North Carolina Ad Will Still Run, Confusion Reigns in State GOP

Truth?

Wright's a raging bigot, and Obama sat on his hands for 20 YEARS -- until he was called on it.

The libs accept his weeping Hillary moment "explanation" (I never completed Ivy speak) at face value, and now blame McCain for bringing it up, or mentioning Ayers, or questioning Rezko's oil deal ties, etc.

Still, Dean HQ malices on, head in the sand, feet in the tar, hands in the golf club cocktail cabinet.

Class warfare indeed.

On the plus side, Obama will act the fool and try to create Nixon-McCain voice prints for the masses at least through Labor Day, at which Time the country will finally realize they've got to choose between a Vietnam combat veteran and an underweight Hawaiian coke head.

Should be really close come November, eh?

The swiftboating thus begins. Only Hillary can withstand the machinations of the VRWC and that is why we need to all stand behind her so she can defeat Bush in November.

How does it feel to be a racist pig Linda?

McCain must be proud to represent white trash like you and the rest of the NC GOP.

Time4Tolerance:
How can Hillary beat the VRWC when she can't even beat Obama?

obamish:
Are you QH sockpuppet? Wright did something that most 101st Fightin' Keyboard Commandos like yourself never did. He served in the Marines. Can't say the same about your heroes "OxyCotin" Limbaugh and Sean Insanity, can we?

Michael:
What kind of leadership is McCain showing if the NC GOP won't even respect his wishes? Sounds like they are making their nominee look like the chump he is.

But John McCain's campaign sent a sternly worded email, right? Isn't that the kind of leadership that American needs right now?

Vote for impotent memos. Vote John McCain.

Ya know, obamish, there might just be some medication you can take to help combat that massive denial complex you have, there. I mean, you manage to point out every little blemish of the Dems', but you're eerily silent on the many foibles of the Repugnants.

"coke head"...? Is Bush running, again? I thought his two terms were up. Or did he issue another executive signing statement that granted him a third term?

Six more months of John McCain righteously denouncing ads that run anyway. What an election this is going to be.

If he can't run his own party, how can he run the country?

"...He served in the Marines..."

So did John LINE MY FAT POCKETS Murtha.

But enough about General Hillary and Admiral Obama.

On to free your Pakistan, DNCers!

Are there any journalistic methods available for determining the SINCERITY of those "significant internal and external objections" to running this ad?

Because otherwise, the mere reporting of these objections sort of de facto legitimizes them.

But we've all seen this tired m.o. before.

I can't believe they'd run it anyway. The "news" networks have already played it for free hundreds of times.

Replaying of political ads during news time should be illegal. Oh - wait - it used to be. Until Saint Ronnie, that is.

The ad's already gotten well over 100,000 views here, and it's the top ranked video of the day:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JXxkctYRAZQ

Oddly enough, it did that without Joe Klein or the other "reporters" at Time and at other sources promoting it as they've done with lightweight pro-Obama videos.

If BHO is nominated, expect to see videos like this over and over and over again; I put BHO's chances of being elected president at about 0.1%. But, perhaps the Democratic leadership wants him to lose:

http://www.slate.com/id/2189635/#dlssuperdees

You guys are wasting a lot of outrage on this one incident. Just wait until August or September, where this exact same sequence of events has played out about 20 or 30 more times, yet Michael Scherer and his brain-dead ilk continue to praise their Superman for his noble calls to take all these ads down (somehow missing the wink and nudge that always accompanies those calls), and continue express shock that these state parties and 527s aren't listening to St. John.

We have many miles to walk and an indescribably vast pool of media incompetence and outright shilling to wade through before November. I'm trying to pace myself.

@ Enceladus: > But we've all seen this tired m.o. before.

Yes, unfortunately. Doubly-unfortunately, the majority of folks out there will still fall for it. I can almost hear the incoming e-mails from my Repugnant friends shoving this link down my throat.

Stroke of genius on the part of the Repugs, though, for getting air time for it without having to pay. You gotta like that. They save their money for the next skirmish.

Why should we trust you, Michael?

Hey, what does Mudcat think of the ad? It's aimed at his demographic, right? Is this what the Democrats need to do more of, to meet the need of the "heartland?"

Genius, right?

Too bad it's those big city slickers who've gotten the wrong impression. . . .

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/

MORE GOOD NEWS FOR MICHAEL MOOP.

Olay!

TPM got it exactly right. If McCain can't deal with the NC GOP, how are we supposed to expect him to be able to deal with al Qaeda?

How many GOP operatives does it take to make TIME look like inept morons?

That's a trick question, Acid J, n'est-ce pas?

It takes no GOP operatives as TIME is more than capable of making itself look inept with "journalism" like this.

Yes, but a proper answer is so elusive, Enceladus! I mean, the obvious answer is zero, since TIME is and wants to be inept all by itself; but at the same time I can't help feel it looks to the GOP to provide it with excuses for ineptitude. I'm therefore tempted to say, all it takes is one (say, Hoekstra). But an answer of one is so exclusionary--it doesn't account for the depths of ineptness here. I mean, McCain has been making them look inept all week. But he's doing it in concert with the NC GOP and the RNC, and even with Hagee (in Klein's post below). So I guess the answer is just one, with the caveat that any one will do.

So what does General Bosnia Clinton say about the enemy helping her kneecap Sen Obama?

Nothing. In fact she is tinkled as red as her lipstick.

Now, if the Republican should run an ad that seems to assist Sen Obama ... her shrillness would amaze.

[Hey Sen Obama, if all should fail, try this sure winner: Just promise her a lifetime supply of free moonshine and EUREKA! - the bitter, rural Pennsylvania-bred moonshine guzzler will jump out of the race faster than you can say "flip_flop"!]

Moonshine / Hillary '08, WRONG for America

Michael--

When I read an article about, say, FISA and there are two points of view, one true and false, I also get irritated that the piece say "Democrats say" the thing that is true, while "Republicans say" the thing that is false. I'd be irritated if it went the other way, but because of truth's overwhelming liberal bias, it never seems to. However, the locution does serve to keep the reporter out of the business of making a decision between what is true and what is not.

So when you lead with this:

Despite significant internal and external objections,

why don't you say "Despite what the McCain campaign claims are significant internal and external objections"?

And where the hell is the sentence that says "An event like this calls into question McCain's leadership abilities and his control of the party."

Oh, and on the Double Talk Express re Katrina:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnMjB6LNGA

Of course I could not pass on making a comment on this talking point.

The neo-libs scream like a covey of banshees when their anointed one is taken to task on making POOR JUDGMENT CHOICES OF CHARACTER in choosing his pastor.

This is not "swift-boating" as you all love to call it. If this video had not been played a thousand times before now in North Carolina that might be swift-boating.

John McCain has undeniably denounced this ad; he can get this group of GOP'ers to pull this ad no more than he could ask the George Soros' backed MoveOnOrgies to pull any of their attack ads.

Was Obama successful in having Hillary pull any of her attack ads in Pennsylvania?? How is he going to deal with Al-Queda, be this great diplomat to bring peace to the world if he is not able to get his opponent in this democrat political race to stop her negative advertisements???? The SHOE fits well for sides, ladies and gentlemen.

What is so terrible about this ad anyways??? Truth does open people’s eyes. THAT is what the neo-libs are so deathly afraid of in reality. Your man has been caught now multiple times with very controversial figures who he associates himself with on a regular basis. This is what has you all so up in arms because American voters will see what he truly is, and vote accordingly. No more passes for Obama.

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!!

Check in often to see how Scherer will be used today.
"McCain rescues kitten from tree"
"McCain helps old lady across the street"
"McCain DOES know the difference between shia and sunni"

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

Can you guess where this article was cited from???
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/3

If you want to read more, click on the link!!

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!!

Carrie Budoff Brown sends over the transcript from Obama's appearance, airing tomorrow, on the Michael Smerconish Show on 1210 AM WPHT in Philadelphia, from audio the show provided.

OBAMA: I will be honest with you that I didn’t have that many conversations with him over the last year just because I have been so busy. I haven't been going to church. I wasn’t hearing a lot of these comments. The ones that are most offensive are ones that I never knew about until they were reported on. I had had conversations with him in the past – in fact from the day I first met him -- about some of his views. Understand this, something else that has not been reported on enough is despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. This is not a crackpot church. Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church. ... So I don’t want to suggest that somehow, the loops you have been seeing typifies the services all the time. That is the danger of the YouTube era. It doesn't excuse what he said. But it gives it some perspective.

Q: Would the speech have come as a surprise to Wright?

OBAMA: No, I think he recognizes. When some these remarks first came to light were a year ago, and I actually called him and it created some tensions that were reported in the newspapers. He understood that his perspective on some of these issues were very different from mine and hopefully we could agree to disagree on some of these issues. I wasn’t familiar with some of the most offensive remarks that had come up otherwise we probably would have a more intense conversation.

Typical Politician, TYPICAL. Racism is racism whether be out of a white mouth or a black mouth or even in Obama's case a mixed race mouth. Swampland SNOBamaBOTS who scream racism and want a totally legitimate talking point censored should be ashamed for not condemning what truly is WRONG in all of this controversy. That Obama associated himself with a pastor who is a racist, plain and simple. Obama should not only have denounced him post haste, but should have never sat in a church whose teachings are those of Rev Wright for 20 YEARS! This is the real issue, this is the concern of millions of Americans that a potential candidate who is not able to clearly judge character of someone he associates himself with.

Who will be Secretary of State for Obama? Who will be Vice President? Who will Obama choose to be his advisors??

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!!

Michael: Do you know for sure the McCain aid who now for someone reason you do not want to identify, was informed incorrectly?

Yesterday thought your much sought after access had gotten you a scoop. You sounded like you were sitting in the guys lap like a puppy while he read his crackberry.

Now that you find out it was all BS. Your access is just a mere aid. My question is how do you know it was all BS to begin with? A ruse to make it seem like something was happening that was in fact not happening. I mean it wasn't like there was any chance of the campaign thinking, hey we got reporters on board who might report what is actually going on.

After all what in your past conducted has every shown them that you will actually dig or be skeptical and not just take their word for anything?

On Thursday afternoon, a McCain aide was informed incorrectly that Linda Daves, the North Carolina state party chair, had finally decided to pull the ad, an error that was passed on to reporters, and posted here at Swampland and on The Page.

Scherer, you are such a chump. It's hard to believe that a DC journo can be so naive, or is it more accurate to call it willingly obtuse? Your infatuation with McCain is getting to be embarrassing.

It's one thing for your colleague Cox to be so schoolgirlishly giddy about McCain, but at least she admits she isn't a serious writer. (Plus, she gets all those free drinks and hugs from the campaign aides.)

But to watch a grown, adult man so infatuated that he seriously copies down with approval every cynical maneuver with feverish adoration is, well, kind of uncomfortable and embarrassing to witness. We already know that Halperin is a sniveling little rightwing suckup, so no surprise there. So McCain has three campaign aides on Time.com being paid by Time Warner and you are beginning to look like Charlie Brown trying to kick that football down the field -- SIKE!!! Ha Ha! They got you again! Chump.

Olberman and Maddow discuss the RW slime machine in the context of this ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kgQcIw8X0

Note to MS, this is what skeptical journalism looks like. Maddow is a clear and proud partisan, but she is also scrupulously honest.

GySgt213, McCain's campaign plays the press in general and MS specifically like a fiddle.
It is as if the reporters have no sense of pride in what used to be an honorable profession.

expect more of this in the general election. swiftboating galore and all the while folksy old john mccain syaing, "I disapprove of this,there is no place for this...". what you will not hear is jmac say,"these statements are false." therbye reaping the benefits of negative ads while seeming to maintain his honor...

Paul-no not that one: they are a fiddle that wants to be played by McCain. Just feel those hero fingers sliding up and down, up and down . . .

Beep....Obamabot very angry at shoddy Time blog by Scherer....beep....how dare he question Obama....how dare he let McSame get away with this...beep...

Note to MS, this is what skeptical journalism looks like. Maddow is a clear and proud partisan, but she is also scrupulously honest.
Posted by wvng | April 25, 2008 8:14 AM

You call this "skeptical" journalism?? What a joke. Maddow is simply an Obama operative, who regurgitates the liberal talking points on the most liberal TV station in America. She is just the liberal version of Laura Ingraham's conservative rantings. Just because you sit behind a "news desk" doesn't mean you are a journalist or a reporter.

Michael Scherer REPORTS what he sees and hears, period. No "opinions" are found in his reporting. Does he ask questions? Absolutely.

Copy and paste one sentence from Michael's above post that shows his partisan journalism. You can't, PERIOD.

"McCain's campaign plays the press in general and MS specifically like a fiddle.
It is as if the reporters have no sense of pride in what used to be an honorable profession."

Paul: I could almost live with the press being played like a fiddle. Because you could make a case that some are simply unaware of the deciet. What I can't live with is supposedly independent reporters serving as aids to any campaign. I don't care if it is Obama's McCain's Clinton or whomever they are planning to fall in love with in the future. If they can't give me an honest detached assessment. Their reporting is not to be trusted period. I am going to do everything in my power to call them on it.

GySgt213, to be clear, the aide is Black. He got the email from Shaw, told the press, later it turned out the email was wrong. And Jay Ackroyd, the objections have been told to me directly by McCain's staff, McCain, RNC officials and NC GOP officials. I do not need to attribute to what anyone says are the objections, since I heard the objections.

As for whether or not I should have reported the Black quote without checking with the NC GOP first, that is something I am reconsidering. One of the things I do on the trail is immediately report events as they happen, especially on The Page, which is designed for this purpose. The Black quote was on the record and a statement of fact, from an email he received from a NC GOP official. Just minutes after posting, I found out the NC GOP was denying it, and the Page posted the conflicting statements. Because I was traveling, it took a bit longer to update the blog post. As quickly as possible, I reported and explained in detail how the mistake was made.

Michael you say "The Black quote was on the record and a statement of fact"

Here is the statement.
"The ad has been pulled," he said. "I don't think it ever ran, except on the web."

Niether of those are true. Or do you mean your quote was a statement of fact. i.e. That is what he told you?

Sorry, Paul, i could have been clearer. I mean only that it was not a statement of opinion. It was a statement of fact, which turned out to be false, as I later described. (Black was not misrepresenting what he had been told. He had been given bad information.) Once I found out that the statement may not be true, I corrected the record as quickly as I could.

One of the things I do on the trail is immediately report events as they happen, especially on The Page, which is designed for this purpose.

You are saying that The Page, in addition to giving the GOP campaign advice about how to exploit the race card against Obama, is designed for you to run with every wild-assed folly that the GOP can shovel at you guys, with no need to verify or check out whether something is factual? That's interesting. Did the GOP boys help out with that "design"?

Drudge has linked to an interesting article in the WSJ by Peggy Noonan - http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

One of the best conservative commentaries I've seen on "Obama's patriotism" and why it remains an issue.

I miss good conservative articles like this.

No, James. That is not what I am saying. It is for breaking campaign news. As I said above, it is not acceptable for me to just report falsehoods. This is why I have tried to explain how this mistake happened, and why I am reconsidering the speed with which I report such things.

Thanks for the reply Michael.
Any thoughts on the second assertion or does the "I don't think" preface sort of give an out?
Were you aware of the cable news outlets running it over and over? Do you suppose Mr Black was aware?
I understand if you want to drop this.

As John Cole, ex wingnut who knows whereof he speaks, described the scenario a few days ago:

"Get used to seven long months of this crap:

Step 1: GOP wingnut (is that redundant?) says something offensive, writes a nasty editorial, creates a vicious radio or tv spot.

Step 2: Ad receives widespread coverage and national attention.

Step 3: McCain condemns the ad/editorial/whatever.

Step 4: Chris Matthews and other bobbleheads in the media show off their man-crush for McCain while praising his integrity AND showing the offending ad/editorial on national television.

Step 5: I scream at the television and send another 25 bucks to the Obama campaign."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10200

MS, this is RW kabuki theater. The form is well understood by both its practitioners and interested observers. In this performance, you took the role outlined in Step 4 above. And, yes, it really is that simple.

So this is how you assist the GOP in laundering their smears:

the aide is Black. He got the email from Shaw, told the press, later it turned out the email was wrong.

So the press (you) runs to the nearest computer to post and publish the contents of the email uncritically and with gushing, starry-eyed admiration. So that part gets into print. Then, it's OOPS! The email didn't pan out. So you're a big chump for running with the false contents of the email and then absolve yourself and your source because the contents of the email were false, and a third party gets the blame.

It gets worse and worse every day. And you continue to be a willing party to this game, Michael?

I guess so.

Sorry, Michael, our posts crossed. I sincerely hope that you will *very* seriously reconsider what kind of stuff you run with, however.

Thanks for the clarification Michael, and for the reminder that a blog reporting things as they happen is different from a news story after all the shoes have dropped.

But this means that the top echelons of the McCain campaign are not able to speak authoritatively about what state parties will do on the campaign's behalf.

That'll make your job more complicated.

Let me make sure that I understand this:

McCain has denounced the ads, but that just makes him a liar and a hypocrite because we all know that he actually is happy to see them run.

...and this has absolutely, positively no resemblence to the time when most of the Democratic leadership denounced the "General Betrayus" ads.

I can understand how McCain might benefit from this, but how one would reach the conclusion that he is a hypocrite (on this issue) and a liar is beyond me.

I'm also not quite sure how "the press" is to blame on this. How does releasing a story about McCain personally intervening to stop an ad and then rescinding the story help McCain?

If anything it makes McCain appear more impotent and highlights the divisions in the GOP.

WaPo calls out the DoubleTalk Express on flipflops on tax cuts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456_pf.html

The NYT editorial board chooses to focus on Diamond:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25fri1.html

There are a lot of skeletons in that closet, my friends.

Who will be Secretary of State for Obama? Who will be Vice President? Who will Obama choose to be his advisors??

Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, and Run-DMC.

Let us know when you stop pissing your pants.

this has absolutely, positively no resemblance to the time when most of the Democratic leadership denounced the "General Betrayus" ads.

I actually don't think it does bear any resemblance, and I'm surprised you bring it up. The leadership was honestly angry that MoveOn had moved the message leftward, because it cost them any chance of Blue Dog support.

McCain has denounced the ads, but that just makes him a liar and a hypocrite because we all know that he actually is happy to see them run.

...and this has absolutely, positively no resemblence to the time when most of the Democratic leadership denounced the "General Betrayus" ads.

How does that work?

MoveOn.org runs a stupid ad (while some of the substance was true and Petraeus does seem to be very political for an active-duty general, the tone and the "Betrayus" line were self-defeating). Public is outraged, blames Democratic leadership, which denounces MoveOn to try to stem the bleeding.

NC GOP runs an ad that will remind white southerners (probably McCain's base in this election aside from his media wait-staff) that Obama is a scary black guy who hangs out with even scarier black guys. No public outrage, and the ad will resonate with a part of McCain's voting block. McCain makes a pro-forma denouncement of the ad, which his media servants are all too happy to use to show how wonderful their hero is. Ad runs anyway, bolstered by hours of free media attention and airplay both for the ad and the fawning declarations of how super-awesome St. John is.

So the Democrats get lambasted and denounce MoveOn to try to save their hides, which didn't get them off the hook anyway if you recall. McCain gets the benefit of the low-road ad coupled with heaps of media praise for taking the high-road. And these two situations are similar how, again?

You're absolutely right. No resemblance whatsoever. Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

How does releasing a story about McCain personally intervening to stop an ad and then rescinding the story help McCain?

When the story is used as a reason to run the ads, for free, on the cable news stations.

If anything it makes McCain appear more impotent and highlights the divisions in the GOP.

Yes, it does make him look bad doesn't it? Either he's lying about the unacceptability of this kind of campaign, or he is the towering leader AMC spoke of, but can't keep his troops in line.

There is no way that McCain is unaware of how the republican party runs campaigns. And there is no way, especially when running against a black candidate, that this campaign will not be built around racism and voter suppression, both legal and illegal suppression. It's been that way since 1968.

You're absolutely right. No resemblance whatsoever. Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

You know, you're the one who posited the resemblance. You might at least try making the case for that resemblance instead of demanding that somebody else make the case for why there is no resemblance.

The "Betrayus" ad damaged the Democratic leadership in Congress. This NC ad is going to help McCain, particularly as long as the media ensures that McCain himself can't be tied to it. How are these two things similar in any way?

Yes, it does make him look bad doesn't it? Either he's lying about the unacceptability of this kind of campaign, or he is the towering leader AMC spoke of, but can't keep his troops in line.

That may be how it appears if you scratch the surface, but since nobody in the political press is going to do that, most people will just get the "McCain: Pure as the Driven Snow" garbage that we're already seeing.

> I can understand how McCain might benefit from this, but how one would reach the conclusion that he is a hypocrite (on this issue) and a liar is beyond me.

A. Does he know they're going to run these ads prior to their deployment? If so, then to say that he disapproves of them is misleading at best. Why wouldn't he stop them, then? Can he stop them? If not, what does that say?

B. If he doesn't know they're going to run, then what does that say about his control over his message? If he finds out after the fact, then we get back to, can he stop them?

Put it this way: McCain could certainly halt these tactics _if_ _he_ _wanted_ _to_. The fact that they're going to run, or have gotten so much free air time just shows that he doesn't want to stop them. As such, he's a hypocrite for saying, "This is not the way we want to run the campaign," which is also borderline, if not deep-in-the-heart-of, lying.

I'm sure that could be clearer - I haven't had my full dose of caffeine, yet, this morning.

Have we reached that point yet where this old saw fits?

"How do you know a Republican is lying? His lips are moving."

Mr.Sullivan, calling for the US Senate to pass a censure resolution against the North Carolina GOP is pretty strong.
That is your point, is it not?

Mr. Nice Guy: "How do you know a Republican is lying? His lips are moving."

So the Clintons are Republicans?

FastEddie: "You know, you're the one who posited the resemblance. You might at least try making the case for that resemblance instead of demanding that somebody else make the case for why there is no resemblance."

Sorry. I thought your argument so one-sided that it did a fairly good job of lampooning itself.

Paul-no not that one -

Good point.

Sorry. I thought your argument so one-sided that it did a fairly good job of lampooning itself.

I understand.

I say stuff like that sometimes when I can't come up with a cogent argument myself.

I think also missed with this is that the 'Betrayus' ad was by a third party in MoveOn.

These ads are from the STATE GOP itself. McCain probably has more influence in what they do than Dem leadership does in what MoveOn does.

"As for whether or not I should have reported the Black quote without checking with the NC GOP first, that is something I am reconsidering."

Michael: I glad you are reconsidering about checking out a story before you post about it.

However, what was so critical about this story that you felt the need to post about it without verifying what you were being told was true?

You give me the impression that because you have access to a blog and a web page that updates quickly that means you have a license that says you can or should post stuff with out checking it out first.

You say when you are on the trail you report events as quickly as possible and while I agree that certain things happen that should be reported on immediately even without complete information. There was no reason why this story had to be reported immediately. Since you know full well there was a dispute going on. I think the prudent thing would have been to wait until you could verify this with the other party. Not with standing that you can't hold back with every event that happens on the trail.

"I think also missed with this is that the 'Betrayus' ad was by a third party in MoveOn.

These ads are from the STATE GOP itself. McCain probably has more influence in what they do than Dem leadership does in what MoveOn does."

Kryptic, excellent point.

FastEddie -

Sigh. It's not worth the effort, but here goes:

"McCain makes a pro-forma denouncement of the ad" whereas the Democratic criticsm of MoveOn.org ("Democratic leadership, which denounces MoveOn") was of course sincere, and not politically motivated.

"MoveOn.org runs a stupid ad (while some of the substance was true)" We won't mention that most of the NC ad was also true (although, like the MoveOn ad, hardly fair).

"Ad runs anyway" Ad ran.

"the ad will resonate with a part of McCain's voting block" Also.

"which his media servants are all too happy to use to show how wonderful their hero is" Democrats made quite a show of denouncing the MoveOn ad.

Down the line, your arguments are not untrue, but entirely one sided. The one point that you mention that might be in McCain's favor - that he did not wait for public outrage (like the Democrats did) to denounce the ad - is glossed over.

There's more to telling the truth than not lying.

> So the Clintons are Republicans?

They've been accused of as much. But the Repubs certainly aren't very friendly or hospitable toward them, so I don't know. Maybe it's that "unwanted step-child" thing.

Michael: What is your take on this report? Do you think you could ask McCain about it?

Earlier this week, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) launched a campaign to persuade Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to drop the adjective “Islamic” when describing terrorists and extremists. Indeed, one of McCain’s favorite talking points is railing against “Islamic” extremists and terrorists. But the McCain campaign has refused to budge, saying that he will continue to refer to Islam when talking about terrorism.

Now, the AP has learned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agrees with the ISNA. A recent DHS report has concluded that linking Islam to terrorism offends moderate Muslims and gives extremists “religious legitimacy,” adding any such language should be avoided:

Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates. […]

U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. […]

“We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam,” the report said.

The report also stressed that “lingo like ‘Islamo-fascism’ is out, too,” a term that conservatives — including President Bush — consistently use to rally the country around a militant response to terrorism and terrorists. For example:

– Rush Limbaugh: “Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism.”

– David Horowitz: “The term ‘Islamo-fascism’ describes the agendas of the jihadists with perfect accuracy.”

– President Bush: Terrorists “try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call…Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism.”

Muslim leaders in the U.S. have long argued that such language “offends the vast majority of moderate Muslims,” but the McCain campaign thinks it knows better. Senior adviser Steve Schmidt recently said “the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is.”

http://thinkprogress.org/

Michael: Can you ask McCain about this story also?

In New Orleans today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) partially blamed the poor federal response to Hurricane Katrina on “the Congress of the United States” for funding “pork barrel projects” that were “not as important as some of the projects that were needed” in New Orleans. McCain then claimed that he had “never voted for a single earmark or pork barrel project.” But, as NBC’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy points out, that isn’t true:

While it is true that McCain has never sponsored an earmark — by the strict definition of the word — he has certainly voted for bills with earmarks, including some of the specific projects he criticizes most vocally on the campaign trail.

As ThinkProgress noted earlier today, McCain has a record of making sweeping claims about earmarks that aren’t backed up by reality.

http://thinkprogress.org/

You have to admire John McCain for his consistency talking about Barack Obama:

I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

I can't wait to see Chris Matthews applaud John McCain for denouncing the words of John McCain!

In addition to the example supplied by Aaron above McCain questioned Obama's patriotism on ABC last Sunday morning. Obama lives in the same neighborhood as a former extremist who performed illegal acts when Obam was 8 years old. The NC incident is immaterial to the fact that McCain has already used the logically fallacious form of argument "guilt-by-association" to question Obama's patriotism. The NC ad does exactly the same thing.

I can't think of anything much lower than using gutter snipe fallacies to question someone's loyalty to the nation. If McCain's fan club wasn't so dazzeled with how cool he is it would be easy for them to figure it out. McCain probably doesn't want to address the patriotism issue over Wright because he doesn't want anyone bringing up Hagee.

How can we expect anything but garbage from the racists in Carolina? Do we think they are capable of dealing with issues? No, so long as they can make the point sideways that Obama is (gasp) not white, they don't need to think.

Meanwhile, John McCain has to make it clear that he will not permit this in the strongest terms and that there will be consequencees at the Convention, including not being seated if that is possible and being denied access to the candidate. He has to make it clear that he will not campaign for any politician in their state and will, in fact, endorse the Democratic alternative.

Down the line, your arguments are not untrue, but entirely one sided. The one point that you mention that might be in McCain's favor - that he did not wait for public outrage (like the Democrats did) to denounce the ad - is glossed over.

Actually, that one point is neither in McCain's favor or not. It's not that McCain "didn't wait for public outrage" to act, it's that there hasn't been any widespread public outrage over it.

What you're apparently not going to address is the fact that the MoveOn ad hurt the Dem leadership in Congress and undercut their ability to engage Petraeus more forcefully in his testimony. It was a disaster for the Democrats from soup to nuts. If it played well with any part of the Democratic voting base, it was a pretty small part, and while "Democrats made quite a show of denouncing the MoveOn ad," it didn't do them much good because the media (perhaps angry over the fact that no barbecue was being served) didn't let them off the hook, let alone praise them to the heavens for their denouncement the way they've done with McCain.

This ad, on the other hand, is going to play quite nicely to part of McCain's base, and since his media supporters are going to make sure that he gets praise for saying he wants to stop the ad and no criticism for not actually stopping it, he's really getting to have his cake and eat it to.

One of these things damaged its intended ally, the other one has benefited its intended ally in at least two ways. Apparently you think that's irrelevant and they can be compared anyway, but I see a significant distinction there.

There's also more to telling the truth than trying to force everything into some "they both do it" box. Manufactured balance is not inherently more honest.

"Michael: Can you ask McCain about this story also?"

I applaud your efforts, GySgt213, but we've tried this before. Ask HH (if you dare): there are approximately 1,000,000,000,000 fantastic questions that a person could ask McCain.
Scherer will address zero of them.

FastEddie -

You make some good points. I still don't buy that the situations are not comparable, but they are certainly not identical. I tend to get a bit spun up when people (not you - you didn't start it) get so into slinging mud that they will make an attack out of anything. McCain (properly) declared that the Rev. Wright matter was not relevant, and told his staff that it was not to be used - all well before this ad came up. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that he had anything to do with creating the ad. So what does he get for doing the right thing? He gets attacked. Fair?

One of the reasons that I support Obama is because he says that he wants to elevate the level of discourse. Want to help?

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that he had anything to do with creating the ad. So what does he get for doing the right thing? He gets attacked. Fair?

So far all we've seen is the same pattern that played out in 2004. GOP group independent of the campaign creates a sleazy ad, campaign distances and denounces, press praises them for it, ad runs anyway, campaign benefits from ad and media praise.

You're free to take McCain at face value if you want. I'm far more skeptical of him than that, particular after the hero-worship he's been given over the past decade.

One of the reasons that I support Obama is because he says that he wants to elevate the level of discourse. Want to help?

I tend to reject the notion that viewing this sequence of events skeptically lowers the "level of discourse."

But to answer your question in the abstract, elevating the discourse is important to me, but not as important as making sure John McCain isn't the next president of this country.

GySgt213: "While it is true that McCain has never sponsored an earmark — by the strict definition of the word — he has certainly voted for bills with earmarks, including some of the specific projects he criticizes most vocally on the campaign trail."

So you are suggesting that he should never vote for an appropriations bill? I don't think that I've ever heard of one without some earmarks.

Scherer, you are a dupe.

McCain doesn't want this ad pulled. He wants the ad publicized everywhere by media at no cost while he gets credit for taking the high road.

It's the same tired game republicans have played before. Sleazy dishonest ads that are "repudiated" but still widely played by the media covering right wing manufactured stories.

FastEddie -

I see. The end justifies the means.

Egilsson: "Sleazy dishonest ads that are "repudiated" but still widely played by the media covering right wing manufactured stories.

Calls to mind the repeated disavowals of inflammatory statements made by subordinates in both the Clinton ans Obama camps.

I see. The end justifies the means.

Yes. Eight years of Bush have left us at the point where I'm ready to sacrifice principle to prevent another four.

Although, again, I have to disagree that viewing McCain's actions here skeptically really "lowers the discourse."

"Eight years of Bush have left us at the point where I'm ready to sacrifice principle to prevent another four."

That's sad.

That's sad.

So is war. So is torture. So is a quasi-dictatorship. So is unemployment. So is homelessness. So is running out of food. So is our health-care system.

You have the luxury of your principles, and that's great. But don't condescend to those of us who have more immediate concerns.

"So you are suggesting that he should never vote for an appropriations bill? I don't think that I've ever heard of one without some earmarks."

No Robert. But that seems to what McCain is suggesting. He's the one who wants to cut out earmarks. But not all earmarks are bad or wasteful spending. By making sweeping statements like McCain he is the one painting himself into a corner.

Despite saying he’ll ‘do everything’ in his power to stop NC ad, McCain hasn’t spoken to NC GOP head.

On the campaign trail yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he’ll “do everything” in his power and bring “every pressure to bear” in order to stop the North Carolina Republican party from running an attack ad featuring Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But the chairwoman of the North Carolina GOP, Linda Daves, told NPR yesterday that McCain has not done all he could. According to Daves, she hasn’t even spoken to McCain:

BLOCK: Linda Daves, have you had a conversation with John McCain about this?

DAVES: Oh, no, I have not. I have spoken with his campaign staff, however. And — but I did get an e-mail letter from them on his behalf.

Listen here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/despite-saying-hell-do-everything-in-his-power-to-stop-nc-ad-mccain-hasnt-spoken-to-nc-gop-head/

So either John McCain lied, or he is not aware of this "telephone" device all the kids are using.

Robert Sullivan, the difference in degree and magnitude matter in all things, including sleazy dishonest campaigning.

Republicans have won national elections based essentially on these tactics.

Given the disaster of the past 8 years, it's obvious that's the only way they'll win again.

Who are the NAACP to demand anything. I support Ms. Daves and am looking forward to seeing this ad ran. I applaud Ms. Daves for have the guts to stand up to the low belly democrats. If more of our elected officials in Washington had her gall the Republican party would not be in the shameful state that it is in today. As I see it, there are no Republicans running for president this term, only three democrats. I would like to see Ms. Daves run for president. I think I could vote for her!!
Ms. Daves, True Republicans every where are pulling for you. Please go ahead and run this ad. I am emailing every newspaper that I find this story in to let them know that you are supported. You rock lady. Please stand your ground and don't back down.

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
67 - - -p-2 - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور الأنمي - - خلفيات انمي - - انمي بنات حزينة - -
صور بنات انمي - - انمي بنات رومنسية - -
انمي حزينة - - صور بنات انمي - - اجمل بنات انمي - -
زفاف انمي - - زفاف عرايس - - انمي اطفال - -
بنات انمي رومنسي - - صور انمي حزينه - - صور الجاسوسات - -
صور انمي 2008 - - صور بنات حلوات - -
شباب انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور احلى بنات - - بنات انمي رومنسي - -
انمي رومنسي - - انمي رومنسي حلوة - -
صور انمي احضان - - افلام كرتون - - افلام انمي - -
انمي خليجي - - مسلسلات كرتون - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - - 68 - -
68-p-2 - - سياحة وسفر - -
سياحة - -سفر - -فنادق - -
46 - -46-p-3 - -46-p-6 - -
ناطحات سحاب - -أفضل 10 مدن - -
مدينة الحب الفرنسيه - -فندق الحب - -
صور - -24 - -34-p-3 - -
34-p-6 - - - -34-p-13 - -
34-p-15 - -34-p-20 - -
34-p-25 - -34-p-29 - -
34-p-30 - -34-p-35 - -34-p-38 - -
34-p-40 - -صور جيملات العرب - -صور طبيعية - -صور متحركة - -صور بنات - -صور رومنسية - -صور اطفال - -صور رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور قلوب حب - -
صور قلوب رومانسية - -ورود وزهور - -
زهور - -صورة الغروب - -
سوالف بنات - -صور حب - -صور حب رومانسية - -
صور حب 2008 - -صور قلوب - -
قلوب روعة - -صور قلوب رومانسية - -
صور حزينة - -صور متحركة - -
صور متحركه منوعة - -صور حب - -
صور خلفيات - -خلفيات رومانسية - -
صور انهار - -صور شلالات - -
صور مصرقعه - -جنس ثالث - -
صور جنس ثالث - -صور حزينة - -
صور شلالات وانهار - -صور جميلة - -صور غريبه - -
صور رومنسية - -صورطبيعة - -صور السعودية - -
صور الورد - -صور وتعليقات - -صور مضحكة - -
شموع - -صور حلوة - -
احلى عروس - -صور رعب - -24 - -24-p-3 - -
24-p-5 - -24-p-8 - -فوتوشوب - -
تصاميم - -صور تصاميم - - صور تصاميم رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور تصميم - -صور تصميم رومنسية - -
صور عيون - -صور دباديب - -بطاقات رومانسية - -
صور تصميم شباب - -صور بنات للتصاميم - -صور بنات - -
صور رومانسيه حزينه - -صور نسائية - -صور نسائية روعة - -
صور رجال - -صور احترافية - -59 - -
58 - -ملحقات التصميم - -دروس التصميم - -
جميلات العرب - -اليسا - -
صور طبيعية - -صور قلوب - -
صور رومنسية - -بلوتوث مزايين - - البوم صور مزايين - -
صور ماسنجر - -وسائط - -
صور حب - -صور بنات - -صور بنات للمسن - -
العاب مكياج و ميك اب - - العاب ازياء - - العاب مغامرات - -
العاب بنات - - العاب تلبيس بنات - - العاب باربي - -
العاب بلياردو - - العب - - العاب - -

1 - -2 - -3 - -4 - -5 - -6 - -7 - -
13 - -14 - -8 - -15 - -10 - -21 - -30 - -
17 - -16 - -23 - -20 - -25 - -24 - -27 - -
26 - -29 - -28 - -31 - -32 - -33 - -34 - -
37 - -38 - -35 - -36 - -39 - -40 - -41 - -
42 - -43 - -44 - -45 - -46 - -47 - -58 - -
53 - -54 - -48 - -55 - -56 - -49 - -57 - -
50 - -59 - -60 - -51 - -61 - -62 - -52 - -
11 - -12 - -63 - -64 - -
المنتدى العام - - مواضيع ساخنة ومثيرة - - ترجمة - -
ازياء - - موضة - - فساتين - -
مكياج - - ميك اب - - اكسسوارات - - ديكور - - غرف نوم - -
اثاث - - طبخ - - مطبخ - - حلويات - - اكلات - - معجنات - - تغذية - - صحة - - طب - -
شعر - - قصايد - - خواطر - - عذب الكلام - -
قصص - - روايات - - طرب - - رجة - - مسابقات - - صرقعة - - صور - - بلوتوث و مقاطع فيديو - - بلوتوث - - العاب فلاش - - صور انمي - - افلام انمي - - عدسة التصوير - -
افلام عربية و مسلسلات - - مسلسلات اجنبية تلفزيونية - - افلام عربية و افلام اجنبية و مسلسلات تلفزيونية - - برامج كمبيوتر - - فوتوشوب - - ثيمات - العاب الجوال - خلفيات - - برامج نوكيا - نغمات - برامج جوال - - رسائل جوال - مسجات - رسايل وسائط - sms - - مسنجر - برامج ماسنجر - توبيكات - - دروس التصميم - -
ملحقات التصميم - - بلوتوث - -
-
برامج نوكيا - - -كورة - - -صور - - -
مسنجر - - - طرب - - -
العاب - - -
قصص - - - مكياج - - - موضة - -
- ديكور - -
- وسائط - -
- برامج - -
-افلام - - -
مقاطع فيديو - - -
مواضيع ساخنة - - -ثيمات
جوال - - -نغمات - - -
افلام انمي - - -خواطر - - -
العاب جوال - - -افلام
عربية - - -ازياء - - - صور
انمي - - -
سياحة - - -مسلسلات اجنبية - - -
شعر - - -اناشيد - - -
توبيكات - - -رسائل
جوال - --تصاميم -
شات
شات الرياض
بنت حواء
بنت نجد
عروسة
عروس
العاب شمس
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
67
-p-2
توبيكات
مسنجر
برامج ماسنجر
توبيكات ملونة
- توبيكات -
توبيك -
صور ماسنجر -
مقالب للماسنجر
- ماسنجر بلس
- صور قلوب ماسنجر
- صور ماسنجر
رومنسيه - صور
للماسنجر -
أحلى توبيكات -