WARNING PALIN DIASTER WARING PALIN DIASTER

Post Reply New Topic

Just the name of obama screams terrorist!
I BELIEVE!

As the economic news — fairly or not — has provided Barack Obama the momentum this past month, John McCain has decided to bring the Illinois senator’s shady associations to the forefront. This promises to be spectacularly “negative” — and even somewhat true. But will it matter?

Former President Bill Clinton was recently asked by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren: “What is the difference between an association with someone like David Duke and someone like Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright?” Clinton, as suave as they come, fumbled for a several moments, before he finally stating that “we don’t have to go there” and moved on to more comfortable environs.

The answer, of course, is, that anyone linked to Duke would never have been running for national office in the first place.

But Van Susteren could have asked an even more pertinent question: If McCain had a 20-year relationship with a disreputable character, would the Obama campaign make hay of the situation? Of course it would.

Associations — and in some cases political affiliations — are valid subjects for voters to chew on. Bringing it up is not a “smear,” nor is it a “distraction,” nor is it racist (though a few pundits have contorted themselves trying to prove it so). Your acquaintances speak to your judgment and character.

A terrifying thought, isn’t it?

It was The New York Times that recently explored the relationship between onetime terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama and their time at the Woods Foundation and Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $160 million “philanthropic” venture for city public schools. Yet, The Times was soft on the specifics.

It was the Manhattan Institute’s Sol Stern who summed up Ayers’ philosophy best: “Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer.” Worse, Ayers, a grisly caricature of ’60s fanaticism, has shown no remorse for his violent activities. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird — America is a great country,” he once famously gloated.

Would you sit on a board with Ayers? It’s a fair question. Obama first claimed that Ayers was a simply a guy in his neighborhood. Yet, this week CNN reported that “the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.”

No worries. When Obama sees a distraction, he dispatches it, tout de suite.

On Tony Rezko, a convicted felon and political ally: “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew.” On the infamous Rev. Wright: “The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” On Ayers, Obama’s top political adviser says the candidate “didn’t know” about the terrorism thing. (Later, they acknowledged the two served on a board after Obama knew.)

Even with his soaring intellect and transcendent abilities, Obama sure can be clueless. Why not just lay it out, honestly? “You know, I came up in Chicago politics. The place is lousy with crooks and radicals. I did what I had to. You would, too.”

Moreover, Robert Bennett, Chief Counsel to the Democrats during the investigation, said that McCain should not be included in the investigation and that there was not evidence of any wrongdoing by Senator McCain. In fact, he was completely exonerated. (I know: pesky facts...). http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/3813449.html

... Blather about Obama and Ayers ...

No, McCain was not exonerated.

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate".

...Grampy McGrump...

Please prove this. This is your big opportunity.

How old are you?

None of the Keating 5 were convicted of violating any laws - you could say all were 'exonerated' from that standpoint

...but McCain called it his biggest mistake

This was pure politics as the Democrats on the committee did not want to cut McCain loose so that only Democrats would remain in the proceedings.

Are you going to mention about Obama's attacks towards McCain? Riiigghhhtt you are a liberal and you think its okay to put McCain down, but not Obama! Sick people in this world. You (and others) have lobotomies without having one!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5h86J6fCg[/youtube]

He has said "The Vietnamese didn't question my honor." This, in contrast to the US Senate Ethics Committee. If you'd bothered to read the link I posted re: Democratic counsel Robert Bennett, you'd have known this was a political hatchet job:

Umm ok, I don't see the point Obama never said he was a friend of the guy, yes he associated with him is that a crime? Does that make him evil? Does that make him stupid? Does that make him a terrorist? Does that make him a traitor? Does that make him a bad man?

Of course the lawyer representing the Democrats under investigation is going to question the legitimacy of the investigation.

And one would expect the Republican would be the last person he'd want to exonerate. But that's where the facts led him.

Eat crow.

Bennet's comments need to be considered in terms of his role in the adversarial process.