• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How McCain can bring up Ayers at the debate tonight.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
-snip
After that speech McCain just says "You still haven't answered the question."

BTW I don't think McCain got a reprimand either.
Plus if Obama gives some speech about how we shouldn't play dirty and turns around and plays dirty it will sort of defeat his purpose, right?
Pro-Jo, your mistake is that you are trying to think of what would appeal to YOU not what would appeal to voters in general. You would pull the (R) lever even if they nominated a sponge to oppose Obama. (with Palin they are close!)

When McCain brings up Ayers, all Obama has to do is gently chide McCain for resorting to personal attacks when the situation before our country is so dire. He worked with Ayers to combat poverty and poorly educated children, not to plant bombs. Sure that stuff might work on you, but all normal people are going to see is a guy who worked on a charity board.

This is why the Ayers thing has never gained traction. It's really hard to say "LOOK AT THE AWFUL PERSON OBAMA WORKED ON THE CHARITY BOARD TO REDUCE POVERTY WITH!" Good luck on making that attack stick, McCain.
rofl. I like your bolded comment.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I think the truly maverick-y thing for McCain to do, is to enter the debate with a burning effigy of Obama, flash some devil fingers, and shout "Terrorist! Off with his head! Kill him!"

That's what my sources indicate resonates with the voters.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain should simply ask:
"Why did you work with a man who built bombs that killed people? How could you work with a man with blood on his hands? How can you claim to fight the war on terror when worked besides terrorists yourself?"
And then he replies that he was eight years old at the time Mr. Ayers engaged in such activities, and says to Senator McCain, "Want to share with your fellow citizens the story of how you were buddy-buddy with a certain Charles Keating who helped trigger the last enormous financial meltdown in this country?"

He might as well drop out and let Palin run for President with a tactic like that.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
He may or may not bring up Ayers, but I think he IS going to bring up the statistic which his campaign has been bandying about tv the past couple days, except it's kinda misleading.

The statistic is that Obama has run more negative ads than any presidential candidate in history. The misleading part is that the content of these "negative" ads amount to something like this:

"John McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" meanwhile banks are closing..."

"John McCain wants to give oil companies billions of dollars in tax breaks...."

etc. Yeah, these are negative ads, and Obama has much more money than McCain so he can run them more. My problem is that while these are "negative" ads, they are typical political ads attacking on the issues. They are not slimy, underhanded or dirty.

McCain meanwhile has run ads saying Obama wants to teach kindergarten students sex ed, and that he's friends with terrorists.

McCain is going to say "For someone who wants to talk about the economy and not personal issues, why is Obama running more negative ads than anyone in history?" Now, that's a non-sequitur because Obama's attack ads are about McCain's policies and votes on the economy. McCain's ads are personal character attacks, since he's losing on the issues.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Farang
As per wikipedia . . .

Obama has truth on his side. I'm looking forward to McCain bringing up Ayers, Chicago's 1997 Citizen of the Year.
Too anemic and stupid.

Did it say anywhere in that drivel whether Obama confronted Ayers about his past actions back in 1995 or anytime
between their introduction up to 2002 through all their wonderfully productive associations ? Is that answer NO ? LOL.

Fvck Obama's election year propaganda. Ofcourse the Lib-Sheep will dine on the excrement he puts out while on the
2008 campaign trail. Who wouldn't :roll: BUT did he seek the information then ?

- Did Obama EVER request from Ayers an apology, ANY statement of contrition, ANY rationalization for his detestable
actions back when he did know him ? Does your Wikipedia entry answer that ? Is that answer NO too, LOL ?

- We know Ayers did not change his thinking, his philosophy, his utter contempt for American society because he said
so in print media and in interviews (1998 - ABC News). GOOGLE IT. So knowing that . . . well . . . its just too obvious.

Was Obama 8 when he chaired the Annenberg board ? Was he 8 when he sat with Ayers on the Woods board ?

Given the quality and nature of his excuses, Obama is STILL 8 years old.

Careful you don't bruise the child; just escort him into the White House. Now you know how far you can ride the failures
of others while having less than nothing to your name. Obama is gifted on that front.
You're right.. let me do a background check on anyone I ever meet and if I find any kind of charges let me demand an apology because that is a completely normal, socially acceptable thing to do. NO? LOL
Really ? Is that your standard ? How about I cut Obama a little slack and expect him to conduct a little background check only on the people
in the same room with him ? Am I being charitable ? Kinder than you ? This is all assuming Obama knew nothing about Ayers's past when
they were together and since I am in such a charitable mood (for the moment) how about I grant him his childlike ignorance on that too.

Obama is deep like a dried puddle bed. A pity more people don't have the peace of mind to read him better.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: syzygy

Really ? Is that your standard ? How about I cut Obama a little slack and expect him to conduct a little background check only on the people
in the same room with him ?
Am I being charitable ? Kinder than you ? This is all assuming Obama knew nothing about Ayers's past when
they were together and since I am in such a charitable mood (for the moment) how about I grant him his childlike ignorance on that too.

Obama is deep like a dried puddle bed. A pity more people don't have the peace of mind to read him better.
Wow...that would be about 5 million+ background checks so far this campaign.
The DNC, the speeches, the meet&greets across the country, etc...
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Ayers's bombs didn't kill anybody. The only deaths caused by the wunderground were the members who accidentally blew themselves up
I can't agree with you at all. I figured this position would eventually be tossed down once Obama's lazy lies grew tired of flopping.

You mean Ayers tossed them with the intent to main, kill, destroy, but because they just happened not to he's innocent, misunderstood,
and eminently worthy of Obama's love and Chiacgo's Man of the Year Award ? Exotic legal and moral reasoning there but .... no.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: OrByte



Originally posted by: syzygy
Did it say anywhere in that drivel whether Obama confronted Ayers about his past actions back in 1995 or anytime
between their introduction up to 2002 through all their wonderfully productive associations ? Is that answer NO ? LOL.
Obama didn't have to do that. They worked on education programs along with republicans and other prominent chicago education experts.

Originally posted by: syzygy
- Did Obama EVER request from Ayers an apology, ANY statement of contrition, ANY rationalization for his detestable
actions back when he did know him ? Does your Wikipedia entry answer that ? Is that answer NO too, LOL ?
Again Obama doesnt have to. Obama is not responsible for Ayers.

Originally posted by: syzygy
Was Obama 8 when he chaired the Annenberg board ? Was he 8 when he sat with Ayers on the Woods board ?

Given the quality and nature of his excuses, Obama is STILL 8 years old.
No actually given the nature of his response, Obama was too young to be associated with the bad things that Ayers did which is the point all along right?
I disagree with your reasoning.

Its Obama who has willfully misrepresented his beliefs with regard to these types of individuals. There is a clear and
glaring pattern of moral blindness that makes him unsuitable for the highest elected office in the country. If you simply
check his timeline and statements with Wright (for example) you will notice that not even his white grandmother is safe.

As for what you mentioned above . . I don't see why the mere fact that they worked together obviates anything ? That is
such a simplistic reduction of the moral dynamic that existed between a man who has no regrets for this past actions
versus a man who claims to stand opposite all that Ayers believes and did. Yet he still cavorted with him, held his political
coming out party in his house, and continued a relationship without any evidence that he EVER confronted him on these
supposedly detestable actions. I mean NONE, ZERO evidence . . .that he did so when it mattered.

One more time . .. its not a question about age . . . Its a question of Obama having demonstrated (past tense) back
then - NOT NOW - the same revulsion he now claims to feel against Ayers. Period. One more time . . . there is no
indication, no evidence, no nothing that he ever did so, and we know Ayers is older (shock) but certainly not apologetic.

Stop trying to sanitize him. Just drop the chump in the White House.








 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I think the terrorist angle is a mistake.

if anything, use it to paint Obama as a typical politician who's willing to ignore anything as long as the person is of use to him, while he dumps them the moment the relationships become inconvenient.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: syzygy

Really ? Is that your standard ? How about I cut Obama a little slack and expect him to conduct a little background check only on the people
in the same room with him ?
Am I being charitable ? Kinder than you ? This is all assuming Obama knew nothing about Ayers's past when
they were together and since I am in such a charitable mood (for the moment) how about I grant him his childlike ignorance on that too.

Obama is deep like a dried puddle bed. A pity more people don't have the peace of mind to read him better.
Wow...that would be about 5 million+ background checks so far this campaign.
The DNC, the speeches, the meet&greets across the country, etc...
I am not going to rag on you but you misunderstood . ..

I meant his fellow board members back when he was chairman (1995) and again with the Woods people, which
by then its really a moot point. Obama claims that he didn't know anything about Ayers' past, which is preposterous
on two levels.

First, all prospective board members are vetted. Every one. I don't know how many sat with Obama but it couldn't
have been more than twenty, most likely less. They were not all reviewed at once. Their backgrounds would have
been nitpicked. So, yes, Obama knew Ayers. He was a NATIONAL fugitive, on the FBI's Most Wanted List (LOL), the
son of some wealthy Chicago wanker who helped salvage his son's rep. So, YES, Obama knew Ayers.

Second, Ayers SPEAKS. Yes, he does. Despite popular lib-conceptions, the man quacks and yaps. And if Obama's
hearing and eyes were in tip-top shape back in 1998 he would have seen Ayers and wife in all their ignominious
glory ratting against their country, regretting they did not accomplish more mayhem, blah, blah, blah on an national
ABC News special.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: syzygy

I disagree with your reasoning.

Its Obama who has willfully misrepresented his beliefs with regard to these types of individuals. There is a clear and
glaring pattern of moral blindness that makes him unsuitable for the highest elected office in the country. If you simply
check his timeline and statements with Wright (for example) you will notice that not even his white grandmother is safe.

As for what you mentioned above . . I don't see why the mere fact that they worked together obviates anything ? That is
such a simplistic reduction of the moral dynamic that existed between a man who has no regrets for this past actions
versus a man who claims to stand opposite all that Ayers believes and did. Yet he still cavorted with him, held his political
coming out party in his house, and continued a relationship without any evidence that he EVER confronted him on these
supposedly detestable actions. I mean NONE, ZERO evidence . . .that he did so when it mattered.

One more time . .. its not a question about age . . . Its a question of Obama having demonstrated (past tense) back
then - NOT NOW - the same revulsion he now claims to feel against Ayers. Period. One more time . . . there is no
indication, no evidence, no nothing that he ever did so, and we know Ayers is older (shock) but certainly not apologetic.

Stop trying to sanitize him. Just drop the chump in the White House.
Obama is about as sanitized as McCain. As soon as you show me how it is important to hold one candidate to a level of scrutiny and critizism and not the other then I will concede that you make a good argument.

Until then.

If the media brought up Keating I am sure McCain would distance himself from him

If the media brought up William Timmons I am sure he would distance himself from him, as soon as he fires him.

McCain distances himself from GWB every chance he can get..and weren't they recently at fundraisers together? Do you think GWB has a good record as a great Humanitarian? who killed more people GWB or Ayers?

What about his former lobbyist friends?

I bet McCain would be distancing himself from all of those people above.

Both candidates need to be held to the same scrutiny, the same standard. I don't see you doing that. I do...which makes my point simple. Both have had bad associations. Obama from his days in Chicago, McCain from his days in Washington

when it comes to associations, who gives a fvck.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,789
1,675
126
No one cares except Mccain.
The question may be asked by the moderator, but
that again just shows the news media likes to play got-cha
instead of addressing issues main street really wants to hear.

All Obama has to say is, he wanted to work on education
and with helping kids. Ayers just happened to be there.
Ayers is not on the 10 most wanted list, and Ayers is a free man
as far as the government cares.
Its not like Ayers is in hiding or on the run or a wanted man.

Its not that unusual for folks from different backgrounds to
come together for a cause that benefits kids or community.
That is what we have/had here.

Mccain just wants to turn the page on the economy, with distraction.
Ok John... go for it!!! :laugh:

What is it Mccain is suggesting here anyway???
That Obama, as an 8 year old was involved with
bombings? What is it Mccain is trying to suggest?

The only thing BOMBing here are Mccain's poll numbers.


 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A LOT of people on the right want McCain to bring up Ayers tonight.
At this point McCain has nothing to lose.

McCain should simply ask:
"Why did you work with a man who built bombs that killed people? How could you work with a man with blood on his hands? How can you claim to fight the war on terror when worked besides terrorists yourself?"

And then leave Obama to defend his own actions.
If Obama can some how spin the question into a positive then he wins.
But there is a chance that Obama gets stuck and can't defend his association with the guy. Or he attempts to avoid the question entirely.

The best hope for McCain is that we get a moment similar to the Saddleback debate question about when life begins where Obama answered "That is above my pay grade."

Let Obama answer with his "I was only 8" and then throw it back in his face.
"You worked with the guy a few years ago. Did you know he was terrorist then? Did you still work with him knowing that?"

Again, McCain has nothing to lose at this point. He is on the path to losing. He can try something like this and hope it works or he can lose with honor. Although with everyone accusing him of being racist there isn't much 'honor' left. In other words: the media is not going to like him no matter what he does so stop trying to win the media over and start trying to win the election.
Out'a luck Obama just brought it up. Now it's a dead issue, poofjohn/and ACORN too.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
-snip
After that speech McCain just says "You still haven't answered the question."

BTW I don't think McCain got a reprimand either.
Plus if Obama gives some speech about how we shouldn't play dirty and turns around and plays dirty it will sort of defeat his purpose, right?
you are so amazing... you can look at the sun and say it is the moon
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
I watched McCain bring up Ayers tonight, and frankly, I was embarrassed for him. The attack was utterly unconvincing - Obama's response was measured and assured. Then McCain raised the same guilt-by-association nonsense again. What a jerk.

McCain came across as old and stiff and peevish.

He lost and will lose.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
McCain flailed away at it and came across looking like a fool.
I just saw the vid in your sig. I'd seen part of that answer but not the entire thing. It really is pathetic. It's shameful in every sense of the word.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Clearly Obama pals around with Terrists, hell he launched his political career in the living room of a terrist. Facts are Facts
That's why you're voting McCain, like a good little Repub :thumbsup:

 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
It's sad to say that at this point I don't even think if Obama was in Ayers' basement making bombs as an 8 year old, or wrote Rev Wright's hate ministries, it would matter at all to voters. The only praying hail mary chance is for the Bradley effect to be true.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: syzygy

Really ? Is that your standard ? How about I cut Obama a little slack and expect him to conduct a little background check only on the people
in the same room with him ?
Am I being charitable ? Kinder than you ? This is all assuming Obama knew nothing about Ayers's past when
they were together and since I am in such a charitable mood (for the moment) how about I grant him his childlike ignorance on that too.

Obama is deep like a dried puddle bed. A pity more people don't have the peace of mind to read him better.
Wow...that would be about 5 million+ background checks so far this campaign.
The DNC, the speeches, the meet&greets across the country, etc...
I am not going to rag on you but you misunderstood . ..

I meant his fellow board members back when he was chairman (1995) and again with the Woods people, which
by then its really a moot point. Obama claims that he didn't know anything about Ayers' past, which is preposterous
on two levels.

First, all prospective board members are vetted. Every one. I don't know how many sat with Obama but it couldn't
have been more than twenty, most likely less. They were not all reviewed at once. Their backgrounds would have
been nitpicked. So, yes, Obama knew Ayers. He was a NATIONAL fugitive, on the FBI's Most Wanted List (LOL), the
son of some wealthy Chicago wanker who helped salvage his son's rep. So, YES, Obama knew Ayers.

Second, Ayers SPEAKS. Yes, he does. Despite popular lib-conceptions, the man quacks and yaps. And if Obama's
hearing and eyes were in tip-top shape back in 1998 he would have seen Ayers and wife in all their ignominious
glory ratting against their country, regretting they did not accomplish more mayhem, blah, blah, blah on an national
ABC News special.
The point you and ProfJohn seem to be missing is that this is only a convincing argument to people like you two...nobody who hasn't already been convinced to vote against Obama is going to be convinced by some guilt by association smears.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: JS80
It's sad to say that at this point I don't even think if Obama was in Ayers' basement making bombs as an 8 year old, or wrote Rev Wright's hate ministries, it would matter at all to voters. The only praying hail mary chance is for the Bradley effect to be true.
When did you stop beating your wife?
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,636
3,777
136
Well that went astonishingly badly. What a train wreck. McCain was a fool to take the bait and he will pay for his hostility and negativity in the polls.

Mission Accomplished!
 

midway

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
301
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
It's sad to say that at this point I don't even think if Obama was in Ayers' basement making bombs as an 8 year old, or wrote Rev Wright's hate ministries, it would matter at all to voters. The only praying hail mary chance is for the Bradley effect to be true.
That's unlikely, as the Bradley Effect didn't even happen to Bradley. The article I linked to is an article written by V. Lance Tarrance, Jr. who was George Deukmejian's general election poster, twice. According to their own internal polling immediately preceding the election the race was basically a tie, it was 45-44 Bradley on the 1st of November.

The Bradley effect is based on the fact that Mervin Field, a prominent pollster at the time, had Bradley up by 7 points, however this was an outlier. But Field, being a prominent man, was able to get all over the media with his predictions. Unfortunately when he was wrong he cited "race [as] a factor in the Bradley loss" without backing it up with any data whatsoever, looking back it seems that the "Bradley effect" was merely caused by poor sampling methodology by Field.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS