Did Obama call Ayers squeaky clean?
Or did he call him a good citizen?
Is it possible to actually be a good citizen, even with a radicalized past, or does the membership in the Weather Underground close that door forever?
Again, can you take the Ayers discussion to another thread? This thread is about The Obama Nation.
In all fairness, this isn’t even a tu quoque or anything, it’s a response by Mr. Moto to a particular point of Obama’s (or someone in the campaign’s) response to the book reviled in the OP. Looks relevant to me. In what way do you think it is not?
It’s not relevant because it’s a single refutation of a single point, in Unfit for Publication, in which it is admitted that Bill Ayers was a Weatherman in the 60s. It’s ridiculous to sidetrack the entire thread on a single point that is a teensy little piece of the entirety that makes up The Obama Nation, especially since no one is arguing that Bill Ayers wasn’t a Weatherman. But no one is arguing (successfully) that he isn’t a legitimate professor and public figure in Chicago these days either, except for those looking purely to smear Obama. It derails the thread to no good purpose to go on and on arguing about it here. If it’s that big a deal to people, they should take it to another thread. IMHO.
:dubious: Oh, come on. Any attempted refutation of the refutation of the book is going to be argued to death.
The only way your feeling is correct is if this thread is only for those of us who wish to pile onto Corsi. Sorry, but it’s not. Posters are certainly within their rights to argue that his points are correct, regardless of how woefully misguided and confused they may be.
There is no more appropriate thread for Mr. Moto to argue his points about Ayers and the book than this one.
Y’know, ever since I joined this board, there has been a theme from the conservative side that the board has a liberal slant. There is certainly some truth to that. What I have not seen is complaint from the conservative side that liberals are telling them to shut the fuck up, and I hope we don’t go there.
Fine. By all means, go ahead and derail the thread. I am not a moderator.
Mind you, I made a couple of points originally. But no matter.
The Obama Overreach - Refuting a Few of Corsi’s Smears by Rewriting History.
This from Jake Tapper’s blog on ABCNews.com.
Did you guys think I’d be the only one to notice these things? Do you think Tapper will be the only newsman going over this refutation closely?
I said Obama should have dismissed this whole mess in general terms. I think I’ll be shown to be correct in that view.
Actually, I’m not fond of Corsi. I think my argument ought to be characterized as a critique of Obama’s response to him, and not a defense of him in any sense.
In any case, you’re right that this thread is the place to make it.
Neither am I. You, however, are junior modding, on a completely nonsensical and absolutely incorrect point.
In what way is a defense of the book criticized in the OP irrelevant to the thread?
In exchange, I shall retract the word “woefully”. 
Mr. Moto, by your logic, Obama’s damned if he does and he’s damned if he doesn’t. I imagine that suits you just fine, since I assume you want Obama to lose, but just how is one supposed to deny something in general terms without addressing it in some detail? Kerry showed us that ignoring absurdities was not effective. I think just dismissing the book in generalities would amount to about the same thing. Only by refuting essentially point by point can the Democrats get the talking points out there on the political talk shows that end up influencing the water cooler discussions and forwarded emails.
We don’t know yet if it will work. But it seems a better approach than what we tried last time, in which out and out lies won the day. Without the talking points, we’re left attacking the credibility of the author (and admittedly, there’s a lot to attack). But people know that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. It’s better to have specific refutations in hand, preferably by surrogates and supporters, so that Obama can continue to float above the fray personally.
Frank, you’re quite right; I missed where his named had come up in the book as anything but a neighbor of Obama’s, and I apologize. :o
His campaign doesn’t have to do so - the Corsi book is being torn to shreds in the media right now, point by point. Why do your own dirty work, especially if there’s a chance, demonstrated here, that you’ll fuck it up?
That blog is pretty lame. The complaint about the “Bush-Cheney machine” is just empty whining. Corsi was one of the lead fuckboys for Bush-Cheney in '04 and literally wrote the book on Swiftboating. It is fair to say he was part of the Bush machine in’04 and ran point on the smearing of John Kerry.
The thing on Palmer is just wrong. She dropped out on her own. Obama did not “fight her for the nomination.” She then changed her mind and wanted back in, and Obama said no, but it’s a mischaracterization to say that he “fought her” as though he were the aggressor. That’s like saying that aaron Rodgers fought Brett Favre for the starting job in Green Bay. Calling Obama a “liar” about this is just wrong.
Regarding McPeak, “anti-Israel” is definitely code for “antisemite.” Let’s be real.
You didn’t quote this part, but the blog also accuses the Obama camp of being “over the top” in characterizing the stupid “plagiarism” charge as “baseless and desperate,” but he doesn’t say why that’s over the top, since it certainly was baseless, and ceratinly looked desperate when Hillary brought it up.
The refutation is solid and factual. These are just puling nitpicks over tone. That the tone is angry is unquestionably justified considering the viciousness and dishonesty with which he’s being slandered. This Corsi guy is a complete sleazeball.
Where is this happening in the media? Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen it critiqued anywhere but MSNBC. In all seriousness, have you seen it elsewhere? In particular, has Fox News made any attempt to refute it?
Just to get this straight, forty years ago I thought the Weatherman made some good points. Y’know, today I still do. Does that make me a terrorist?
“Look out kid
They keep it all hid.
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle.
Don’t wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals.
Don’t wanna be a bum
You better chew gum.
The pump don’t work
'Cause the vandals took the handles.”
Because of what DtC said after you; I’m not convinced it is being debunked in the MSM, just on MSNBC. But now, on this Sunday’s news programs, the Democratic shills will have their own list of talking points down as well as the Republican shills will.
I haven’t read The Obama Nation, but I’ve now read Unfit for Publication. I must say that my immediate reaction was “Is this all they’ve got?” It all seemed so trivial. Maybe the whole is greater than the sum of the parts?
So how is “oracle” as a career choice, Mr. Moto? Pay any good? Bennies? All the hallucinogenic fumes you can inhale sounds like a pretty nice perk.
They’re handing it well – one overwhelming quick truth assault followed by moving on to the real world. That way, the whole thing quickly fades to occasional background-noise mentions of “The Discredited Accusations…”[TM].
Don’t count on that last part. Did it work that way 4 years ago?