The Observation Deck

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/ ... st_av.html

Read this answer to a question:

QUESTION: Governor, on the William Ayers issue, you've been bringing it up a lot. I'm curious, why do you think it's a pertinent argument to make right now? It was a long time ago, why is it pertinent?
A: It is pertinent, it's important because when you consider Barack Obama's reaction to and explanation to his association there, and without him being clear at all on what he knew and when he knew it, that I think kinda peaks into his ability to tell us the truth on, not only on association but perhaps other things also. So, it's relevant, I believe, and I brought it up in response to the New York Times article having been printed recently, and I think it just makes us ask the question that, if there's not forthrightness there, with that association and what was known and when it was known, does that lead us to ask, is there forthrightness with the plans Barack Obama has or say tax cuts, or spending increases, makes us question judgment. And I think it's fair and relevant.

For nominating this clown alone (although for many other reasons as well) the Republican party deserves to be absolutely buried this election. Buried!

I think her point is correct.

You can tell a lot about someone by who they associate with.

Obama has had A LOT of questionable "associates".

I don't believe what most politicians say at the federal level but this guy is really scary.

Some of his questionable connections - no specific order

1. ACORN - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5975253
2. Bill Ayers (Bernadine Dohrn) - http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/o ... 18.article http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/831720.html
3. Jeremiah Wright - http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... a11fb.html
4. Michael Pfleger - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... r-ame.html
5. Antoin Rezko - http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezk ... 08.article - how convenient that his sentencing was postponed until after the election
6. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09 ... eddie.html
7. Hamas endorses him - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXFV00CN7oc - Obama obviously isn't a terrorist - but the terrorists sure want him to win! Lets listen to our enemies! - Obama advisor talked to Hamas and Obama's church newsletter compared the Hamas charter to the Declaration of Independence

McCain is not the perfect candidate for either side of the isle but he is far more secure then the alternative in my opinion.

People may not agree with him on everything but he is the safer option.

McCain has some questionable ties of his own.

Pot, meet kettle.

David - I love it.

I seem to remember that little saying being slung around last summer.

YOWZA!

sharon kinsella wrote:David - I love it.

I seem to remember that little saying being slung around last summer.

YOWZA!

McCain needs to give up the negative mudslinging. Time to rename the Straight Talk Express!

Weak connections - closest is that pastor that he knew.

I guess if I had to choose between greedy crooks and racial haters/terrorists I would pick greedy crooks.

Unfortunately there isn't a 3rd legitimate choice.

It seems everyone at that level is corrupt in one way or another - we have to choose the safest candidate.

That would still be McCain.

BTW David - the source for that entire list was a single web page that is not available any longer.

The current McCain campaign tactics reek of desperation.

Danielle - Did you have anything specific to add to this?

I would assume you would give some weight to folks associations.

The fact is neither candidate is probably going to get what they want with health care. The president isnt a dictator, although Bush seems close.

Voting on that issue alone is dangerous.

BTW - I would be desperate too if people were about to elect someone with Obama's character, work ethic (sneaky politics) and moral beliefs.

You can only put faith in the public to do what is right if they aren't chasing a huge FREE carrot.

Apparently Obama only wants to talk about the past, the McCain camp is looking forward but they talk about the past. There are real issues to talk about but let's talk about Ayers, a man Obama has loose ties at the most with. Come on Ryan even many Republicans are saying this line of attack is pathetic and desperate. This is why McCain is falling behind in the polls because they are ignoring the real issues and trying to make Obama look like a terrorist. Tacky politics.

Just so I'm clear.....

Exactly what crime was Ayers ever charged with or convicted of?

And didn't those events occur when Obama was a preteen living in Jakarta?

Frankly I'm more concerned with Palin's active adult participation in the Alaskan Successionist movement

Jeff

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

He wasn't prosecuted because of statute of limitations.

So none of the others on that list matter? - including Hamas? -Why would they come out and endorse him?? (Probably a Bush plan right? )

What about the fringe groups that support him?

This is wild that people can look past this and just see "HOPE" it is insane.

"Hope" all the "free" stuff is worth it if he wins.

Leaving aside her inability to string together coherent sentences, leaving aside the absurdity of the claim---Obama was on the board of some foundation taht Ayers was on; he didn't object or protest to being on the same board with Ayers which, arguably, wasnt ideal given the man's past; but he was young and trying to enter the world of Chicago liberal politics, of which Ayers was a fixture (the mayor of chicago has stronger associtions with Ayers--the people of chicago seem to be surviving this)--aside from the obvious desperation of the McCain campaign--leaving aside all of that, there is also something faintly sinister about this.

Prior to the assassinatino of Yitzak Rabin certain political figures in Israel were putting it out that Rabin was soft on terrorism, etc etc. At one of Palin's rallies someone reportedly yelled out, in reference to Obama, "Kill him."

There are plenty of people on the whack-job right who would like to do it. If something like that happens--in which case some serious bad shit is going to hit the fan in this country--I believe Palin-McCain will be culpable.

So none of the others on that list matter? - including Hamas? -Why would they come out and endorse him

Who knows? Maybe they object to Palin not wearing a buhrka? Maybe nobody else showed up during their interview process....

Since, in general (except for the sleeper cells that are here) Hamas members aren't going to vote, it's endorsement is a non-issue, unless, of course, the endorsement was sought. Show me proof of that, then I'll be concerned.

Jeff

WOW - Mark you sound like a "whack-job lefty"

Who are the "plenty"?

If the terrorists are for Obama, how can anyone say he isn't softer on terror then McCain??

FYI - "The Secret Service did not hear any threatening statements directed at targets under its protection and no threatening statements were reported to us by law enforcement or citizens at the event"

Wiley is a spokesperson for the secret service.

-IMHO I think the Clintons are more dangerous then the whack-job right.

43 people "close" to the Clintons that have "died" - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthr ... l?t=363880