Obama Opens Up a 9-Point Lead

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
In other Mavericky news, here's the McCain campaign cribbing from the Bush and Rove playbook:

The Alaska Governor accuses the Illinois Senator of “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country” with while speaking to GOP donors in Englewood, Colorado Saturday.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/04/p...th-terrorists/

How is that any more a Bush ripoff than merely picking at an opponent's vulnerability like any politician would?

I don't recall Ayers having any analogue wrt Gore or Kerry...

[Ramo]

You don't see what's out of line (or Rovian, for that matter) in associating your opponent with terrorism on the flimsiest pretext? This is gutter politics.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's hardly a flimsy pretext.

[Ramo]

Yes, it is. What does Obama have to do with domestic terrorism? Ayers participated in violent politics when Obama was a child, and because Ayers rehabilitated himself and is now a prominent member of Obama's community, Obama should be associated with this violence? Horse****, and you know it's horse****.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who hasn't abandoned his radical leanings. The fact that Obama would freely associate with such a person to get his foot in the door of Chicago politics surely reflects on Obama's judgment and character and is a valid issue.

edit: For my homie TCO. May Maguire unban him soon...

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/10/no-yards-and-a.html

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, it is. What does Obama have to do with domestic terrorism? Ayers participated in violent politics when Obama was a child, and because Ayers rehabilitated himself and is now a prominent member of Obama's community, Obama should be associated with this violence? Horse****, and you know it's horse****.

Sure it's horse****, I just fail to see how it's particularly Rovian horse**** as opposed to typical Washington horse****. As I said, there was simply no analogue whatsoever in 2000 or 2004.

In the past Bush's surrogates might have characterized most Democrats as being "soft" on terrorism, but that's a far cry from having actually associated with an avowed terrorist and you know it. It's a unique vulnerability that any politician would be stupid to ignore, not just someone acting "Rovian." Come on.

[Velociryx]

I'm definitely not one of these "Saint Obama" cheerleaders, but one need only look at the effects of the past eight to understand that the current paradigm ain't working. I'm glad we seem to be heading in a different direction. Not a moment too soon, IMO. Of course, having said that, I imagine the heckling will begin in earnest in 5...4...3...2...

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Did Alan Keyes make a big deal about this? Accusing an opponent of being soft on terrorism, and implying actually sympathy for terrorism are entirely different things. The dude was a respected member of the Chicago community, was heavily involved in education issues, and they happened to have served on the same board. Gasp.

Kissinger has far more blood on his hands than Ayers, but it's ok for McCain to associate with him (and it's clear that their relationship is far more important than Obama and Ayers') for what reason? How 'bout Ollie North? We can play this associations game with McCain and get far bigger catches if you want.

This is clearly gutter politics, and the only reason why McCain is running on it is because that's all he has left.

[Velociryx]

Well Ramo, when you're a maverick....



-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Not just any Maverick, but the original one.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

As Palin said during the debate, she and McCain are a "team of mavericks."

I'll just let that sink in, shall I?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Kissinger has far more blood on his hands than Ayers, but it's ok for McCain to associate with him (and it's clear that their relationship is far more important than Obama and Ayers') for what reason?

The blood on Kissinger's hands isn't American. A more cogent analogy would be if McCain had got his start in politics by working for an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber. I can't even imagine the media firestorm that would result if that were found to be the case...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Did Alan Keyes make a big deal about this? Accusing an opponent of being soft on terrorism, and implying actually sympathy for terrorism are entirely different things. The dude was a respected member of the Chicago community, was heavily involved in education issues, and they happened to have served on the same board. Gasp.

Kissinger has far more blood on his hands than Ayers, but it's ok for McCain to associate with him (and it's clear that their relationship is far more important than Obama and Ayers') for what reason? How 'bout Ollie North? We can play this associations game with McCain and get far bigger catches if you want.

This is clearly gutter politics, and the only reason why McCain is running on it is because that's all he has left.

The race against Keyes (if you could even call it a seriously contested race) almost never touched on foreign policy, plus the story of his work with Ayers hadn't quite "broke" by 2004 like it has since, so that's something of a red herring.

Anyway, you don't need to argue that it's disingenuous gutter politics because I mostly agree. I just fail to see how harping on the simple facts about Ayers, which make up a huge and unique vulnerability bound to resonate with many voters, relates to Bush/Rove in particular. I could just as easily analogize to the gutter politics of 1800, but that would be equally silly.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Wow, Newsweek actually reported on the FEC's investigation into shady Obama contributions. No investigative reporting or new information, of course, but I'm shocked they mentioned it at all.

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name. ...

This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
A more cogent analogy would be if McCain had got his start in politics by working for an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber. I can't even imagine the media firestorm that would result if that were found to be the case...

QFT