Are you kididng me?

[Red Door]

Oh please. Read my post again, and don't try to spin this as some sort of free speech issue. Nobody is trying to have the government take this off the air, and nobody is trying to impugn the entire left.

Obama should repudiate this ad. It's very easy to run a campaign based on a "new style of politics" when you have 527s running all your attack ads for you.



He should have. Is Obama taking cues from George Bush now?

You certainly are by the style of your writing.

Once again, Obama has nothing to do with this ad. He's not involved with it, once again. If he wants to denounce it, he can go ahead. If Obama says he's running his campaign based on a "new style of politics," why should he tell detractors of McCain what to say? It's not part of his campaign, it's part of a group's campaign to stop John McCain. Obama has run plenty of attack ads himself, just like all politicians do. To repeat myself, this ad has nothing to do with Barack Obama and shouldn't be painted as such, although you're trying extremely hard to do so.

Obama is taking cues from politicians, just as politicians should.

 

[Cutlass]

"Swiftboating" is an irrelevant attack on a candidate's character. It's certainly worse if lies are told, but they don't have to be there.

But arguing about definitions is stupid. You and I both know what the ad is. What we call it doesn't really matter.

Yes, we do know what that ad is. That ad is a mild negative opion by someone who once knew McCain well. Nothing more and nothing less.

There is no reason for Obama to repudiate it, or even acknowledge it's existence.

You are completely blowing this out of proportion.

 

[Gogf]

Oh, so "lunatic left" is a co-referential term with "exactly who created this ad, no one more, and no one less"? That's a nice post-hoc justification for the rampant double standard in your OP!!! If "lunatic left" is really co-referential with "exactly who created this ad, no more, and no less", then it certainly is a deceptive term to use!

It's not. "Lunatic left" includes the people who ran this ad, the people who ran a full-page New York Times ad saying "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" the day before he testified to Congress, and the people who blow up labs that do testing involving animals. It does not include EVERYONE who leans to the left.

I don't see how this is any different from when people talk about right-wing religious fundamentalists.

If the ad gains enough momentum to be a big deal, then fine, denounce it or whatever. But if candidates were supposed to spend all day denouncing stupid people who are completely unaffiliated with them, then they'd have no more time in the day for anything else! This seems to be an issue where ignoring it would be a much more prudent choice.

Perhaps this is the case. I saw it during NBC Nightly News and Real Clear Politics picked up the story at least, though, so I don't think it's going to be one of those ads that nobody notices.

 

[Gogf]

You certainly are by the style of your writing.

Once again, Obama has nothing to do with this ad. He's not involved with it, once again. If he wants to denounce it, he can go ahead. If Obama says he's running his campaign based on a "new style of politics," why should he tell detractors of McCain what to say? It's not part of his campaign, it's part of a group's campaign to stop John McCain. Obama has run plenty of attack ads himself, just like all politicians do. To repeat myself, this ad has nothing to do with Barack Obama and shouldn't be painted as such, although you're trying extremely hard to do so.

It doesn't matter whether it's part of his political campaign or not. McCain lost the 2000 Republican nomination to Bush because independent groups were calling South Carolina voters and "polling" them to ask whether "it would change their mind if they knew about John McCain's illegitimate black child." Whether or not a group is associated with you or not, when they do something this outrageous, it's important to repudiate them.

I guess it's somewhat similar to how countries all over the world immediately come out and repudiate terrorist attacks when they happen. It doesn't matter whether or not they were associated with them in any way.

Obama is taking cues from politicians, just as politicians should.

So you think it's okay for Obama to takes cues from George Bush's 2004 political campaign run by... Carl Rove? Awesome! So much for a new kind of politics!

 

[El_Machinae]

If asked, Obama should say "I don't endorse negative 527s, I wish they wouldn't run their ads, because it doesn't help the debate".

McCain should say the same thing, of course.

 

[Gogf]

I agree. And on second thought, perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, but I'm really distressed at the direction this election is taking. I really expected a McCain/Obama election to be a very respectful contest, but this really doesn't seem to be heading in this direction. I'm worried this is the forerunner of more ads like this from both sides, and Obama condemning it could set a very important precedent for these groups to look at.

 

[bhsup]

IF they don't run the ads, they are not responsible for them and should not have to condemn them.

Kinda like how Catholics shouldn't have to apologize for decades of terrorism by the IRA and Muslims today shouldn't have to apologize for Al-Queada, Hamas, and the rest.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just keep in mind that neither candidate can actually be blamed for this ad. At least not yet. Just like we can't blame McCain for some of the BS defenses people do on the boards regarding Palin.

I wished for a higher level of debate. Don't forget who hired Rove's team, though.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Jesus Gogf, this is hardly the first time in this election that such an ad has been run. Remember the time that nut tried to claim that he had sex with Barack Obama?

I mean, it's hardly of consequence anyway and might be useful to some sectors of the population (of course not mine), but I don't see what's so wrong about it that it should be removed from the air. This is just par for the course.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Moderator Action: Thread title changed...

 

[Cutlass]

I agree. And on second thought, perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, but I'm really distressed at the direction this election is taking. I really expected a McCain/Obama election to be a very respectful contest, but this really doesn't seem to be heading in this direction. I'm worried this is the forerunner of more ads like this from both sides, and Obama condemning it could set a very important precedent for these groups to look at.

Obama hasn't really been negative yet. It's McCain's work to make it ugly.

 

[Trajan12]

I agree. And on second thought, perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, but I'm really distressed at the direction this election is taking. I really expected a McCain/Obama election to be a very respectful contest, but this really doesn't seem to be heading in this direction. I'm worried this is the forerunner of more ads like this from both sides, and Obama condemning it could set a very important precedent for these groups to look at.

I doubt it. It's like Nuclear Proliferation.

"Drop the gun!"

"I will when you drop yours!"

"Okay, same time."

"1, 2, 3...."

"You didn't drop it! You were gonna shoot me!"

 

[El_Machinae]

I've already seen reports of anti-Obama push polling.

 

[Gogf]

I've already seen reports of anti-Obama push polling.

Yes, exactly like the push-poll you had originally quoted in that message. That is just as disgusting.

 

[AngryZealot]

If asked, Obama should say "I don't endorse negative 527s, I wish they wouldn't run their ads, because it doesn't help the debate".

McCain should say the same thing, of course.

Obama already did that. It's part of the reason why he neglected public financing; he requested people send the money to the campaign directly instead of to the 527s. Remember the town hall meeting dispute a while back? Those negotiations included reining in the 527s; part of the reason Obama did not accept the debate challenge was that the McCain campaign was uninterested in what the 527s did.

All that said, I don't see what's terribly negative about this ad.

"I can say with great authority that the prisoner of war experience is not a good prerequisite for being president of the United States." That's an innocent enough statement. And it's true. McCain has even said the same thing himself.

"He was well known as a very volatile guy and he would blow up and go off like a roman candle." This is also well known. He's gone off on the senate floor before.

"John McCain is not somebody that I would like to see with his finger near the red button." A statement of opinion, so not much to say about it.


Let's not confuse negativity with attacks based in facts.

 

[illram]

It doesn't matter whether it's part of his political campaign or not. McCain lost the 2000 Republican nomination to Bush because independent groups were calling South Carolina voters and "polling" them to ask whether "it would change their mind if they knew about John McCain's illegitimate black child." Whether or not a group is associated with you or not, when they do something this outrageous, it's important to repudiate them...

Hmm interesting. I guess the McCain camp disagrees with you on the importance of repudiating such behavior, because they just hired the guy that smeared him in SC.

 

[GenMarshall]

To be perficly honest, I want Obama to denounce this video. Though more than likely he wont do no such thing and cast it off as just another ad he did not approved of.

Somehow, I am getting the feeling the more negative ads Obama or any of the leftist groups put out, only makes me more sympathetic towards McCain and more closer to support him.

 

[holy king]

Moderator Action: Thread title changed...

wait, you actually changed it into "Are you kididng me?

 

[Gogf]

wait, you actually changed it into "Are you kididng me?

It used to be "are you f-ing kiding me?" I was a little annoyed when I made this thread .

Thanks to GA for fixing that up.

 

[holy king]

i'm talking about the typo.