How McCain can bring up Ayers at the debate tonight.

[JS80]

Originally posted by: midway

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.

Hence, "praying hail mary chance." I was using Bradley effect as what it represents, not the history behind how it was created.

Originally posted by: dahunan
When did you stop beating your wife?

Just got married, haven't started yet. Give it a few years.

When did you start having sex with men?

 

[sportage]

Clearly Obama pals around with Terrists, hell he launched his political career in the living room of a terrist. Facts are Facts

Yeah you gotta watch those 8 year old bomb makers... :laugh:

Ayers teaches now. he's a professor.
On the other hand, Keating went to prison.
You do the math...

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

He's a professor at the University of Illinois, an established member of the Chicago community. He sits on boards and even has received awards from the city of Chicago. Clearly people are really scared of him.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I read about and hear talk about the Ayers stuff and my reaction is:

"That's it! That's all you have to convince the American people to vote for you? Vote for me because the other guy once hob-knobbed with a former Vietnam War protestor." Is that really all McCain has left to campaign on !?!

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: syzygy

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.

They didn't intend to kill anybody. That's significantly different from happening to not kill. Do you not see the difference between a terrorist intentionally taking human life and the Weather Underground sending threats so that the places would be evacuated?

 

[Throckmorton]

By the way, wasn't Bill Ayers demonstrating the ultimate LOVE of America, by expressing his right to bear arms? The gun nuts are always talking about how weapons are for fighting the government, but when an organization actually does it, they're terrorists? Or will the NRA only fight a hypothetical police state with automatic rifles, but not explosives?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
I think eventually we look back at this election and see many mis-steps by the McCain campaign, right now paramount among them is his inability to look competent in the face of our economic problems. Obama has just looked *composed* - nothing more, but even that is something McCalin can't claim with his erract and unsure approach. There was an oportunity here, he just couldn't capitalize on it.

Fern

Fern, your logic in your last paragraph is something I've very concerned about in this election. If the Pubs blow off a loss this year as simply "McCain ran a poor campaign," "McCain didn't go negative enough early enough," or "McCain isn't conservative enough," then IMO they will fail to learn why they actually lost. And instead of cleaning up the own house and returning to the moderate center and sanity, they'll compound their mistakes, run even further to the right, and basically fall apart, with their only hope of making a comeback in 2012 that the Dems screw it all up.

Marked for later.

I think better I don't comment until after lunch

Fern

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
By the way, wasn't Bill Ayers demonstrating the ultimate LOVE of America, by expressing his right to bear arms? The gun nuts are always talking about how weapons are for fighting the government, but when an organization actually does it, they're terrorists? Or will the NRA only fight a hypothetical police state with automatic rifles, but not explosives?

I hope you're not being serious.

 

[Lemon law]

As we can saw, McCain did try to bring up Ayers in the debate, and if anything, lost ground and focus as a result. Hopefully showing people like PJ, that what plays well in the demented minds of dittoheads on the Rush Limbaugh show, does not play well with a more rational national audience. Preaching to your own choir may fire it up, but some of the republirats are so firing up, they are singing off key.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
By the way, wasn't Bill Ayers demonstrating the ultimate LOVE of America, by expressing his right to bear arms? The gun nuts are always talking about how weapons are for fighting the government, but when an organization actually does it, they're terrorists? Or will the NRA only fight a hypothetical police state with automatic rifles, but not explosives?

I hope you're not being serious.

I'm being sarcastic.

 

[SP33Demon]

I liked how Obama said McCain has made negative attacks like Ayers a "centerpiece for his campaign in the past couple of weeks." Ouch. Checkmate, Obama.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I liked how Obama said McCain has made negative attacks like Ayers a "centerpiece for his campaign in the past couple of weeks." Ouch. Checkmate, Obama.

No shit, McCain played right into Obama's hands. Just imagine somebody like Putin taking advantage of McCain's inability not to be played like a Bingo Game at a Retirement Home.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I liked how Obama said McCain has made negative attacks like Ayers a "centerpiece for his campaign in the past couple of weeks." Ouch. Checkmate, Obama.

No shit, McCain played right into Obama's hands. Just imagine somebody like Putin taking advantage of McCain's inability not to be played like a Bingo Game at a Retirement Home.

Yep, painting someone as only focusing on the negatives is a big blow. Notice how Obama tried to keep everything positive unless McCain forced him to talk about negative issues. I have a feeling that the O campaign did their scientific homework on how negativity affects undecided's. Hmm.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I thought he'd counter-punch, instead it was the rope-a-dope. Mac threw bombs, nothing landed clean. OK, enough boxing analogy, Mac was a bit scary last night. His temperament is ill suited to the task of getting other countries to support our efforts, imo. Also, judging by all the undecided voter panels, Palin is boat anchor around his neck right now.

 

[StageLeft]

Oh well, that was a bit of a non-starter, what a surprise.

Notice how Obama tried to keep everything positive unless McCain forced him to talk about negative issues. I have a feeling that the O campaign did their scientific homework on how negativity affects undecided's

He must have because he did not even mention, during the question about how your VP will be better than the other, Palin AT ALL. He not ONCE mentioned the fact she's abused her power in office and when asked if she was unqualified, in his head he was thinking "hell yes she is unqualified" and yet didn't come across that way.

McCain fail.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This election cycle has brought to mind Gandhi's strategy- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: midway

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.

Hence, "praying hail mary chance." I was using Bradley effect as what it represents, not the history behind how it was created.

Originally posted by: dahunan
When did you stop beating your wife?

Just got married, haven't started yet. Give it a few years.

When did you start having sex with men?

And he married a Jew, which you KNOW is going to make for some awkward moments at the monthly right wing whack job meetings.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

He's a professor at the University of Illinois, an established member of the Chicago community. He sits on boards and even has received awards from the city of Chicago. Clearly people are really scared of him.

Well there's that to consider too, and a point I think the Obama campaign has done a good job of making. This isn't even like the Reverend Wright thing, as dumb as that was, this is trying to attack Obama based on his association with a guy who did some bad things well before Obama even knew him. This is "justified" by claiming that people don't really change, and once a lawbreaker, always a lawbreaker...but that's a pretty thin justification when they're trying for the already thin guilt by association attack.

But in the end, it doesn't really matter. Unable to find anything to attack Obama himself with, virtually the entire campaign has been about pushing this theory that Obama is responsible for the behavior of the people around him (present, past and future). I just don't see that as a really persuasive argument, and it would seem that the majority of the voters don't either.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80
The only praying hail mary chance is for the Bradley effect to be true.

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dahunan
When did you stop beating your wife?

When did you start having sex with men?

Your first post is a prayer that enough pepole are racist to affect the election.

Your second post equates spousal abuse with consensual homosexual relations.

I'm pretty sure it's not going out on a limb to call you a douchebag.

McCain obviously felt the Ayers question was so important and cast such serious doubt on Obama's judgment and character that he waited until the final 4 weeks before bringing the issue up... huh?

It's a last ditch ploy to smear when everything else he's tried has fallen flat. Gas tax holidays, suspending his campaign, Palin...one stunt after another.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
The only praying hail mary chance is for the Bradley effect to be true.

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dahunan
When did you stop beating your wife?

When did you start having sex with men?

Your first post is a prayer that enough pepole are racist to affect the election.

Your second post equates spousal abuse with consensual homosexual relations.

I'm pretty sure it's not going out on a limb to call you a douchebag.

/agree, I'm amazed that some of these trolls haven't been banned yet.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
The only praying hail mary chance is for the Bradley effect to be true.

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dahunan
When did you stop beating your wife?

When did you start having sex with men?

Your first post is a prayer that enough pepole are racist to affect the election.

Your second post equates spousal abuse with consensual homosexual relations.

I'm pretty sure it's not going out on a limb to call you a douchebag.

McCain obviously felt the Ayers question was so important and cast such serious doubt on Obama's judgment and character that he waited until the final 4 weeks before bringing the issue up... huh?

It's a last ditch ploy to smear when everything else he's tried has fallen flat. Gas tax holidays, suspending his campaign, Palin...one stunt after another.

I don't think douchebag begins to cover it. Not only that, he wont meet me downtown for a drink because he's afraid I'm going to anally rape him.

His wife should be worried about his latent homoerotic feelings, I think.

 

[NeoV]

just to keep facts straight - did anyone actually die from the Ayer's bombings other than 2 people who were actually making bombs?

I don't have a problem with McCain bringing Ayers up - but his "I don't care about a washed up terrorist - but I'm going to press on with this" approach was awkward at best.

Did I mention that Obama is going to raise your taxes?

Joe - back me up here!