Obama / Ayers connection - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 10-07-2008, 04:39 PM

Here's the thing... was Ayers still dedicated to violent action when Obama started associating with him? What are the organizations that Ayers runs? What do they stand for (and I mean today not in the 60s and 70s).

You also need to ask, does Obama support the bombing of Americans? Is he out there conspiring to blow up the ROTC on your campus?

In the end, what I see in Ayers is a guy that made some extremely bad choices in the past. He did his time for those choices. He still holds true to his belief in changing the system but has chosen to bring change about without violence.

This association would only be an issue if Obama was proved to be a member of the Weather Underground.

ottopilot · 10-07-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

nice, otto: you're working those o'reilly factor tactics with alpomb--set up a series of false premises based on idiotic interpretations of cherry-picked infotainment, make a rickety series of inferences based on them and them top it off with a false choice between two ludicrous options which presuppose that the previous nonsense is actually compelling.

ayers has been working in elementary education for a long time. his notions of education link it to questions of social justice. it's interesting stuff, not that it would matter if all you're interested in is knuckle-dragging red-baiting.

Teaching Bill Ayers

were we to reverse the tiresome conservative pundit game, the central question would be "why do you oppose social justice, otto?" in that context, it'd be easy to frame out the weather underground---but why do that? i see nothing problematic about having opposed the war in vietnam. i see nothing problematic about the weather underground trying to stop that war--EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR TACTICS---not because i oppose them in principle, but because they were ill-considered and self-defeating. but look at ayer's webpage and see what he has to say about it.

but hey, why bother? why bother figuring out what you're actually talking about? why waste your time on reality when red-baiting is so much easier?

what's funny is all this drivel from conservativeland is good publicity for ayers' educational work.
free publicity too.
because not everyone is as stupid as the mc-cain campaign thinks they are.
some folk look stuff up.

roachboy - you should create a response template...

"comrad, my spin is straight out of the daily kos talking points, so here, let me tie something completely unrelated to your comments while I claim I know what i'm talking about because you don't ... I have absolutely nothing to support my claims over yours, but I live in liberal-land and you're a (insert rb's usual demeaning slurs or conservative stereo-types here) ...blah ...blah ...and I looked it up."

Yeah, that's close enough in a pinch.

moving right along...

Regarding the validity of my claims versus your regurgitation of liberal talking points, I guess we'll just have to see how it all plays out.

filtherton · 10-07-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

After reconsidering the predictability of politics here at TFP, it's going pretty much the way I should have expected.

Let me put it back on track:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

The Obama - Ayers connection has finally made it outside of talk radio and FOX news. For those of you who don't know Bill Ayers (a non-repentant domestic terrorist), this report from CNN's Anderson Cooper will provide some background.

As with Obama's relationships with Rev. Wright, the relationship and ties to other radical persons/ideologies either demonstrates the political nature of Obama who associates for political benefit and later disavows when these associations are challenged, or he is completely clueless.

I'm very interested to read your opinions regarding this story and how you believe his associations may color his decision making as POTUS.

What, you mean Barack Hussein Obama? I'm not surprised. He is a Muslim, after all.

smooth · 10-07-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

roachboy - you should create a response template...

"comrad, my spin is straight out of the daily kos talking points, so here, let me tie something completely unrelated to your comments while I claim I know what i'm talking about because you don't ... I have absolutely nothing to support my claims over yours, but I live in liberal-land and you're a (insert rb's usual demeaning slurs or conservative stereo-types here) ...blah ...blah ...and I looked it up."

Yeah, that's close enough in a pinch.

moving right along...

Regarding the validity of my claims versus your regurgitation of liberal talking points, I guess we'll just have to see how it all plays out.

he gives you a link to Bill Ayers' site so you could look up for yourself what the dude says and does on a daily basis...and that's a regurgitation of talking points?

We don't have to "see how it all plays out" some of us actually to take the time to educate ourselves about what we're talking about so we don't look like dumbasses when we talk to other educated people. You seem to be content to wear your ignorance like some kind of badge of honor...just a link away dude, what's the problem with reading it? will you get contaminated by knowledge or something?

guyy · 10-07-2008, 08:58 PM

What was the quality of the relationship between Obama and Ayers? How close were they? Fly to the Bahamas on his private jet with everyone including the babysitter close?

There is no equivalence between Keating & Ayers, and the pattern of corruption established in the Keating/S&L scandal is another reason why we'll be financing bailouts. Thanks John!

ratbastid · 10-08-2008, 05:37 AM

Bringing up Ayers is an act of pure desperation. Nothing more to say about it.

roachboy · 10-08-2008, 05:50 AM

otto---it is of no consequence to me whether you imagine there to be "liberal talking points" or not or whether, more surreal still, you imagine me to either be a "liberal" (i understand myself to be well to the left of the democratic party) or that i would repeat such talking point, if they existed.

what's more interesting in this particular case is that you really have no idea what you're talking about, and that you have no idea what william ayers has done, what he stands for, who he is. your understanding of it extends about as deep as the surface of your television screen. it's kinda amazing that you would accept the campaign's redbaiting and repeat it as if there was anything of interest in it, without doing the slightest bit of research independently, without having the faintest idea, seemingly, not only of what that talking point refers to or is saying. but you project all that onto me.

then when confronted with a bit of information which even a rudimentary search could have provided you, you shuck and jive.

this is the best you got to bring?
as a conservative, you don't consider it important to be able to represent the political positions you hold with any logic or explanation? you don't feel any particular need to inform yourself about what the points you bring up actually are?
how does that work?

ottopilot · 10-09-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

otto---it is of no consequence to me whether you imagine there to be "liberal talking points" or not or whether, more surreal still, you imagine me to either be a "liberal" (i understand myself to be well to the left of the democratic party) or that i would repeat such talking point, if they existed.

what's more interesting in this particular case is that you really have no idea what you're talking about, and that you have no idea what william ayers has done, what he stands for, who he is. your understanding of it extends about as deep as the surface of your television screen. it's kinda amazing that you would accept the campaign's redbaiting and repeat it as if there was anything of interest in it, without doing the slightest bit of research independently, without having the faintest idea, seemingly, not only of what that talking point refers to or is saying. but you project all that onto me.

then when confronted with a bit of information which even a rudimentary search could have provided you, you shuck and jive.

this is the best you got to bring?
as a conservative, you don't consider it important to be able to represent the political positions you hold with any logic or explanation? you don't feel any particular need to inform yourself about what the points you bring up actually are?
how does that work?

Regarding the "talking points", it doesn't feel so good to be easily dismissed and thrown in with a cliché, does it? Maybe it's time to take a hard look in the mirror. Sorry you didn't appreciate my lampooning your thoughtful response to one of my posts.

For one, I am not a conservative, you might be surprised at how much we agree on many things, some we don't. Which leads me to my next point... with your habitual condescending and clichéd generalizations, I can't take you seriously. Knee-jerk emotion driven put-downs are beneath you. If you want serious discussions, then try leaving out the personal slurs... In turn, I won't lampoon Mr. super moderator.

/thread

StanT · 10-09-2008, 06:21 AM

From the Chicago Tribune, a comparison of Bill Ayers and G Gordon Liddy.

With friends like these ... -- chicagotribune.com

Quote:

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

Note that Liddy has been charged and convicted, unlike Ayers.

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 06:22 AM

otto:
you are mistaken if you think i take this personally. i really don't. no worries.
but if we're going to play, maybe some ground rules are in order.

i don't generally write in generalizations, really--but at the same time, we're operating in a messageboard context, so there's compression. there will always be compression. rather than indulging the game of deciding that a compressed sentence is a generalization, go after the argument. generally, i have no problem with running out what's behind the sentences.

i'd expect the same from you if you gave any real reason--apart from this last post--to expect that it not a waste of time. you bring down the mode of interaction that you seem to want. you have control over your style, and you choose to use it in a particular way. you have control over your way of responding to posts, and choose to play a silly game of inversion over and over.

so you want to change the game, change it.
it's an isometric deal (your move in a game generates a response more or less symmetrical with it).

i'm perfectly willing to reciprocate.
this game bores me stupid: i do not find it interesting or amusing to interact with you in this mode. the only reason i usually do it is because you decide to rehearse something like this ayers business, toss it like a little rock into the pool in order to see what happens. that's all it looks to me that you do.

so change the game. it's easy peasy---just do it.

and don't bother with messing about with the mod title.
when i'm in mod-mode, i use yellow font.
when i'm not using it, i'm not in that mode.
it is a stupid and cheap move to invoke it when you know it isn't at play.

so maybe we can stop this idiocy and have an actual debate about something.
your move.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 07:24 AM

If Ayers is a not an issue why is the Obama team spending so much time responding to it? I agree that the Ayers alleged relationship to Obama is not an issue that would sway my vote but what would is a candidates honesty in responding to the question about the relationship. McCain has responded to some questions that suggests that he is being less than honest and I am disappointed with that but it is isolated. Obama has a pattern, and I am not only disappointed but disturbed by the pattern. If Ayers helped a young Chicago politician and if that young politician knowingly used that help, say it. The issue goes away. If a young South Side Chicago politician joins the most influential church on the South Side of Chicago because the church can serve a spiritual need and a networking need, say it. The issue goes away. Obama often asks us to suspend rational thought as he tap dances around these points that are relatively trivial. The more he does this the bigger the issue gets.

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 07:31 AM

i think that if this is the case, it's an instance of obama's campaign walking into the trivia trap that is this "issue"---by responding, you accept the terms of discussion that go along with it.

given that the conventional wisdom is that the conflict between the campaigns is over undecided voters who, for reasons that i do not entirely understand, are said to be "centrists" this atwater/rove style move seems to be seen as a problem by the obama camp.

that is it based on nothing beyond redbaiting, nothing beyond distortion and the use of the word "terrorist" in association with the word "obama" seems to not be seen as a consistently trivial matter by obama's campaign, presumably because of the associations that are bundled around the "undecided voters"

i am not sure that obama really needs these voters, but that sort of view might also explain why i am not working for his campaign. well that and i didn't ask.

QuasiMondo · 10-09-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

If Ayers is a not an issue why is the Obama team spending so much time responding to it?

John Kerry's campaign didn't think the flap over the the legitimacy of the Bronze Medal he received in Vietnam was an issue and they never responded to that. Look were it didn't get him.

But I guess it's a case of damn'd if you do, damn'd if you don't.

Manic_Skafe · 10-09-2008, 09:15 AM

This is all fear mongering 101.

The weather underground weren't terrorists. Misguided? Yes. Destructive? Yes. Terrorists? No.

ughh.

flstf · 10-09-2008, 09:22 AM

As I understand it those concerned with Obama's past with Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.. (at least those on this forum) are not so much concerned with his connection with those individuals but his answers explaining those relationships today. I imagine as a young polititian he accepted fundraiser help from Ayers (and almost anyone else who would help) and also joined the largest black church in Chicago in part to connect to the black community. Like most polititians Obama will of course try to downplay any past associations which might negatively effect his current campaign. Polititians who do not play this game well will probably not win many elections.

I also expect McCain, Biden and Palin to downplay their past associations with fundraisers, separatists, lobiests, etc.. for political reasons. McCain had a reasonable position of smaller government and less regulation as a path to future prosperity but with the current financial meltdown this position is not working with many voters and they are getting desperate. His recent proposal to buy back all the troubled mortgages is truly desperate and almost like abandoning the capitalist ship. All the mudslinging is a distraction from what is really important and to answer the OP I don't think past associations will have much of an effect on Obama's (or the other candidate's) positions going forward.

Tully Mars · 10-09-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

This is all fear mongering 101.

The weather underground weren't terrorists. Misguided? Yes. Destructive? Yes. Terrorists? No.

ughh.

I don't know. How do you define terrorist? Personally people who go around bombing banks and government buildings in an attempt to make political changes and/or scare the crap out of people are terrorists.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

John Kerry's campaign didn't think the flap over the the legitimacy of the Bronze Medal he received in Vietnam was an issue and they never responded to that. Look were it didn't get him.

I don't think this issue moved any votes one way or the other. Again, similar to Obama Kerry had a pattern that was disturbing. He never took the time to simply explain his views and feelings during the Vietnam war era and how those views and feelings evolved. The voters were left with a void and people filled the void the way they wanted. Kerry did not need to specifically address the Bronze Medal if he had taken the time to explain the transition from being a disheartened Vietnam vet and being a US Senator wanting to be President of the greatest nation on earth.

Quote:

But I guess it's a case of damn'd if you do, damn'd if you don't.

Or, do what is right and screw those who don't like it.
-----Added 9/10/2008 at 01 : 46 : 48-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i think that if this is the case, it's an instance of obama's campaign walking into the trivia trap that is this "issue"---by responding, you accept the terms of discussion that go along with it.

given that the conventional wisdom is that the conflict between the campaigns is over undecided voters who, for reasons that i do not entirely understand, are said to be "centrists" this atwater/rove style move seems to be seen as a problem by the obama camp.

that is it based on nothing beyond redbaiting, nothing beyond distortion and the use of the word "terrorist" in association with the word "obama" seems to not be seen as a consistently trivial matter by obama's campaign, presumably because of the associations that are bundled around the "undecided voters"

i am not sure that obama really needs these voters, but that sort of view might also explain why i am not working for his campaign. well that and i didn't ask.

What is your opinion of those taking the stance that if Obama loses the nation is racist or that those who don't support Obama are racists?
-----Added 9/10/2008 at 01 : 50 : 56-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

This is all fear mongering 101.

My friend look up fear mongering and this is what you find:

-----Added 9/10/2008 at 01 : 53 : 29-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

As I understand it those concerned with Obama's past with Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.. (at least those on this forum) are not so much concerned with his connection with those individuals but his answers explaining those relationships today. I imagine as a young polititian he accepted fundraiser help from Ayers (and almost anyone else who would help) and also joined the largest black church in Chicago in part to connect to the black community. Like most polititians Obama will of course try to downplay any past associations which might negatively effect his current campaign. Polititians who do not play this game well will probably not win many elections.

This is true. I lived in the Chicago area. If you are a young ambitious politician you have to "kiss a few rings". Like it or not, that is the cost of gaining political power in Chicago.

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

What is your opinion of those taking the stance that if Obama loses the nation is racist or that those who don't support Obama are racists?

what?
this sounds to me like projection, ace. i don't know anyone, nor have i read anyone, nor have i seen anyone make that claim.
i have seen alot of speculation as to what role racism might play in shaping electoral preferences, but that is not the same thing at all. and you know that. and notice that this kind of question was being raised a few weeks ago, before the the Mutation of Capitalism began to pulverize things, not least was the illusory closeness of the election and the efforts to mount a campaign based entirely on accusations concerning personality from mc-cain's campaign.

so i don't make anything of it, ace.
except that i think it's projection.

the other, more objectionable thing in this apparent non-sequitor is that you seem to assume in it that there's some merit to the palin-meme "palling around with terrorists" which i think is worthless. beneath contempt. seriously.

Jinn · 10-09-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I don't know. How do you define terrorist? Personally people who go around bombing banks and government buildings in an attempt to make political changes and/or scare the crap out of people are terrorists.

Yea Manic, I'm pretty sure they're terrorists. Doesn't mean I give any legitimacy to this half-assed connection they're trying to make between him and Obama, nor do I think Ayers is a terrorist any more, but they were definitely terrorizing when they were bombing buildings.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what?
this sounds to me like projection, ace. i don't know anyone, nor have i read anyone, nor have i seen anyone make that claim.
i have seen alot of speculation as to what role racism might play in shaping electoral preferences, but that is not the same thing at all. and you know that. and notice that this kind of question was being raised a few weeks ago, before the the Mutation of Capitalism began to pulverize things, not least was the illusory closeness of the election and the efforts to mount a campaign based entirely on accusations concerning personality from mc-cain's campaign.

so i don't make anything of it, ace.
except that i think it's projection.

the other, more objectionable thing in this apparent non-sequitor is that you seem to assume in it that there's some merit to the palin-meme "palling around with terrorists" which i think is worthless. beneath contempt. seriously.

There was a poll conducted by AP. They did the poll because Obama should be winning by a large margin. Hence if he does not win it is due to racism, not issues.

Quote:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

Quote:

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

Political Pulse | The Associated Press-Yahoo! News Poll on Yahoo! News

The same theory has been floated by some of the talking heads in the media.

{added} On the issue of projection, not that I think my race is relevant, but if you knew my race you would most likely change your view on "projection".

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 10:18 AM

asking oneself and conducting research about possible correlation of racism to electoral preference is NOT the same thing as claiming "everyone who does not support obama is a racist" ace. this is pretty rudimentary logic. i don't see the point of this discussion.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

asking oneself and conducting research about possible correlation of racism to electoral preference is NOT the same thing as claiming "everyone who does not support obama is a racist" ace. this is pretty rudimentary logic. i don't see the point of this discussion.

I guess there could be a million or more reasons why the Presidential race is close other than Obama's skin color. I have not seen AP do research on those other million or so possibilities, have you?

Manic_Skafe · 10-09-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I don't know. How do you define terrorist? Personally people who go around bombing banks and government buildings in an attempt to make political changes and/or scare the crap out of people are terrorists.

I'm not vindicating any of the Weather Underground's actions but clear distinction can be made between those who hijack planes and claim the innocent lives of thousands and those who sent out evacuation warnings before they blew things up.

As I said before, they were misguided and destructive but history has proven that social change doesn't always come with a pretty bow and a court order.

Semantics? Maybe. Bottom line: Ayers ≠ Osama.

Jinn · 10-09-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

I'm not vindicating any of the Weather Underground's actions but clear distinction can be made between those who hijack planes and claim the innocent lives of thousands and those who sent out evacuation warnings before they blew things up.

As I said before, they were misguided and destructive but history has proven that social change doesn't always come with a pretty bow and a court order.

Semantics? Maybe. Bottom line: Ayers ≠ Osama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"In 1970 the group issued a 'Declaration of a State of War' against the United States government, under the name 'Weather Underground Organization' (WUO)."

"The group was investigated for a bombing that took place on February 16, 1970, in which a pipe bomb filled with shrapnel detonated on the ledge of a window at the Park Station of the San Francisco Police Department. Brian V. McDonnell, a police sergeant, was fatally wounded in the explosion, and Robert Fogarty, another police officer, was severely wounded in his face and legs and was partially blinded.."

"Since 1970 the Weatherman organization has often been classified in America as a domestic terrorist organization. "Within the political youth movement of the late sixties (outside of Latin America), the 'Weathermen' were the first group to reach the front page because of terrorist activities," wrote Klaus Mehnert in his 1977 book, "Twilight of the Young, The Radical Movements of the 1960s and Their Legacy".[48] Neil A. Hamilton, in his 1996 book on militia movements in the United States, wrote, "By and large, though, these Weathermen did not rely on arming and training militia; instead, they resorted to terrorism."[49]

Starting in 1970 newspapers covering their bombing of public buildings identified the group as "terrorist".[50] Michael Charney, a spokesman for the rival Oberlin Radical Coalition, told The New York Times that year that the Weathermen resorted to terrorism because Americans were unwilling to participate in a revolution. Thomas Powers and Lucinda Franks wrote the Pulitzer-prize-winning news series, "Diana: The Making of a Terrorist" about the life and death of member Diana Oughton (later expanded into a full-length authorized biography on the subject). The group fell under the auspicies of FBI-New York City Police Anti Terrorist Task Force, a forerunner of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces. The FBI, on its website, describes the organization as having been a "domestic terrorist group", but no longer an active concern."

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 11:08 AM

ace: what do you imagine polling to be concerned with? look at almost anything deeper than a "who are you voting for" poll and you find question after question like "which issue matters to you?" or "how important is x in your decision?" don't you actually look at these things? they're kinda goofy, i think, and certainly don't mean anything unless you know about the methodology and sample--and even then, they're kinda useless---but in the american pseudo-democracy where consumption-freedom, they're indices of voter consumer preferences.

here, i'll help you find a bunch so you can see for yourself.

Pollster.com - Political Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

lots and lots of polls, ace.
look for yourself.

Tully Mars · 10-09-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

Semantics? Maybe. Bottom line: Ayers ≠ Osama.

I think they were clearly terrorist. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this I guess. But remember one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. While we've labeled the Taliban terrorists many have labeled our troops terrorists and the Taliban freedom fighters.

I do agree with-

Ayers ≠ Osama

Manic_Skafe · 10-09-2008, 11:26 AM

To Jinn as well,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this I guess. But remember one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

That was exactly my point. Thanks.

Jinn · 10-09-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

To Jinn as well,

That was exactly my point. Thanks.

Then we, all 3, agree.

Rhyme time..

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 11:34 AM

well, it's a little more complicated than that--the weather underground were kinda on the same order as the autonomen and baader-meinhof group which used actions directed against buildings or prominent individuals as a way of demonstrating that the existing order couldn't maintain the control it pretended to as a way of either undermining the legitimacy of the system as a whole or as a way of trying to accomplish a more limited objective (ending the war in vietnam, which the weathermen pushed into the logic of the existing order as a whole)...so at that level, the term "terrorism" actually named a tactic. i think it turned out to be a bad tactic, accomplishing the opposite from what was intended...but it was part of the death rattle of the anarchist wing of the new left.

none of this stuff has a space in the whitewashed revisionist world of contemporary far-right revisionism made general, and the term "terrorism" is a good index of that--the shift from something that was a self-evidently political tactic to a term that denies the existence of political motivations beyond being Pissy or Jealous or whatever other cretin subjectivising term you want.

fact is that there was every reason to oppose the war in vietnam, and by the early 1970s, had i been old enough, i would have been active in the opposition and can very easily imagine myself seriously considering something like what the weather underground did---i wouldn't support it now because i know how the story turned out---but i can see why they felt it might work, or why they'd be so pissed off with the evil that was the united states in its vietnam war period that they'd resort to those tactics.

the reason that i find this whole redbaiting smear thing so thoroughly distasteful and offensive, really, is that there was EVERY reason to oppose the war in vietnam and EVERY reason to oppose the american political and economic orders which enabled it to happen. so there was EVERY reason to support that opposition, even if you do not agree with the tactics of particular groups. so there's NO PROBLEM with being associated with william ayers. but the fact is that obama was NOT particularly associated with him----this has already been dredged through in this endless sporting event of a campaign.

but coming from palin, now, this is pretty fucking vile stuff.
check out the thread in "found on the net" for some lovely footage of pissy fasco-republicans at a palin speech. it's lovely.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace: what do you imagine polling to be concerned with? look at almost anything deeper than a "who are you voting for" poll and you find question after question like "which issue matters to you?" or "how important is x in your decision?" don't you actually look at these things? they're kinda goofy, i think, and certainly don't mean anything unless you know about the methodology and sample--and even then, they're kinda useless---but in the american pseudo-democracy where consumption-freedom, they're indices of voter consumer preferences.

here, i'll help you find a bunch so you can see for yourself.

Pollster.com - Political Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

lots and lots of polls, ace.
look for yourself.

The AP and a few others have started making a connection between the closeness of the Presidential race to Obama's skin color, some are making the argument that a loss for Obama will be due to race. Are you suggesting that people are saying the closeness of the race is due to other factors, let's say Obama's past relationships? So, what is fair game for being relevant? It seems to me that those on the left are trying to dictate what is important to voters and trying to frame it in the most favorable manner for Obama.

I agree with your point regarding polling data, but some are starting to run with the "race" argument in a manner I find offensive.

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 11:45 AM

ace--like i said, asking questions and conducting research implies a hypothesis or a question. i'm interested in the results--but i suspect that the state of affairs in the states is such that it's more ok to be a racist than it is to say you're one. so i don't know what the polls will show. i'm not surprised the question's come up, though. are you arguing that it should not have? on what basis?

saying "if you do not support obama, you're a racist" is totally different from asking a question and conducting research to see what it might lead to. and the first does not come from the second, except maybe for someone with an axe to grind, who's maybe concerned about the results of a poll being embarassing.

but like i said at the outset of this, i don't know what such polls would find.
doesn't mean it's not an interesting question.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--like i said, asking questions and conducting research implies a hypothesis or a question. i'm interested in the results--but i suspect that the state of affairs in the states is such that it's more ok to be a racist than it is to say you're one. so i don't know what the polls will show. i'm not surprised the question's come up, though. are you arguing that it should not have? on what basis?

saying "if you do not support obama, you're a racist" is totally different from asking a question and conducting research to see what it might lead to. and the first does not come from the second, except maybe for someone with an axe to grind, who's maybe concerned about the results of a poll being embarassing.

but like i said at the outset of this, i don't know what such polls would find.
doesn't mean it's not an interesting question.

it's not much different from asking people whether they don't support mc-cain because of his age, really.

If you follow the logic in the article regarding the poll, it seemed that the premise was that Obama should have a big lead and he doesn't because a measurable and significant number of voters are racist. I find the premise offensive. I don't dispute their right or interest in exploring the question, but given the premise I think they may have forced or at least incorrectly interpreted uncorrelated data to come to a faulty conclusion. Like the old joke related to statistical study - 99% of violent criminals ate a wheat based product (bread, crackers, cake, etc) before committing a violent crime, therefore wheat based products cause people to commit violent crimes. As a non-violent criminal I find that kind of logic offensive as well.

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 12:09 PM

well, that would mean that you probably wouldn't have designed the poll that way.

i don't put a whole lot of stock in polls, like i said earlier.
but i also don't doubt that for *some* folk, racism is a factor.
but i still don't know what a poll would tell you about that.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:33 PM

I dont know if the poll methodology is a good one or not, but I dont know how anyone can deny that race and racial attitudes is a factor in this campaign like none before.

The question is how much and that is very difficult to measure...but a few points in some key battleground states doesnt seen out of line to me.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont know if the poll methodology is a good one or not, but I dont know how anyone can deny that race and racial attitudes is a factor in this campaign like none before.

The question is how much and that is very difficult to measure...but a few points in some key battleground states doesnt seen out of line to me.

Is Obama saying race is a factor?

Was race a factor when Obama won Iowa, where that victory gave him the momentum to win the election?

Other than a few like Hannity commenting on the "black" vote, historically (based on polls) hasn't the "black" vote gone for the Democratic nominee in ranges from 80% to 90%, therefore meaning this election is no different?

Hasn't there always been a "white" element in the Democratic party with Republican tendancies?

So, can you elaborate on your comment? I don't think race is a factor in this election, however, I think some on the left and the AP are trying to make it a factor.

smooth · 10-09-2008, 01:57 PM

I'm really not interested in arguing over nonsense.

It's becoming clear that a large portion of people are going to start agitating for regulation of political messages and that's dangerous at the fundamental level but evidently is becoming increasingly more palatable.

As for what to do now, I'm thinking of organizing a boycott against companies that advertise in proximity to slanderous political advertisements. I don't know how I would get enough people behind it simply on the basis of letting them know about such a boycott, but I suspect Obama has enough supporters that even a portion of them upset at how these ads are coming across would make a boycott effective.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 02:12 PM

smooth....I'm not sure what you mean by advertise in "proximity" to slanderous ads. It sounds like holding companies accountable for something beyond their control.

In any case, it was interesting to read a report by an independent univeristy research organization that reviews political ads that in the last week or so, McCain's ads are nearly 100% negative (about whats wrong with Obama and not what McCain would do as president) while Obama's ads have been about 30% negative and 70% about his policies and proposals.

I just dont believe the negative ads will work this year as much as they have in the past, with the economy hanging over everyone's head like no issue in recent elections.

smooth · 10-09-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

smooth....I'm not sure what you mean by advertise in "proximity" to slanderous ads. It sounds like holding companies accountable for something beyond their control.

In any case, it was interesting to read a report by an independent univeristy research organization that reviews political ads that in the last week or so, McCain's ads are nearly 100% negative (about whats wrong with Obama and not what McCain would do as president) while Obama's ads have been about 30% negative and 70% about his policies and proposals.

I just dont believe the negative ads will work this year as much as they have in the past, with the economy hanging over everyone's head like no issue in recent elections.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing.

If a company has a commercial at or around a John McCain advertisement, then I will boycott that product and I urge anyone sick of the political ads to do the same.

If the companies want my business, then perhaps they should contact the network they want to advertise on and request they pull the McCain ads.

I'm definitely advocating holding companies accountable for things outside their direct control. If you don't agree with my position, then don't participate in the boycott.

roachboy · 10-09-2008, 04:15 PM

actually, i like this idea. boycotts and other forms of consume revolt (taken beyond a certain scale, that's what they are) are useful tools, and i think the effect of this would be to put a dent in the atwater/rove school of politics-as-slander. and why *shouldn't* people organize themselves toward such an end--it's not a viable argument that this is censorship because there's no regulation involved--rather it's a redefinition of community standards--and the adverts are themselves such a redefinition--but they're one that demonstrates the imbalance of power which obtains between capital and people, the former dominating the latter entirely.

there's no prohibition on the atwater/rove aesthetic--only consequences. if the republicans want to buy up blocks of advertising time to run their idiot adverts one after the other, they can. if companies want their brand associated with these adverts, they're free to let em run---if they aren't, it's easy enough to hang stipulations (like earmarking funding). television outlets will comply, because they're interested in money. it's a form of freedom in action to force these adverts to become materially what they already are--a kind of stench that wafts over american pseudo-democracy, turning everything around them to shit.

if you want a hand organizing, smooth, let me know.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 06:37 PM

I applaud the noble sentiment, but just dont see the practicality or likelihood of organizing a national boycott campaign in less than a month. Anything beyond that and you are, in effect, proposing to punish commercial advertisers for not taking correction action after the fact.

A more reasonable approach, IMO, would be to focus on regulatory reform of political advertising over the next four years.

That would include a return of some form of "fairness doctrine" that would require allowing a candidate to run an ad immediately following any ad by the opposing candidate (or any 527 org) that uses the first candidate's name and/or image in an ad.

I would add other provisions....one i can think of off the top of my head would be requiring ads to run a scroll across the bottom for the full length of the ad when using actors to portray real people (no, one of the swiftboaters was not a swiftboat vet...it was an actor).

10-07-2008, 04:39 PM	#41 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Here's the thing... was Ayers still dedicated to violent action when Obama started associating with him? What are the organizations that Ayers runs? What do they stand for (and I mean today not in the 60s and 70s). You also need to ask, does Obama support the bombing of Americans? Is he out there conspiring to blow up the ROTC on your campus? In the end, what I see in Ayers is a guy that made some extremely bad choices in the past. He did his time for those choices. He still holds true to his belief in changing the system but has chosen to bring change about without violence. This association would only be an issue if Obama was proved to be a member of the Weather Underground. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-08-2008, 05:50 AM	#47 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	otto---it is of no consequence to me whether you imagine there to be "liberal talking points" or not or whether, more surreal still, you imagine me to either be a "liberal" (i understand myself to be well to the left of the democratic party) or that i would repeat such talking point, if they existed. what's more interesting in this particular case is that you really have no idea what you're talking about, and that you have no idea what william ayers has done, what he stands for, who he is. your understanding of it extends about as deep as the surface of your television screen. it's kinda amazing that you would accept the campaign's redbaiting and repeat it as if there was anything of interest in it, without doing the slightest bit of research independently, without having the faintest idea, seemingly, not only of what that talking point refers to or is saying. but you project all that onto me. then when confronted with a bit of information which even a rudimentary search could have provided you, you shuck and jive. this is the best you got to bring? as a conservative, you don't consider it important to be able to represent the political positions you hold with any logic or explanation? you don't feel any particular need to inform yourself about what the points you bring up actually are? how does that work? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 06:22 AM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	otto: you are mistaken if you think i take this personally. i really don't. no worries. but if we're going to play, maybe some ground rules are in order. i don't generally write in generalizations, really--but at the same time, we're operating in a messageboard context, so there's compression. there will always be compression. rather than indulging the game of deciding that a compressed sentence is a generalization, go after the argument. generally, i have no problem with running out what's behind the sentences. i'd expect the same from you if you gave any real reason--apart from this last post--to expect that it not a waste of time. you bring down the mode of interaction that you seem to want. you have control over your style, and you choose to use it in a particular way. you have control over your way of responding to posts, and choose to play a silly game of inversion over and over. so you want to change the game, change it. it's an isometric deal (your move in a game generates a response more or less symmetrical with it). i'm perfectly willing to reciprocate. this game bores me stupid: i do not find it interesting or amusing to interact with you in this mode. the only reason i usually do it is because you decide to rehearse something like this ayers business, toss it like a little rock into the pool in order to see what happens. that's all it looks to me that you do. so change the game. it's easy peasy---just do it. and don't bother with messing about with the mod title. when i'm in mod-mode, i use yellow font. when i'm not using it, i'm not in that mode. it is a stupid and cheap move to invoke it when you know it isn't at play. so maybe we can stop this idiocy and have an actual debate about something. your move. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 07:24 AM	#51 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	If Ayers is a not an issue why is the Obama team spending so much time responding to it? I agree that the Ayers alleged relationship to Obama is not an issue that would sway my vote but what would is a candidates honesty in responding to the question about the relationship. McCain has responded to some questions that suggests that he is being less than honest and I am disappointed with that but it is isolated. Obama has a pattern, and I am not only disappointed but disturbed by the pattern. If Ayers helped a young Chicago politician and if that young politician knowingly used that help, say it. The issue goes away. If a young South Side Chicago politician joins the most influential church on the South Side of Chicago because the church can serve a spiritual need and a networking need, say it. The issue goes away. Obama often asks us to suspend rational thought as he tap dances around these points that are relatively trivial. The more he does this the bigger the issue gets. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-09-2008, 07:31 AM	#52 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think that if this is the case, it's an instance of obama's campaign walking into the trivia trap that is this "issue"---by responding, you accept the terms of discussion that go along with it. given that the conventional wisdom is that the conflict between the campaigns is over undecided voters who, for reasons that i do not entirely understand, are said to be "centrists" this atwater/rove style move seems to be seen as a problem by the obama camp. that is it based on nothing beyond redbaiting, nothing beyond distortion and the use of the word "terrorist" in association with the word "obama" seems to not be seen as a consistently trivial matter by obama's campaign, presumably because of the associations that are bundled around the "undecided voters" i am not sure that obama really needs these voters, but that sort of view might also explain why i am not working for his campaign. well that and i didn't ask. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-07-2008, 08:58 PM	#45 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	What was the quality of the relationship between Obama and Ayers? How close were they? Fly to the Bahamas on his private jet with everyone including the babysitter close? There is no equivalence between Keating & Ayers, and the pattern of corruption established in the Keating/S&L scandal is another reason why we'll be financing bailouts. Thanks John!

10-08-2008, 05:37 AM	#46 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Bringing up Ayers is an act of pure desperation. Nothing more to say about it.

10-09-2008, 09:15 AM	#54 (permalink)
Manic_Skafe More Than You Expect Location: Queens	This is all fear mongering 101. The weather underground weren't terrorists. Misguided? Yes. Destructive? Yes. Terrorists? No. ughh. __________________ "Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

10-09-2008, 09:22 AM	#55 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	As I understand it those concerned with Obama's past with Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.. (at least those on this forum) are not so much concerned with his connection with those individuals but his answers explaining those relationships today. I imagine as a young polititian he accepted fundraiser help from Ayers (and almost anyone else who would help) and also joined the largest black church in Chicago in part to connect to the black community. Like most polititians Obama will of course try to downplay any past associations which might negatively effect his current campaign. Polititians who do not play this game well will probably not win many elections. I also expect McCain, Biden and Palin to downplay their past associations with fundraisers, separatists, lobiests, etc.. for political reasons. McCain had a reasonable position of smaller government and less regulation as a path to future prosperity but with the current financial meltdown this position is not working with many voters and they are getting desperate. His recent proposal to buy back all the troubled mortgages is truly desperate and almost like abandoning the capitalist ship. All the mudslinging is a distraction from what is really important and to answer the OP I don't think past associations will have much of an effect on Obama's (or the other candidate's) positions going forward.

10-09-2008, 10:18 AM	#61 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	asking oneself and conducting research about possible correlation of racism to electoral preference is NOT the same thing as claiming "everyone who does not support obama is a racist" ace. this is pretty rudimentary logic. i don't see the point of this discussion. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 11:08 AM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace: what do you imagine polling to be concerned with? look at almost anything deeper than a "who are you voting for" poll and you find question after question like "which issue matters to you?" or "how important is x in your decision?" don't you actually look at these things? they're kinda goofy, i think, and certainly don't mean anything unless you know about the methodology and sample--and even then, they're kinda useless---but in the american pseudo-democracy where consumption-freedom, they're indices of voter consumer preferences. here, i'll help you find a bunch so you can see for yourself. Pollster.com - Political Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis lots and lots of polls, ace. look for yourself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 11:34 AM	#69 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, it's a little more complicated than that--the weather underground were kinda on the same order as the autonomen and baader-meinhof group which used actions directed against buildings or prominent individuals as a way of demonstrating that the existing order couldn't maintain the control it pretended to as a way of either undermining the legitimacy of the system as a whole or as a way of trying to accomplish a more limited objective (ending the war in vietnam, which the weathermen pushed into the logic of the existing order as a whole)...so at that level, the term "terrorism" actually named a tactic. i think it turned out to be a bad tactic, accomplishing the opposite from what was intended...but it was part of the death rattle of the anarchist wing of the new left. none of this stuff has a space in the whitewashed revisionist world of contemporary far-right revisionism made general, and the term "terrorism" is a good index of that--the shift from something that was a self-evidently political tactic to a term that denies the existence of political motivations beyond being Pissy or Jealous or whatever other cretin subjectivising term you want. fact is that there was every reason to oppose the war in vietnam, and by the early 1970s, had i been old enough, i would have been active in the opposition and can very easily imagine myself seriously considering something like what the weather underground did---i wouldn't support it now because i know how the story turned out---but i can see why they felt it might work, or why they'd be so pissed off with the evil that was the united states in its vietnam war period that they'd resort to those tactics. the reason that i find this whole redbaiting smear thing so thoroughly distasteful and offensive, really, is that there was EVERY reason to oppose the war in vietnam and EVERY reason to oppose the american political and economic orders which enabled it to happen. so there was EVERY reason to support that opposition, even if you do not agree with the tactics of particular groups. so there's NO PROBLEM with being associated with william ayers. but the fact is that obama was NOT particularly associated with him----this has already been dredged through in this endless sporting event of a campaign. but coming from palin, now, this is pretty fucking vile stuff. check out the thread in "found on the net" for some lovely footage of pissy fasco-republicans at a palin speech. it's lovely. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 11:45 AM	#71 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace--like i said, asking questions and conducting research implies a hypothesis or a question. i'm interested in the results--but i suspect that the state of affairs in the states is such that it's more ok to be a racist than it is to say you're one. so i don't know what the polls will show. i'm not surprised the question's come up, though. are you arguing that it should not have? on what basis? saying "if you do not support obama, you're a racist" is totally different from asking a question and conducting research to see what it might lead to. and the first does not come from the second, except maybe for someone with an axe to grind, who's maybe concerned about the results of a poll being embarassing. but like i said at the outset of this, i don't know what such polls would find. doesn't mean it's not an interesting question. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-09-2008 at 11:47 AM..

10-09-2008, 12:09 PM	#73 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, that would mean that you probably wouldn't have designed the poll that way. i don't put a whole lot of stock in polls, like i said earlier. but i also don't doubt that for some folk, racism is a factor. but i still don't know what a poll would tell you about that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 01:33 PM	#74 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I dont know if the poll methodology is a good one or not, but I dont know how anyone can deny that race and racial attitudes is a factor in this campaign like none before. The question is how much and that is very difficult to measure...but a few points in some key battleground states doesnt seen out of line to me. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-09-2008, 01:57 PM	#76 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I'm really not interested in arguing over nonsense. It's becoming clear that a large portion of people are going to start agitating for regulation of political messages and that's dangerous at the fundamental level but evidently is becoming increasingly more palatable. As for what to do now, I'm thinking of organizing a boycott against companies that advertise in proximity to slanderous political advertisements. I don't know how I would get enough people behind it simply on the basis of letting them know about such a boycott, but I suspect Obama has enough supporters that even a portion of them upset at how these ads are coming across would make a boycott effective. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-09-2008, 02:12 PM	#77 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	smooth....I'm not sure what you mean by advertise in "proximity" to slanderous ads. It sounds like holding companies accountable for something beyond their control. In any case, it was interesting to read a report by an independent univeristy research organization that reviews political ads that in the last week or so, McCain's ads are nearly 100% negative (about whats wrong with Obama and not what McCain would do as president) while Obama's ads have been about 30% negative and 70% about his policies and proposals. I just dont believe the negative ads will work this year as much as they have in the past, with the economy hanging over everyone's head like no issue in recent elections. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-09-2008, 04:15 PM	#79 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	actually, i like this idea. boycotts and other forms of consume revolt (taken beyond a certain scale, that's what they are) are useful tools, and i think the effect of this would be to put a dent in the atwater/rove school of politics-as-slander. and why shouldn't people organize themselves toward such an end--it's not a viable argument that this is censorship because there's no regulation involved--rather it's a redefinition of community standards--and the adverts are themselves such a redefinition--but they're one that demonstrates the imbalance of power which obtains between capital and people, the former dominating the latter entirely. there's no prohibition on the atwater/rove aesthetic--only consequences. if the republicans want to buy up blocks of advertising time to run their idiot adverts one after the other, they can. if companies want their brand associated with these adverts, they're free to let em run---if they aren't, it's easy enough to hang stipulations (like earmarking funding). television outlets will comply, because they're interested in money. it's a form of freedom in action to force these adverts to become materially what they already are--a kind of stench that wafts over american pseudo-democracy, turning everything around them to shit. if you want a hand organizing, smooth, let me know. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2008, 06:37 PM	#80 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I applaud the noble sentiment, but just dont see the practicality or likelihood of organizing a national boycott campaign in less than a month. Anything beyond that and you are, in effect, proposing to punish commercial advertisers for not taking correction action after the fact. A more reasonable approach, IMO, would be to focus on regulatory reform of political advertising over the next four years. That would include a return of some form of "fairness doctrine" that would require allowing a candidate to run an ad immediately following any ad by the opposing candidate (or any 527 org) that uses the first candidate's name and/or image in an ad. I would add other provisions....one i can think of off the top of my head would be requiring ads to run a scroll across the bottom for the full length of the ad when using actors to portray real people (no, one of the swiftboaters was not a swiftboat vet...it was an actor). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-09-2008 at 06:40 PM..