Saturday, October 04, 2008

PALIN: OBAMA 'PALLING AROUND WITH TERRORISTS'

Nothing like an unpatriotic lie from a vice presidential candidate to bring Fat Jack out of a national political hiatus.

From USA Today.

Today in Colorado Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country". At one time McCain claimed these kinds of swift-boat lies were abhorrent and that he was better than that. Now, it seems he feels it is appropriate.

Next, we will start seeing those stupid and erroneous emails about Obama being a foreign-born Muslim. It all reminds me of this post and this post one of which is about a guy who thinks that just because he dated an African American once, that he gets a free pass to spew hateful racism.

I'm not sure what bothers me more. The fact that they would do it – because I know there is no such thing as a Christian politian – or the fact that McCain has already come out defending the attack.

13 comments:

Joe Albers said...

Jack
Let me help you on your facts.

Fact: Bill Aryes is an admitted domestic terrorist.

Fact: Bill Aryes is at the very least, has been a friend of Obama.

Fact: Bill Aryes and and Obama have given speeches together.

Sounds to me like Palin has her facts right, and is right to call into question his character in light of these friendships.

The problem here is that Obama has a history of having these questionable friendships, and why is it that when people look into this do they get threatened with political retribution.

Sky Girl said...

This Joe Albers guy showed up on my blog spewing this garbage as well. Hey, Joe, got a blog?

As I pointed out to Joe on my blog, this crap is written about in Corsi's book, edited by Mary Matalin, hardly an unbiased source.

It's also been debunked by factcheck.org, a nonpartisan website.

To quote an underqualified candidate for V.P., "say it ain't so, Joe." Stop spreading these lies.

And Sarah Palin shoudl be ashamed, but it just shows how desperate the McCain camp has become.

Jason said...

SG, I went to factcheck.org and read the document on Corsi's book and while it claims to denounce Obama's connection to Bill Ayers you can see that there really was no refutation. Just Obama saying that people shouldn't think because he knows the guy that he would be influenced by them.

Obama didn't actually refute the claims that were stated by Stephanopoulos in the question. Obama's own campaign said they were friendly then Obama called him "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." So we should automatically believe Obama's telling the truth and his campaign staff was wrong?

He also has not denounced Ayers' statements about 9/11.

If you want to get technical, Obama said "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis" which seems to imply that he has exchanged ideas with him.

If John McCain said that someone wasn't an influence on him would you consider that proven fact to the point people should just ignore it? Palin said she didn't try to censor books...do you still believe that she did? If so, does that mean Obama's the only politician in the world who tells the truth?

I know you're an Obama supporter but you need to be a little more forthcoming here. What was claimed on factcheck.org isn't really a conclusive debunking of the claims because a candidate saying "that's not true" isn't enough of a standard unless you want to give that same standard to McCain & Palin.

Sky Girl said...

Jason,

As I also pointed out on my blog, if we're gonna get technical about everybody that somebody once knew or associated with, or shook hands with, or talked to once, then McCain's got a lot of explaining to do himself.

Obama has never endorsed the statement made by Bill Ayers. You're statement that he has not denounced it implies he agrees with it. Do John McCain and Sarah Palin endorse every statement they have not specifically denounced by every person they have ever known?

Um, I've never said Palin tried to censor books. I have not said this because the veracity of the claims that she did have been unclear.

Anonymous said...

Obama launched his political career at the Ayers residence and won his Senate seat by using lawyers to disallow the signatures of the political opponent to have her removed from the ballot. It seems to me that if a person, no matter who they are, must always backtrack and disavow their associates who come under scrutiny, then my concern who will they pick up again when they are beyond the election. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, look at Factcheck.org - it seems that majority of the information is supportive of Obama and notice that it is Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Suddenly questionable even with its disclaimers. That is part of politics - disclaim that which is detrimental to your campaign if discovered. As far as Sarah Palin and her fauz pas with her interviews with Katie Couric et al, at least she has opened herself to scrutiny and let the chips fall where they may; whereas I doubt that Obama would ever answer the questions of Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham or others. They feel that she is not experienced enough but she has the limited luxury of learning on the job as VP - Obama does not as President.

Complaint Department Manager said...

We hear this kind of garbage from a V.P. candidate who has ties to the likes of Witch Doctor Muthee? Man, that's low. It was only a matter of time before the fear machine started rolling. It's all they have left.

Anonymous said...

Try this one and look at the date and where:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtmlfjviymh

Ryan said...

Jack,

In regards to:

I'm not sure what bothers me more. The fact that they would do it – because I know there is no such thing as a Christian politian – or the fact that McCain has already come out defending the attack.

There can be a Christian who is a plotician. These things are not mutually exclusive. What is true is that a politician has an almost impossible task of living a life that exemplifies that faith.

In regards to the "attacks" What I find interesting is the lack of personal responsibility when a person begins talking about the someone who will be the President. If there is documented evidence that a person did something than it can't be an attack because the event is true. Calling someone an Christian who is an atheist would be an attack. If I know that a person who will be President has ANY association with a terrorist and I say that, it is not an attack. It is truth.

On your advice, I started a blog. It is cathartic, you are the friend at the beginning.

Joe Albers said...

SG
I did not use Jerome Corsi's book as reference for my comments on this post. I have not read Corsi's book. However, I have done a bit more research, and now have a post outlining the facts of Obama's connection with Bill Ayers. It is on my blog, The Albers Report.

Complaint Department Manager said...

Ryan, good point and with that I say we bring to light Palin's involvement with the Alaskan Indepence party as early as this year. Her own husband was a member of the secessionist movement, I say we look at that. Secessionists are people are referred to as traitors, yeah BIG look at that. We should also take a look at the affiliation with Thomas Muthee, this nut job still believes in witchcraft and ran a woman out of town because of it.

All of these are issues that have closer ties to home with the McCain/Palin ticket than Barack Obama and his alledged affiliations.

Jack said...

Ryan

I'm glad you started a blog. Send me the link and I'll announce it on my blog.

As for the Christian politician thing, I've been thinking about that ever since you mentioned it yesterday. This is a very interesting conversation. I'm going to blog about it and get all kinds of folks to chime in (if they want to). More on that later.

Here's the thing with the Obama attacks. That Time article said they were not friends. But she left that out, didn't she? That's politics. Spin.

Mischaracterizing a person is an attack. Simply putting out facts is not. For instance, let's say I start making accusations that Palin is for book banning and the hunting of witches. She has connections to people with these extremist views, one of which even laid hands on her and prayed. BUT, that does not mean that she actually believes in reinvigorating the Salem Witch Trials. But I could start implying such. That would be an attack.

What's happening with Obama is the McCain/Palin campaign are doing things like using his middle name (Hussein) on the campaign trail. They frame him as "different" and talk about him being a terrorist.

The wife saw footage last night of Palin getting a crowd worked up, and when she did this to Obama, someone in the crowd yelled "Kill him!"

Kill Him! That is very dangerous ground for any presidential candidate to traverse.

Any way you slice it, in my opinion, that is an attack and it is meant to get people on board with the racism or Muslim attacks. "Different"

Sky Girl said...

Joe,

I am in the process of writing a post on this issue as well. I hope you'll stop by.

And I really did mean the note I put on your blog saying hello and welcome.

SG

Jennifer C. said...

I'm wondering why the GOP is talking about Ayers instead of the economy, the war, healthcare, education, etc. Obviously, they have no ideas, no solutions, no change.

Obama was 8 when Ayers was participating in questionable behavior. The GOP needs to move on - but they are in need of some pot stirring since the polls are dropping for their side. I hope voters can see past the lies and distractions.