This is going to get ugly folks... [Archive]

JCSimon

10-06-2008, 03:23 AM

McCain's campaign outright announced in the NY Daily News last week that they were going to begin pulling out all the stops on mud-slinging....his campaign advisor admitted that, if the conversation stayed on the economy they were going to lose and this was their only choice.

This is only the beginning...it is going to get very ugly, I'm sure.

The difference in these two ads is that Obama's "association" with Ayers was fleeting, at worst....they served on a couple of the same boards in Chicago. They were not friends and didn't spend time together.

McCain, on the other hand, was a "good friend" (his words) with Keating for many years and introduced legislation over those years to deregulate the S&L industry.

McCain is desperate and will sling as much mud as he can carry in an attempt to distract people from any real discussion of real issues.

Sharia Braxton

10-06-2008, 03:54 AM

I heard that as well Chris. I really hope though, that if for nothing but reputation's sake, Obama remains defense only...and doesn't take attack ads as a campaign strategy. It doesn't bother me so much, the rebutting, but I would be bothered if he came out with a nasty-gram first.

Chreamps

10-06-2008, 03:55 AM

Totally agree, Sharia, take the high road.

HLWalter725

10-06-2008, 04:10 AM

I'm so sick of this type of politics. And I'm sick thinking anyone might be swayed by these types of ads (in favor of either candidate).

My MIL spoke with my husband yesterday. She was espousing out and out falsities about the candidates that she had read through e-mails, saw on ads, or even worse heard from her priest at church. She actually said, "well I can't vote for a Muslim. No one expected them to do what they did on 9/11, I don't want to give them the chance again." My husband (who is much less informed than I am on this election -- but he's trying) was able to counter every single reason she was voting her way as false information. She wasn't voting on the issues at all, just on the basis of mud that has already been slung. I totally respect anyone's right to vote for the candidate of their choice, but I resent when they choose them based on lies perpetuated by the other side (and in the example I gave lies by other democrats from the primary). These new nasty ads are only going to muddy the playing field, as I suppose they are intented to do.

Can we please just have this darned election and get on with it?????

ayaandjudah

10-06-2008, 04:47 AM

heather, where is she hearing it? Here on LI we are pretty immune to it all since we're going blue no question.

I am so tired of hearing in January that a candidate will run a clean campaign without the use of dirty tactics only to turn around in September and starting slinging the mud.

The John McCain I would have CONSIDERED voting for in 2000 is long gone. he's been replaced by a nasty old man who will stop at nothing to gain the presidency.

vegaschristina

10-06-2008, 07:22 AM

Gina.Maria

10-06-2008, 08:15 AM

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 08:21 AM

Obama is now coming out with an ad about McCain and The Keating Five (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14302.html). I guess a rebuttal to McCain's/Palin's swipes at Obama for association with William Ayers.

ETA: Link to preview (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo).

Like it or not, it's about the time the Democrats fight fire with fire and stop being so polite.

The truth is that McCain was involved with the Keating 5 scandal....it's should be known and certainly the McCain campaign isn't going to talk about it.

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 08:24 AM

McCain's problem is that he doesn't appear capable of winning on his merits and policies, so his only hope is to discredit Obama and make him appear less than honorable.

ITA...when you can't win on your own merit and word the last resort is to distract and spread lies and innuendo. Very telling of a person's character.

Imagine if Obama or Biden had a pregnant teen it would have been the scandal of the century but, Obama, proving his character deemed family attacks off limits and they have stuck to it...for that alone he should be admired whether you agree with his politics or not.

Scorpiosue1102

10-06-2008, 08:34 AM

Interestingly enough guess who's rearing his head in the McCain campaign? Karl Rove. Karl Rove who in 2000 tried to say that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was a black love child. He also hired Tucker Eskew, who planned the Rove/Bush smear campaign of McCain in 2000 and who McCain admonished in the past. 2-3 other Rove people are on McCain's campaign. That being the case it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

ayaandjudah

10-06-2008, 08:42 AM

Interestingly enough guess who's rearing his head in the McCain campaign? Karl Rove. Karl Rove who in 2000 tried to say that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was a black love child.

Are you serious? being a tried and true dem I didn't pay too much attentio to repub primary in 2000. How totally dishonorable of rove. but then again its rove so who is surprised.

this frm the man who shoud be in jail for outing a CIA agent.

vegaschristina

10-06-2008, 08:47 AM

Karl Rove who in 2000 tried to say that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was a black love child.

Just an aside here, she is his daughter, not his adopted daughter. I am an adoptive mom and I don't introduce my children as my adopted children, they're just my kids. There's no need to single her out as the "adopted" one.

Off my "Adoption Language Education" soapbox now.

Chreamps

10-06-2008, 08:48 AM

Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Scorpiosue1102

10-06-2008, 09:06 AM

Just an aside here, she is his daughter, not his adopted daughter. I am an adoptive mom and I don't introduce my children as my adopted children, they're just my kids. There's no need to single her out as the "adopted" one.

Off my "Adoption Language Education" soapbox now.

No worries:). I totally understand just quoting the Karl Rove Rolling Stone article.

tammy1999

10-06-2008, 09:19 AM

I'm really sad to see it devolve into a nasty campaign but I recognize that if Obama doesn't do his part to stir the pot he'll be awash in mud with no way to clear it off. It makes me angry to see Palin spreading more lies using her half-truth, passive-aggressive style, too. Her latest attack against him regarding Ayers is one such example.

Sometimes the truth is dirty and Palin has brought up very valid points and can be found in many documents.

Here are her exact words -

Well, I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago," Palin told the crowd, "Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.'

These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do -- as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in -- not my kids and not your kids."

You can find other articles on Obama-Ayeres here (http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-is-powerful-on-obama-ayers.html) and here (http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-is-powerful-on-obama-ayers.html). This is blog posts but they link back to news articles.

And consider this from the NO QUARTER blog site http://noquarterusa.net/blog:
Barack was the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Foundation. Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist with wealthy family connections, had co-founded the Chicago Foundation and named Obama as the Chairman of said entity. So by 2001 Barack and Ayers had worked closely together on an effort to reform Chicago public schools. I am all in favor of school reform. But if you are involved with politics you ought to understand that if you hang with, work with, and politic with a guy who is an unrepentant terrorist that it might reflect badly on you. In fact, you should put some distance between yourself and said terrorist.

Barack did not. What is curious is that Barack despite facing criticism about his lack of experience, is closed mouthed when it comes to discussing his stint running a $50 million dollar foundation. What is he hiding?

JCSimon

10-06-2008, 09:31 AM

Remember when McCain was ranting about Obama's bid for the presidency being based on sheer ambition and not related to wanting good for his country?

Here's a quote from McCains own book, "Worth The Fighting For:"

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

JCSimon

10-06-2008, 09:41 AM

Sometimes the truth is dirty and Palin has brought up very valid points and can be found in many documents.

Here are her exact words -

Well, I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago," Palin told the crowd, "Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.'

These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do -- as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in -- not my kids and not your kids."

You can find other articles on Obama-Ayeres here (http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-is-powerful-on-obama-ayers.html) and here (http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-is-powerful-on-obama-ayers.html). This is blog posts but they link back to news articles.

And consider this from the NO QUARTER blog site http://noquarterusa.net/blog:
Barack was the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Foundation. Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist with wealthy family connections, had co-founded the Chicago Foundation and named Obama as the Chairman of said entity. So by 2001 Barack and Ayers had worked closely together on an effort to reform Chicago public schools. I am all in favor of school reform. But if you are involved with politics you ought to understand that if you hang with, work with, and politic with a guy who is an unrepentant terrorist that it might reflect badly on you. In fact, you should put some distance between yourself and said terrorist.

Barack did not. What is curious is that Barack despite facing criticism about his lack of experience, is closed mouthed when it comes to discussing his stint running a $50 million dollar foundation. What is he hiding?

First....she wasn't reading *today's* New York Times. That article was in the paper way back during the primaries when Hillary first brought it up.

Second....Obama was not the Chairman of the entity. He was the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Those are two *completely* different things. Most boards meet only quarterly; a rare few meet monthly. Their purpose is to generally oversee the operations of the entity...approve budgets, ensure that tax returns are done on time. They have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the entity.

Again, he wasn't running the foundation...he was on the board of directors.

Scorpiosue1102

10-06-2008, 09:55 AM

We could go back and forth on who is worse and who said what with each campaign. McCain says Ayers, Obama says Keating. McCain says Britney and Paris, Obama says hothead. The fact is that while the debates were ongoing CNN had an opinion dial and when the negative stuff started up the dials went down. That dial down happened almost every single time. A rhetorical question, then why has John McCain's campaign admitted to they are now going negative? I know the answer LOL, but it baffles me. I'm not saying Obama's campaign is all sunshine and roses. I don't like this ugliness on either side.

I'm going to predict that we'll hear the name Tony Rezko from the McCain campaign by the end of the week.

caridura

10-06-2008, 09:59 AM

Wasn't Obama a child when all this Ayers stuff went down?

Chreamps

10-06-2008, 10:07 AM

Yes, he was only 8 years old. That said they are just talking about his relationship when Obama started in politics.

froggypond

10-06-2008, 10:12 AM

JCSimon

10-06-2008, 11:08 AM

Wasn't Obama a child when all this Ayers stuff went down?

Yes, Ma'am. The last anyone heard of the Weather Underground was 1972...Obama was 8 years old.

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 01:06 PM

Here on LI we are pretty immune to it all since we're going blue no question.

I'll dare to make an assumption that by "LI" you are referring to Long Island...if that's the case I have read the McCain campaign isn't even trying to fight for the votes in our area b/c they know they can't win it and need to focus where the race is tight. So, thankfully we won't be seeing many ads as in other areas of the country.

vegaschristina

10-06-2008, 01:08 PM

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 01:09 PM

this frm the man who shoud be in jail for outing a CIA agent.

Should we start a thread for this??? LOL

Would be an interesting discussion. I am sure. ;)

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 01:11 PM

Sometimes the truth is dirty

Yes, very dirty...should we open a thread for Bush entertaining the Taliban leaders at his ranch in Crawford?

lsl_scrapper

10-06-2008, 01:16 PM

Ah, to not be in a battleground state. That must be heavenly. No crappy commercials trying to do nothing more than scare the crap out of uninformed voters. Sadly, I live in Nevada and we're firmly purple this go around. Darn it.

LOL! Sadly, so is MO, so I'm sure we are in for plenty of these ads as well as interruptions during dinner by phone calls. I can't WAIT until it is all over!

Amanda Rockwell

10-06-2008, 01:21 PM

Yes, very dirty...should we open a thread for Bush entertaining the Taliban leaders at his ranch in Crawford?

I'm still wondering what bush has to do with this?

Very dirty indeed...

JCSimon

10-06-2008, 01:24 PM

I'm still wondering what bush has to do with this?

Very dirty indeed...

I think Jayne was just referring to the idea that, since we're into digging up past associations......

Julie

10-06-2008, 01:25 PM

I think it is a shame that so many voters tend to choose their candidate based on who is the bigger "bully", and has more money to advertise "dirt" on his/her opponent. It would be so nice if election campaigns were truly based on the facts of a candidates qualifications, rather than "rumors" people decide to believe. I often think of the movie, "Dave" ... now THERE is a man who could run a country ... LOL.

Oh I thought about Dave too LOL, quite a few times over the couple of months. He would be so perfect for the job, if only there really was a politician just like him somewhere!

Amanda Rockwell

10-06-2008, 01:29 PM

I think Jayne was just referring to the idea that, since we're into digging up past associations......

That's part of my point. It seems that every time someone has something on Obama it's completely ignored, subjects are changed or people act down right ignorant.

When it comes to McCain, people will site Rolling Stone as gospel.

diannerigdon

10-06-2008, 01:34 PM

ROFLOL Amanda that just struck me funny. You mean, The Rolling Stone ISN'T gospel?!? :giggle Sorry. Proceed. Hehehehehe.

Stephanie Ogren

10-06-2008, 01:40 PM

ROFLOL Amanda that just struck me funny. You mean, The Rolling Stone ISN'T gospel?!? :giggle Sorry. Proceed. Hehehehehe.

Actually I thought Rolling Stone was gospel as well. :blush

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 01:47 PM

I think Jayne was just referring to the idea that, since we're into digging up past associations......

Yes, thank you Jamie, that was my point exactly. Just making a point that Barack Obama would not have been the first to have had worked side by side those with questionable backgrounds or terrorists.

That's part of my point. It seems that every time someone has something on Obama it's completely ignored, subjects are changed or people act down right ignorant.

When it comes to McCain, people will site Rolling Stone as gospel.

Amanda, I don't see where every time someone had "something" on Obama it goes ignored. Heck, I must have missed the post here where someone took it for "gospel" b/c that would have caused me to belly laugh. There are people out there who still think there are shenanigans in regards to his birth certificate, etc.. I didn't see John McCain having to set up a website called "Fight The Smears"....as for the Rolling Stone article & what it contains, I know nothing about it, haven't read it and have only read about it here on this Forum. What I have seen about that article is that a few people who are in favor of Barack Obama have referred to the uncertainty of some of the claims made...seems pretty fair and open-minded to me. Doesn't come off anything close to be ignorant.

I am for Obama, however, I am fair and open, if there is wrong doing it absolutely should be addressed...that goes for anyone running for office. :)

NellieRose

10-06-2008, 01:48 PM

ROFLOL Amanda that just struck me funny. You mean, The Rolling Stone ISN'T gospel?!? :giggle Sorry. Proceed. Hehehehehe.

:rofl2 Dianne, now that is good stuff! :D

Glueless Media

10-06-2008, 05:13 PM

I'm still wondering what bush has to do with this?

Very dirty indeed...

I agree. Bush, Bush this and that has nothing to do with McCain or Obama does it?

I also agree with the opinion THAT anything possibly, remotely negative, can't be true:shrug or can it? If I posted EVERYTHING about Obama negative, scandalous, that comes across my desk, it would fill this forum!

lunafaerie

10-06-2008, 05:27 PM

I think Bush does matter, what is the point of history if not to show us the way in the future? In all fairness though, I felt much the same way thoughout the 2000 election when people would associate Gore with Clinton, it drove me batty. I couldn't see the point in that. And when it comes down to it, because Gore tried desperately to distance himself from Clinton, I don't think it made a difference in the election. I see similarities in this election. The only reason Bush is coming up so much right now is because we are all living with the consequences of his administration. I think about him all the time, unfortunately.

Kazadoodle

10-06-2008, 05:34 PM

I just wish they would all grow up and get out of the sandbox! I remember when the mud slinging hit the big time in our election campaigns, I was completely disgusted. They were so busy trying to rake up the dirt, that actual issues were being completely ignored.

gavins mom

10-06-2008, 05:59 PM

Both candidates are mud slinging!!! One is not doing it more than the other.

Tiffikat

10-06-2008, 06:58 PM

I'm in Ohio and we are being hit hard with the campaign ads. I am so sick of the mudslinging already, although in my area most of it seems to be coming from the McCain/Palin camp. I have only seen one ad from Obama that was negative about McCain and I've seen countless ads from McCain about Obama. None of the attack ads are going to change my mind, it's to the point now I just mute the TV when they come on. I can do my own research on the candidates.

As for Bush, I think what Bush has done is extremely relevant to this election. If we don't learn from history than how are we to stop it from repeating itself? The last thing I want is to see a repeat of the last 8 years.

vegaschristina

10-06-2008, 07:49 PM

If I posted EVERYTHING about Obama negative, scandalous, that comes across my desk, it would fill this forum!

Honestly, I'm not that concerned with people who report FACTUAL negative information regarding Obama or McCain. What slays me is when McCain is making his campaign not of the issues but of whatever smears he can throw up to scare uneducated voters. When he intentionally decides to move the campaign off of the issues and onto whatever crap he can toss up to make Obama's candidacy questionable...true or not...That's not just negative advertising. It's outright lying to scare uneducated voters into voting for McCain.

What I don't understand is why McCain is willing to lose his integrity to win this election.

4noisyboys

10-06-2008, 08:09 PM

Scorpiosue1102

10-06-2008, 08:31 PM

I don't get how Palin can be talking of terrorists when her own husband was part of the Alaskan Independence Party.... a party that wanted secession for Alaska. Secession. A quote from their founder, "The Alaskan Independence Party quotes Vogler as stating "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." Another bit of information, "In a 1991 interview currently housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Vogler is recorded as saying "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Interesting on both sides.

Scorpiosue1102

10-06-2008, 08:39 PM

McCain's own words about attack ads. This is from 2000. Hmmm...interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHW-RO1_WN0

4noisyboys

10-06-2008, 08:39 PM

lunafaerie

10-06-2008, 09:01 PM

I think it has gone way beyond mudslinging at this point. The way McCain is getting the crowds going at his rallies. Having him ask (while getting the crowd going on how dangerous Obama is) "Who is the real Barack Obama? and having someone in the crowd yell, "A terrorist". And, during a Palin speech at a rally, having another person yell, "Kill him". This is scary. This is not mudslinging anymore. I think they've crossed the line.

Really? I mean McCain and Palin arn't responsible for what other people say, but really? McCain and Palin are the last people I want in office at this point, but wow, if something like this happened at a rally I was attending, then I'd walk out regardless of who's rally it was.

vegaschristina

10-06-2008, 09:02 PM

McCain's own words about attack ads. This is from 2000. Hmmm...interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHW-RO1_WN0

Finally! Something McCain and I agree on!

4noisyboys

10-06-2008, 09:34 PM

Really? I mean McCain and Palin arn't responsible for what other people say, but really? McCain and Palin are the last people I want in office at this point, but wow, if something like this happened at a rally I was attending, then I'd walk out regardless of who's rally it was.

You're right...they aren't responsible for what people say, but they are the ones putting the thoughts in their heads (about Obama being a terrorist), and what do we do with terrorists? We kill them!

JCSimon

10-07-2008, 02:41 AM

Really? I mean McCain and Palin arn't responsible for what other people say, but really? McCain and Palin are the last people I want in office at this point, but wow, if something like this happened at a rally I was attending, then I'd walk out regardless of who's rally it was.

This is what really bothers me now. Mudslinging is one thing but McCain/Palin are intentionally stirring things up, calling Obama "dangerous," "frightening," "not like us." They know *exactly* what they're doing. The tiny amount of respect I once had for McCain has been buried once and for all.

Scorpiosue1102

10-07-2008, 06:40 AM

That's part of my point. It seems that every time someone has something on Obama it's completely ignored, subjects are changed or people act down right ignorant.

When it comes to McCain, people will site Rolling Stone as gospel.

I don't think it's a matter of people ignoring anything brought up about Obama it's just that it's already been hashed by the media during the democratic primaries.

About the Rolling Stone article, I posted it because I thought it was interesting. I also said that I that some was a stretch and some was intriguing. How is that being gospel? I've also admitted here that I don't like Obama mudslinging either and I think Obama didn't have to bring up the Keating 5 issue. I do not like when Obama twists facts about McCain, but I agree with more of his proposed platforms. I have also said that I think McCain is a good man many times here. I personally think that Rove's cronies are taking a good man down a bad road. Even McCain disagreed with candidates slinging mud in 2000. THAT'S the man I want back because this man is losing my respect.

[michele]

10-07-2008, 08:02 AM

The setting for tonight's presidential debate could make for uncomfortable political theater. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081007/pl_bloomberg/aeqhidejpots) » Trading blows (http://www.yahoo.com/s/966355)

McCain, 72, will try to leaven his attacks with humor, said Republican campaign aides, some of whom plan to wear cufflinks with a mock Obama presidential seal.

:huh Alriiiighty then.

:) Michele

vegaschristina

10-07-2008, 08:14 AM

When it comes to McCain, people will site Rolling Stone as gospel.

Here's what I said in the thread about the RS article:

I read it the other day and if true, it shows exactly why McCain should NOT be president. OTOH, if it's false, McCain needs to go after RS for libel.

My personal opinion is that McCain has changed so much from what he used to be and what he used to stand for that he's willing to win the election at the loss of his integrity. That makes me place more belief in the article.

I never said it was true or gospel, I said IF IS TRUE, McCain should not be president.

NellieRose

10-07-2008, 08:15 AM

I agree. Bush, Bush this and that has nothing to do with McCain or Obama does it?

I also agree with the opinion THAT anything possibly, remotely negative, can't be true:shrug or can it? If I posted EVERYTHING about Obama negative, scandalous, that comes across my desk, it would fill this forum!

Well, if Obama's "character" is being called into question because he worked alongside a man that was responsible for blowing up buildings when Obama was a child, then what does it say of the character of the man voted into office, twice, that worked alongside the Taliban? Where was the questioning of George Bush's charcter and where were the statements about him "palling around with terrorists"? Let's not forget that Barack Obama has openly stated that he finds Ayers acts detestable.

The attempt to make Obama look untrustworthy is absolutely transparent...it's a smear and an effort to make people afraid of Obama and to think that he is somehow untrustworthy. Have you ever had to work on a project at the office, school or for a charity where all in the group had a common goal yet extremely varying backgrounds and points of view as to how the world should work? McCain is slipping in the polls so they are looking for a way to instill fear in people; a fear that is false.

McCain is now being skewered for his connection with the Keating 5 scandal as a defensive attack....

Do I agree with any of this? No. But if McCain wants to play then he also has to answer up for his "connections" or "acquaintances".

Perhaps we overlook the Keating 5 and go straight for his "connection" with G. Gordon Liddy. Yeah, remember him? The Watergate burgular himself...McCain has appeared on his show many times and has said some really nice things about him......to try and play "guilt by association" is a very slippery slope.

Questionable behavior should be looked into but you can not have your cake and eat it to.

[michele]

10-07-2008, 08:20 AM

Dems hope Singlaub is McCain’s Ayers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081007/pl_politico/14349;_ylt=Anm3Cg0TjUd3l14Ao4I7Gv5snwcF)

I think McCain opened a can of worms when his campaign announced the new direction they were going. I don't believe it benefits the voters AT ALL.

:( Michele

NellieRose

10-07-2008, 08:33 AM

;1513589']Dems hope Singlaub is McCain’s Ayers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081007/pl_politico/14349;_ylt=Anm3Cg0TjUd3l14Ao4I7Gv5snwcF)

I think McCain opened a can of worms when his campaign announced the new direction they were going. I don't believe it benefits the voters AT ALL.

:( Michele

Absolutely...the American people ALL lose when this is how campaigns run.

They are wasting all of our time and more importantly looking to distract the voters from the fact that the Stock Market is continuing it's crash, even after passing the $700B economic bill, and now, it appears Europe's markets are crashing too.

[michele]

10-07-2008, 08:50 AM

Commentary: Stop the negative campaigning (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/campbell.brown.campaign/index.html)
<LI class=cnnhiliteheader>Story Highlights
Campbell Brown says the presidential campaign has been getting ugly
Candidates once promised to take the high road, she says
Voters would rather hear how candidates would solve economic ills, she saysBy Campbell Brown
CNN
Editor's note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN's "Campbell Brown: Election Center" at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the "Cutting through the Bull" segment of Monday night's broadcast.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- By now you've probably heard about how ugly things have gotten out there on the campaign trail in the last 48 hours.
But we thought for just a moment we would take you back to kinder, gentler times.

Remember this:

Sen. John McCain:I pledge again a respectful campaign. A respectful campaign based on the issues and based on the stark differences we have on the vision for the future of America.

Sen. Barack Obama: I said I was looking forward to a civil substantive debate on the issues and he agreed.

McCain: I've pledged to conduct a respectful campaign and I urge, time after time, various entities within the Republican party to also do that.

Obama: We don't need John McCain and I to be demonizing each other. You won't get that from my campaign.

Oh how far we have come in such a short period of time.

To say, as Gov. Sarah Palin is now doing, that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists is just outrageous.

But Obama's hands aren't clean either. Here is what he said in May of this year about McCain's involvement in the Keating Five, a savings and loan scandal that happened in the late 80s.

Obama said, "I don't think there is any doubt that John McCain's public record about issues that he's apologized for and written about is not germane to the presidency."

And yet this morning the Obama campaign released a mini-documentary, walking voters through all the details of the Keating Five -- making it very much germane.

There is just one month left. Please, please don't let this devolve into a campaign you are sickened by and embarrassed to be part of.

Here's a purely practical reason: The negativity you are spewing now will only make your job harder after Election Day.

Bipartisanship is really tough to achieve when everyone on both sides is left with a bad bad taste in their mouths.

Here is the new CNN Opinion Research Corp. When asked "How are things going in the country today?" 80 percent said badly. Eighty percent. Pollsters have been asking that question since 1974. Eighty percent is an all-time low. People want to hear solutions from you. They want to hear how you are going to get us out of this mess.

One of you will have to. Don't you want to be able to walk into the White House with your dignity intact and your head held high?

I think I need to do some digital window shopping - I'm getting kinda cranky about this topic!!

:) Michele

Glueless Media

10-07-2008, 09:03 AM

Well, if Obama's "character" is being called into question because he worked alongside a man that was responsible for blowing up buildings when Obama was a child, then what does it say of the character of the man voted into office, twice, that worked alongside the Taliban? Where was the questioning of George Bush's charcter and where were the statements about him "palling around with terrorists"? Let's not forget that Barack Obama has openly stated that he finds Ayers acts detestable.

The attempt to make Obama look untrustworthy is absolutely transparent...it's a smear and an effort to make people afraid of Obama and to think that he is somehow untrustworthy. Have you ever had to work on a project at the office, school or for a charity where all in the group had a common goal yet extremely varying backgrounds and points of view as to how the world should work? McCain is slipping in the polls so they are looking for a way to instill fear in people; a fear that is false.

McCain is now being skewered for his connection with the Keating 5 scandal as a defensive attack....

Do I agree with any of this? No. But if McCain wants to play then he also has to answer up for his "connections" or "acquaintances".

Perhaps we overlook the Keating 5 and go straight for his "connection" with G. Gordon Liddy. Yeah, remember him? The Watergate burgular himself...McCain has appeared on his show many times and has said some really nice things about him......to try and play "guilt by association" is a very slippery slope.

Questionable behavior should be looked into but you can not have your cake and eat it to.

JAyne, First of all I am not a have your cake and eat it kinda gal period!

Second , I didn't vote for Bush!

Third if you have read the other threads concerning this, you will have seen I am not happy about (mCains) associations either. I think BOTH are playing unfairly.

Yes, it is a slippery slope for all concerned, Both parties for some time you can't get an unbiased opinion from any source, so again the lesser of the two evils. Just as you have your opinion and as a STILL Free American we all do, mine is just as important as yours!

I DONOT trust Obama and I DONOT trust his associations period! I am sure IF he is elected only time will tell that these type of associations are not for the betterment of America.

I don't wish to fight, argue with you or anyone today:) So can we just disagree!

maggie965

10-07-2008, 09:21 AM

That's part of my point. It seems that every time someone has something on Obama it's completely ignored, subjects are changed or people act down right ignorant.

When it comes to McCain, people will site Rolling Stone as gospel.

I have to say I don't agree with this. It's the half truths that are the problem, they can't find anything valid against Obama so they have to make up relationships and exaggerate associations.

But on this same note, if anyone make accusations, please provide a link to legitimate information sources so we can validate...

NellieRose

10-07-2008, 09:23 AM

JAyne, First of all I am not a have your cake and eat it kinda gal period!

Second , I didn't vote for Bush!

Third if you have read the other threads concerning this, you will have seen I am not happy about (mCains) associations either. I think BOTH are playing unfairly.

Yes, it is a slippery slope for all concerned, Both parties for some time you can't get an unbiased opinion from any source, so again the lesser of the two evils. Just as you have your opinion and as a STILL Free American we all do, mine is just as important as yours!

I donot trust Obama and I donot trust his associations period. I am sure IF he is elected only time will tell that these type of associations are not for the betterment of America.

First: Vickie, my bit about having your cake was not directed at you but in general with regards to the McCain campaign.

Second: Me either

Third: I have read the other threads and agree that at this point both sides have made their beds in regard to playing unfairly.

Your opinions and views, as well as those of everyone else, are valued by me, no matter how different it may be...it's the beauty of this country.

I stand firmly for justice and equality for ALL people and would never hope to silence an opposing view. So, with that, may I ask what you mean by:

"Just as you have your opinion and as a STILL Free American we all do, mine is just as important as yours!"

It's unclear what a "STILL Free American" means....and, in case you missed it, I absolutley agree that your opinion is as important as mine or anyone else's.

As for you prediction of Obama's associations not being for "the betterment of America", I disagree but have the opposing view that McCain's associations won't be for the better. :(

Can we agree we are the same yet different? :wub

Glueless Media

10-07-2008, 09:24 AM

First: Vickie, my bit about having your cake was not directed at you but in general with regards to the McCain campaign.

Second: Me either

Third: I have read the other threads and agree that at this point both sides have made their beds in regard to playing unfairly.

Your opinions and views, as well as those of everyone else, are valued by me, no matter how different it may be...it's the beauty of this country.

I stand firmly for justice and equality for ALL people and would never hope to silence an opposing view. So, with that, may I ask what you mean by:

"Just as you have your opinion and as a STILL Free American we all do, mine is just as important as yours!"

It's unclear what a "STILL Free American" means....and, in case you missed it, I absolutley agree that your opinion is as important as mine or anyone else's.

As for you prediction of Obama's associations not being for "the betterment of America", I disagree but have the opposing view that McCain's associations won't be for the better. :(

Can we agree we are the same yet different? :wub

Agreed:):wub

HLWalter725

10-07-2008, 09:33 AM

Agreed:):wub

Ooooh, warm fuzzies!!! :yahoo

I've always hated jumping in on these kinds of discussions for fear of alienating friends, I soooo appreciate that we can voice our differing opinions and yet still respect and befriend one another!!!

Scorpiosue1102

10-07-2008, 03:40 PM

Chreamps

10-07-2008, 04:13 PM

I think that we are impassioned and that's a good thing. I'd rather see impassioned rather than passive people, kwim? I also try to not take a condescending tone. If I ever have, I apologize. Sometimes the words take on the wrong tone. If anything, it shows that we care about our country.Ditto!

Did anyone see this (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mccain-abotion-bombers/) (from CBS morning show 10-6-2008, click on video)?
This morning on CBS’s Early Show, McCain-Palin campaign spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer attempted to defend Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) debunked (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/) claims that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has been “palling around” with former radical William Ayers. Referencing a recent New York Times article (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mccain-abotion-bombers/%3Ca%20href=), Pfotenhauer claimed that if McCain “hung out with somebody who had bombed abortion clinics” it would be a legitimate topic of discussion.also:

– Voting against making anti-choice violence a federal crime. As the Jed Report notes, McCain voted in 1993 and 1994 against (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/john-mccains-do.html) making “bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions” federal crimes.
– Opposing Colorado’s “Bubble Law.” McCain said he opposed Colorado’s “Bubble Law,” which prohibited abortion protesters from getting within 8 feet of women entering clinics [Denver Post, 2/27/00]. The law was later upheld (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1856/) by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Voting to allow those fined for violence at clinics to avoid penalties by declaring bankruptcy. NARAL Pro-Chioce America notes that McCain “voted to allow perpetrators of violence or harassment at reproductive-health clinics to avoid paying the fines assessed against them (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/meet-the-real-mccain/mccain_on_the_issues.html) for their illegal acts by declaring bankruptcy.”
If you click on the links it eventually goes to his votes.

Also, this video (http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/buy-that-man-a-beer-keith-olbermann-on-hockey-moms-in-glass-houses/) by Keith Olbermann that I referenced over in the Hannity's America - Obama/Radicalism thread.