about Bill Ayers.  I would wager extremely significant money that not more than 5% of Americans who are Obama Democrats or undecided give a fuck about Bill Ayers.  

The most right portion of the Republican base cares.
The racists care.
The anti-Obama (as opposed to pro McCain) folks care.

But, so what.  Why is McCain preaching to the converted?  Doesn't he know he's losing.  Does he not realize that he has to get some folks over to his side, not just get his base out to vote?  Why is his strategy so bad.  I believe that most all Democrats and Republicans alike have believed that Republicans are much much better at the strategy part of elections.  However, McCain's campaign has made so many missteps that I've almost forgotten how brilliant the Palin selection was.

What's going on here?  Is he really that bad a candidate?

All Americans benefit when the candidates run smart good races and put their best feet forward.  Competition is great and it forces the best to rise to the top.

-- Modified on 10/8/2008 12:39:44 PM

I think that scumbag Ayers should still be in prison, and not have some cushy professor job.  Take a look at what the Weather Underground did.

Do I care that he was on some board with Obama twenty years ago.  No.  Do I think Obama should be criticized for this so called relationship. NO.

Both sides need to cut this shit out.  It just pisses off most Americans.

You do realize that Ayers is white, don't you?

Of course.  My post is not really about Ayers.  It's about this stupid mud slinging.  The racists care because they cheer every time there is anything negative said about Obama.  They do not care about ideology, they just want to justify their ill considered views.

Ayers should be in jail.  Let me clear on that.  I'm talking full on throw away the key kind of jail.  However, I don't give a fuck about in whose living room Obama started his political career and the polls clearly suggest that most Americans don't either.

OK, I've answered the question, but I don't know what else to say.  Why are you asking and what's your point.

There are racists on both sides.  You spoke as if only Obama is a target.  Are we afraid to discuss racism against McCain, or do we just justify it as black anger and say it's ok?

political manipulation . There are no races only politics.

THERE IS NO GOD

Racism was not my point at all.  My point was that in these trying times, smear tactics are just stupid strategy.  I don't understand why it's going on.  If you watch the debates on CNN, you can watch people's reactions every time something negative gets said.  People universally disapprove.  I think it's OK to mention racism as a component of other discussions without the discussion being solely or primarily about race.

If you want to talk about race, start a new thread and I will give you my thoughts on how racism is a proxy for culture.  I will also speak about how the technological environment has made it easier for people to tune out on the important stuff and vote culture and not issues.

I look forward to your post.

I mean, really, what the fuck are you talking about and why are you saying it on this thread.  We're both lefty Democrats, but I can't get behind you on this one.  What the hell does your post have to do with this thread?  

There is no God?  OK, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't you think that deserves a post all on its own?

NO god , NO race Or only politics?

we.

throws three nails down on the counter and asks if they could put him up for the night.

Oh boy, now the religious nuts will attack me.

Repubs just aren't winning by using strategies that they've used since the late 1970s. Not only are they losing influence over independent voters, but they are preaching to a shrinking choir. The old Red Baiting tactic doesn't work anymore. The economy is tanking and people want different. Different is not McCain.

got any gay or black jokes while you're at it? lol

If you are going to offend, you need to be an equal opportunity offender.

he goes to heaven, huh?

Different is not Obama either and thats what everyone is pissed about.

I am for neither candidate - will vote independant bECAUSE I do care about Ayers, and all the others that both obama and mccain associate with - lobbyiests... who keep our MOCs from voting as their constituency wish... got that?  NEITHER.

My question to you though is why when I am agains people who promote violence - such as Ayers, or break the law, why do you call me
        A racists care.
        anti-Obama (but not anti-McCain).

why is that?  help me here.

Ayers is only one of many associations of concern. MSM would not investigate because MFM (misspelled) want to anoint O'Bombi.

The man has not stuck to one thing all through the primary or during the campaign, none. Changes his positions as the direction of the wind change.

Ayers, Rezko, Wright, a series of questionable associations.

Dictionary States:

  1. To overspread with anything unctuous, viscous, or
     adhesive; to daub; as, to smear anything with oil. "Smear
     the sleepy grooms with blood." --Shak.
     [1913 Webster]

  2. To soil in any way; to contaminate; to pollute; to stain
     morally; as, to be smeared with infamy. --Shak.
     [1913 Webster]

  3. To smudge, blur, or render indistinct (writing, pictures,
     etc.).
     [PJC]

  4. to vilify (a person); to damage (a person's reputation),
     especially falsely or by unfair innuendo, and with
     malicious intent.

In O'Bombi's case, it is the truth, so smear doesn't fit.

on the yo yo polls, you may get surprised.

Kerry also went into November with large lead, more than O'Bombi actually but lost by a larger margin than Gore.

You make a statement stating that racists are the ones that care about Obama's affiliation with an old white terrorist, then when called on it try to say it's not about race after all and ask to start a new thread.

Why is it that it's the libs that are always crying racism on subjects that don't have a damn thing to do with race? Or can you explain to me how Obama's relationship with a "white" terrorist has the slightest thing to do with race?

I imagine another explanation is that you just like calling people who don't like Obama racists. If that's the case, you are certainly not alone in your feelings. Just ask Conroy, he has no problems playing the race card on any subject no matter how remote or nonexistent the connection.

motel 6.

Bush was ahead of Kerry in almost all polls in Oct/Nov.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

-- Modified on 10/8/2008 6:16:36 PM

-- Modified on 10/8/2008 6:19:31 PM

Please provide a link to a post where I made a non-existent connection between racism and...whatever the hell it is you're referring to.  

Any discussion that I've initiated about race was supported by fact and personal experience with it.  It was you the injected your emotions into the argument by making gross and contradictory generalizations:  first stating that black people are only united by their call for entitlements...and then in the same thread stating that most black people are "going about their business and not complaining" as a personal attack on me.  

You still fail to make any sense on this issue.  Bring it up as many times as you like and you'll still be wrong.

Truth doesn't stop it from being a smear.  What are you reading?

Man.  It's one sentence in a huge post.  How the fuck is that crying racist?  Remove the sentence and the entire post reads the same.  Is my writing really so bad that you ignored all the other paragraphs and read only the one sentence?

When I post, I expect that responses to me will actually have something to do with my post.  There's no reason that a person who wants to talk about something else can't post their own thread.

Please look it up.  I'm tired of doing all the work for you.

Alright, I lied.  I don't really trust you to do the work.  Here's the link http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I said:

The most right portion of the Republican base cares.
The racists care.
The anti-Obama (as opposed to pro McCain) folks care.

I in no way said, or intended to imply that those are the only people who could possibly care.  My main point is that according to the poles on the issue and the more general polls, very few Americans care.  I have added that in my opinion, far fewer that don't fit into those categories care.  I didn't say nobody, just very few.

Ummm... I thought I admitted that the far right cares (i.e., folks like you).

I don't care because I don't think it has any significant relationship to whether he can be good for the financial, military and cultural prosperity of the country.

I assume that politicians meet so many folks that unless they are actually shown to be guilty of something, I really can't get too charged up by their associations.  E.g., I can't get worked up about the Keating Five or about Mr. Palin's organization that wants to secede from the union.  It's just not that big a deal, certainly not this year.

I'm sorry.  In retrospect, I should have said simply that I don't think your post belongs on this thread as it fails to address the issues raised.

You use the phrase "politicians meet so many folks". Is that how you see Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers? They happened to meet somewhere along the way? Are you intentionally down playing their relationship? Or do you not know?

Follow up:

Can you think of any person of historical note that would give you pause if he were in a similar circumstance with McCain?  Someone who if McCain had partnered with on a Board of Directors and said person entrusted McCain with $50 million dollars to spend in trust for that person's goals. Is there anyone in any type of similar relationship that would give you pause?

Regarding your first point, I understand how you would get the impression that I was trying to down play the relationship.  It was not conscious, but probably intentional.  I don't think it's a big deal.  

I've served on many boards.  It has never occurred to me to care about who the other board members were, only who the company was.  While working for a foundation whose founder is one of McCain's biggest contributors, Ayers received the grant and tasked a young Obama with distributing the money.  I'm not sure I see the harm in that activity at all.  How does that benefit Obama?

As for my response to your follow-up, I can think of many folks:  Timothy McVey and David Duke to name a couple.  In all honesty, I never heard of Bill Ayers before the election.  After learning about him though, I think he should spend the remainder of his life in prison.

Ayers co-founded the organization.
Obama was Chairman of the Board.

Ayers gave him a check for $50 Million and then instructions on how to spend the money. (This fact only became public last week after the University of Illinois released the files)

Ayers HOSTED the meeting that kicked off Obama's political career (as Illinois State Senator).

And Obama's initial response. . .
I barely knew him. He was a neighbor.

Where would the press be or where would you be if McCain had shown THAT kind of relationship with David Duke or McVey?

The people don't care about Ayers? I doubt the vast majority don't even know who he is.

smearing Obama with the truth. lol

I can't believe anyone would stoop so low as to present unfavorable FACTS about our lord and savior Barrack Obama. lmao

MRB, do you actually read your own stuff?

I never claimed it was inappropriate, just stupid strategy.  Smear away if you like, but it doesn't work in a year like this.  To me, it is rather obvious.  If there had been no George Bush, then yeah, however, Republican credibility is very very low.  Trying to damage the other guys credibility won't work when the one doing the damage already has low credibility.

First, if he really is buddy/buddy with someone like that, it does reflect on his judgment and his values.  If he is "pals" with someone who is only sad that he didn't do more, it does not speak well of him.

Second, you know "documented" contacts have to be only the tip of the iceberg.  This is common sense.

To use one example, Obama's first campaign was launched from Ayers's living room.  Do you think Ayers donated time and space and energy for a perfect stranger?  Is it likely that Ayers would be so willing to help someone with whom he had no prior contact. Is a dedicated individual like Ayers going to to this for someone whom he knows nothing about.  That doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't it far more logical that they knew each other before, had talked about stuff, maybe a cup of coffee, etc, and then Ayeres said, "Yeah, I'll help you. "

Likewise, they served on boards together.  The docmented time at the board meeting is just the start. I serve on a board.  Meetings are every three months and start at 1.  People get there early, have lunch, a drink, talk, exchange non-business news.

During the interim, it is not uncommon for me to call other members, not just about work, but about other common interests.

Do you think that common members on a board of directors only meet at the scheduled times and have no other contact?

It is troubling by itself that he has the documented multiple contacts with someone so dispicable.  To apply your every day experiences and logic, you know it is deeper.

Read this by Dick Morris and the other link . Obama had a connection where he actually used funds given by Ayers and that is more then just an association . You can argue it all you want but those are the facts Obama had a verified working relationship with Ayers.


http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/10/08/the-obama-ayers-connection/#more-458

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1006ss.html

Neither side is going to win by taking the high road. If Obama is to win(which I will grant you is possible) it will be by linking McCain to George Bush. If McCain is to win it will be by showing Obama to be totally lacking in qualification, and dangerously naive in foreign policy.

I will grant you, Obama did the better job in the last debate..

One other way McCain can win is if someone other than McCain  pounds home Obama's past associations with terrorist and crooks. A little October surprise dropped surreptitiously by the Clinton camp would do the job nicely.