Obama Sex Perv Scandal
Under the headline OBAMA SEX PERV SCANDAL, the intrepid journalists at National Enquirer bring us an October Surprise three weeks before Election Day:
SEX REBEL by Frank Marshall Davis from National Enquirer 'Obama Sex Perv Scandal'
The ENQUIRER exclusively reports a “sex pervert” was Sen. Barack Obama‘s longtime mentor and “father figure”.
For seven years, the presidential candidate had a “father-son” relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, who has confessed to having sex with children, sadomasochism, bondage and practicing a wide array of deviant sexual activities.
In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, Obama identifies his childhood mentor only as “Frank,” but Obama insiders later confirmed he was referring to Davis, a journalist and poet who was a pal of Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham.
Frank Marshall Davis admitted in his private papers that he had secretly authored a hard-core pornographic autobiography called Sex Rebel: Black, published in 1968. The author of the book – a copy of which was been obtained by The ENQUIRER – is listed as “Bob Greene.” Davis later confessed to its authorship after a reader noticed similarities in style and phraseology between that book and Davis’ poetry.
Davis confessed: “I could not truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.”
The story has taken the blogosphere by storm.
- Jules Crittenden notes the Enquirer’s “confirmation rate is spotty” and figures “at the usual rate of discussing Obamian negativity, if there’s anything to this we’ll be halfway through Obama’s first 100 days before it advances beyond tabloid.
- Erick Erickson reminds us that the Enquirer got the John Edwards Love Child story right but cautions that “This post is not intended to spread that rumor [That “Barack Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile.”]. Frankly, if Obama wins, we’ll have our hands full around here making sure folks don’t develop Obama Derangement Syndrome.”
- JammieWearingFool says, “No doubt Obama will claim this as a desperate smear by the forces of evil who are afraid of change.”
- Dan Riehl provides the Readers’ Digest view: “Okay, to summarize – from the time he was a child until he was a young man, I guess, Barack Obama drank whiskey, wrote dirty limericks, read poetry and, um, was counseled by a sexual deviant, child molester, rapist of children? “
- Not Your Sweetie hesitated a couple seconds before posting about it. A truly bizarre discussion ensues in the comments section.
- Teh Nutroots has an extensive roundup of his own and says the right blogosphere should be ashamed of trying to make political hay of this.
- Thers agrees and claims “no left blogger of any stature linked to” the Enquirer’s previous story alleging Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy. (Although it sure circulated, anyway.)
The most important comment on this thus far is from Jim Henley, who reminds us that, if something happened between ten-10-year-old Barack Obama and Davis, it wasn’t “an affair” but rather “sexual abuse.” Word.
Obviously, one hopes that young Barry wasn’t the target of such a horrible experience. Regardless, he is who he is. Obama didn’t have his father around growing up and was a biracial child who looked black being raised by his white grandparents among Asians and Pacific Islanders. The black role models he found were, in a few cases, spectacularly bad. Yet, he managed to grow up to be, as John McCain put it recently, “a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”
To the extent there’s a “scandal” here, it’s Davis, not Obama, who is scandalized. The “sex perv” in question ain’t Obama, after all.
No shock to me, James. I believe it. Here’s the thing: for all that it’s the National Enquirer, for all that it’s got Clintonista connections, and for all that there are credibility issues thereby, still, they’ve gotten stories like Edwards correct when nobody else in the MSM was touching the stuff.
The trend apparently is that if it helps Hillary Clinton, they get the story pretty much correct. Indeed, when viewed through that filter, the National Enquirer has of late shown itself to be of greater trustworthiness than has Obama, or the remainder of the MSM.
Seriously? Atlantic.com “journalist” Andrew Sullivan has made it his life goal to prove Palin did fake a pregnancy.
Let’s take this to its natural conclusion. Assuming the absolute worst is true, the scandal is that Obama was raped as a child.
Someone please explain to me how that benefits McCain.
Well, of course *you* believe it, Bit, since the National Enquirer is designed exactly for UFO-believing, Sasquatch-seeing, Wolf-boy raising loonies like yourself.
Can you just go away now? Maybe you can go join Elvis, James Dean, and Marilyn Monroe at the Cafe of Broken Dreams up in the UP.
The Enquirer story discussed there is not, in fact, a story alleging that Palin faked her pregnancy. Sullivan is not a lefty blogger, but still: as far as I remember, not a single claim from that Enquirer story (Track is a drug addict, Bristol was banished from the house) was discussed by Sullivan.
Go ahead. Tell us how they got Edwards wrong, for example.
(Shrug) Only insofar as once again, we see where people he holds to be his ‘mentor’ are of at least questionable character, and that thereby his judgement is in question even on the face of it.
i don’t see how this can benefit the other side, even if it were somehow true.
i don’t see how this can benefit the other side
It benefits McCain because shoppers are now seeing “OBAMA SEX PERV SCANDAL” when they check out at the grocery store.
It seems to me this story means SOMETHING. Evidently there’s no dispute Obama was mentored for a number of years by an admitted child sexual abuser. Obama’s memoir (from what I understand of it) portrays this relationship in positive terms. Clearly, Davis wasn’t a good influence. Either Obama is sugar-coating the relationship in order to dispel the suggestion of abuse, or he really didn’t detect anything wrong with Davis. If it’s the latter, then isn’t this just another case of Obama demonstrating a complete ineptitude in judging people’s character (e.g., Wright, Rezko, Ayers)?
Free tin foil hats for everyone in the GOP.
No doubt bitsy is rooting with all of his heart that this is true…
Winner!
So the argument is that Obama shouldn’t be president, because the male figures in his childhood life were not so great? Seriously, you’re blaming him for not being able to discern complex character faults when he was 10?
Let me remind everybody that BO’s sole claim to be even remotely qualified to be President is self-proclaimed and much vaunted judgement. Yet for his entire life BO has been associated with people of dubious judgement, character and sanity.
BO seemed to be aware enough of Davis’ character as to try and mask his identity. For man who has claimed authorship of two memores, much of BO’s life remains a closed book.
National Enquirer? Decades old allegations? Why do we pay any attention to this tripe?
We are about to choose our president and instead of talking policy and agenda we are talking of this instead. It’s sad and demoralizing.
You can see form the comments it is already hurting the GOP. No matter what the civilized, serious people in the party do there will some fringe member who will be taken to represent the mainstream view of the party.
It’s best for all to ignore this nonsense.
Look closely, Michael, and I’m quite sure you’ll find that there’s nobody here making that argument but you.
The question being asked, however, is have those abilities improved since he became an adult.
One assumes, for example he was an adult when he called the not so Rev. Jerry Wright his freind and mentor.
Similarly, We must assume he was an adult when his ghost writer gushed over how Davis was his mentor.
We must assume he was an adult when he started dealing with Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers. And so on, and so on.
Apparently, then the answer to the question is ‘no’, those abilities have not gotten a bit better.
As I’ve said, the story of itself is nt all that damaging. However, it does provide reinforcement for the pattern which has already, and repeatedly been observed.
Excellent question Steve, good for you.
I see, so your claim is that Obama learned to be an anti-American black liberation corrupt terrorist? Funny that he doesn’t show any of those traits. It’s almost like he learned to imitate the good traits from the people he associated with, and not the bad ones. I wonder if there’s a word for that.
You mean it’s best for McCain’s supporters to ignore this nonsense. It makes sense for Obama supporters to keep the fringe on their soap boxes until they finish sinking McCain’s campaign.
So let’s see, according to the National Enquirer:
1) Sarah Palin got boned doggie style, by her husband’s business partner.
2) One of Barack Obama’s grandfather’s friends was a pervert.
Anyone changing their vote because of these stories? Continue yapping everyone, because it sure beats reading your 401k statements.
Because despte their credibility issues, as I’ve mentioned, the Edwards thing showed us that they’ve gotten things correct enough, that it’s not logical to ignrore them out of hand. Frankly what I see in this thread from the usual suspects is what Billy described as “Denial in the face of the undeniable”
One has to wonder how many Enquirer covers bitsy already has tacked up around the house…
C for effort. Try it without the twist, next time.
People — for one thing, if you read the online Enquirer story carefully, you see that for all the innuendo and inflammatory language the only concrete example given of sex with a child was the seduction of a 13-year-old girl. Never mind that a pornographic book published under a pseudonym may not be entirely, um, nonfiction. Even if whatever is in the book is true, we don’t know that Davis had a thing for underage boys. I think it is most probable that young Obama or his mother and grandparents knew nothing about the man’s sexual proclivities.
Indeed. What?
It is only evident if you take a story in the NE at face value.
As of right now, that is hardly clear. It is not even clear he had a relationship with Davis.
Assuming for the moment that he had a relationship with Davis when he was 8-10-12 (whatever age), one has to presume their was sexual abuse, and that he was a willing participant, in order for this to demonstrate a “complete ineptitude in judging people’s character”. What 10 yr old is capable of demonstrating judgement of character?
I suppose it was our fault when I, and about 30 others, were physically and emotionally abused by a nun at the ages of 10, 11, and 12? Everybody knew it was happening, but nobody did anything about it until she hit a girl in the face with her keys requiring 60+ stitches to repair. At that the archdiocese sent her to Columbia.
By the same logic, it was McCain’s fault he was tortured for 5 yrs when he was a POW.
This story does make me judge somebodies character, but it is not Obama’s.
Reasonable, though I’d add the possibility that they found the man’s politics to be desireable enough that they turned a blind eye to the rest of it. We see a lot of that in leftist politics.
Indeed. A lot is revealed about those who embrace this with obvious glee.
So, now you’re questioning if he was telling the truth in his book? Yeah, THAT helps.
I’ve read McCain’s book, and I’m sorry, but I don’t recall him identifying any of his captors as a mentor… in the book, or anywhere else. Your analogy seems questionable.
I am all for ANYBODY but Obama…but I have to be honest, this ain’t gunna fly and if pushed by the right side it will blowup making things tougher than they are. If Obama himself was caught with a live girl / dead boy, that’s different but that’s not the case. His judgment at 10 years old??????….don’t go there.
Markm; Correct. But thats not the issue I raised. Again, we must assume he was an adult when his ghost writer gushed over how Davis was his mentor.
It’s not what happened when he was 10, it’s has his judgement gotten better since becoming an adult?
Since he speaks in glowing terms as being mentored by Davis and not vitimised by him…. well, you work that one out.
Let me second (actually third) that sentiment.
And really, are we really going to argue (as some do above and elsewhere) that “they got the Edwards story right” = “the Enquirer now has legitimacy”?
Me: It seems to me this story means SOMETHING.
You: Indeed. What?
What I said. At a minimum, Obama has demonstrated time and again he has lousy instincts for judging people.
Me: Evidently there’s no dispute Obama was mentored for a number of years by an admitted child sexual abuser.
You: It is only evident if you take a story in the NE at face value.
Obama talks about Davis as a “mentor” in his memoir. Davis admitted being the author of the pseudonymous “sexual autobiography,” which included descriptions of him abusing a young girl. What part are you disputing?
Me: Clearly, Davis wasn’t a good influence.
You: As of right now, that is hardly clear. It is not even clear he had a relationship with Davis.
It’s clear that they had a mentoring relationship!It’s clear that the mentor was a child sexual abuser! It’s clear that Davis had Obama drinking whiskey and writing dirty poetry. Do you call that a “good influence”? Jeez Louise.
You: Assuming for the moment that he had a relationship with Davis when he was 8-10-12 (whatever age), one has to presume their was sexual abuse, and that he was a willing participant, in order for this to demonstrate a “complete ineptitude in judging people’s character”.
Me: No. First of all, I don’t assume there was sexual abuse involving Obama. Second, if there was such abuse, Obama clearly wasn’t a “willing participant.” However, if Obama WAS the victim of sexual abuse by this creep, his portrayal of him in his memoir as a positive influence in his life is either a case of extreme sugar-coating or some seriously warped values on Obama’s part. More likely, IMO, Obama WASN’T sexually abused by Davis, but spent more than enough quality time with him to have realized what a monster he was. The fact that he didn’t realize it (as evidenced by his memoir) shows me that Obama is really bad at reading people, which is not a good trait in a chief exec.
You: I suppose it was our fault when I, and about 30 others, were physically and emotionally abused by a nun at the ages of 10, 11, and 12? Everybody knew it was happening, but nobody did anything about it until she hit a girl in the face with her keys requiring 60+ stitches to repair. At that the archdiocese sent her to Columbia.
Me: But I never said it was Obama’s fault.
No, I don’t think I will. As I already mentioned, it serves my purposes more to keep you talking about this, than to convince you to stop.
Bithead,
Let me make two suggestions for you:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-241Fall-2005/CourseHome/index.htm
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-242Spring-2004/CourseHome/index.htm
Total legitimacy? Of course not, and I thought I’d made that clear; to trust them completely is illogical. Still, given recent history it is also illogical to dismiss the story out of hand.
I will also note that the vehemence with which the usual suspcts are fighting, here, would seem to suggest THEY think so, too.
“It’s best for all to ignore this nonsense.”
Move along. Nothing to see here, folks.
To listen to Obama’s supporters, NOTHING about him should matter except what he says. We shouldn’t inquire about his background. We shouldn’t care about his inexperience. We shouldn’t care that he hasn’t accomplished anything as a legislator. We shouldn’t care that he belongs to a racist, anti-semitic, anti-American church. We shouldn’t care that he was a member of socialist fringe party in the mid-90’s. He sounds good and he looks good, and that’s all that anyone should care about.
I don’t see this as much of a scandal for Obama beyond the fact that it is one more mentor in a long line of mentors of Obama’s being a nut. Unless of course if Obama gets accused of being an enabler. Child molesters often use a child that looks up to them to attract other kids. I didn’t see any such accusation against Obama so I will assume he wasn’t.
(Sarcasm) .Now of course if he was a Republican it would be a scandal.
And my point is that there is no question he has judgment issues of whom he surrounds himself with and there are plenty of legit ties (legit ties = worthy of political hackery/investigation)and i’m sure there will be more surfacing prior to the election to bolster that fact but this isn’t one of em’.
You had me until there.
The reason… and frankly, the bonly reason, is IS in fact one of them is what he now labels Davis as being. Not a scumbag, not a pervert, but a mentor.
Just as with the other relationships I mentioned; they are of a peice. As David suggests, when so much of his claim to legitimacy to the office of POTUS surrounds his supposely superior judgements, this becomes important to examine, particularly given the long line of questionable judgements.
Conrad, you said:
That is in the past tense, implying when he was a child. I assume that if you meant his present use of judgement, you would have used the present tense.
If you want to have that discussion (the ability to judge people), we can, and I can show several “questionable” associations on McCains part. (in quotes because I am sure you would disagree) I just don’t see the pertinence to this discussion.
The part where you presume that “Frank” (OB’s book) is “Davis” (NE article). This is only true if in fact they are one and the same person. Remember, we are talking about the NE, and they cite unnamed “Obama insiders”…
I repeat, nothing is clear except your willingness to take grocery store tabloids at face value.
Me: But I never said it was Obama’s fault.
No you didn’t Conrad, but you did imply it when you spoke of his supposed relationship and judgement of same in the past tense.
The Red State post that JJ links is utterly depraved.
On the pretense of satirizing the Left (“why doncha like the Enquirer NOW? huh?”), Erickson creates the bonus insinuation that Obama was sexually molested by the creep.
Commenters run with this to speculate that Obama is thus likely to molest his own children.
God be praised, a few commenters announced their disgust, but others — including the sadly fallen Moe Lane — devote themselves to defending the indefensible post.
Tom: The Obama campaign has CONFIRMED that the “Frank” in his memoir is indeed Frank Marshall Davis. So I didn’t just “assume” that information, as you claim. Evidently you are just uninformed.
As for my supposedly “implying” that Obama is to blame for any sexual abuse he suffered at Davis’ hands, here’s my reply: F*** you. I never said that, never implied it, and in fact expressed the exact opposite sentiment. You can keep beating that straw man all you want, but it just shows what a tool you are.
As for having debate as to which candidate has exhibited the most questionable judgment in his personal associations, I’m all for it. I don’t think it will be much of a contest, however. It would be tough for McCain to match Obama’s utter ineptitude in that department.
Barack Obama should not be president because he is not qualified. Obama has achieved nothing in political life, aside from winning elections. Obama is hiding vast chapters of his life, and glossing over or lyiong about is known.
Obama’s sole arguement to be President is his vaunted self-proclaimed judgement. Yet who has Mr. Judgement associated himself with unrepentent terrorists. angry preachers and pedophiles. BO may claim some devine ability to judge the world stage. Yet Obama has shown himself to a horrible judge of human character.
Too late.
10 year old Obama (or apparently anyone else in the community) did not realize that this man may have been a predator therefor he should not be president? That is among the stupidest things I have read during this cycle. Keep it up and you may be nominated for a Bitty.
Does this mean that you think there Palin stories deserve the same level of support you are willing to give this one?
A little Freudian slip there Bit?
Steve P,
Thanks for being a voice of reason.
Conrad,
I think we have enough ammunition regarding Obama’s associations to question his judgment. This particular allegation would likely be a distraction more than a substantive issue even if true. I would argue we should fight against his candidacy through his liberal policies that are out of the mainstream, his lack of record, and his adult mentors and friends.
The other problem with this is it’s appearance. It looks like a dirty trick whether it is or not. With that look it tarnishes the GOP and McCain. I don’t want to take that chance for what would be minimal positives.
There’s plenty to see that would turn average voters away from Obama without mentioning this.
Well, were the Palin stories examined? I think you’ll find they were. I’ve been reasonable about all this. Do a little research and you’ll find I had no objection to such stories at the time being examined, at the time, or since.
So, now the question becomes, why the opposition to items about Obama being at least as completely explored, save Democrat party partisanship?
(Snicker) Apparently I fat-thumbed the space bar.
That’s not the Frank Davis &ct.
How much time have you spent with Davis, Ayers or Wright? How well do you actually know them, to think that you can make a comparable judgment on their character as Obama did?
The fact is that Obama, for better or worse, respected people that he personally knew. You, on the other hand, disrespect people that you don’t know. Then you have the audacity to think that your judgment of them is more accurate than his.
Sometimes I wonder if this crap comes from the Obama campaign just to make all criticism look bad via guilt by association.
Steve Plunk: I’m not interested in what works or doesn’t work as “ammunition.” I’m interested in finding out who this guy Obama really is. I want America to know, as well. I think there’s going to be a lot of buyer’s remorse if (as seems likely) BO is elected president.
What bothers me most about this election is not that America is on the verge of electing a far-left liberal. What bothers me most is that the Democrats and the media have succeeded in stifling any genuine inquiry as to the background and makeup of this virtually unknown and completely untested candidate. It’s mystifying to me that America’s major news media didn’t even see fit to MENTION that Obama belonged to a socialist fringe party within the last decade.
I truly hope Obama is the thoughtful, careful, post-partisan leader he wants us to believe he is. If so, America will have dodged a real bullet, because the media have done NOTHING to vet him.
I’m really not in the mood for any censorship concerning Obama’s history — including the “gee-is-this-really-going-to-help-McCain” sort of self-censorship you seem to be advocating. Let’s put it all out on the table and let America make an informed choice.
(Eric spews his coffee all over his laptop.)
Reasonable? You, Bitsy? Right.
(Eric pours new coffee, drinks–spews again!) Sorry, I accidently thought about you claiming that you were reasonable again. LOL!
because the media have done NOTHING to vet him.
Really? Not including talking up his law-journal staff and the students who took his U-Chicago classes? Running stories on Wright and Ayers?
If that’s “nothing,” then McCain did *less* than nothing to vet Palin.
Let me see if I’m understanding the latest right wing madness correctly- If a child is befriended and perhaps abused (or as the say on the right ‘had an affair’)by a pedophile, then that child is of poor character and showed bad judgment?
Not sure if McCain will go with this. Palin? You betcha.
effin tarded…NE is legitimized because they post a negative BO story…There is nothing in recent political history that shows a shift in candidate support 20 days prior to an election. Get over it! BO wins in Nov. The public at large, the pundits, the MSM, even some Repubs are saying it! Mud slinging does nothing to help the sinking ship that is the U.S. economy! Let’s get the focus back on real issues that affect all Americans and find a way through the crises that are plaguing us.
Conrad: I may well be uninformed on this aspect (I am not always able to keep up with the latest press releases) Do you have a link to something from the Obama campaign? I would be most interested.
If you mis-stated your tenses all you have to do is state as much, and I will be most happy to apologize for reading you too literally.
So we agree on this much at least, there is no point, because:
You have already made up your mind.
I will be looking for the link, thank you in advance.
Was a busy day, just checking in. Looks like this has run out of steam, and deservedly so.
Decent people will not go anywhere near this slime pit. Some will find it quite exciting, which tells us something about their characters….
Of course!
I’ve always been for letting such stories take their course, assuming the press actually takes the same amount of time and effort for both sides.
Yeah, right, sure they will.
This story has taken its course Bitsy. Straight into the toilet, which is where it belongs. Only question is are you going to dive in…
So, does that mean that you think (And I use the word think advisedly, in your case) such attacks on Palin are out of bounds? At what point do we see you on the DU and KOS decrying such tactics?
See, there’s the rub, Anjin. Your faux outrage about such tactics never seems to quite get you as worked up when your own side engages in it.
What he did or did not do as a child isn’t the point, as regards the validity of his personal choices. How he labels the incidents NOW, however, is. He says in his book, that he considers Davis a ‘mentor’.He’s confirmed it, as has his campaign. Seems a little obvious to try and toss Davis under the bus with all the rest at this point.
Argue if you will this is merely one more ‘Mentor’ who wasn’t who he thought, but that… along with all the other people who weren’t what he thought they were, of course, still add up to a huge question mark on his ability, to judge such matters today. Given his supposedly superior judgment was the central pillar in his claims of legitimacy on the presidency, this long list of people and situations where his vaunted judgment failed him seems a legitimate point of discussion.
Your lame attempts to outright ignore that issue speaks volumes, to the idea you think it of import.. and damaging… as well.
Tom, check out Davis’ wiki page for confirmation he is “Frank.”
As for your references to my use of past or present tense, I think my meaning of my posts is clear and I see no reason to get into a discussion of syntax.
I don’t happen to think Obama was sexually abused by Davis. I do think that since Obama spent so much time listening to Davis vent his spleen, drinking Davis’ whiskey, etc., Obama had more than enough opportunity to observe that Davis was a creep. Certainly, it’s POSSIBLE that Davis (whiskey notwithstanding) was always on his very best behavior around Obama and gave Obama no reason to think he was a complete creep. The same may also be said about Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers. Perhaps it’s the case that every one of these lowlifes managed to get through every single one of their interactions with Obama without once revealing to him their hateful, criminal, and/or racist tendencies. I just think it’s a stretch.
I don’t know about DU, but there were plenty of commentators on DKos decrying the outlandish attacks on Palin. Kos himself even removed the diary that sparked the whole “Bristol was the baby’s mother”.
Again, I don’t think his campaign ever really ran on Obama’s ability to judge a man’s character.
Which “attacks” are you referring to? Be specific. If I see something that I think is over the line, I will be happy to take it up right here. Obama is winning on merit, we don’t have to resort to desperate sleeze.
As for Kos, I rarely give it more than a quick glance and never post there, do not care for the tone.
Sounds like you are grasping at moral equivalence to justify you swim in the toilet…
So, you’ve seen nothing, apparently, that’s over the line, since you’ve not commented on anything of the like, yet.
Amazing.
Myopia can be cured, but apparently not liberal myopia.
A stretch? Indeed.
Given the number of people who end up being labeled by Obama as ‘not what I thought they were’, one cannot help but wonder if either his judgement isn’t totally faulty, or if he’s lying, or both.
Bitsy I did not ask you for a lot. Just provide an example of comments directed at Palin that are beyond the pale. Should be easy. Unless they exist only in your imagination. The “attacks on the family” line has already been debunked and abandoned, but you are welcome to try and bring it back to life.
I do not deny there are scum ball bottom feeders of both parties on blogs, but I suspect you have absolutely nothing beyond a few deranged Kos diarists.
Here is my earlier comment on the subject.
Since you were unable to provide any documentation for your position (imagine that), I will leave you to your swim in the toilet. You don’t seem to mind the stench at all…
Actually, you asked for nothing, and got exactly that. And my offering up an umbrella to hide under now would be beside the point. I think, rather, I’ll leave you exposed.
Oh, and Anjin? Your comment about Palin was to drive hiome your ‘families are off limits’ nonsense because you knew that benefitted Obama, not to stand on any kind of moral ground, so spare us the posturing.
So you’re saying he shouldn’t have said that Palin’s family should be off limits, just because doing so benefited his preferred candidate? Or only that it doesn’t count?
No, I asked for something. A single example of an attack on Palin that is beyond the Pale. You don’t have one. ’nuff said on that.
Just because your moral stands are pure fluff, you should not project that failing on others. Act like a man bitsy, or at least try to.
Go back and read again.
Nice try. C for effort, and all that.
But in yur moral posturing about how family is off limits, let’s not forget you’re the one who went after Cindy McCain, OK?
By the way.. you’re missing both legs…. did you know?
Pointing out that someone has a (very!) expensive wardrobe is hardly a smear, just a statement of fact. (unless, of course, you can show it is not a fact, in which case I will happily retract my statement).
And yes, I think flaunting wealth at that level in a failing economy is in questionable taste, but that is just my opinion.
So tell me, how did I “go after” Mrs. McCain?
Anyway bits, nice attempt at “turning the page” but I notice you are still unable to present any evidence of a beyond the pale smear on Palin.
Not an impressive performance for you … D+
Just to be clear, I do not think that discussion of Michell Obama’s comments about “proud of my coutry” are off limits. She did say it. Todd Palin’s use of the Gov’s office in Alaska also seems like a fair topic for discussion.
Sorry, you just got hoisted on your own petard.
Do enjoy it.
So bits, the best you have is the moral equivalence defense?
And still not a single example of a beyond the pale attack on Palin…
Thanx Conrad, “Frank” is, indeed, the infamous one in question
Nuff said.
If that alone was a disqualifying factor, I think most of the people here (taking note of the current dialogue) would be branded as “untouchable”.
Not having read BO’s book, I have to ask, where does this come from? There is no mention of it in the campaign reply to Corsi’s book (the PDF at the end of the wiki page). That said, I have to point out that it was not uncommon in the ’70’s for “older” men to drink with “younger” men. Not saying it is right (it isn’t) just saying that it was not uncommon and not necessarily frowned upon, kind of like going to a speakeasy during prohibition, illegal, but everybody did it.
Again, not having read BO’s book (or corsi’s for that matter) I am unsure of exactly what it is you are referring to. In the excerpts they quote in the PDF, Obama is well aware of many of the man’s shortcomings, and does like so many of us, take the good, and throws away the rest.
A couple of posts ago, I spoke of how McCain has some questionable associations as well. I do not want to get into a “tit for tat” arguement about who has the worst, but I keep hearing these names and feel compelled to say Rev. Wright = Jerry Falwell/John Hagee. Have you ever listened to the racist crap that came out of their mouths? Tony Rezko=Charles Keating… say no more. Bill Ayers (almost)= G. Gordon Liddy. Neither ever repented any of their acts but I say “almost” for a # of reasons: Obama never got on Ayers radio show and said Ayers was a “great American”, and as near as I can tell, Ayers studiously avoided human casualties while Liddy told people to “aim for the head” because ATF agents wear bullet proof vests.
Indeed, it is a stretch. But to my way of thinking, that is beside the point. I feel Obama has taken the best of each of these individuals and left the rest behind. I would like to think the same of McCain (with the exception of Liddy… What was he thinking?) There is good and bad in all people, and we ALL have questionable associations (this goes double for anybody in politics).
What I wonder about, is why the double standard? Why is not McCain put to the same strict standards that Obama is? I know the answer. Do you?
Tom, I don’t see the equivalence between Keating and Ayers, Robertson and Wright, etc. For starters, Keating may have been a white collar crook, but he wasn’t a terrorist. I could go on, but I’m frankly too tired to get into a detailed comparison.
The other thing is, we already know who McCain is. None of the guys you mentioned plays a significant role in his biography. You can’t say that about any of the Obama crew with the arguable exception of Ayers (although I would include him as well since Ayers’ projects were a major beneficiary of Obama’s work on the boards he sat on with Ayers).
I see your point about Obama trying to take the
best out of people and leaving the rest behind. Perhaps that’s what he has in mind in proposing to meet with folks like Ahmadinijad and Hugo Chavez. He evidently sees some good in them, just as he sees good in Jeremiah Wright. How comforting to know that our next president has such an open mind and a forgiving heart.