Ben Smith, predictably spinning the Palin/C*nt t-shirt wearers:

She added that McCain had, reportedly, used the word himself, "so is it really that offensive?" And she said none of the people pictured were Democrats.

What's the sourcing for that, Ben? Ah yes -- there is none. It is a vigorously repeated lefty rumor. If there were a cite, he could have just provided it, rather than resort to the evasive passive voice locution "reportedly."

Reported? By whom?

I didn't say it was reported by anyone. I said reportedly.

Well, reportedly, the sources for the Ayers story are a couple of people who are fearful of reprisals by Obama's thugs. The difficulty with the sourcing is that they'd like to remain anonymous... and safe.

Does this merit a reportedly mention by Ben Smith?

Of course not. It merits a blackout.

Reportedly, the rules are different for stories that might damage The One.

Doesn't matter. Someone with more balls, at a real news organization, has the story now anyway.

Reportedly, Ben Smith will be giving up a Drudge-alanche/everyone-alanche scoop because he's a partisan who claims that McCain reportedly called his wife a cunt (in obvious jest, by the way, if you know the full quote), but who thinks there's something shady about people being kind of afraid of Obama's thugs and wanting their names kept off the record.

Incidentally, there is an obvious journalistic response to this situation. Even if one is uncomfortable with off-the-record allegations, there are ways to do this.

Simple shit. Simple crap reporters have been doing for 100 years. As in: Call the Obama camp, and tell them you are willing to not run the story but only so long as Obama himself agrees to answer questions about it and provide a denial by his own mouth. And not merely through his spokesmen, who are free to lie as flagrantly as they want, and then merely claim later, when their stories are proven false, that they "misspoke."

And if Obama doesn't want to answer the questions, the story is considered substantiated by omission, and runs.

This is the way it's done.

At least Once Upon a Time when reporters actually dared to ask questions of presidential candidates.

At least one more media outlet has this, by the way, but has the same excess of protectiveness of The One as Smith. At this point, I frankly believe it's an open secret in the media, but no one will bother reporting it.

Or, if they're uncomfortable with the sourcing, even getting Obama on-record about it.

The media knows damn well what they'll find if they start asking about the Ayers-Obama relationship. Indeed, they've already found far too much for their liking. So they've decided just not to ask.

No calls for a press conference like we see daily with Sarah Palin. Obama has been ducking this issue for 20 months and only two questions have been asked of him about this, both reluctantly, and only after vigorous prompting by Hillary Clinton.

And then the rest of the press howled with outrage that such impertinent questions were asked about the closet terror-buddy of a... candidate... for... President... of the United States of America.

How dare they! A man's personal affairs with terrorists are his private business!

So here we are. We have two people willing to tell their own part of the story of the Ayers-Dohrn-Obama relationship, and the media is telling them, "Oh, sure, we'll report it... Maybe. So long as you put yourselves in danger by putting your names out to the public. Surely we cannot afford you the 'off the record' courtesy we provide to every fucking Sub-Bureaucrat in the Department of Bullshit in every meaningless story we write. You and you alone --you common citizens without a GS schedule -- must brave political and personal reprisals under your own names."

Thanks to Treacher.

Posted by: Ace at 02:07 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 656 words, total size 4 kb.

Instead of a dupe post.

Posted by: Ace at 01:41 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed.

Actions have consequences.

If Obama wins, the left (and media) will declare that now is the time to rise above partisanship.

I will answer the same way they did to Bush's similar call in January 2001.

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

I caught the Bears-Atlanta game. Pretty wild.

Now what's all this other crap? Rams down Skins? Arizona takes down Dallas? Every game pretty much decided with no time left on the clock?

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

A slight narrowing from Obama's current 51-45 lead.

This wouldn't mean all that much, except that Gallup also has it narrowing down from double digits to 7, or four with likelies (six if a new model of likely voter is used which assumes that many more first time voters will vote this time... not an unreasonable guess, but still, even by that metric, it's only six... and not 10).

And the Zogster has it narrowing from six to four.

All of these little tiny changes are statistically meaningless, except that they're all cross-confirming, making them kinda meaningful.

Dick Morris had a theory, which I thought sounded okay. "McCain lost this race," he declared. "But having lost it, now all attention shifts to Obama. And now the public focuses on Obama. They might decide he should lose the race too, and more than McCain should."

Can McCain/Palin win? Yes.

All the more reason for the monkey man morons to stay home and watch rallies on television where they can masturbate to Soldier of Fortune and Modern Lynching to their heart's content.

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Just like they did during the Clinton years.

When the left raged for eight years straight, suddenly rage wasn't newsworthy. If anything, it was understandable (hey, the MSM understood it!), and so not worth a story.

Well, the right's pretty mad lately. And looky here -- the MSM is suddenly all about rage again!

Well, if rage is a good story, how about noting the rage on the left, too?

Or has the media "objectively" determined that the left's rage is justified?

And would you like to buy a nifty t-shirt declaring Sarah Palin a Cunt?

But that's not rage -- that's just witty wordplay.

This doesn't change the fact that I'm sick of the apologists for the lunatics and numbskulls in our own party, and I'm tired of people making excuses for them instead of telling them they're fucking morons whose primary vehicle of expression should be Pictionary, not political rallies where our candidates are present.

Posted by: Ace at 10:05 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Re: Sitting on it

Got two sources, Ben?

I say you do.

Two of 'em. Count 'em. One... two.

Waiting for three? Four? How many? Give me a ballpark number. How many sources does it take for a negative story about Obama? I know the accepted number is two, but two isn't enough for The One.

Oh, I know, I know... you're probably pretending the two sources count together as something like one and a half. Okay.

So you just need one more? Again, clarify.

If you don't have two sources, well then! I can hook you up with someone who does. Assuming you have at least one, that must be a different one, and together you'll have three.

If you don't have at least one, well, I guess Hillbuzz was wrong and you really don't have much of a story.

Your fake-pretend internet friend,

Ace

Foreign Press Showing More Interest in Ayers than Our Own Foreign Press: Yeah, not a misprint. We have the overseas foreign press and the mainland foreign press. I prefer the overseas foreign press.

Michelle Obama and possibly also Barack Obama worked at the same law firm at the same time as Dohrn in 1984-88, while in 1995 Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge using a $US50 million grant and selected Barack Obama to be the first chairman of the board of the project, a position that Obama held for eight years. Obama and Ayers also served together on the board of the philanthropic Woods Fund for three years after Obama joined the board in 1999. Obama also served on the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Education Fund with Ayers's father and brother.

These facts cast doubt on the recent claims by Obama's campaign manager that Obama knew Ayers only slightly and only because they lived in the same neighbourhood and their children went to the same school. Apart from the above connections, Ayers's children are much older than Obama's.

Equally unlikely is the claim that Obama knew nothing of Ayers and Dohrn's terrorist past. As Corsi remarks, people familiar with Chicago politics "wonder how Obama can think we are so gullible as to believe Obama was the only person in Chicago who did not know Ayers's bomb-throwing terrorist fame".

But even if there was a long-term association between Obama and Ayers and Dohrn, is that necessarily a bad thing?

The answer requires a brief review of the turbulent time of the 1960s when Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of the Weathermen and signatories of the ultra-radical manifesto You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows, released at the national convention of the revolutionary Students for a Democratic Society in June 1969.

This 20,000-word manifesto called for a communist revolution in the US; the victory of communist North Vietnam in the Vietnam War; and the creation of "two, three, many Vietnams" designed to consume all of America's military resources. It denounced all police as "pigs" and detailed strategies to defeat them; and advocated a vanguard role for black people, supported by university students and young people, in the revolutionary overthrow of American society.

The Weathermen advocated urban guerilla warfare and terrorism and undertook an intense campaign of bombings, violent demonstrations, riots and jail breaks from 1969 into the early '70s, beginning with the Days of Rage, held in October 1969, to correspond to the trial of the Chicago Eight. In 1970, the group issued their Declaration of a State of War against the government of what they dismissed as AmeriKKKa.

Ayers participated in 30 bombings in this period, including attacks on the New York Police Department headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.

Ayers had gone underground as a terrorist following a lethal mistake in a Greenwich Village townhouse, in which three members of the Weathermen were killed (including Ayers's then girlfriend) when a nail bomb being constructed as an anti-personnel device exploded.

In 1970, Ayers (whose father was a wealthy chief executive of a large telecommunications company and later obtained his son's freedom from prison) described the Weathermen's message: "Kill all rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

Similarly with Dohrn. After the Charles Manson-led Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969, Dohrn enthused: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"

Read the whole thing.

Thanks to Curtis.

Another Ayers Vid... more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 PM | Comments (162)
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.

See what I mean?

Was he a plant? I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.

There are some unsophisticated people who simply have no conception of how their stupidity will play on the national stage, and I wish they would, like Dirty Harry advised Briggs, know their limitations.

Great, another 24 hours of bad news when we have only 23 days left to make up 6 or so points at the polls.

Thanks, idiot!

Okay: I give up. I have been informed that people are mad and their right to vent in obnoxiously stupid ways on cameras at campaign rallies embarrassing our candidates is more important than winning the election.

I give up. Vent. Encourage it. Go to a rally and shout it yourselves. Clap when other imbeciles embarrass your candidates and make them walk away from the attacks they were planning on making.

Because venting anger is really, really important, and God knows it's not the same unless it's being broadcast on television into the faces of our candidates.

By the way:

If this is all mobies, why are so many conservatives defending this?

Anyway, I give up. You = right, me = wrong. Yelling unhinged shit always helps win elections. I didn't know that before, but now I do.

Posted by: Ace at 06:39 PM | Comments (343)
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Some Republicans are, alas, the exact same sort of unsophisticated angry morons who shout things like "Terrorist" about Obama when McCain is speaking, thus putting him on the extreme defensive, or having temper tantrums on blogs when the proprietor requests they refrain from exposing him to any lawsuits.

They substantially vindicate every stereotype the left and MSM has about us, and make the rest of us not only look bad, but make us squeamish from even being political associates. And they lose us precious votes.

And yet these screamers and tantrum-throwers really think they're the ones helping the team. These malformed, brain-damaged shut-in angry monsters think they've got the right message to carry to the non-deformed, non-retarded demographics.

Wanna know why we're losing? Wanna know why McCain had to make a statement about Obama not being dangerous and being a good and decent man?

Because you geniuses embarrassed him with your stupidity and compelled him to say that.

1% of LGF's commenters embarrassed him greatly and got him widely called a "hate site." Because these fucking imbeciles just thought their scary brilliant pathologies were just too important to not be shared publicly.

99% of readers and commenters are great. It's the 1% of brain-damaged, ignorant mutants that always causes all the embarrassment. On blogs. And at campaign rallies.

And once again: They think they're the ones who have the important messaging which will win over America.

For God's sakes, you embarrass your own would-be political allies. How can you delude yourselves?

At some point, if you really had something valuable to contribute, don't you think someone would have said "Great point, man!" by now?

Can you begin to consider the possibility that you are consistently ignored, and have to resort to shouting "Terrorist" or throwing temper-tantrums on blogs, is because you're a mutant idiot that non-mutants non-idiots just don't have time for? And perhaps you'd best go back to just lurking?

Consider: Earlier today I, a fairly prominent blogger, was pushing the Obama gal-pal story, helping to get it out there.

Now I have deleted it, and will not be posting it again. I'm done with the story.

All because a nasty pathetic wretch of a "man" thought that he would show me by repeatedly spamming a name I'd asked people not to.

Just like with McCain, ready to attack Obama until retards started shouting out "Muslim" and "terrorist' and saying Obama was an "Arab."

So, yellers/mutants:

How do you plan on helping the cause tomorrow? By further so embarrassing leaders and writers into stopping all attacks on Obama?

Brilliant.

Posted by: Ace at 03:32 PM | Comments (460)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Saturday night I was watching Fox News (go figure) and caught three morons (no relation to anyone here) and one half way decent lady talking about this election season being rough. Two Democrat talking heads were going on about the alleged racism of the McCain campaign. Their point is that, of course there is racism and McCain's campaign is catering to it. Just exactly who is Palin talking to anyway when she's talking to "Joe-Six-Pack"?

Isn't she talking to all of those low-brow, low wage earners who live in trailers, drink beer, watch Fox News on their 10 year old tv and think its amusing to burp the alphabet? After all, isn't that the only people who would be so crass as to disdain the Obama-messiah, going against the historical destiny of our nation to elect the first black president?

You know, my grandpa was kind of like Joe Biden's dad. He was always saying really homey, cool stuff. Like, "Girly," he always called me "girly" because I'm a girl. He'd say, "Girly, if you're gonna be arrested for stealin' a pack of cigarettes, you might as well steal a carton."

It's time that all the AoSHQ people came out of the closet and admit it. You live in trailer parks and drink beer. Or, at least, you have visited a trailer park or even driven by one a couple of times. You have definitely drank a beer or some other alcohol related beverage once in your life. Even if it was only communion wine at some friends wedding.

Of course, you support McCain. He is married to the ultimate queen of Joe Six Pack: the heiress of a beer distributor. That fact alone makes Cindy and John McCain tantamount to the Grand Dragons of AmeriKKKa. Every time Sarah Palin uses the word "Joe Six Pack" it's obviously a coded signal to the rest of the Klan to leave the trailer park, burn crosses, drink more beer, burp the alphabet and vote for John McCain.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:59 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 1219 words, total size 7 kb.