined THE most anti-Semitic church in the country who had THE most anti-Semitic pastor - a pastor and church who promoted the cause of Hamas and the destruction of Israel for all of those 20 years Obama was a member. Obama said that this pastor was a close personal friend and was his spiritual and personal mentor.
And Obama demands that we believe that for all of those 20 years he never heard Wright utter a word against Jews and Israel or never read a word of the church bulletins that were filled that filth.
You have to be hopelessly ignorant to buy into that lie.
There is no moral equivalence between what was said about Hannity and Obama's 20 years history.
Obama loves Jews! At least, socialist Jews.
October 8, 2008 - 18:17 ET by nicholas nicklebyGat,
Do you ever watch the Rachel Maddow show when Pat Buchanan is a guest? (He's very frequently a guest.) Do you ever hear them talking about each other? They DISLIKE each others' ideas, and they LIKE each other as people. It's the craziest thing that some people can be likable and have unlikeable ideas.
But you're right, in some of these situations we're talking about long-standing and close relationships. (Not really true in the case of Ayers, with whom he had a working relationship for a few years.) That's somewhat true in the case of Jeremiah Wright, his long-time pastor.
Now you know more about Rev. Wright's anti-Semitism than I do, so I'd like you to point me to some evidence of what you're saying--are there scans on the internet of some of these scandalous church bulletins, or video of Wright denouncing Israel? I mean, do you think he closed each week's sermon by saying how bad Israel is?
I mean, I just checked the Anti-Defamation League's website and the only two articles I could find about Jeremiah Wright were about how Obama had publically disagreed with Wright over giving Farrakhan an award, and how Wright was being tied to Obama by various white-power groups.
(I really have to focus on this last one just because it's hilarious to me that while some white-power racists are arguing that Obama is run by Jews, other racists are focusing on how extreme Wright is--I guess these two didn't get your memo that Wright is anti-Semitic, so the two couldn't both be true!)
There's nothing in the ADL files to suggest that Wright is, by any metric, the most anti-Semitic pastor. And the Southern Povery Law Center lists 10 hate groups in Chicago, and 1 of those is the Nation of Islam. The rest are your typical mix of White nationalist, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and, my favorite, Christian Identity. (In case you're wondering, there's nothing particularly Christ-like about those thugs.)
So please, I'd like to know more about Wright's anti-Semitism and how he preached it to Obama for 20 years. Please, while you're at it, explain to me why a number of Chicago Jewish organizations are backing him? Please explain to me why Obama was met by Israeli politicians and citizens with respect and why he returned that respect? Why Obama was invited to give a speech to AIPAC?
Seriously, if you can, tell me more about how Obama is an anti-Semite because of his long association with Wright.
“Not really true in the
October 8, 2008 - 22:20 ET by Gat New York“Not really true in the case of Ayers, with whom he had a working relationship for a few years.”
Is really true and was for more than a few years. More importantly it is what he was doing which was to assist Ayers in propagating his brand of early education, or should we say indoctrination, of children.
“I'd like you to point me to some evidence of what you're saying--are there scans on the internet of some of these scandalous church bulletins, or video of Wright denouncing Israel? I mean, do you think he closed each week's sermon by saying how bad Israel is?”
I have hundreds of pages of documents and transcripts as well as video links. But rather than waste my time you should have enough intellectual curiosity to find them for yourself. It’s easy enough. Of course you won’t find any of that on Daily Kos. And you will not find it on left wing Jewish sites either.
Any Jew that will vote for Obama either is unaware of the facts (and many are unaware) or they are JINOs to be kind, like his own campaign people.
Add to the Wright association the fact that Obama has retained THE most anti-Israel foreign policy advisors one could find and the fact that the one time he went against his own party was to vote against the Kyl Lieberman amendment.
In math 1+1=2, not 3 like he has the media doing.
Replace the references to Wright with similar references to David Duke and replace Obama with McCain and you know that 85% of the media would have driven McCain out of the race a long time ago.
This is a man that refuses to answer questions and to tell the truth about his past, and the media has given him a pass on. But where there is smoke there is fire.
Put up or....
October 9, 2008 - 14:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyThe ADL is not a left-wing organization--since you're Jewish, I would expect you to know that since every Jew I know used to get their pamphlets. (The ADL used to keep track of left-wing anti-apartheid groups because there was some cross-over between anti-Apartheid activists and anti-Zionists. And they have a cordial relationship with many right-wing Christian Zionists. That's how you know they aren't left or right wing--they're just interested in Jews.)
So, they had no info on how anti-Semitic Rev. Wright is, so I'm asking you again: can you give me some evidence on that, or can't you?
(See, it's disingenuous of you to say "if you were interested, you'd go look"--because I did go look: I looked at the ADL and the SPLC, two organization dedicated to keeping track of hate speech. And they don't say anything bad about Wright, except that he gave Farrakhan some honor.)
So put up, Gat--where do you get off calling Wright the most anti-Semitic pastor?
My sister worked for ADL
October 9, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Gat New YorkMy sister worked for ADL for years and they are entrenched with liberal Jews. Why they have abandoned their history because of Obama I don't have an answer.
can you give me some evidence on that, or can't you?
Even Obama knows - don't waste my time and do some of your own research - click on google and search for "Jeremiah Wright" - then do something you apparently don't do - READ his writings. This one is not even close.
One thing you should remember, it was the Reverand Martin Luther King who said, "anti-zionism is the same as anti-Semitism."
Put up or...
October 9, 2008 - 18:26 ET by nicholas nicklebyLook Gat, I'm calling your bluff: you go through the trouble of responding to me, and you say you have tons of evidence on your computer--hundreds of pages and video links...
...so why are you being greedy and not sharing those wonderful sources of information that show that Wright is the MOST anti-Semitic pastor?
I'm laying my cards on the table: I think you're not sharing because you don't have the evidence or because you secretly suspect that the evidence you have won't hold up. So I'm calling your bluff--either show your hand or get out of the game.
p.s. hope your fast was easy. I'm sick, so did not fast this year.
Click on Google and go away for a year . . .
October 9, 2008 - 18:46 ET by Gat New YorkYou apparently do not have enough intellectual curiosity to fill a thimble.
Go bother another blog with your empty and pointless barbs.
I win! Too bad for you I
October 9, 2008 - 19:11 ET by nicholas nicklebyI win!
Too bad for you I learned how to debate from a Talmudic scholar at my Hebrew school.
Did you go to Hebrew school?
Nick... Why do you
October 9, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Clear thinkerNick...
Why do you ask?
Did you go to a Home brew school?
*Obama - Communist Puppet*
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
NN
October 9, 2008 - 19:35 ET by cocodrieNow I know that there is one person in the world besides Hussein Obama that could sit in Jeremiah Wrong's church and not hear any hateful racist sermons. -you.
dear Cocodrie, Blonde, Clear Thinker
October 9, 2008 - 23:08 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey yous guys,
just wanted to explain: Clear, I asked Gat about Hebrew school because, I can't tell for sure, but I think he's lying when he says he's Jewish. Or maybe he's just never been to Hebrew school.
now, Cocodrie, I did go to Hebrew school and that's where I learned what's appropriate and what's anti-Semitic. (You can see, on the recent thread about Jon Stewart, that I just kinda called a guy out for possibly being anti-Semitic.)
Now Blonde, I don't know why you'd be bothered by me jokingly declaring myself the winner--I asked a question, Gat failed to answer, failed to support his claim. By any reliable measure, he got schooled. (That doesn't mean I'm right--but it does mean that I won: yes, I just won a completely meaningless argument on the internet with a stranger. I can rest easy now.)
nich-nick
October 10, 2008 - 03:48 ET by MrShy"yes, I just won a completely meaningless argument on the internet with a stranger. I can rest easy now."
That was funny.
You see? We give props to all NB'ers. :)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
Ah...the Al Gore School of Argument
October 9, 2008 - 19:25 ET by BlondeDebate Over!!!! I win!!!!
Sheesh.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Also . . .
October 9, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Gat New YorkThere is a historical narrative that should have come out on Obama months ago had journlists done their job and not relegated their profession to the dumpster so they could become propaganists for Obama.
The narrative is of a bi-racial young man who was born to a socialist mother and socialist grandparents. The grandfather introduced Barack to a noted communist Franklin Marshall Davis in Hawaii who became Obama's first mentor for many years. In his book Obama refers to him as "Frank."
His associations with William Ayers was not incidental or brief. They had a long relationship and was another of Obama's mentors and enablers.
Then you have another socialist in Jeremiah Wright.
I have not yet mentioned his involvement in Project Vote and ACORN (who, by the way, are doing a bang up job of executing the most massive voting registration fraud in history).
As I said, this was the job of the media to expose this man at an early stage in the primaries so that the Democrats could have had a legitimate candidate - not Bill McKay.
Gee Nick
October 10, 2008 - 03:33 ET by well99"The ADL is not a left-wing organization--since you're Jewish, I would expect you to know that since every Jew I know used to get their pamphlets. (The ADL used to keep track of left-wing anti-apartheid groups because there was some cross-over between anti-Apartheid activists and anti-Zionists. And they have a cordial relationship with many right-wing Christian Zionists. That's how you know they aren't left or right wing--they're just interested in Jews.)"
Really Nick?Then what got more attention?
The fatal shooting of one woman and wounding of 5 others.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/30/national/main1847513.shtml?source=RSS&attr=U.S._1847513
Or Mel Gibson anti Semitic remarks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14111494/
If you picked Mel Gibsons remark you are correct.The ADL spent more time on Gibsons racist remarks that the killing of the lady and wounding of the others.So did the main stream media.I even emailed the ADL asking why they let the msm get away with it.The fact that the killer was a muslim.Was that the reason both paid so little attention.Some right wing celeb running his mouth takes precident over the lefts darling terrorist.Reminds me so much of when Abu Grhail was going on.The media gets in a frenzy over that yet at the same time close to 30 kids were killed in Philly school district during school year and a pregnant Israeli women and her 4 daughters were killed by a palistinian terrorist.The left could care less about people unless it is part of their agenda.
NN, The fact that you are continuing to carry water for Obummer
October 8, 2008 - 18:25 ET by R D Helm...in the face of everything that is currently surfacing about him, says much about you.
Check the bottom of your water bucket.
Notice the holes are getting larger? :-)
-Dave
thanks for playing Dave
October 8, 2008 - 18:41 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey Dave,
I'll tell you what I notice: you call me an "intellectually challenged" on threads when I'm not around (but to be fair: you'd say the same thing to my face, I'm sure), and then fail to refute my arguments.
Take a lesson from the McCain and Obama campaigns: when they go into a debate, they try to build expectations for the opposition. You don't want to call someone an idiot, and then fail to refute them.
But then again, maybe you do.
Nick
October 8, 2008 - 18:01 ET by well99Were you sticking up for Sara when the left were trying to apply the racist title to her.You do have friends right?J/K.I dont think Obama is a terrorist but he definately is a leftist.He is a typical Chitown politician.
Nick
October 8, 2008 - 17:02 ET by well99Hannity has offered to have Obama on so he will sit down and talk to all kinds of racist.
"I notice you cut off the
October 8, 2008 - 18:12 ET by ckc1227"I notice you cut off the transcript where Colmes went on to make clear
the actual point that Gibbs was arguing. Thanks for the spin, Matt!"
What spin? The piece is about what Obama's spokesman said, not what Colmes thinks he meant while trying to cover for him. Talk about spin. The guy said Sean interviewing an anti-semite is the same as Obama choosing to associate with Ayers on a regular basis. It's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time on so many levels.
"Get that Matt? That was Gibbs' point: that guilty by association doesn't work, and if it did, Hannity would be an anti-Semite"
Funny how that "guilt by association" isn't an issue when the Obama campaign tries to tie McCain to Bush.
You're right though, guilt by association shouldn't be an issue. But choosing to associate with a known terrorist isn't guilt by association. Letting a known terrorist launch your political career isn't guilt by association; sitting in a racist, America-hating, Marxist church for 20 years isn't guilt by association; choosing an America-hating, Marxist pastor as your mentor isn't guilt by association; funneling $50 million dollars to a known domestic terrorist to aid in pushing your shared socialist cause isn't guilt by association; writing the forward in a book written by a known domestic terrorist isn't guilt by association.
The scary part is it's more than Ayers. There is a long line of sketchy, radical, Obama associations that so many morons are willing to simply dismiss as "not important". Sheesh, no wonder this country is so screwed up.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
GbA vs. GbG
October 8, 2008 - 18:40 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey ckc,
First, McCain and Bush--that's not guilt by association, that's guilt by... well, guilt. If I said, Bush is friends with McCain, that would be GbA. If I say, McCain votes with Bush 90-95% of the time, that's guilt by guilt. (Get it: McCain is actively participating in Bush's agenda. He's not "associated" with Bush--he's agreeing with Bush.)
Second, Colmes isn't trying to cover for Gibbs, he's bringing the ridiculous shouting match (for which I blame both Gibbs and Hannity) back to the point, that guilt by association means we're all guilty.
And I think it's telling that all Matt wants us to read/see is the part where Gibbs asks if Hannity is anti-Semitic, where Hannity refutes him, and where Colmes defends Hannity. Matt, you see, is not being intellectually honest. Hence: spin.
Okay, that out of the way, I don't disagree with you that we need more than "association" to find someone guilty. So, let's look at your examples:
So, Obama associated with Ayers on education reform--so, he's guilty of... education reform. That's what they did together. Any attempt to say that somehow Obama associated with a terrorist seems far-fetched. I agree that maybe we should not forgive Ayers, but to try to make Obama seem guilty of that terrorism is just GbA.
As for Ayers "launching" Obama, that's sort of wrong. The so-called debut of Obama at Ayers' house was a party for Alice Palmer, where Palmer invited Obama along to introduce him to her supporters. (So, it's not like Ayers hand-picked Obama to lead a terrorist organization; Palmer brought him along.)
Now, sitting in a church for 20 years is a much better argument, and, as I've said before, I didn't really follow the Wright material when Hillary Clinton tried to use it, so I'll need more material to work with. How do we know that Wright's theology is racist, Marxist, and anti-American? (I only saw the clips where he says "God damn America" for killing innocent people--which, to be fair, is in the Bible, as he says. It's one of the Ten Commandments: thou shalt not kill.)
But I'm always willing to entertain new evidence on the matter, especially since that's the strongest card in your hand.
3 things, Nick
October 8, 2008 - 20:52 ET by Indiana JoeHannity isn't running for anything. If you think him interviewing an anti-Semite makes him an anti-Semite, that's fine with me. Don't watch him. But I question your logic. Which is to say, it's not applicable regarding Ayers, or Wright even. But this was about Gibbs denial that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was anything but casual, incidental, and meaningless.
Neither Bush nor Cheney nor anyone else is running against Obama except McCain. The "guilt by association" game was started long before Ayers surfaced in this campaign. Obama has been trying to tar McCain with the Bush brush for a long time, the primaries even, when all the Dem players were still in, and still doing it. So, if it's a question of "payback," or "relevance," it really is who's paying back whom, and if it was relevant for Obama and all the Dems to do, it's hard to argue it's somehow less relevant for McCain. (yeah, you opine that Bush is "different." Noted. And examples are plentiful, you can do it.)
Obama and Ayers are not just "two ships passing in the night." Using a couple articles, which are loaded with links, I put this post together. Now, maybe you don't want to check it, so I'll c&p the relevant paragraph here. But, if you follow the link above, you can research this and check the dates and facts to your hearts content.
From the post:
"Obama's "political coming-out" was at Ayers' home in 1995. In 2001, Ayers said America made him want to "puke," and published his terrorist "memoirs." While Obama was a director on the board of the Woods Fund with Ayres from 1999 until 2002. And Obama didn't know anything about his history?" <addendum: Hmm, in reading your post, I notice you don't mention their history on the board of the Woods Fund, 1999-2002. Didn't you know that, or did you just choose not to mention it? Hey, I don't give the other side free ammo either. ;^) >
Again, the links to these data are in my post. The articles themselves are linked and/or cited for pretty much every fact they present. And I didn't even really dig too far to get this. I've heard they actually are neighbors, their homes' in the same area. But I haven't verified that, so I don't use it.
But, this shows more than a chance meeting. More than a "how-are-ya" type relationship. And the idea that Obama didn't know or hear about the book in 2001 when he was working with Ayers (not just for the same foundation, but on the board of directors) is a bit hard to swallow.
If someone in my neighborhood or someone who worked in the same job I do had a book published and gave interviews to the NYT(IIRC), I think I'd notice. Obama is presented as a "regular guy," not an "elitist," right? So I'll give him the benefit of that, and presume his response would be the same as anyone else's.
Now this, to me, addresses any questions about how "relevant" this is. The point is, any reasonable person would expect that Obama should obviously have known about Ayers' history no later than 2001. Possibly as early as 1995, but who knows? With that as a given (you can choose to not give it, but that's about all you can do, and it's hardly an answer), we're faced with one of two explanations.
Either Obama is being less-than-truthful about said relationship, or he is detached and unobservant of the world around him on a daily basis. Neither is particularly flattering, neither is particularly confidence-inspiring, and either one reflects poorly on his judgement and/or honesty, and shows a lack of qualification for the office of President.
So, care to explain how I'm wrong? Or how it's not "relevant?" Coz you know I won't agree, but maybe your arguments will raise something I've missed. About Ayers and Obama, I mean. The topic of the thread, the topic of my post.
<edit: typos>
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
rushing a little
October 8, 2008 - 21:46 ET by nicholas nicklebyFirst, I want to clarify my argument. My argument is simply this: Guilt by association doesn't establish guilt.
Now, we have to deal with what "association" means. :)
I never said, nor do I believe that Hannity is an anti-Semite. I do believe, however, that Gibbs' example is fair--it at least shows that there's a riduculous level to which guilt by association can be stretched. No one would seriously argue that Hannity is an anti-Semite because he had an anti-Semite as a guest.
(This is why I chose to comment on Matt Balan's post about this--because Matt claims that that happened; as I pointed out, at no point did Gibbs say "you're an anti-Semite.")
So, we can agree--there's a ridiculous level of GbA possible. If you walk by a bankrobber on the street, it doesn't mean you agree to help him with bankrobbery.
That said, we have to paint the opposite side of the spectrum. What would an extremely true form of Guilt by Association look like? I've basically argued that it wouldn't be association any more--it would be participation or collaboration. You're not guilty if you walk by a bankrobber on the street, but you are if you help him to rob the bank. (That's not GbA, that's GbG--guilt by guilt.)
And that's what the Obama campaign has said about McCain and Bush. They don't say "Oh, they hang out together, and they get along." What they say is "McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time." That's not association--that's participation. Basically, the argument is "if you don't approve of Bush policies, then don't vote for McCain, who approves them."
(Sidenote: you can see what that argument would look like for Obama and Ayers: one would argue that Obama participated with Ayers on a project. And they did--except the project was education reform, not terrorism. If you don't like their education reform, that's a legitimate point to make against Obama because that's what they did together.)
Now that we've got those two extremes out of the way--"ships passing in the night" on one side and, on the other, "ships launching coordinated attacks" (?)--now there's the whole area in the middle. Between passing acquaintance and participation, we get... association.
Now, Obama and Ayers know each other, they worked together for several years, and they did live in the same neighborhood. (They may have been neighbors once in Hyde Park.) I'm not at all going to dispute that, and I think anybody who does, doesn't really know what they're talking about. We can agree on that: they knew each other.
Now we get into the difficult area of how well they knew each other, when, and why it matters. (And I agree, it matters some.) First, it matters because it shows judgment. (This is the one area where association itself may influence our opinion.) Second, it matters because it may indicate influence, either current (can Ayers pull strings?) or past (did Ayers influence Obama's politics?).
Judgment: honestly, this is what I meant to say below in a post which you commented to, which I will get to soon (though possibly not tonight): in Obama's judgment, it was worth it to work together on charitable boards with a man who 35 years ago engaged in what Obama calls "detestable" acts. That, to me, is a show of judgment--and we can argue about whether that shows good or bad judgment.
(Now, there's another show of judgment that has been commented on: Obama went to Ayers house in 1995 for what has been called by some his political debut. Except the coffee was actually for Alice Palmer, and it was there that she introduced Barack Obama as someone who might become a state senator. I want to bring this up because Axelrod recently said that Obama didn't know about Ayers' past, but he was only referring to this event in 1995. No one is claiming that Obama didn't know Ayers' past in 1997, when Obama reviewed his book, or later. Only at that meeting which might or might not have been their first meeting. http://www.cnn.com/2... )
As for influence (present), it doesn't look like they're close. The NY Times article that Palin referenced actually says that they aren't close. This seems manifestly not a problem to me. I don't think anyone really believes that Obama will get his strings pulled by Ayers.
But influence (past), I think is more important--does Obama agree with Ayers' radical politics? For me, that's the most interesting question, and it's the issue which seems to be at the heart of the matter for a lot of people: how radical is Obama? But here we don't need Ayers here--we have Obama's platform--if we think Obama's politics are too radical for America, then it doesn't really matter where he got his political ideas from. (I mean, as an academic exercise it might be interesting to say, "oh, he got this idea from Marx, and this idea from Alinsky." But it has practical value--too radical is too radical, right?)
So, the question that matters the most here to me is, what are Obama's politics?, and we dont need Ayers to get that answer.
So the only question that's left is, did Obama show good or bad judgment working on a board with a man whom he knew had a radical history? As I said, that we could argue, but I need to eat first.
Hey Nick,
October 8, 2008 - 23:49 ET by Indiana JoeBe careful about that stomach. First a beer, then dinner? This late? Well, I guess you could be on the Left coast, which only makes it 9.
Late here, so I'll be brief. I scanned, sorry, and saw some things that just refute anything else you could say in detail. So, unfair tho it may seem, I'll focus on those.
Guilt by association is legit, but what's "association?" Your parameter, right? Okay, you dismiss the '95 meeting at Ayers house. Not about Obama, according to CNN. Did you also know that 1995 is when Obama was appointed to head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? The one that controlled millions of dollars (I've heard $100 million)? Coincidence? Well, do you know who appointed him? Bill Ayers, the founder and guiding inspiration of the CAC. Check it. Research it. It's the truth. Just two ships, huh? Just exactly like unknowingly walking past a robber on the street? Really? I think this is more "association" than that. Way more.
As for Obama's platform being the only true indication of his politics; seriously, Nick, you may buy that, but I don't. Where on Bush's platform was "establish a theocracy?" Where was "repeal the right to abortion?" Where was "suspend the Constitution?" Do you see? Are you telling me that all anyone had to do for the last 8 years was point to Bush's platform to disprove any wild charge that came at him? And that would have stopped what we call BDS? You can't be serious. No one ever ran on a platform of ruining the economy, causing a housing crisis, or any other disaster that's been caused by bad politics. Nixon didn't have "bug your enemies" in his platform, does that mean he didn't believe in it? A platform is the same as a group press release. If you believe it constitutes some kind of "proof" (I don't believe you really do, it's just a debate tactic), I'm not the one to convince you otherwise.
You seem to think that Obama getting a "leg up" from an unreformed terrorist (that's what the FBI called him, way back in 1970, and he's never renounced his actions), working for him, handling millions of dollars Ayers managed to acquire, is just "two ships?" As long as Obama didn't make any bombs, it means nothing?
Ah, influence! Yes, could it be possible that such a person may have had an influence on Obama? On his "politics?" On his way of thinking? Ayers was a bomber, yes, but he has a politcal philosophy, too. There was an end, a reason (to him) to bomb. He wanted "change," too. No one is saying Obama agrees with Ayers methods, and asserting he doesn't avoids the question. It's a straw man. The question is not the means, but the ends. That's your "past influence," and we agree that's "important."
Is it possible he could still have some influence? In your (parenthetical) words, "can Ayers pull strings?" Nick, that's the best question you've asked all night. That's the question everyone else on this thread wants to know the answer to! Not "guess," not "think," not "suppose," and definitely not "spin."
------------(end of the relevant post)-------------
Damn, Nick, this isn't short by a long shot. No insult, but I feel like I'm leading you to water, but you won't drink. My posts to you are my longest, because I have to try to predict where you'll try to put a pin in and start unravelling them. I don't think you've ever successfully done that (all due modesty, but no false modesty), but you do try.
This is my last attempt on this subject. It's undeniable that Ayers is a big problem, he's closer to Obama than Obama wants people to know, there's a reason he doesn't want people to know. Maybe it's an innocent reason, knowing how bad it looks, but he's trying to hide it. You don't even have to be against Obama to see it, just not blindly for him, no matter what (I know, Nick, you claim "neutrality" or something) your politics.
But actions speak louder than words, for me, for you, and for Obama and Ayers. And the actions say there's something there. To deny it in the face of the mounting evidence (and you know what? I'd have never found most of this stuff if I'd heard anything like a reasonable explanation to begin with, from anyone; Obama, the media, even you. But they all sounded like shuck-and-jive to me, so I checked them. And found lots more to worry me than I had at first. I was forced to grab my own shovel, and I'm not ignoring what I found.) is not just partisan, to me it's unconscionable.
Back to the horse analogy. I think you won't drink because you're not thirsty. I don't know what else to do. Since I'm not going to ever change your mind, I shouldn't bother. I love a good debate, though. But I don't know how good these are with you. You're generally personable, you try like hell, and you're obviously committed to your cause. You did, however, claim to be "open-minded" when we first sparred, so I gave you a try. But I should really stop, I'm just wasting my words on you. I know you understand me, I know you get it, but you just won't or can't admit that. I know facts when I see them, I know opinion when I see it, and I know distraction when I see it. You employ all 3, but the facts are selective, or wrong (the party in 1995 that wasn't for Obama, even though Ayers made him head of his shiny new "respectable" foundation that same year, for instance... c'mon, Nick!), and you use the other two prolifically. Personally, we'd probably get along, but politically?
Dude, we're both just spinning our wheels. G'night.
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
left coast--nice (took me two reads to notice that joke!)
October 9, 2008 - 19:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyWell, I like really dark, black beers--Imperial Stouts. Like North Coast's Rasputin--it's almost like eating alcoholic bread. (Actually, it tastes better than that description sounds.)
Yeah, I think we are spinning our wheels, possibly talking around the issue, so let's get back to core beliefs--we can work out the details later.
I do think that you can know something about someone by the company he keeps--though you can't know everything. (As I said, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow really get along.) We do agree on that; but again, first, I think Ayers and Obama had a working relationship. (Also, we disagree here on the facts: Ayers was on a board that hired Obama, whose name was suggested by another board member, Deborah Leff -- http://www.nytimes.c... ).
(Also, to be clear, I never said they were two ships passing in the
night--that was my one extreme example. My other extreme example was
two ships coordinating their attacks. I think the relationship between
Ayers and Obama falls in between those.)
So, we agree: they had a relationship. We disagree on the extent, and probably can't reconcile that.
Second, I don't think (and I know we're going to disagree on this one) that associating with Ayers was a terrible thing to do. Yes, the man once opposed the Vietnam war with violence, but he doesn't plant bombs any more--he may teach radical things, but he lives an all-American lifestyle: kids, house, car, job, wife, taxes.
Actually, we agree on that: Ayers doesn't plant bombs, but he may still be radical. How radical?
Here, I'd like to go to what you said about Bush's platform. You say he didn't say he wanted to "repeal the right to abortion," but his 2000 platform was full of anti-abortion notes: he doesn't like RU-486, wants to ban partial-birth abortions, wants to promote "a culture of life"--in fact, at the RNC his acceptance speech noted that he "will lead our nation toward a culture that values life -- the life of
the elderly and the sick, the life of the young, and the life of the
unborn." ( http://www.issues200... )
But you're right a platform--like an ad--isn't a promise. But it is at least a reflection of what the candidate wants to or thinks he should promise. Obama wants to tax the rich--I think you can disagree with that stance, and vote against him because of it. But I don't think it's fair to say "Obama's friends with a 60s radical, so he's a Marxist." If you want to call him a Marxist because of his platform, that's fine. I just don't think it makes sense to call him a Marxist because he worked on charitable boards with a guy who now owns a house and has kids (and owning a house and having kids is almost certain to kill most people's Marxist leanings--you know the old joke: if a man at 20 isn't a Marxist, he has no heart, it a man at 40 is still a Marxist, he has no head).
Oh, one last thing: I do agree with you on this--I hate a cover-up. It makes everything that much worse. (I want a say it again, because I really really hate a cover-up.) And Obama has played this one quiet, but I just don't see the evidence of a cover-up.
And I know, here we come to the point where you can't believe I can't see it, and I can't believe that you can see it. I don't know what else to say on this thread, so...
Well, maybe after the election, we'll get a beer--Three Floyds in Indiana makes an amazing dark beer called Dark Lord that you can only buy at their brewery on one day!
Take care, Joe.
Guilty As Charged!
October 8, 2008 - 21:12 ET by TN Momthat's not guilt by association, that's guilt by... well, guilt.
Question: Is obama, being a member of the New Party, 'guilt by association'?
Guilt By "Association" or "Collaboration"?
October 8, 2008 - 18:40 ET by vicmenNicholas,
You write very eloquently and i think that the degree of association you describe fits your explanation.
Ever since I can remember, my mother would always tell me that she could always tell who my friends were by what company they kept. I hate to admit it, but she was right most if not all of the time.
Not really knowing an extreme amount about the specific subject in regards to the Ayers connection I decided to do some research to see if again my mother's advice again pans out.
I googled news archives and visited a multitude of sites. To my surprise I was overwhelmed with the amount of posts and news articles that instead of substantially dealing with or investigating the allegation instead simply defended it by ignoring it or denying it. I found it frustrating that on any allegations proposed by Democrats you will instantly find detailed commentaries and articles however not the case for Republicans. There is an unbelievable bias in the media whose actions in my opinion resembles that of a political party.
There is much to find and digest out there currently but anyone with a centered point of view will quickly come to acknowledge that the degree of association is elevated to collaboration. And the question of the day now is when is it that Obama actually came to know about Ayers past? Some say earlier than he admits. Some say that very same day and others shortly afterwards. I say how naive and reckless regardless!
With such an extreme liberal record and little to no accomplishments, I think its fair for many of us to draw on his past associations in order to better frame his character and judgement.
"Change we need"?
The only change we need is his diapers changed!
ah, but remember: Ayers was brought up by a Dem
October 8, 2008 - 18:59 ET by nicholas nicklebyVicmen,
My parents had two saying: you can judge a man by the company he keeps; and don't judge a book by its cover.
Now, a quick history lesson: Ayers--like many other names that are being mentioned now--was first brought up by Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the primaries. During those times, it was talked about a lot. The fact that the McCain campaign is acting like the news-outlets are ignoring this story ignores the fact that the news-outlets already investigated this. But the McCain campaign is good at working the refs, so we've got a bunch of new reports, like the NY Times article (referenced by Palin, to boos) which concluded that they weren't that close.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say they were close, and let's say that Obama knew from the beginning about Ayers' past. What does this tell us about Obama's associations? That he's willing to asociate with a professor of education who believes in education reform. So, what does this tell us about Obama? That he believes in education!
Criminey! Let's lock him up!
Seriously, I just want to point out the problem in your statement "With such an extreme liberal record and little to no accomplishments"--okay, so he has no accomplishments in his past, and yet his past record is full of liberal actions?
They can't really both be true, you know.
Nick? Is that really you?
October 8, 2008 - 20:00 ET by Indiana JoeIf so, I'm disappointed (sorry, doesn't matter to you, I know). This post is way below what I've come to expect from you. Your past posts have set a much higher bar than this.
First, it's "old news." Oh, Nick. You mean like the Lewinsky Scandal? Or the Rose Law firm? Maybe the cattle futures fiasco? Gennifer Flowers? Paula Jones? Nick, that argument, if it ever did hold water, turned into a sieve long ago. And to resort to the Clinton playbook in this day and age? I mean, what page is that on? "It's been investigated, there's nothing there, we need to move on." You can't seriously be trying to sell the idea that, since Hillary raised it during the primaries, the media would have investigated then. That's a tough sell in this crowd. Are you really trying to tell us that the media was less in the tank for Obama then than they are now? I'm sure Hillary would disagree with that assessment.
Next:
"But, for the sake of argument, let's say they were close, and let's say that Obama knew from the beginning about Ayers' past. What does this tell us about Obama's associations? That he's willing to asociate with a professor of education who believes in education reform."
Read that carefully, Nick. VERY carefully. How can you "say that Obama knew from the beginning about Ayers' past," then turn around and claim that all that "past" revealed was "a professor of education who believes in education reform." Really, really? You are aware yourself of Ayers' past, aren't you? If you are, your statements make absolutely no sense. If Obama really, truly "knew from the beginning about Ayers' past," he knew a lot more about Ayers than that he was a "professor of education." Because Ayers "past" involves a lot more than that. That's the "past" we're wondering if Obama "knew." See?
Then you end up claiming we're trying to "lock him up" because Obama "believes in education." I mean, E for effort, but F for execution.
And just btw, the way you get a record is your voting history, your actions, your words. The way you get accomplishments is by... well,... accomplishing stuff. Two different things, so having one without the other isn't surprising, if you understand that distinction.
Sorry, Nick. Just not up to your usual par, IMO.
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
Nic, I am beginning to
October 9, 2008 - 12:34 ET by vicmenNic,
I am beginning to think that you are outright toying with us here.
Let me reflect on you statements and offer some entertainment;
My parents had two saying: you can judge a man by the company he keeps; and don't judge a book by its cover.
You are so right to point out that one should NOT judge a book by its cover, that is why we here open Obama's Cover and read closer into his thin pages. There are many skips in chapters, most of it doesnt make sense and much of it can be left to interpretation.
Now, a quick history lesson: Ayers--like many other names that are
being mentioned now--was first brought up by Hillary Clinton and her
supporters during the primaries. During those times, it was talked
about a lot.
You mean, the much more qualified Hillary Clinton who was smeared by the Obama Campaign and labeled as a "Racist". Thanks Hillary (D) for drawing much needed attention to the matter.
The fact that the McCain campaign is acting like the
news-outlets are ignoring this story ignores the fact that the
news-outlets already investigated this.
We continue to log and record media bias and news omissions on a day to day basis. The fact is they "ignore" the facts because it doesn't help their political cause. This is plain to see as witnessed by the Clinton campaign.
But the McCain campaign is good
at working the refs, so we've got a bunch of new reports, like the NY
Times article (referenced by Palin, to boos) which concluded that they
weren't that close.
Please don't tarnish the good names of honorable refs in this country. They have nothing in common with the Obama news networks. They are suppose to observe and promote fair play. The NY, I mean Obama Times is a hack anyway, we have all lost faith and confidence in that (Propaganda) I mean news organization a long time ago. Please have more than one source.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say they were close, and let's say
that Obama knew from the beginning about Ayers' past. What does this
tell us about Obama's associations? That he's willing to asociate with
a professor of education who believes in education reform. So, what
does this tell us about Obama? That he believes in education!
Yes, here is the Syllabus template for the class; (I urge everyone to feel free to add to the syllabus)
Course Title:
Radical, Leftist and Communist Indoctrination, Terror Campaigning and Rudimentary Bomb making!
(Work in Progress)
I. Rationale:
II. Course Aims and Objectives:
Aims
Specific Learning Objectives:
By the end of this course, students will:
III. Format and procedures:
IV. My Assumptions:
V. Course Requirements:
VI. Grading Procedures:
VII. Academic Integrity:
VIII. Accommodations for students with disabilities:
(Reference this template: http://www.cte.corne...)
Criminey! Let's lock him up!
Not without a trial!!!
Seriously, I just want to point out the problem in your statement "With such an extreme liberal record and little to no accomplishments"--okay, so he has no accomplishments in his past, and yet his past record is full of liberal actions?
They can't really both be true, you know.
This is almost condescending. No Dad!!!! geeeeeez! Get out of my Room!
If you equate liberal positions and actions with accomplishments then your logic holds true.
Ok, so aside from voting Liberal 100% of the time, what has he accomplished?
Isn't the fact...
October 8, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Dustin JolleyIsn't the fact that Alan Colmes works for Fox News proof that neither Fox News or Sean Hannity are anti-Semitic? Alan himself is Jewish. Duh!
Gibbs' tactics are right
October 8, 2008 - 16:12 ET by jdhawkGibbs' tactics are right out of the communist playbook. That is, take a completely off the subject lunatic charge and pose it as a credible inquiry to throw off any inquiry as to any accusations that may be charged against you are your party. This has been used by the communist effectively for over a century.
And it seems to have worked . . . Hannity never did get Gibbs to admit anything about the charge that bambi (aka 57 states) showed poor judgement or the worse charge that bambi has aligned himself with a terrorist.
Hey Gibbsey, If you care
October 8, 2008 - 16:12 ET by mattmHey Gibbsey,
If you care so much about anti-Semitism, why didn't you quit when your boss said he would be willing to meet unconditionally with Amhadinsanejihad, the leading Anti-Semite on the planet?
I can't stand Gibbs, it's
October 8, 2008 - 16:38 ET by right of wayI can't stand Gibbs, it's just something about him. He looks like a perv.
Gibbs
October 8, 2008 - 17:22 ET by well99Is is just lying to run interference for Obama.Personally I thought Sean should of back handed him.Probably why I never could do a show like he does or be a cop.I have patience with most folks but punks cause me to have a reaction.I just want to throw down.Sean showed great patience.Gibbs is another one of those gerbil loving sewer suckers that needs to be waterboarded in a NY sewer.
But Obama IS!!!
October 8, 2008 - 17:30 ET by XJ.JonWouldn't being pro-palestinian be the same thing as being anti-semitic? Just a thought.
Hilarious to watch libs accuse conservatives of being something that their candidate so clearly IS!
Nobama '08
Palin '12
XJ... Plus I want to
October 8, 2008 - 17:52 ET by bigtimerXJ...
Plus I want to know, I have for a long time along with a few others here where all his foreign contributions are coming from, glad the GOP is finally doing something about this, a little too late though...but still it will be nice to maybe, just maybe find out eventually..this should of been made a huge campaign issue by our side of the aisle, with demands for answers, we know it would of been 24/7 if this had been reversed.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Right you are, bt...
October 8, 2008 - 18:07 ET by PrairieSkyI think Barack Obama has plenty of skeletons, financial and otherwise, in his closet. Like you, I hope that we find out something about all this, even if it happens after the election. Unfortunately, the MSM has been running interference for him and so far, they have managed to keep a lid on a lot of this stuff.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
Google Anthony Martin-Trigona,aka Andy Martin (politician)
October 8, 2008 - 17:46 ET byThen come back here and defend Hannity's use of this crazy crackpot slimeball vexatious litigant.
I suspect some of the commenters here have already done that. They aren't about defend Hannity's use of this guy as a reliable expert on Obama so they go after Gibbs w/ a vengeance. They wouldn't dare take their rage out on Hamnity who deserves it for giving Martin a forum. So they predictably take it on the "lib".
Anybody want to defend Hamnity for giving this despicable character legitamacy, let alone defend Martin? Balan? Anybody?
Stop your condescension,
October 8, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Matthew BalanStop your condescension, A_J! Did you not read what I said about Martin above? I'm not defending him at all.
Read again, Matt
October 8, 2008 - 18:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyNo offense, Matt, but I think you might be the one who needs to reread things. Gibbs never called Hannity, Fox News "anti-Semitic"--as you suggest in the title of your piece and as your organization has put up in the masthead (where this is one of the three articles).
He presented a series of questions which basically boil down to this one: How am I to know that you're not anti-Semitic when you invite a guy like Martin on to your show and never publically announce how much you deplore his anti-Semitism?
Now, basically, that's the same question you at NB asked about Ayers: how are we to know that Obama isn't a terrorist when he associates with Ayers and doesn't publically denounce his terrorism.
Gibbs was only pointing out Hannity's double-standard--Hannity demands an answer from Obama, but can't give a plausible answer himself. (I especially love the "Netanyahu blurbed my book"--which is almost as great as if he said, "Some of my best friends are Jews!" I mean, would Hannity be satisfied if Obama said "Some of my best friends are not terrorists"?)
He presented a series of
October 8, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Matthew BalanHe presented a series of questions which basically boil down to this one: How am I to know that you're not anti-Semitic when you invite a guy like Martin on to your show and never publically announce how much you deplore his anti-Semitism?
Your argument doesn't hold water, since even after Hannity said, "I find a those comments despicable," he continued his line of questioning.
Gibbs was only pointing out Hannity's double-standard--Hannity demands an answer from Obama, but can't give a plausible answer himself. (I especially love the "Netanyahu blurbed my book"--which is almost as great as if he said, "Some of my best friends are Jews!" I mean, would Hannity be satisfied if Obama said "Some of my best friends are not terrorists"?)
As I said above, Hannity said the comments were despicable. It's not his fault that Gibbs continued his asinine arguments and that you don't think his answer is "plausible."
oh brother--i never said plausibility was an issue!
October 8, 2008 - 19:03 ET by nicholas nicklebyMatt,
You argue that Hannity declared Martin's comments despicable, and that should have been the end of the discussion.
But Obama declared Ayers' actions detestable during the Democratic primaries, and yet, somehow, you think that it's okay for Hannity to continue that discussion now, months later?
By your logic, a clear denunciation should be the end of it. Hence, you have a double-standard, and your pants are on fire.
Your argument doesn't hold water
October 8, 2008 - 19:29 ET by R D HelmSee, NN?
I told you the holes in your bucket were getting larger. :-)
-Dave
Let's cut to the chase, Nick
October 8, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Indiana Joe"Obama declared Ayers' actions detestable during the Democratic primaries."
Fine. You think that puts it to rest. We don't. That's really what it comes down to. He distanced himself from the actions. He must have felt he had to. Why didn't he distance himself from the man? I won't bother with the details, I've provided them elsewhere on this thread, you know them by now.
His answer was obviously good enough for you to defend it, unequivocally. It wasn't good enough for us. If that doesn't meet with your approval, sorry. But we are free to decide it doesn't satisfy us. Any thinking pol would think of an answer that did satisfy, or drop it and give up on whatever segment didn't agree.
But we can keep right on asking. You can disagree with it, you can disapprove of it, you can call it irrelevant, and you can be outraged by it. We think it's relevant, we think he's not being honest, and we're not going to just stop asking.
We'll ask until we're satisfied... or we'll draw our own conclusions.
We can do that.
(Btw, you referred to Hannity's response to Gibbs' as "not plausible," or "implausible." So you brought in the "issue" of "plausibility.")
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
so... you disagree with Balan?
October 9, 2008 - 15:03 ET by nicholas nicklebyI fully support the asking of questions--but let's be clear on this: if you're not satisfied with Obama's answers re: Ayers, after he clearly expressed disapproval of Ayers' past actions...
then you understand why Gibbs continued to ask Hannity if he was anti-Semitic, even though Hannity clearly expressed disapproval of Martin's current beliefs.
Balan wrote: It's not his fault that Gibbs continued his asinine arguments and that you don't think his answer is "plausible."
But couldn't we just turn that around, and say, it's not Obama's fault that you don't think his answer is "plausible"?
I mean, Obama has answered the question--people can say "I don't believe his answer" but they cannot say that he hasn't answered. He knows Ayers--he knows what Ayers did--he detests what Ayers did--he'll work with Ayers anyway.
(p.s. thanks for correcting me--I totally did say "plausible." I'm right in the rest of my argument with Matt--he's using a double-standard in his logic--but that was a mistake)
No sale, Nick
October 9, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Indiana JoeI don't buy the equivalency argument you're pushing. That's where it all falls apart. If you buy it, then find out who's ever interviewed Farrakhan, because they're a racist and an anti-Semite.
Find anyone who ever interviewed David Duke, they're a racist.
Find anyone who ever interviewed Saddam Hussein, they're an oppressive fascistic dictator.
Find anyone who ever interviewed Osama bin Laden, they're a Muslim terrorist.
Anyone who ever interviewed the Pope is Catholic.
Argue all you want. This "moral equivalency" crap never had any credibility. You'll claim that's not your "point," but it's exactly your point. Without that, your argument falls apart.
And I don't accept "moral equivalency" in this case.
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
Mr. Balan, I Didn't Say You Were Defending Him. ........
October 8, 2008 - 20:20 ET by.....I didn't say anyone was defending him. I asked if anyone wanted to defend him after finding out just who he was.
I understand the point of your piece was to go after Gibbs not Martin, and certainly not Hannity. I read and understood your fair and balanced explanation of who Martin is. But I would describe it as "exposed lite". As bad as the cocaine and "Obama's a Muslim" accusations are, they're nothing compared to all the reasons Martin is in no way shape or form anywhere close to being a reliable honest sane expert on Obama. Hannity obviously had no problem scraping the bottom of the slime bucket to let this horrible &#*&?! weigh in on Obama. Geez, does "Consider the source."mean anything to Hannity?!?! Obviously Hannity doesn't care because he does fully understand the meaning of "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Andy Martin in 1 of his 11 campaigns for public office named his campaign committee for his 1986 congressional run "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew
Power in America."
Among the hundreds of his frivolous legal actions* Andy Martin once sued for custody of a judge's children because the judge was not favorable to him in another frivolous lawsuit he filed.
* The federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered an injunction against Martin from filing any further lawsuits because he was a vexatious litigant, and noted his history of extreme anti-semitism and racism.
It's called "interviewing," A-J
October 8, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Indiana JoeNot advocacy. It's called "freedom of speech," and also "freedom of the press." No one has to defend it to you. It's what makes a city full of Jewish citizens (Skokie, IL, for instance) have to let Nazis march. It's what made my hometown have to let the KKK have a rally here, despite the fact that we're 85% black.
If you agree with this Gibbs person's assessment, then you must also agree that every time anyone interviews anyone else, that automatically means they agree with that person.
So, Couric agrees with Obama. And agrees with Palin. And Hillary. Right?
I think you can follow your own "logic" from there.
Oh, just btw, here's a pretty clear example of WHY Ayers is a legitimate question mark. If Gibbs won't explain this (and he hasn't), why, maybe you'd care to take a shot at it.
Go ahead. I dare ya.
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
Indiana, It's Called Interviewing a Racist Crackpot and........
October 8, 2008 - 21:11 ET by....and presenting him (Martin) as an expert reliable source. The Exact Opposite of what he is.
I agree Ayers WAS a legitimate question before Obama addressed it and condemned the criminal acts and radical philosophy of Ayers/Dohrn and before the record of Obama's relationship with Ayers was known, strictly friendly professional.
Now dwelling on "Ayers & Obama" is just a Hands Down Absolutely Positively Sure Fire way for McCain/Palin to Lose. And I'm not saying that's a good thing.
Forgetabout Ayers. Now This is worth repeating :
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now"
Is this what victory looks like to you ?
* That's a line said by Lt. Col Bill Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Boy, some NB have a really tough time w/ reality.
filming_laundryman,
October 9, 2008 - 00:48 ET by Indiana JoeGee, I was all ready to address you politely, but then you just had to remind me of your empty-headed reply to my other post. Great rebuttal. Did you see my answer there? You'll note I accepted your volunteer work on my behalf and made the appropriate change. Read that post for my other thoughts on your valuable input. Get a clue what actual thoughts are.
Tell, you what, sport, you started okay here, and finished nasty. I'll finish with some actual debate, show you what it looks like. I can wait to really flame you until next time, I'm in no hurry. And I'm not about to "Forgetabout Ayers," I don't care what your priorities are.
Now, pay attention:
Ayers is still a legitimate question, because Obama didn't address it, he obscured it. This lists Obama's long association with Ayers and others, but we'll stick to Ayers; we got a month to look up the others. From that post, there's a link to more detail about Ayers himself. I reproduce it here for your convenience. Now, were even.
I'll even put it all together for you, instead of having you search the articles. If you don't believe any fact I present, you will find them, and more, in those articles and the links within them. If, that is, you're interested in actually learning the truth about this, as opposed to just backing up Obama's story.
In 1995, Obama attended a party at Ayers' house that has been described as his "coming-out" party. It's been said that Obama was just a "tag-along" to a party that was really for someone else. Also in 1995, Obama was appointed head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, heard of it? It handled millions of dollars for improving education in Chicago. Obama was a virtual unknown, even in Chicago, back then. I know, I get my news from Chicago. He was appointed by the teacher who had set up and basically founded the whole thing; William Ayers. Casual acquaintences? Hardly knew each other? Well, it's safe to say that by 1995,... they'd met. And in 1997, they made a joint appearance at a U of C panel, two of only four on the panel. So, they also had talked some.
Yeah, but does that mean that Obama was aware of Ayers' history? Well, in 2001, Ayers' Weatherman "memoirs," Fugitive Days, was published. He was quoted in an interview at the time about his then-current feelings about America; "What a country. It makes me want to puke." And Ayers and Obama were both members of the board for the Woods Fund from 1999 until 2002, when Obama left.
So, he was working with Ayers, on the same board, during the publication of Ayers' book and when Ayers did the interview. Now, I don't know about you, but I would be interested if someone who I'd known for at least 6 years, who'd hired me for a job handling millions, and who worked in the same part of the same organization as me had published a book. Hell, I'd have asked him for a signed copy, especially if I didn't know he was a non-practicing domestic terrorist. I'd have read the interview, wouldn't you have?
So, maybe this will explain to you why all these protestations ring hollow to me, and almost everyone I've talked to about it.
This is why Obama/Ayers is more important to me than Hannity/Martin. It effects who our next president will be, and it's way more important than the sniping between two political sides over which "news" program or personality is more or less biased toward one or the other side. Frankly, I couldn't care less about that, by comparison.
Hope you were able to follow along there. And I just gave you way more credit and courtesy than you showed me in either of your posts.
Don't expect it again.
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
Almost forgot...
October 9, 2008 - 00:56 ET by Indiana JoeSince you seem to have a reading-comprehension problem, we'll go around one more time:
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about napalm (the word is not in my tag-line, I'm referring to the smell of desperation in your Chosen One's camp) or drooling over pics of naked kids who've suffered horribly. (How often do you look at that, anyway? You sure seem fond of it.)
And I'll stack my reality up against yours any day, Filming_Laundryman.
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
Indiana, Thks For Clearing Up the "victory" Quote
October 9, 2008 - 17:26 ET byIndiana,
I think you missed my response to you (above) where I agreed w/ your claim that guilt by association does work but I thought the other part of your point was that it often isn't right
or fair as in this case of Hannity and Obama-Ayers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
thanks for clearing up your use of the quote. Glad
to hear it's not meant to praise napalm.
You might want to use another line for 2 reasons. I'm sure I'm not
the only one who misinterprets your meaning. 2- It's pretty obvious
it's McCain's camp and the right that is showing signs of desperation
not the Obama camp. That's a shame for McCain*, but ironically I
get such a kick out of the right wing propagandists being in
desperation mode.
* I think it's going to be a very close election (though I understand the momentum is for Obama right now) so I'm having trouble understanding why McCain/Palin campaign needs to go negative when there is plenty to go after Obama on the issues.
As for your revolting comment about the photo and me. It's obvious from my question: " Is this what victory looks like to you?" that I find the photo a tragic horror statement on the effects napalm and war on innocent children. The girl is naked because she had the clothes burned off her. Her body was burned so badly by napalm that she was not expected to survive. Thankfuly she did and is now living in Canada w/ her family.
You owe me an apology.
Apologize to you, F_L?
October 9, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Indiana JoeYou've got to be kidding.
Like I care about your opinion of my tag-line, or the campaign, or any other opinion you hold?
Look at the time-line, genius. Your first response to me was only that crack about "victory," and a link to that photo. As I noted, it was a great (<sarc,> since you don't seem to have even gotten that!) rebuttal. I even explained the meaning of my tag-line. Why I bothered, I don't know. Apparently, the words were too big for you.
Then you chase me around, c&p'ing the same insulting words, with the same offensive link. Don't give me that crap that you somehow "care" more than I do about the "horrors of war," any war. Since you seem so enamored of that pic, I naturally made some assumptions about your posting of it, and what you meant by it.
Just like you did, and continue to do, about my current tag-line. Get it NOW, slick? I like and appreciate your assumptions (which continue with your "caring" BS) even less than you do mine. You're the one who started this fire, Mr. Phony-Name-Stolen-From-Real-Americans. What, you think you're the first troll here to try that? It's so common, it's transparent. It's a blatant red-flag. I'll guarantee you one thing, Mr. Lying-"McCain-Supporter;" no one here believes you're anything but another new troll. There's probably already a pool on how long you'll stick around.
I told you I gave you more respect than you gave me, or deserved, and you've proven me right... again. And I told you not to expect it again. I "owe" you squat. An apology? To you? From me?
Dream on, Filming_Laundryman... dream on.
<edit: Just btw, your italicized opening makes absolutely no sense. You think I agreed with your attempt to morally or logically equate the Hannity/Martin BS with the Obama/Ayers long-term relationship? Gads, you DO have a comprehension problem!>
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
#$%&*!!!
October 8, 2008 - 18:00 ET by Indiana JoeI knew Gibbs was a worthless piece of anatomical leavings. He even finally got Colmes to back up Hannity. Shaun answered your bull-sh*t, made-up, "gotcha question," you sniveling, boot-licking toady! And since when are you an interviewer? You're there to answer questions, you brain-dead twerp, not ask them!
I'm not surprised at your confusion. NO ONE can tell who's the media member and who's the politician in the cesspool you call the "real media." And you naturally believe that all interviewers must agree with the subect of the interview, or they wouldn't have them on?
BINGO!!!
There you have it, folks. An admission from this walking dog-dropping of what the Obama camp thinks "journalism" is all about. Now, THAT'S a keeper! Deny that, you self-important mushroom.
Who is this waste of resources, anyway? Obama's campaign manager? Or just some half-a$$ed "wannabe" who's willing to say anything and do anything just to get a teat at the government sow? Why is he breathing our air, burning our gas, and eating our food? Can't we trade him to France for some stale baggettes or something? At least we could feed some pigeons with those.
Because this sycophantic, dishonest nobody is absolutely worthless. Even coyotes wouldn't eat him, they'd just mark him.
(Yeah, I know, I put the same link twice. It deserves to be said at least twice.)
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
Believe it or not, Gibbs is
October 8, 2008 - 18:59 ET by kwiebeBelieve it or not, Gibbs is actually Comm Director or some-such high-level official. I watched that last night and could not believe someone so unprofessional could actually be that high up. But then I guess consider the source. What a disgrace. And that whole deal where he handed Hannity the folded paper containing the alleged smoking gun. The only thing this crybaby was missing was a baby bottle, a bonnet, and a rattle. Pure tantrum. Another example of fine judgment by a potential POTUS.This is an example of who Obama picks for *leadership* positions? And Communications, no less? We're toast if this guy starts filling the Cabinet.
I thought so,
October 8, 2008 - 20:18 ET by Indiana Joegiven his visibility on this damage-control mission. Great example of why Rove got these folks so nuts. But it's another thing they don't get. Rove was effective. Gibbs is border-line pathetic.
Rove made them nuts with his skill and brains, and beat their socks off. So they labeled him as stupid and evil, coz he couldn't be smarter or better, and convinced themselves that was how he beat them. So they copy him, but the wrong view of him.
Gibbs is just stupid. Too stupid to even approach "evil."
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall*, Apocalypse Now"
October 8, 2008 - 19:23 ET byIs this what victory looks like to you ?
* That's a line said by Lt. Col Bill Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Boy, some NB have a really tough time w/ reality.
Great rebuttal, Abe
October 8, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Indiana JoeGuilt by association. Right. Haven't you heard? Doesn't exist.
But thanks, I had meant to get the character name, but hadn't bothered looking it up. Maybe you do serve some purpose.
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about napalm (the word is not in my tag-line, I'm referring to the smell of deperation in your Chosen One's camp) or looking at pics of naked kids who've been bombed.
And I'll stack my reality up against yours any day, filming_laundryman.
"... smells like.... victory." - Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
Is Obama a Republican?
October 8, 2008 - 18:23 ET by CobraManLet's apply Gibb's logic further, shall we?
Is Obama a Republican? He attended a debate with McCain! He's appeared on TV with a Republican! Why am I not to believe that Obama is a Republican? Why am I not to believe that everyone who shares a stage with McCain is a Republican?
See how stupid you are, Gibbs?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
By that same logic...
October 8, 2008 - 20:52 ET by bloolooWhat would Gibbs say about Dan Rather who interviewed Saddam Hussein? I don't remember Rather calling Saddam "despicable" or "deploring" or anything along those lines.What about the numerous interviews with Jeffrey Dahmer? One of them was by Stone Phillips. And didn't Mike Wallace interview Ahmadinejad? And didn't Larry King, also?
What a stupid argument from a stupid man...
"I might be movin' to Montana soon..." - FZ
Gibbs was completely out of line
October 8, 2008 - 18:32 ET by nwahsThe Obama camp needs to explain why THEIR campaign is race baiting. To accuse a reporter of sympathizing with the views of all they interview is moronic - too moronic. It has to be calculated race baiting. Networks have ran numerous interviews with anti-semitic people from Saddam Hussein to Louis Farrakhan. Are all those networks anti-semitic as well? Will Obama explain why his campaign's is race baiting? Keep that tape and make it a political ad. Its undeniable, despicable, race baiting.
Does attending weekly KKK
October 8, 2008 - 18:43 ET by cocodrieDoes attending weekly KKK meetings for 20 years mean someone is racist? Does attending weekly communist cell meetings for 20 years mean someone is communist? Hussein Obama sat on boards with ayers for 20 years and attended Wright's church for 20 years. 1- Either Hussein is too stupid to understand what they were saying 2- Hussein slept through all of their meetings or 3- Hussein is lying. PICK ONE.
Does attending weekly KKK
October 9, 2008 - 10:34 ET by vicmen4- All of the above.
Just thought you missed one.
Forget about Ayers for a
October 8, 2008 - 18:45 ET by ckc1227Forget about Ayers for a moment, and let's talk about anti-semistism. Wasn't Obama a member of an anti-semitic church for 20 years, lol, and has close ties to Louis "the white man is the devil and Jews are pigs" Farrakhan? Isn't his mentor and most cherished personal advisor an anti-semite?
Don't worry though, nothing to see here, it's just a coincidence. This is no worse than having a nutcase on your radio show.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
Whew!
October 8, 2008 - 18:50 ET by kwiebeI must have just awoken from a bad dream: I dreamt an anti-American socialist with domestic terrorist associates was being supported by the formerly-mainstream Democrat party, and actually had a chance at becoming president. But then I saw the 'debate' between that candidate's Communications Director (allegedly Mr. Gibbs) -- and realized by way of the Director's analogy that the Candidate in my dream was merely equivalent to a talk-show host who *interviews* people. You see, it's all the same thing, people. That is, if the Obama camp says so...
Does keeping company with a Charles Manson fan..
October 8, 2008 - 19:11 ET by nwahsDoes keeping company with a Charles Manson fan make someone a Charles Manson fan? Well Obama had a little political party at Ayers' home and this is what his wife has to say about the Manson family murders.
"Dig It.
First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room
with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"
Why was she so impressed that they ate in the same room as the bodies? Why did sticking the fork into a victims stomach intrigue Ms. Ayers? Why did these murderers impress her?
nws... Excellent
October 8, 2008 - 19:25 ET by bigtimernws...
Excellent questions...great point!
These people are sick cookies....
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Guilty As Charged!
October 8, 2008 - 21:14 ET by TN Momthat's not guilt by association, that's guilt by... well, guilt.
Question: Is obama, being a member of the New Party, 'guilt by association'??
God knew that Liberals could...
October 9, 2008 - 00:56 ET by jawebster1never win an argument with a Conservative, so He gave them strong lungs to make up for the weak brains. Jim Webster
Had To Post Here 'Cause This Seems Like The Hot Thread
October 9, 2008 - 01:08 ET by Asian ConOT or not OT? That is the question. Bear with me here. I got this from Rush's site and I think that those of you who are letting the MSM demoralize you with positive poll results for BHO should read this quote from El Rushbo.
"The Drive-Bys have been telling us for a week now that it's over and yet Zogby has Obama up two, Hotline has Obama up one, and the Battleground poll has Obama up four. This is a tie. These polls were before the debate last night. These are the daily tracking polls, but I mean this is by no means over. And they're doing everything they can to convince you that it is while the race is obviously tightening up, 47-45 in the Reuters C-SPAN Zogby poll. Let's see, 47.1 to 45.2, so, yeah, basically two points. Battleground has Obama up four. They seem to lag a little bit behind in picking up the changes. But where's this Obama bubble? Where is it? You know, this is not happening because of anything McCain is doing. It might be happening because of a little bit of what Sarah Palin is doing, but I actually think that it's a result of people more and more now paying attention and looking at Obama. I think this Ayers stuff is damning. The Obama campaign is clearly defensive about this. They're talking about it again last night. I think Obama is going to have to come out and denounce ACORN at some point, "This is not the ACORN I knew," because they're all over the news with all their voter fraud. They raided the ACORN offices in Las Vegas and they found fraudulent voter registrations for the Dallas Cowboys roster."
This is also relevant and more damning because it refutes the notion that nobody got hurt during the bombings. Or that the Obamas and the Ayers were mere passing acquaintances.
Maggie Gallagher in the New York Post today: "When John Murtagh was 9 years old, Bill Ayers' friends tried to kill him. 'I remember my mother's pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside,' wrote Murtagh recently in City Journal. It wasn't personal. John's dad was a judge presiding over a trial of some Black Panthers. John still remembers the red graffiti on the sidewalk the next morning: 'Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong Have Won; Kill the Pigs.' As best he recalls, Bernardine Dohrn, who's now Ayers' wife, first claimed credit for bombing John's home in 1970. John Murtagh is now a lawyer and Yonkers city councilman running for the state Senate on the GOP ticket. I reached him this week through his campaign. It wasn't hard.
"Has Barack Obama ever tried? Obama was only 8 when Murtagh's house was bombed. He has nothing to do with the trauma the Murtagh family went through. But Obama was a grown man when he decided his path to power lay through Bill Ayers' connections. … Obama's campaign is busy fudging. His top political adviser claims Obama just didn't know Ayers' history when they first met. Bomber? What bomber? Right. 'If that's true, Obama has to be the dumbest man who ever graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School,' snorts Murtagh. 'I don't buy that at all.' Murtagh believes the relationship between the Obamas, Ayers and Dohrn goes back 30 years, to Michelle Obama's time at Sidley Austin, a law firm that also employed Dohrn. Murtagh doesn't blame Obama for what Ayers and his friends did. He blames Obama for picking a man like Ayers as a friend and mentor -- and then covering up the friendship. In politics, things get complicated. Truth becomes hard to find. But not this. 'The night they attacked our home, they also firebombed an army recruiting station out in Brooklyn and police patrol cars outside of Greenwich Village,' notes Murtagh. 'Three weeks later, they accidentally blew themselves up. They intended to attack the officer's club at Fort Dix.' Lay your cards on the table, says Murtagh. 'Obama's free to associate with Dohrn and Ayers; that's his right,' he tells me. 'But don't hide the relationship, and be forthcoming and let people decide the significance of it for themselves.'"
I predicted in the first hour this Ayers stuff is going to stick, people are already starting to pay attention and notice it now. I think at some point Obama is going to have to come out and distance himself from this guy. He can't just say, "Well, he's somebody I knew in the neighborhood. Well, he's somebody I worked with on education." He's going to have to come out and say, "This is not the Bill Ayers I knew. This is not the Jeremiah Wright that I knew." He's going to have to do something. It will not be Senator McCain that presses it, unless they do it in ads, but it will not happen in the upcoming debate, I doubt. I'd like to be wrong about that.
"What do Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon." - Rush Limbaugh
To OT re: Jews
October 9, 2008 - 05:43 ET by donsalimanOT re: JewsOctober 8, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Rackie
("It is really hard to feel sympathy for the Jews anymore when they insist on backing politicians and policies that are not in their best interests. Are they trying to commit suicide or what? ")
I take offence to what you posted.
I am a Jew and I and many other Jews don't want sympathy from anyone.
Now that I said that, I am for McCain and for the 2nd time in 38 years,the first in 2004,I am voting for the American President since I moved and made my home in Israel.
The reason why I voted for Bush & this time McCain & never voted before then since I live in Israel,is these two times,not only did I think it was dangerous for the USA,if a democrat becomes President I think it would be dangerous to not only the USA or Israel,it would be dangerous but to the whole free world or what is left of the free world
Why Jews vote for the Democratic party,no matter who is on the ticket,I have no answer to that. Most of my family & friends in the USA are voting for Obama. I gave them my views on why I want McCain,and I received some very nasty letters from friends and family.
They complain about the bias on Fox News and yet are blind to the bias on the MSM,I asked do you ever watch Fox and the answer I received,is only a few times. They are too busy reading the NY & LA Times or watching CNN to be bothered with Fox News.
The ones you need to feel sympathy for are the ones who think Obama is G-d.
donsaliman
October 9, 2008 - 06:14 ET by cocodrieThe reason some Jews vote democrat is the same reason given me by a friend who is a union truck driver. His exact words, "I would vote for a german shepherd if he was a democrat,"
Very Troubling
October 9, 2008 - 06:29 ET by Gat New YorkAs an American Jew the only answer I can provide to you why other American Jews can vote for Obama is that they have not been provided the facts about Obama’s background. There are several reasons:
1. The reason is that 85% of mainstream media have dropped any pretense of objectivity and journalistic integrity in order to become a propaganda machine for Obama. This is unprecedented in American journalism to the degree it is happening. The New York Times is no different than the National Enquirer when it comes to political news and views.
2. John McCain refused to engage in telling the American public about Obama’s 20 years in the most anti-Semitic and anti-Israel church – a church that promoted the cause of Hamas – a church that promoted the destruction of Israel – a church that honored the Muslim Louis Farrakhan – and a pastor who Obama admitted repeatedly was his close personal friend and spiritual mentor. Since the mainstream media has refused to do its job of informing and investigating this part of Obama’s history, it was McCain’s obligation to that. As I said for some strange reason he has not.
3. Republican Jewish organizations have not done their job of informing other Jews about this part of Obama’s history. I don’t have an answer to this other than they are lazy or they don’t care.
What is even more disturbing about Obama is to further support the fact that he is anti-Israel at heart is that he retained THE most anti-Israel foreign policy experts to advise him as part of his campaign and they are expected to have high positions in his administration. And most Jews are also unaware that the one time Obama broke with his political party was to vote against the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment which named the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. In an interview on FoxNews, Obama refused to say that Iran was part of the worldwide terror problem in answering a question on the War on Terror.
I have a son going to medical school in Israel right now and I am very concerned about Obama as President which I would not have if it were Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. Obama is lying to the American people. He is an extreme socialist ideologue and will place Israel at great risk.
As a young girl, I fell in
October 9, 2008 - 22:32 ET by TN MomAs a young girl, I fell in love with Israel after reading The Diary of Anne Frank. When the rev. wright sermons first surfaced, my heart ached for all the hatred he spewed and his close ties to farakon. I was confused and sad when the anti-iran protestors canceled the attendance of Gov. Palin. Gov. Palin is a friend of Israel!
so screwed
October 9, 2008 - 09:35 ET by livingfreeWe are so screwed. They are going to put that lame brain in office no matter what. I just don't understand it, why would supposedly intelligent people what someone of Obozos charactor in a position of power? The Dems are running the most disgusting campaign in history. God help us, this bozo will probably win through voter fraud, it is rampant. Even if one did not agree with Rep views, they should still see the folly with Obozo. Big money from out of our country, powerful people from out of our country.
Wake up people they want our COUNTRY, why don't people see that?
anti-Semitic
October 9, 2008 - 12:19 ET by AvitarSean should have on Mark Levin to discuss the Gaza Strip phone banks for Obama.
I Understand This Is NB, But The Story Is Andy Martin Not Gibbs
October 9, 2008 - 23:06 ET byI agree that Gibbs should have known better than to pull "A Hannity" on Hannity and he went too far down the wrong path. I understand it's not NB mission to expose the the craziness on the right let, alone do the right thing and justifiably discredit Hannity and Andy Martin. Nonetheless, everyone familiar with this low point Hannity's career- the use a racist, anti-semitic certifed lunatic as an "expert" on Obama should not only realize it but acknowledge it.
ANDY MARTIN In 1973, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to allow Martin admission to the bar. The court's decision noted that Martin, a University of
Illinois law school graduate who was previously known by the name
Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, had a Selective Service record that showed
he had a "moderately-severe character defect manifested by well
documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character. It cited several instances of troubling conduct on Martin's part,
including an attempt to have a parking violation thrown out because it
had been "entered by an insane judge" and his description of an
attorney as "shaking and tottering and drooling like an idiot."
After Sadam's overthrow he claimed to know where Sadam Hussein was hiding.
Martin's is proud in being a raging anti-semite. His 1986 congressional run "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America. He referred to Jews as "slimy" . He's also a racist. Martin claimed that "African-American judges ... circle the wagons and
try to protect Barry [Obama]." He also said that the actions of an
African-American judge who presided over the case "show that African-Americans are willing to corrupt and abuse their-public offices to defend their own sleazy candidate for office."
Hannity is so disengenuous and dishonest in comparing interviewing
Andy Martin with interviewing other people who he disagrees with.
There are a variety of reasons for Hannity's interviewees. Usually w/ people he disagrees w/ it's to expose and criticize them. With Martin he did the opposite and was extremely dishonest in his description and lack of accurate description about Martin.
In this case he used a certifiable lunatic nutcase* racist anti-semite to advance the fear
of Obama that Hannity so desperately wants for America.
Excuse my outrage but this is outrageous. Screw NB mission, Mr. Balan should be ashamed for covering up for the full truth about Andy Martin and going after the Gibbs instead of Hannity and Martin.
I aked before if anyone wanted to defend Martin. No one did. Now I'm asking:
Does anyone (sane and intelligent) want to defend Hannity's use of Andy Martin? Mr Balan ? Anyone?
* Words like lunatic and nutcase are often bandied about loosely but there is no more accurate spot on description of Andy Martin.
Abe... Go away little
October 9, 2008 - 23:07 ET by bigtimerAbe...
Go away little boy...you bother me.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt....
October 10, 2008 - 19:03 ET byWhy am I not surprised that the truth and those baring the truth bother you?
And why do you go by bigtimer in small case letters if you're such a bigtimer? Self-awareness?
"America isn't the problem...Rush Limbaugh is." - America
Come on Abe, Hannity was
October 9, 2008 - 23:26 ET by JerryCome on Abe, Hannity was only 8 years old when those things happened.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).