McCain's campaign mgr. from Buchannon VA. wrote a racist article about Obama that said the following. http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9899 McCain's campaign received so many complaints that May was eventually fired.
...that's nothing compared to what Obama wrote in his 2 memoirs about whites. Or what Michelle Obama wrote in her Senior Thesis...
And here the fool defeats himself by tacitly admitting that he has not read either of Obama's books. ON GUARD CONQUISTADOR!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-virginia5-2008oct05,0,6269807,full.story I followed the link to the PDF. It was reported in the LA Times.
McCain's campaign did fire him. I am getting tired of this "guilt by association" game, though. I don't believe Bobby May reflects the opinions of McCain or Palin. In bad times like now, it's all about the issues, especially the economy.
I do know that you can view the newspaper column here. http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/42750415.pdf
It's too bad McCain's campaign took it down that road. Because the counter punches seem to hurt McCain a great deal.
Which is much more of an admission of SEVERANCE than the crickets chirping about the Ayers issues... I'm not tired of "guilt by association" at all. And when someone has openly given the clear, definitive response of firing someone, vs. shrugging things off, the whole country can see it for what it is. If any one has been given the chance, repeatedly, to openly declare it was, at least, "perhaps" a bad choice to be close to Ayers, it's Obama. Instead, he's acknowledged what we all know... "he committed detestable acts when I was 8" and since then, blah, blah, blah... Okay then, openly tell us you do NOT agree with his views then. Don't just dodge the issue by saying you knew of him, weren't that close... "met him 10 or 15 years ago" -That's a huge gap of time... but not as much of a gap as 20 years on a pew. At least you denounced that relationship openly.
Obama has nothing to sever with Ayers. They don't have any real meaningful connection. Calling the acts detestable over and over again means he doesn't agree with his views. I'm sure you can understand that. You know the meaning of calling someone's acts detestable. Are you honestly worried that Obama agrees with Ayer's views? Do you really believe that?
Don't be detestable. Surely even you know that means. I'll give all a taste of what I mean... hypothetical Obama response I would deem in order: "Look... as I've stated before, his acts were detestable. I regret having had as close a relationship with him, looking back I understand the country's concern on the matter. While I cannot change what he did in the past, or the fact that I had no knowledge of those past acts when I served with him in the Annenburg Project, I can assure the American people that I will not have any professional, or personal interaction with him should I gain the position of the Presidency. I see no need to elevate his voice, or validate it as a position of normalcy, and would trust everyone will forgive my naivety in a moment of my youth. I have learned from this relationship that I must, in the best interest of not only myself, but the country as a whole, look into those I have dealings with politically and socially. I regret any undue worry this has caused many of my supporters, as well as any person that may have been hindered in their support of my campaign. Had I been more open, and fully disclosed every ounce of my relationship to Mr. Ayers, instead of acting as if it was of no importance, I am certain it would have completely been understood and forgiven months ago. I look forward to your questions on this matter..." And then, instead of walking off saying "I just made my statement," or "I just answered, like, 8 questions" he actually spent ten minutes reassuring us, by using non-canned, non-defensive, non-ticked off responses... then maybe it would go away. I am not trying to hold him accountable for 40 year old bombings. I want to know why he helped fund the "radicalization" of the education system via Ayers (those are Ayers' words). I want to know why it's okay to still be "personal friends" (those are Axelrod's words describing Obama and Ayers). Why is it easier to ditch a pastor that married you, baptized your kids, and "mentored" you for 20 years than it is to go on the record, clearly and concisely about a non-repentant "I don't regret what we did" and "I wish we'd done more" domestic terrorist, turned professor? Can that not be done? I don't see why not.
Not surprised, kinda similar article from some douche back in Aug. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73276
In your response shows that Obama has already done what you say he should. I mean he says he committed detestable acts, that shows that he doesn't approve of Ayers. He says they weren't that close. That shows that he doesn't have a close relationship.
The boy's campaigning well. He's speaking well. He's doing everything it takes to win. So you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year. Got it. Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.
