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.
That's what my sources indicate resonates with the voters.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
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
- 20
- 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- 9,302
- 144
- 106
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
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,493
- 3,159
- 136
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.
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.
Obama reply to a presumptive McCain attempted Ayers slur: Senator McCain this is your vilest hour, you should be ashamed of yourself. William Ayers is a better man than you.
http://online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=googlenews_wsj
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 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.
McCain came across as old and stiff and peevish.
He lost and will lose.
Clearly Obama pals around with Terrists, hell he launched his political career in the living room of a terrist. Facts are Facts
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.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter