I think it is time for the politicians to realize that anything goes in an election. If you come up with rules, then the parties come up with ways to circumvent the rules (moveon.org, SwiftBoat, etc.) Why bother trying to limit what is and isn't acceptable?
Perhaps no limits on donations and complete transparency as to donors would be best.
Yeah, they support free speech...until it starts to cost them votes! *^$#*(_*)_+ the politians!
Funny. When a "conservative" exhausts all possibilities to silence left-wing groups with intent to mislead, it's considered justice. When a "liberal" exhausts all possibilities to silence a right-wing group with intent to mislead, it's considered wrong.
Doublethink is awesome.
Shawn, first I'll try to save you from an ego trip. The reason I haven't replied till now is because I was out of town. It's much easier to click a button to approve a comment, than to reply when using a mobile browser and software keyboard.
Now on to your drivel.
Exhausts all possibilities? I wouldn't approve of this method from a conservative either. Also, you haven't shown that such was an intent to mislead. The issues raised are documented. Ayers is unrepentant and Obama has lied about their relationship.
I'm sure you would freak if McCain had as close a relationship with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber and lied about it. Your reaction would be correct, now try to be consistent.
The ad is misleading. Obama has stated previously he did not approve of Ayers' methods. The commerical fails to mention this, and so spread misinformation.
It is equivalent to the swiftboating done to Kerry. But everyone is upset that Obama is willing to punch back, unlike Kerry who attempted to roll with them.
Not every Democrat is a bleeding-heart pussy who'll allow lies to be disseminated in their name.
Obama's statement only emphasizes the question asked in the ad. Why is he friends with someone like that? It's Obama's problem that he has such a consistent trend of associating with radicals.
His response, resorting to the DOJ and to a lesser extent, trying to suppress a radio show, were not appropriate. If he responded with facts, that would be fine. However, as the Annenberg papers and other public records show, his "just a guy in the neighborhood" characterization was just another falsehood, something which I notice you're trying to avoid acknowledging, again.
Commenting by HaloScan
