Patterico's Pontifications

10/21/2008

L.A. Times Will Not Correct Erroneous Claim That There Is “No Recorded Basis” for Ayers-Obama Tie

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:19 pm

I recently caught the L.A. Times erroneously claiming that there was “no recorded basis” for John McCain’s claim that Barack Obama launched his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room. Regardless of whether you think the claim is a) true or b) politically significant, it’s quite clear that there is a “recorded basis” for the claim — namely, a blog post by a liberal who was there in that living room, who said:

When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.

Although the blogger has since tried to send this evidence Down the Memory Hole, she failed quite badly on several levels, and the evidence lives on. The L.A. Times, seemingly, was caught. Democrat Mickey Kaus said:

Patterico embarrasses the L.A. Times yet again.

Well, evidently the editors aren’t capable of embarrassment. Because if the following e-mail from the paper’s “Readers’ Representative” is any indication, the editors don’t think they said anything wrong:

Thanks for your note, which we passed along to editors in the editorial department.

You sought correction on this passage:

And then, returning to Ayers, McCain alleged that Obama launched his political career in the former Weatherman’s living room, an assertion for which there is no recorded basis.

I understand that support for your request was a post in which someone described Obama’s appearance in Ayers’ house and said that he was “launching” his career.

Here’s what the editors say: News reports reconstructing Obama’s campaign that year suggest that the poster was incorrect in claiming that the coffee at Ayers’ home ‘launched’ Obama’s career. Accounts differ, but what editors find suggests that Obama held a number of informal coffees that fall, and that he had made clear his intention to run before his appearance at Ayers’ house.

As such, the comments by the poster may reflect that person’s impression – or misimpression – but they are not something on which the Times would base a correction.

Jamie Gold
Readers’ Representative

Look: this isn’t hard.

The editors said there was “no recorded basis” for McCain’s claim. There was.

Now they say that while “[a]ccounts differ,” they simply disagree with the existent “recorded basis” for the claim. Ergo, it was correct to claim that this “recorded basis” never existed.

In other words: if I disagree with you, its not just that you’re wrong. It’s that what you said never even happened.

Words mean things. You might think that newspaper editors would know that.

You might think that newspaper editors don’t want to mislead readers on the facts.

You would be wrong. They care more about their reputations than the facts. Period.

Another piece of history disappears Down the Memory Hole — aided and abetted by the Los Angeles Times.

195 Comments

  1. How could something like this happen? I’ve always heard that at the Los Angeles Times, they have four layers of morons.

    Comment by Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/21/2008 @ 11:58 pm

  2. Patterico, you can’t be surprised. It’s all about the Narrative. Obama is smart, hip, smooth. He is the cool revenge against the dumb bitter church-going gun-clinging yahoos in charge of the country.

    Having an ironic President…and hey, an ethnic one!…just proves that the cool, hip voters are in charge, and that they are indeed, well, hip and cool.

    Welcome to the flexible and shifting yardstick of academia, now part of national politics. I know you know all this.

    Comment by Eric Blair (cc02e6) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:28 am

  3. They’re seriously quibbling over “launched.” It’s like ignoring O.J.’s Bruno Maglis because you referred to them as leather but they’re specifically suede.

    Comment by Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 10/22/2008 @ 1:21 am

  4. Patterico: if you really want to figure this out, add Alice Palmer to your searches.

    Comment by Aplomb (b6fba6) — 10/22/2008 @ 1:25 am

  5. I guess Jamie thinks that “recorded” means “infallible.” If there is a recorded basis, but it has any chance of being wrong in a direction unfavorable to the L.A. Times, then it wasn’t recorded.

    Comment by Xrlq (62cad4) — 10/22/2008 @ 3:50 am

  6. Of course, the LAT editors don’t know how to parse the sentence.

    Patterico, it is a skill that you learned in law school.

    Comment by slp (09de33) — 10/22/2008 @ 4:12 am

  7. What about ALice Palmer’s claim that it was her FIRST meeting with Barack Obama? She claimed that she was NOT the organizer (as the Obama campaign wanted people to beleive, first) and was only invited herself, to the coffee. She had never met him until that day. he is her “successor” of choice, and this is their first meeting, and you don’t call that a “launch”? Good grief! Even when caught in a lie with incontrovertible facts, a newspaper cannot print truth. The LAT cleraly has been told by the BO thugs that they are safe in their lie, as the blog poster has been dealt with…

    Comment by gael (e15794) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:03 am

  8. he is her “successor” of choice

    He was not her choice as a successor. He took her to Court and had her taken off of the ballot.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:06 am

  9. Patterico,

    In your next e-mail to Jamie Gold, you might simply suggest that the LAT, at long last, show the courage of its convictions by officially applying for government ownership, renaming itself Los Angeles Pravda and publishing all its articles in Newspeak.

    Comment by MarkJ (7fa185) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:21 am

  10. Tell Ms. Gold that her bonefides as a democratic shill remain unblemished.

    The reporters and editors of the LAT are getting a twofer: Support Obama and destroy any remaining credibility of the LAT, thus really hurting the country, the american people and the current ownner, who I bet is wishing that he hadn’t bought the paper.

    An Obama administration will be worse than a Carter administration.

    Comment by Jack (d9cbc5) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:31 am

  11. I don’t get how just because you take an out-of-context quote to mean something you want it to mean, the LA Times has to buy into your conspiracy theory. It’s like a Holocaust-denial group running around trying to get the LA Times to print corrections for every story it writes about the Holocaust, calling it the “alleged Holocaust” or something.

    After all, there is a “recorded basis” for denying the Holocaust. Tons of them, in fact.

    Comment by Phil (3b1633) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:36 am

  12. After all, there is a “recorded basis” for denying the Holocaust. Tons of them, in fact.

    Just when you think Phil couldn’t get any more indecent …

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:48 am

  13. an out-of-context quote

    They never resort to something being out-of-context until their other lies have not stuck. In Leftspeak, out of context means quoted accurately.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:51 am

  14. Darleen – Since Phil is the one that thinks we all just want to kill, jail, torture or otherwise oppress minorities, I never doubt that he can get any more indecent.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:52 am

  15. He was not her choice as a successor. He took her to Court and had her taken off of the ballot.
    Comment by JD — 10/22/2008 @ 5:06 am

    JD- I think he was her successor of choice when she decided to run for Congress. After she failed, I guess in the primary, in her bid for Congress, she moved to return to her seat in the Ill. State Senate. At that point Obama acted to take the election from her the last minute in true Chicago-style form. At least that is my understanding of the events.

    I long ago gave up communicating with the Philly Inquirer Ed. Board. I don’t have the energy Patterico does to keep at them.

    Remember, in their eyes the news is “what they say it is”.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:55 am

  16. MD – Then I stand corrected.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:58 am

  17. See, LA Times and Jamie Gold, it is that fucking simple to admit when you have made a mistake. My 6 year old daughter knows better than you how to admit when you are wrong, apologize, and try not to do it again.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:00 am

  18. Proof positive that the LATimes is a bunch of liars.

    Comment by PCD (7fe637) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:08 am

  19. I don’t get how just because you take an out-of-context quote to mean something you want it to mean, the LA Times has to buy into your conspiracy theory. It’s like a Holocaust-denial group running around trying to get the LA Times to print corrections for every story it writes about the Holocaust, calling it the “alleged Holocaust” or something.

    Racists

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:17 am

  20. To seriously answer the point:

    I don’t see how you can make a racist reply to my post, Phil, and then expect people to be convinced. It’s like a guy dressing himself in a white sheet in order to denounce a completely correct statement. Acting like a racist doesn’t make your argument more convincing.

    What’s that? I didn’t prove your comment was racist? I simply asserted it to be so, and then drew an analogy based on my unproved assertion?

    That would be rather like your asserting that the Maria Warren blog post comment taken was out of context by me, without proving it — and then drawing an analogy based on *that* unproved assertion. In other words, I’m just adopting your slippery and dishonest-lawyer-style method of argumentation.

    You racist.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:22 am

  21. My 6 year old daughter knows better than you how to admit when you are wrong, apologize, and try not to do it again.

    JD,

    You’ve been reading this blog a while. Can you imagine my refusing to correct such a blatant error with such an intellectually dishonest argument?

    These people really should be embarrassed.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:24 am

  22. These people really should be embarrassed.

    Comment by Patterico — 10/22/2008 @ 6:24 am

    Sure they should. But as said earlier, they’re incapable. To be embarrassed, one has to be capable of shame and shame isn’t a trait one finds on the left.

    Comment by CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:30 am

  23. I don’t get how just because you take an out-of-context quote to mean something you want it to mean,

    How is that quote taken out of context?

    When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.

    What is the missing context here, Phil? What content is missing that provides a different meaning to what Warren said?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:35 am

  24. Phil – Don’t you have an ambulance to chase or something.

    Racist.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:38 am

  25. These people really should be embarrassed.
    .
    They should be ridiculed and shunned. And I agree, part of the ridicule should be an attempt to cause embarrassment. But honestly, I wouldn’t want to associate with a person or organization of such low moral scruples.

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:49 am

  26. After all, there is a “recorded basis” for denying the Holocaust. Tons of them, in fact.

    Agreed. Taking your analogy a step further, though, responsible journalists address these recorded denials in a logical, comprehensive fashion that completely and rightfully dismisses the denier’s claims.

    It’s a shame that there aren’t any responsible journalists at the LA Times.

    Comment by Maydayog (ce4e17) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:51 am

  27. The LA Times is a house organ for the Obama campaign. “Phil” is a piece of software in the Obama office of answering questions with official talking points. There is no debating with a piece of software.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 10/22/2008 @ 7:01 am

  28. Towelie: You’re a towel!

    POS Phil: You’re a racist!

    Comment by Ghost of Ted Gold (9fd170) — 10/22/2008 @ 7:04 am

  29. Why doesn’t the LA Times just use a reporter to call up the blogger to confirm the story?

    Comment by Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:08 am

  30. My bad, they’re too busy doing this:

    AP INVESTIGATION: Alaska funded Palin kids’ travel

    Did you know Palin recieved a free spa treatment as govenor?!

    Comment by Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:11 am

  31. Because that would require a reporter to actually confirm facts that are in evidence.

    Comment by Dmac (f11dda) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:13 am

  32. You know, I know, and many of those who stop here know that words do have meaning.
    It is only the over-educated morons at the LAT that have a problem dealing with that reality.
    At some point though, it will have to sink into the dense little mounds of granite they call heads.
    It will be when either Zell, or the Receiver, tells them:
    YOU’RE FIRED!

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:17 am

  33. It’s that “different reality” thing again. The world you see through your eyes is not the world they’re seeing and reporting on.

    Comment by htom (412a17) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:29 am

  34. Was just reading elsewhere that there is now (another) suit asking Hawaii to prove Obama was born on their soil. This one has allegedly been brought before Hawaiian Supreme Court. If this is true, could this be the reason for his sudden departure to Granny’s
    house?

    Comment by Bfidler (e6db0a) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:31 am

  35. McCain has picked up a key supporter.. Wonder if the liberal press will bury this too..
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VA3B80&show_article=1

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:33 am

  36. Suit brought by some guy named Andy Martin.

    Comment by Bfidler (e6db0a) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:38 am

  37. I have to admit it . you guys are getting too close to the truth.. Obama was born on Mars,hates America, practices witchcraft and it heading to California to cause another earthquake just to distract from the real truth about his little green pals that intend to take over any day! I heard it from Fox news!
    I sincerely hope that if Palen becomes President she does her best to stall this invasion by immediately causing Armageddon so the Rapture will come and those nasty liberals, especially the black ones, will all be crying when they are “Left Behind!” as the Good and Just and the Elect have an opportunity to find safety in blissfully relaxing in Heaven or fishing in Alaska, whichever they choose!

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:41 am

  38. McCain has picked up a key supporter.. Wonder if the liberal press will bury this too..
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VA3B80&show_article=1

    Comment by VietnamEraVet — 10/22/2008 @ 8:33 am

    LoL, and the lefties thought Obama had all the feckless terrorist / tinpot despot / radical ideolog demographic locked up. I mean, between Hamas, Castro, Chavez (Ambassador to Venezuela Ayers anyone?), Kaddafi, Kim Jong Ill, New Black Panthers, FARC, Daniel Ortega, Code Pink, Louis Farrakhan, AAAN, Chosun Sinbo, et al.

    Looks like Obama has that segment wrapped up.

    McCain will probably pull all of his ads in Caracas.

    Comment by CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:42 am

  39. Comment by VietnamEraVet — 10/22/2008 @ 8:33 am

    Yeh, that egging-on by A-Q of an American President has worked out so well for them.
    Plenty of room for advancement for all of those new recruits needed to fill the vacancies in the order-of-battle;
    plus, a continuous supply of new blood in leadership positions.

    I think that was the A-Q equivelent of “The Daily Show”.

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:46 am

  40. VietnamEraVet: I sincerely hope that if Palen becomes President she does her best to stall this invasion by immediately causing Armageddon so the Rapture will come and those nasty liberals, especially the black ones, will all be crying when they are “Left Behind!” as the Good and Just and the Elect have an opportunity to find safety in blissfully relaxing in Heaven or fishing in Alaska, whichever they choose!

    You don’t get out much, do you?

    Comment by aunursa (1b5bad) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:48 am

  41. Comment by VietnamEraVet — 10/22/2008 @ 8:41 am

    You know, those all-night bong sessions have just got to take a toll in destroyed brain-cells, and I just don’t think you have very many more that you can risk losing.

    Remember, the VA can help!

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:48 am

  42. #37 Just produce a birth certficate….is that too much vetting for a President?

    Comment by Bfidler (e6db0a) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:50 am

  43. Ya CW Obama is definitely a terrorist out to destroy the wonderful economy and the successful war on terrorism that Bush has brought us..not to mention the balanced budget..

    Oh that’s right McCain has repudiated the Bush policies… the ones last month you folks so passionately supported… But thats ok. You can both support Bush policies and run from them ..all at the same time in Republican Bizzarro World..

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:51 am

  44. Bfidler..they dont give birth certificates on Mars. People arent born they are ohbeyeeded.. its a Martian word there is no Earth equivalent..Sorry

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:54 am

  45. #Ya CW Obama is definitely a terrorist out to destroy the wonderful economy and the successful war on terrorism that Bush has brought us..not to mention the balanced budget..

    Lol, you’re the one that brought it up.

    Advantage: CW.

    Oh that’s right McCain has repudiated the Bush policies… the ones last month you folks so passionately supported… But thats ok. You can both support Bush policies and run from them ..all at the same time in Republican Bizzarro World..

    Comment by VietnamEraVet — 10/22/2008 @ 8:51 am

    Non-sequitur.

    Game, set, match: CW.

    If you have a quarter, we can play again.

    Unless Obama took it and gave it to someone who only had a dime.

    Comment by CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:57 am

  46. Some people like McCain came home from war with their minds intact then there are those like you. God bless all our VFWs. As mentioned earlier the VA may be able to help you.

    Comment by Bfidler (e6db0a) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:59 am

  47. little green pals that intend to take over any day!
    What problem do you have with the color green? Were you the one Kermit the Frog was singing about, causing him grief just because he was green?

    by immediately causing Armageddon so the Rapture will come
    You need to review your notes on comparative religion. It is one version of Islam that thinks you can bring about the Final Judgement by bringing mass chaos and conflict.
    Historical Christian thought, whether including “the Rapture” or not, pictures the Final Judgement coming as the world has become more violent and hateful in spite of the Church’s influence for good.
    Not that I expect that you seriously want to understand the fine points, but you may want to show that you know your subject matter.

    relaxing in Heaven or fishing in Alaska, whichever they choose! A few days of fishing in Alaska would be nice, but I doubt that is an option, and I doubt it will be an option that I miss at the time.

    Comment by VietnamEraVet — 10/22/2008 @ 8:41 am

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:07 am

  48. VietnamEraRearEchelonWeenie said:

    I sincerely hope that if Palen becomes President she does her best to stall this invasion by immediately causing Armageddon so the Rapture will come and those nasty liberals, especially the black ones, will all be crying when they are “Left Behind!” as the Good and Just and the Elect have an opportunity to find safety in blissfully relaxing in Heaven or fishing in Alaska, whichever they choose!

    Me too, VietnamEraRearEchelonWeenie, me too.

    Comment by nk (5dcbab) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:10 am

  49. personally-I can’t wait for the next Maya Angalou poem-should be a real ‘stemwinder’-
    btw-when do I get a”..history month?”

    Comment by pdbuttons (359493) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:10 am

  50. We know now that in the early years of the twenty first century this world was being watched closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own. We know now that as human beings busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinized and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacence people went to and fro over the earth about their little affairs, serene in the assurance of their dominion over this small spinning fragment of solar driftwood which by chance or design man has inherited out of the dark mystery of Time and Space. Yet across an immense ethereal gulf, minds that to our minds as ours are to the beasts in the jungle, intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes and slowly and surely drew their plans to install Barack Obama as their stealth candidate and end the dominion of man on Earth once and forever!!.
    McCain Press Release as broadcast by Fox News next week ..sometime

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:20 am

  51. VEV – Baracky wasn’t born on Mars. He was created. He’s a George Soros animatronic creation. Please check your facts.

    Did you read the story on ACORN in the NY Slimes today VEV? Their own lawyer produced a smoking gun legal report. TOAST BABEE TOAST!!!!111!!1!

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:21 am

  52. McCain has picked up a key supporter.. Wonder if the liberal press will bury this too..
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VA3B80&show_article=1

    Comment by VietnamEraVet — 10/22/2008 @ 8:33 am

    Those Arabs are playing with your head, REMF. It hurts when they do that. And those voices ! Tell them to go away.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:23 am

  53. They care more about their reputations than the facts. Period.

    I agree that the editors obviously don’t care about facts.

    I don’t think it’s their care for their reputations that is driving them to this perverseness, however. Ultimately, failing to care about reporting the facts accurately will cost them what little professional reputation as responsible journalists they have left.

    I think they care about electing Obama more than even their reputations.

    Comment by Beldar (d6756d) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:29 am

  54. Patterico @ #21. I cannot even imagine you not correcting a mistake like that. Actually, I cannot picture you overtly lying or dissembling like that in the first place. But certainly, if you did, and especially if you were called on it, you would do right.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:35 am

  55. They have no reputations left, outside of their own little insular world.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:35 am

  56. Beldar – Ultimately, failing to care about reporting the facts accurately will cost them what little professional reputation as responsible journalists they have left.

    What do you mean “…will cost them…”?

    It has cost them their professional reputations.

    Comment by Apogee (366e8b) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:41 am

  57. Apogee – If you think someone is a lying crapweasel, and they continue to actively prove that they are a lying crapweasel, does your opinion of them actually continue to go down, or does it reach the bottom at some point?

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:55 am

  58. It has cost them their professional reputations.
    .
    That assumes that their professional reputations rise and fall on some measure of “reporting objective reality.”
    .
    On the other hand, if their reputations rise and fall on the ability to manipulate gullible marks (see carnival barker, “This way to see the Egress!”), then these episodes of printing falsehoods is a reputation enhancement.
    .
    I think the profession measures itself on its ability to manipulate, and “truth” is a deliberate casualty. This isn’t new. See Walter Cronkite and earlier. Masters of manipulation, gatekeepers of public perception. And yet the public thinks journalists’ reputations hinge on ability to present a clear impression of reality. Ha!

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:58 am

  59. Why are Conservatives always so nasty.. Maybe a little music might help..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLvgwHGlpdQ

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:01 am

  60. JD — If you think someone is a lying crapweasel, and they continue to actively prove that they are a lying crapweasel, does your opinion of them actually continue to go down, or does it reach the bottom at some point?
    .
    But YOUR opinion, and mine, is insignificant to the point of being meaningless. Even if we are correct as a matter of logic and principle, we can be run over by the brute force of an immoral lying hoard.

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:01 am

  61. cboldt – Are they immoral or amoral ?

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:10 am

  62. lying heards do not scare me much. Teeming heards, on the other hand, rank up there with midgets, dwarfs, and clowns.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:11 am

  63. Al Qeada endorsing McCain and Palin blowing $150,000 worth of Republican donations on cloths for herself last month are both playing with our heads, MikeK.

    It never rains but it pours.

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:29 am

  64. Teeming heards, on the other hand, rank up there with midgets, dwarfs, and clowns.

    It never rains but it pours.

    Yes, indeed it does.

    Comment by Dmac (f11dda) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:36 am

  65. I see sniffles has the latest Olberdouchenozzle/MadCow/DNC/Baracky talking point.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:39 am

  66. Palin blowing $150,000 worth of Republican donations on cloths[sic] for herself

    I wonder how much Democrat cash Michelle’s blown on room service.

    Ah, it doesn’t matter, we’ll never know. Just like we’ll never know just who keeps donating to Obama under the names “qxlrnglx” and “doodie”.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:52 am

  67. Rob – That is a lie. Baracky is returning all of the money to qklrnglx and doodie.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:58 am

  68. #59,
    You’re no vet. Your posts give you away. ‘ ‘ Era ‘ ‘ ?

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:58 am

  69. It is kind of difficult to return money to a ficticious character, but they are doing so. Isn’t it illegal to donate money to a political campaign in someone else’s name?

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:58 am

  70. VN – See the above REMF

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:59 am

  71. It’s actually a fiscal conservative talking point, Rob.

    If it doesn’t concern Republicans, they ain’t Republicans.

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:00 am

  72. It’s actually a fiscal conservative talking point, Rob.

    cough … cough … bullshit … cough … cough

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:03 am

  73. JD – thanks.

    VietnamEraRearEchelonWeenie

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:03 am

  74. I love how the Leftist trolls always think that they can, in some way, get to define who is Conservative or Republican.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:03 am

  75. JD,

    Since joining the campaign, Palin has lifted $2500 out of the campaign coffers and gone shopping for herself, every.single.day.

    $50,000 blown at Sak’s Fifth Avenue alone.

    Then gone out and told working class Americans she’s one of them.

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:09 am

  76. “He who defines the words, controls the argument.”

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:10 am

  77. Palin has lifted $2500 out of the campaign coffers and gone shopping for herself, every.single.day.

    Care to substantiate this assertion lie ?

    Where did she go shopping today? Yesterday?

    If this concerns you so, where did Baracky get all of his custom-tailored suits? Who paid for them? Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:11 am

  78. AD – The Left is remarkable in their abuse of the English language.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:12 am

  79. Here, JD:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

    Get outside the cocoon once in a while, eh?

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:15 am

  80. Al Qeada endorsing McCain and Palin blowing $150,000 worth of Republican donations on cloths for herself last month are both playing with our heads, MikeK.

    It never rains but it pours.

    Comment by snuffles

    Only yours, sweetie, only yours. As I commented before but you must have missed it, that wouldn’t keep Pelosi and Biden in Botox for a month.

    Comment by Mike K (f89cb3) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:17 am

  81. And as well all know, Ben Smith’s site is strictly non – partisan and always objective. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go outside and laugh my head off.

    Comment by Dmac (f11dda) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:18 am

  82. Get outside the cocoon once in a while, eh?

    Has this moth who posits this ever evolved past the larvae stage?

    Comment by Dmac (f11dda) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:19 am

  83. Here’s a Fox link with the same story for you cocoon dwellers:

    http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/rnc-spent-150k-on-palin-family-wardrobe-accessories/

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:24 am

  84. $50,000 blown at Sak’s Fifth Avenue alone.

    Comment by snuffles

    Snuffles, you of all people. No outrage over the obscene amounts of money Barry’s spending to buy his next job promotion? An elected position??

    And remember. Your mainstream network reporters go through 150k in a nanosecond. Their clothes and crap are usually paid for by the stations. So if you don’t like Palin’s wardrobe, you damn well better have a problem with Couric, Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Olbermann, and definitely Anderson Cooper. The news houds peddling Obama to the masses don’t dress like you or me.

    For Obama, $150,000 is just chump change. Breakfast money.

    Surf over to Treacher who writes, “$150,000, that’s a lot of money. Scandalous. Say, is that more than Obama has spent on ads this morning?”

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:27 am

  85. Why are the Left (and being redundant, the Media) shaken to their very core by the possibility of Sarah Palin being elected Vice-President?
    Could it be that they genuinely fear that she would be the GOP equivalent of Harry Truman?
    A President who would not be ashamed of her “common” connections, who would remind the elites everyday of their disconnect from the vast majority of the American People, and make them more irrelevant than they currently are?

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:29 am

  86. Guess it’s true Vermont, Politics Can Make You Rationalize Anything.

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:32 am

  87. Snuffy is afraid of teh woman with a rifle, apparently.

    Comment by Dmac (f11dda) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:48 am

  88. No, I think it’s the skinning knife that has him petrified.

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:49 am

  89. What weapon did Palin use to kill McCain’s chances of winning the election?

    That’s the one I’m scared of.

    Comment by snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:52 am

  90. Snuffles, don’t know who you are – but you are a lockstep Po’bama voter of the worst kind. No questions. All rainbows & unicorns. He’s a black radical who has deep ties with black radicals.

    Funny to see the GOP VP scare the crap out of him. If elected potus, Superfly will encounter folks a lot less threatening than the formidable Sarah Palin. (and you jumped topics, BTW.)

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:55 am

  91. I condemn myself for double posting, but it is appropriate here. I think it is wonderful Sarah Palin has been clothes shopping. From the thread on Palin’s college record:

    But this is hilarious!
    The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August. Comment by Nanker Phelge — 10/21/2008 @ 8:09 pm

    Maybe nanker won’t bother to read this since she is banned. But this simply proves Sarah Palin isn’t independently wealthy from being on the payroll of big oil, Fannie and Freddy, big law firms, political paybacks, writing autobiographies filled with obscene language and drug use, or help with the mortgage by felons in the pen for fraud.
    Just the kind of person that can identify with the “other America”; that “other America” that the Dems say the Repubs are out of touch with; the ones that don’t know to order Iranian caviar when you’re ordering caviar.

    Comment by MD in Philly — 10/22/2008 @ 6:12 am

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:56 am

  92. That’s the one I’m scared of.

    It’s really about teh gender patriarchy, right?

    Comment by Dmac (f11dda) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:00 pm

  93. They are all lying like mad. Andrea Mitchell got caught lying about Biden. I wonder what Al thinks. If these polls stay as close as they are now for the next two weeks, I expect to see heads exploding.

    Comment by Mike K (531ff4) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:14 pm

  94. No pant suits = priceless

    Comment by Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:26 pm

  95. So, Patterico, when will you just give up and accept that the LAT will not deal with you in good faith?

    Comment by Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:28 pm

  96. But this simply proves Sarah Palin isn’t independently wealthy from being on the payroll of big oil, Fannie and Freddy, big law firms, political paybacks, writing autobiographies filled with obscene language and drug use, or help with the mortgage by felons in the pen for fraud.

    Comment by MD in Philly — 10/22/2008 @ 11:56 am

    My thoughts exactly, MD.

    She’s not rich like Obama or McCain or even miserly Slow Joe “what am I talkin’ about” Biden. She has more in common with the regular “folks” than any of her candidate-peers.

    Snuffilis thinking this is “OMG A BIG DEAL” is similar to what a cat thinks chasing a laser pointer:

    “I just know I’m gonna get it this time!”

    Comment by CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:33 pm

  97. BFIDLER If you are really interested in birth certificate and not just muckrackiing then this should satisfy you..
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    Comment by VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:41 pm

  98. Should we actually expect the LA Times to exhibit unbiased Journalism? Why should it start now when it has done nothing but turn its back on Obama and his leftist illuminati ideals for the past 21 months. The liberal MSM has done nothing but report one-sided stories packaged as “news.”

    Comment by Jeff (86606e) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:49 pm

  99. Amazing how the Obama TruthSquadders come out in farce.

    Comment by Dr. K (f196bc) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:52 pm

  100. Palin has lifted $2500 out of the campaign coffers and gone shopping for herself, every.single.day

    I already read your talking points, sniffles. The fact is that she has not “lifted” $2500 a day. There were large expenses for clothing and make-up. There is nothing to suggest that this is a daily occurrence. So, again, you are a liar.

    SHOCKA that Politico would run with something like that. Aren’t they the one that led with the horror of someone having their children travel with them on official business too?

    Ironic that the Republicans actually list their campaign expenditure. I am sure that Baracky is just tooling around in off the rack clothes from Filene’s Basement or TJ Maxx.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 12:59 pm

  101. Insta-lanche.

    Comment by Karl (f07e38) — 10/22/2008 @ 2:36 pm

  102. BTW, Palin does not keep the clothes; they will be donated to — or auctioned off — for charity.

    Comment by Karl (f07e38) — 10/22/2008 @ 2:37 pm

  103. To be fair to Ms. Gold, she was not with Obama in Ayers living room, so she can not absolutely verify that the meeting happened. Plus, Sen. Obama will give us LGBTQ marriage, and really isn’t what this election is about?

    Comment by FreddySmooth (f9efe7) — 10/22/2008 @ 2:40 pm

  104. Clothes, Make-up, and incidentals….

    Since the media is composed of public companies, we need a forensic accountant to give them an anal probe into how much they spend on their “talent” for the above.
    I think this could turn into a “glass house” moment.

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 3:12 pm

  105. It’s news when the LAT says it is.

    And Palin’s wardrobe–does Pelosi pay retail?

    Comment by Kate (e45cd6) — 10/22/2008 @ 3:17 pm

  106. Comment by Kate — 10/22/2008 @ 3:17 pm

    If she does, she overpays.

    Comment by Another Drew (d7f986) — 10/22/2008 @ 3:20 pm

  107. Only her dermatologist knows what she really pays for those injections. Granny McBotox sure looks like she’s been going overboard on those babies recently.

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 10/22/2008 @ 3:41 pm

  108. VietnamEraVet- comment 37 rocks.

    other than that,
    Patterico’s headline claim that “L.A. Times Will Not Correct Erroneous Claim That There Is ‘No Recorded Basis’ for Ayers-Obama Tie” is misleading. The Times is not disputing the tie, just that the event in question was where he “launched his career.” By stating “I recently caught the L.A. Times erroneously claiming that there was ‘no recorded basis’ for John McCain’s claim that Barack Obama launched his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room.” If sufficient evidence exists that Obama campaigned at any time before the event, it can be argued the Times is technically correct that this event didn’t ‘launch’ his political career.

    But this is a petty matter. The whole association is a desperate stretch to associate Obama with fear. Some call him a ‘Muslim’; another calls him ‘that one’. Meanwhile, Ayers was once a violent, extremist war protester; now, he’s a unrepentant terrorist. Therefore, Obama represents Muslim terrorists. That’s why Mccain’s/Rove’s tactics are so insidious. First of all, the implication of there being something wrong with being a

    Muslim is reckless as a campaign strategy, for the cost of trying to win an election is to further demonize a religion shared with current enemies of the US, further exacerbating tensions with them.

    Second, Ayers’ conviction of ending the Vietnam war led to extreme protest actions, but to call it ‘un-American’ misses the point. His misguided anger was at the perpetuators of the military industrial complex who have infiltrated government, therefore his group’s ultimate goals, perhaps in a twisted way to many, were to change this country for the better. We have every right to denounce Ayers’ past actions, even if you choose to call it a “terrorist” tactic, but in lumping him into this generic ‘Terrorist’ category, it sets a dangerous precedent in an age of ‘Homeland Security’. Ayers’ sort of ‘terrorism’ is not to undermine the roots of our cherished freedoms and democracy. In the coming decades, this “us vs. them,” “good vs. evil” Straussian dichotomy needs to be extinguished. We need to exercise the intelligence to discern between shades of grey to look for ultimate motives if we, as a society, have a chance of maintaining freedom and fighting tyranny, for don’t be surprised if tyranny finds its way from within.

    Comment by Ed Hudecek (43507a) — 10/22/2008 @ 4:13 pm

  109. First of all, the implication of there being something wrong with being a

    Muslim is reckless as a campaign strategy,

    Then you should tell Austan Goolsbee to quit doing that.

    but to call it ‘un-American’ misses the point.

    He blew up American people and American property. Nothing screams American Patriot more than that.

    Comment by JD (c69925) — 10/22/2008 @ 4:22 pm

  110. We need to exercise the intelligence to discern between shades of grey to look for ultimate motives if we, as a society, have a chance of maintaining freedom and fighting tyranny, for don’t be surprised if tyranny finds its way from within.

    I hereby nominate this Troll for moral relativism – champion for today. Truly breathtaking in it’s scope of excuses and mealy – mouthed platitudes in order to obfuscate crimes of wanton murder.

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 10/22/2008 @ 4:52 pm

  111. A troll with tepid partisan apologist blood in his veins writes, about Ayres adventures with pipe bombs

    “..We need to exercise the intelligence to discern between shades of grey to look for ultimate motives if we, as a society, have a chance of maintaining freedom and fighting tyranny, for don’t be surprised if tyranny finds its way from within….”

    My guess is that even this person’s opinion would change when a pipe bomb blows up a relative. But he needs to exercise his intelligence!

    So far as shades of grey, I wonder if the character has read this?

    “Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, “How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?” He replied:[27] “I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? … I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable.”

    Unconscionable. So he supported setting bombs.

    From:
    http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground/interview.html

    Or my favorite, from Ayres wife:

    “Dohrn was criticized for a comment she made about the Charles Manson led Tate-LaBianca murders in a speech during the December 1969 “War Council” meeting organized by the Weathermen and attended by about 400 people in Flint, Michigan: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!” Dohrn also charged that her fellow left-wingers showed themselves to be scared “honkies” for not burning down Chicago when Black Panther leader Fred Hampton was killed, and urged her audience to arm themselves and be “a fighting force alongside the blacks”.

    Speaking of “unconscionable.”

    Naturally Ayres said this was a joke “in poor taste” (you think?). However, other folks who were part of the “revolutionary movement” disagree:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09

    The Trollish One was not there. Horowitz was part of that movement, until his falling out over the murder of a friend by the Black Panthers. Why believe Ayres and not Horowitz? Partisanship? Really?

    So, yeah, Ayres was just a fellow with high spirits. True, he was part of three bombings—but they were little bombs, not intended to kill anyone. Other than two friends of Ayres who killed themselves making bombs, including a girlfriend of Ayres.

    Just kids. A long time ago.

    To quote Ace: nuance! And I guess I need to truly understand The Narrative.

    Omlettes, eggs, hope, and change!

    Comment by Eric Blair (2708f4) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:09 pm

  112. For Obama, $150,000 is just chump change.

    Yeah, but it’s Chump Change You Can Believe In!

    Comment by Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/22/2008 @ 5:33 pm

  113. ^ good pic !

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/22/2008 @ 6:03 pm

  114. Ed, I find your attempt to characterize attempted murder as “extreme protest actions” to be simply despicable.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/22/2008 @ 7:09 pm

  115. I do not get it!!!!!!!!!! And as a right wing, republican, less government, please, please, please let me keep my hard earned money I cannot even begin to imagine giving the government more, baptist feminist who believes in submission to my husband, (don’t even go there), I DON’T GET IT!!! WHY ARE PEOPLE OKAY WITH SOCIALISM?????? What is Barack Obama’s real motivation? The only reason he cares about the redistribution of wealth is because it will get him elected. The only reason he cares about a national health care system is because it will get him elected. What is it he is really trying to accomplish???? Just becasue a system has problems does not mean you should fix it in such a way that will cripple it!!!!

    Comment by Agast in America (ae7bfc) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:24 pm

  116. Look at the date of the post on “Musings and Migraines”–Beginning of 2005.If this meeting took place in 1995/6 then why would a blogger write about it 10 yrs later? Also when was Condi Rice appointed? This blogging post happened just after that. OK the blogger then reminisced about the Ayres/Obama meetingsome yrs back,but it couldn’t have been as far back as 1995/6

    Comment by sharon smith (c4c570) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:27 pm

  117. Sharon Smith – I think AIPAC and the Joooooooooooooooooos had something to do with it.

    Comment by JD (6248dc) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:35 pm

  118. “If this meeting took place in 1995/6 then why would a blogger write about it 10 yrs later?”

    Sharon – The correct person to whom to address your questions would be the blogger in question. People on this blog don’t have pretensions of understanding the progressive mindset, other than they are inveterate liars and will do anything and everything in the pursuit of power.

    I hope that helps.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:42 pm

  119. Aaronson, Jones, Rutherford never existed.

    Comment by David in San Diego (23f226) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:47 pm

  120. The sad thing is that if it weren’t for all the liberals who have made so much money that they can afford to vote for President based on how it effects their self-esteem, this race wouldn’t be close.

    Comment by Frosty (b09d5d) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:24 pm

  121. Would it help, in order to unsnarl this discussion about the usual media bias, to point out that “launching ones’s career” includes, in the South Chicago environment, not just telling a few friends over coffee that you intend to run, but getting a real power broker in the area to back you? And this is probably what McCain means? I mean, realy, is it so esoteric or such a stretch to be think that accounts of the “launching of career” of a politician might include a reference to an entire campaign for office as in “..so-and-so launched his career in politics by running successfully against so-and-so in the year..”??

    Comment by T Jenner (6c117a) — 10/23/2008 @ 4:01 am

  122. It’s not the questionable “career launching” or the questionable “recorded basis”,it’s the politically significant unquestionable friend who does not “…regret setting bombs” in an attempt to help Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy the United States

    Comment by Abigail Adams (e4e3e7) — 10/23/2008 @ 5:36 am

  123. What they meant was: “We said Barack Obama’s career was launhced in Bill Ayers’ living room before we said it wasn’t.”

    Comment by Paradox (60412b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:55 am

  124. What fool made the rule that media bias is a bad thing? Why do fools get upset over this? You fools, fight for media bias while you still can.

    Comment by NotesFromAboveground (fe4090) — 10/23/2008 @ 4:47 pm

  125. Hey Patterico neocons, I’m back–ready to draw your ire and get you to use those eloquent phrases of political discourse you so favor:

    Asshat

    Mendoucheous

    and “Go Fuck yourself

    (A special thank you goes out to JD for that last one!)

    Here’s more good news for you–Barry Goldwater’s grand-daughter endorses Obama!

    As Rudy Giuliani would say, “I read it myself”:

    “Being Barry Goldwater’s granddaughter and living in Arizona, one would assume that I would be voting for our state’s senator, John McCain. I am still struck by certain ‘dyed in the wool’ Republicans who are on the fence this election, as it seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Myself, along with my siblings and a few cousins, will not be supporting the Republican presidential candidates this year. We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics. I learned a lot about my grandfather while producing the documentary, Mr. Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. Our generation of Goldwaters expects government to provide for constitutional protections. We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket.

    My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman’s right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930′s, a cause my grandfather supported. I’m not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms we hold so dear.”

    So how about a smear campaign against the Goldwaters now!

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:35 pm

  126. I hear other Bush Congressional Republicans are soon to cut loose from the McCain campaign as he trashed them, blaming them for the current economic woes.

    So which analogy do you think works better here:

    “Rats deserting the sinking ship”

    OR

    “Mother devouring its young”

    “The American Public Needs to Know!”

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:40 pm


  127. and “Go Fuck yourself”

    (A special thank you goes out to JD for that last one!)

    How about you put that one in context?

    You had just got done speculating about Sen. McCain screwing my wife.

    I’m not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation

    So Goldwater would not agree with Baracky or Biden either.

    Question – Though I know I will never get an honest answer. Is the grandchild of a Republican that ran for office over 30 years ago supposed to persuade people? Do granchildren somehow never think for themselves and hold all the views of their grandparents?

    Comment by JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:42 pm

  128. And that other Great Moment in Republican Straight Talk when you called me a “Fucking Liar” because I asserted:

    John Sidney McCain committed adultery with the daughter of a convicted felon, abandoning his wife and three children. President Reagan and his wife Nancy subsequently gave the wronged woman a job in the White House because they were so appalled at McCain’s behavior.

    For those of you who joined us late, apparently the McCain=Adultery pisses them off more than Obama=Ayers–kinda makes their base go all wobbly if you know what I mean. Why they have difficulty acknowledging a matter of public record? I can’t tell you the number of evasions, deflections, changing the subjects, personal attacks, etc.–what was it JD? About 200 responses I drew from you boneheads and no one actually came right out and said the statement was TRUE.

    Did get a lot of “Fucking Liar“s though,
    and even the following exchange:

    Me: “Can someone tell me something positive about John McCain?”

    The reply: “Are you nuts?”

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:58 pm

  129. I repeat my open invitations:

    Can someone tell me something positive about John McCain?

    Can someone explain how John McCain’s Tax Cut Plan will help us get out of the recession?

    Can someone answer the multiple choice question:

    John McCain as President will attack Iran

    A) Probably within 2 years
    B) Maybe in his first term
    C) Unlikely

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:05 pm

  130. I wondered if there was anything out there to validate this event. I am sure there is more evidence, but the liberals will try to keep it buried until the election is over and Bill Ayers is named National Education Director…or whatever. Thank you for bringing this to the public. I just more people cared.

    As for the last comment about something positive about John McCain, even his opponents in the Senate have many positive things about him. For one, he is a national HERO. As for his adultery, John McCain takes full responsibility for this. If you had ever read any of his books you would know this.

    Comment by wanda keith (e67bf2) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:10 pm

  131. And JD is quite right–based on John McCain’s previous adultery I did speculate on McCain screwing his wife…..just as JD, based on Obama’s “association” with Bill Ayers, speculated on Obama endangering me and my country.

    All of this I might add was in the general context of explaining to him how a SMEAR works.

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:11 pm

  132. Here’s more good news for you–Barry Goldwater’s grand-daughter endorses Obama!

    Have you heard the Chinese proverb ?

    First generation-coolie; second generation-merchant; third generation-rich man; fourth generation-coolie.

    Guess where she is.

    John Sidney McCain committed adultery with the daughter of a convicted felon, abandoning his wife and three children. President Reagan and his wife Nancy subsequently gave the wronged woman a job in the White House because they were so appalled at McCain’s behavior.

    You’re not even intelligent enough to know that two of Carol McCain’s children were from HER first marriage. Nonetheless, he adopted her two sons and they are still close. One of them works for the Cindy McCain company. Oh, and Carol McCain got the White House job before the divorce.

    We need a better class of trolls.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:13 pm

  133. Smartly, Senator Obama didn’t fall for the tactic and say on national television “Go ‘F’ yourself” when presented with a hypothetical speculation designed to rile him up.

    JD on the other hand was not so fortunate. No problem there–JD is not running for president.

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:16 pm

  134. The only good troll, is a dead troll!

    Comment by Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:17 pm

  135. SEE what I mean–Mike K can’t even go near the adultery subject–he has to pick away at detail on the fringes of the central point.

    Hey Mike K.—-Did McCain commit adultery?

    Simple Yes or No will do.

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:21 pm

  136. JerrySpringer, you still trying to compare adultery to domestic terrorists.

    How droll.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:25 pm

  137. Jerry Springer, have you committed adultery ? Come on. You can tell us. We won’t tell anyone. In fact, your command of the facts is so poor you might get even that wrong.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:37 pm

  138. No, Springless probably has no idea about how to commit adultery, or at least with whom.

    But, I’m sure his Momma did.
    What is your Father’s name again, Springless?
    Did you ever know it?

    Comment by Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:07 pm

  139. And that other Great Moment in Republican Straight Talk when you called me a “Fucking Liar” because I asserted:

    John Sidney McCain committed adultery with the daughter of a convicted felon, abandoning his wife and three children. President Reagan and his wife Nancy subsequently gave the wronged woman a job in the White House because they were so appalled at McCain’s behavior.

    Actually, you asserted that President Bush made those accusations against Sen. McCain.

    Here is something positive about John McCain. He has more integrity in his nose hairs than you could ever dream of having.

    John McCain understands honor, a concept that is a punchline in jokes to people like you.

    just as JD, based on Obama’s “association” with Bill Ayers, speculated on Obama endangering me and my country.

    I did no such thing, but if something I said was misconstrued by you, my bad. I do believe that his association with Ayers is important, and he has been less than truthful. I do believe his policies would be horrific for our country, but I do not think Baracky could endanger our country.

    I still await your apology for bringing my wife into this discussion, in the manner in which you did.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:17 pm

  140. Hey Mikey

    You said, “Oh, and Carol McCain got the White House job before the divorce.”

    You mean the Reagans hired Carol McCain while John was committing adultery on her, rather than after the divorce–when technically he was no longer committing adultery?

    Why that’s remarkable! You mean they would show support for their friend while she was getting dumped on rather than wait quietly by until after the divorce?

    Tell me, do you guys ever think about what it is you’re saying—–or do you just type mindlessly??????

    But then again, as regards “women’s health” we all know where you and your candidate stand.

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:19 pm

  141. It is like a twatwaffle with ADD snorting meth and speed.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:21 pm

  142. So which will be the first of you to start calling for donations for PALIN 2012?

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:21 pm

  143. Jerry Springer used to live by me. You, sir, are no Jerry Springer. No one with your writing style could ever shag a mother/daughter two-fer, for example.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:22 pm

  144. We do thank JD for another great McCain campaign
    slogan:

    JOHN MCCAIN HAS MORE INTEGRITY IN HIS NOSE HAIRS THAN BARACK OBAMA

    His previous zinger was:

    YOU’RE EITHER WITH MCCAIN OR YOU’RE WITH THE TERRORISTS

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:25 pm

  145. The biggest irony here is that JerrySpringer did not even take the time to learn anything about its audience. It assumes that this is some pro-McCain site, when in reality, he was the least favorite of many choices, and there have been long running discussions as to whether or not to vote for him, or not vote at all. But, don’t go worrying about that, asshat. Just keep making shit up, pulling shit out yer ass, lying, and letting everyone know the complete lack of class and honesty you have been blessed with.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:25 pm

  146. First one is true. Second one I never said, nor do I believe.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:26 pm

  147. Uh, Jerry? Romney 2012. Google it.

    Also, either bold or italics. Not both. Kinda like stripes and checks. No workie.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:26 pm

  148. It really is a tiresome troll, but I cannot stand to let it lie and distort without calling it out for doing so.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:27 pm

  149. carlitos – You have to give it bonus points for ALL CAPS. It is in the twatwaffles blood.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:28 pm

  150. Speaking of John McCain’s honor and nose hairs, both are visible in this video, just released recently.

    link here

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:28 pm

  151. carlitos – That is pretty compelling stuff.

    I cannot wait for Jerry to start mocking his injuries. That is about all that is left for him.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:34 pm

  152. JD, I think Jerry already did in another thread. I’ll have to find it.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:37 pm

  153. And to all of those who really are more interested in my love life than in standing up for your candidate, I repeat for you the SMEAR 101
    handbook multiple choices:

    A) Deflect
    B) Evade
    C) Change the Subject
    D) Attack Obama
    E) Attack me

    You guys–as usual–are going for E) Attack me.

    Still waiting for any of you to have the cajones to state the TRUTH:

    John McCain committed Adultery.

    You keep asking me why I go on about this?

    If you can’t tell the truth about a matter of Public Record how can I believe you about ANYTHING ELSE????????

    If you can’t tell the truth about this why should any independent voter believe you about ANYTHING ELSE???????

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:44 pm

  154. I don’t answer any question in bold, all caps with 8 question marks. No offense. It is usually being asked by someone with a mental disorder, so my answer is kinda irrelevant.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:46 pm

  155. Why would we even attempt to have a rational discussion with a moron?

    Comment by Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:48 pm

  156. I’m waiting for Obama to return from Hawaii with the birth certificate he has never actually produced if he can actually bribe someone to create one, otherwise that default judgement in the Pennsylvania suit against him may stand and he may be disqualified from running.

    Jerry would be disappointed by that I’m sure. His grandmother has been sick for a while, why pick the final rwo weeks of the campaign to visit unless there was another reason? Barry’s not a real compassionate guy. His mother was dying of cancer for more for more than a year and Barry bitches about her worrying about medical bills. Visits from Barry – zippo, nada, zilch.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:49 pm

  157. Comment by daleyrocks — 10/23/2008 @ 8:49 pm

    There was a post here earlier about an identical lawsuit filed in HI that he might have to appear for, and that was speculated as the reason for the quick trip to Honolulu.
    It is hard to believe anything that the media is telling us about this guy.

    Comment by Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:52 pm

  158. Jerry, you started the SMEAR 101 yourself in reaction to the discussion about Obama. You – not us.

    How stupid can you be to so brazenly engage in projection like that?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:52 pm

  159. So now it’s a combination of

    C) Change the Subject
    D) Attack Obama
    E) Attack me

    I really had no idea this McCain=Adultery thing was such a flash point with you guys.

    John McCain I guess has
    never, never, never,
    ever, ever, ever
    done anything untoward in his life.

    Your new slogan is

    JOHN MCCAIN–INFALLIBLE AND PERFECT!

    kinda elitist though, isn’t that?

    What would Joe the Plummer say?

    Comment by JerrySpringer (64f963) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:59 pm

  160. Jerry, you are really a pretty piss poor liar. You are the one changing the subject.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:59 pm

  161. Nothing is a “flashpoint,” I just don’t argue with people who are insane. I wish you well.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:01 pm

  162. PS, “Jerry” – Yeah, McCain probably fooled around on his first wife 35 years ago (back when Bill Ayers was bombing things). You’d be surprised how human some … humans are.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:04 pm

  163. John McCain I guess has
    never, never, never,
    ever, ever, ever
    done anything untoward in his life.

    Nope. You are quite wrong. SHOCKA. He admitted that he was wrong. That he was a broken man, and his wife was broken as well. THEY state that neither could recover together, and she remains a friend of his to this day, a supporter of his. You really are a tiresome little fuck.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:06 pm

  164. There is nothing it will not distort, or outright lie about. And it should get called on it every time.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:07 pm

  165. JD, it is not just a tiresome fuck but a dishonest one as well.

    It claims that others are trying to change the subject by bringing up Obama and Ayers …

    But I looked at the title of the thread and find that in fact, this thread is about Obama and Ayers.

    It was Jerry Springer who was trying to change the suject. Imagine that.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:09 pm

  166. AD – Sorry, I must have missed that. Then again, nobody expected no answer by the Obama campaign to the Pennsylvania litigation and a default judgement to be entered.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:10 pm

  167. Jerry is a world class turd fondler. Why does he keep smearing himself with feces? He should show his friends, if he has any, his comments. They would intervene.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:12 pm

  168. On the bright side, I’ve won significant dollars playing poker whilst Jerry has been googling “AP style guide.” heh.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:13 pm

  169. SPQR – I see street people who do a much better job talking to themselves than Jerry. They are more coherent and educated and make more sense. They probably make more money too.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:15 pm

  170. daley – I disagree. I suspect that jerry’s friends agree with him. You can only achieve that level of mendoucheity with peer reinforcement. I suspect that its friends in the institution sit around and say, “sssssssssss…. burn” after every one of its rants.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:20 pm

  171. …and “mendoucheity” enters the lexicon. Kudos.

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:30 pm

  172. Oh, I’ve got more carlitos … I am just saving them for the appropriate times.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:31 pm

  173. I just picture a 6th grader reading aloud, encountering the word, and it rhymes with “go slim shady” -

    Comment by carlitos (cae053) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:32 pm

  174. synecdouche

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:34 pm

  175. Another Drew, I thought the nonsense about Obama’s birth certificate was just looney tune conspiracy nut stuff.

    But why is it that the campaign does not deal with it straight up? Why the squirrelly stuff in PA? If Obama was legitimately born a citizen, as I have every reason to think he was, why not prove that and then get Rule 11 sanctions against the guy in Pennsylvania? Why the failure to file an answer?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:37 pm

  176. JD – Those friends you are talking about – They wear hats with propellors on top that spin when you push them – right? Plus pajamas with feet on them.

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:40 pm

  177. Why the failure to file an answer?

    SPQR – Jerry the answer man should know, don’t you think?

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:42 pm

  178. Because Baracky was trying to draft his appearance and answer, in crayon, and kept getting the ideas of Rights and privileges messed up, and would have to start all over. Constitutional scholars cannot be expected to deal with such lowbrow material like birth certificates.

    This is my all-time favorite Court decision. Enjoy.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:42 pm

  179. Comment by SPQR — 10/23/2008 @ 9:37 pm

    I have no idea other than he must be relying on the media to protect him and that he must have thought that it would be laughed out of court.

    The merits of the case(s): ?????????????????

    Comment by Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:44 pm

  180. SPQR – Baracky is a Citizen of the World. Borders mean nothing to him. They are artificial constructs. He is a uniter. He doesn’t need no stinkin’ birth certificate.

    Get with the program!

    Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:46 pm

  181. Comment by JD — 10/23/2008 @ 9:42 pm

    If Judge Kent ever tires of the grueling schedule demanded of District Judges, he has a bright future as a writer for Jay Leno.

    Wonderful!

    Comment by Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:50 pm

  182. AD – Glad you enjoyed it. I have had that bookmarked for years. I laugh out loud every time I read it. Every time one of the clownish trolls asks up, I picture them writing in crayon.

    Comment by JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:58 pm

  183. JD/Carlitos/Others:

    I really enjoyed reading your replies to the persistent troll. Kudos! Since it clearly perceives itself so superior to all (typical of water walkers) I do not want to engage it. Much less compliment it with a derogatory name like…”fly” comes to mind. They eat fecal matter and bother people, right? Springfly does have a nice ring to it though.

    Still, after observing it’s tremendous truther like tenacity to incessantly home in on it’s perception of the truth; I can’t help but wonder if we have been blessed with ubberliberal royalty in disguise? Power gluteus/milky loads himself? Obberworm? Chris I’ve got the tingly feeling?

    Yeah sparkyspringer, I chose “E” because I like to listen to people like you squeal. Big surprise you chose Jewwies name for a nick. Such a drama queen.

    Comment by MB (e24f1f) — 10/24/2008 @ 2:45 pm

  184. Comment by MB — 10/24/2008 @ 2:45 pm

    Very interesting speculation re The Springer.
    Since we know that Sullie prefers to bareback, we won’t need to find a condom large enough for a Kenworth when we drive it up Springer’s a$$.
    Wouldn’t be surprised if the mirrors don’t touch, though he might get a tingle from the CB antennae.

    Comment by Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 3:05 pm

  185. 40 YEARS AGO I CALLED LA TIMES “LOS ANGELES PRAVDA” – SO WHAT IS SO NEW ABOUT THOSE MARXISTS NOW?

    Comment by Marc Jeric (aa9140) — 10/24/2008 @ 10:09 pm

  186. why has the main stream media not picked up on this? I mean I know the answer
    but come on. Do you really have to make it so obvious. If this were John Mccain with associations to David Duke he would have never made it to the primary. Obama has been given a free pass and all those people voting for him just because of the race issue should wake up and smell the bias……they deserve to at least know the real obama although I don’t think they really care.

    Comment by barbie (6e6b1d) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:02 pm

  187. VietnamEraVet: “Ya CW Obama is definitely a terrorist out to destroy the wonderful economy and the successful war on terrorism that Bush has brought us..not to mention the balanced budget..”

    Everything is like Bizarro World when you are indoctrinated into a warped leftist worldview by the media, the schools, the universities. The first step for you to step out of the Salvadore Dali painting you call a perspective is to get your facts straight.

    No one called Obama a terrorist. Therefore, you are arguing with your imaginary friend, i.e., the stereotypical knuckledragging conservative who drinks Pabst blue ribbon beer, has sex with his daughter and who has only read one book in his life – one of Ted Haggard’s “Left Behind” series. You think with all that harping on prejudice and stereotypes, you libs would no better…

    Second, the destruction of this economy, as you already know but refuse to acknowledge is directly traceable to your party giving a bunch of predatory loans to people in destitute poverty and no way to pay it back. The Democrat Party – the party of usury and economic ruin. Who knew?

    Third, by what rolling goalpost would you judge success in the war on terror? We have had ZERO attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. “Irak, what about Irak..!??!!>#@!” Yes, our soldiers have bled and died for our country and meanwhile have captured or killed 75% of al-Qaeda leadership since 9/11 (Enders and Sandler 2006).

    While you resolve your mental meltdown to preserve your state of cognitive dissonance I will move on to the last point.

    The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and it wasn’t by the Mossad or by Bush’s frat buddies from Skull & Bones. If you believe that, your boat set sail a long time ago…

    And JerrySpringer, genius that you think you are, I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is that Warren G. Harding’s grandniece has come out to support Obama? Oooohhh. I’m in the midst of a mental breakdown. Someone call em after the election…

    Comment by KNAB (8c03cf) — 10/25/2008 @ 3:20 pm

  188. Obama is not a terrorist to date, but he is a radical socialist. His supporters are typically those who guess that they’ll benefit under his redistribution schemes, or those who want to posture to society on behalf of the lower and middle classes.

    As an owner of a 30 million dollar company, and as an ideological libertarian, I have begun to have second thoughts about what is best for me. Ruthless competition is what I fear most; not higher taxes. Higher taxes and increased regulation increases the start up costs of capital and labor, thus making it more difficult for new aggressive competitors to emerge in my markets.

    Oligarchy or more mildly put, fascism, will be the result of Obama’s political economy. So if you’re already ahead of the game, you might as well vote for him so he can keep the masses in their proper places.

    Eventually one lives long enough to understand that people don’t deserve liberty if they don’t desire it.

    Comment by Mandeville (fe4090) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:41 pm

  189. Sir,
    This is my first visit to your site, I come by way of Ann Coulter.

    Perhaps you could answer a question?

    Obama has denied having tattoos in an article reprinted in the LA. TIMES? However at the second presidential debate he clearly has a large “STAR” tattoo on his head. At the rear just left of center inside the hairline is a large black ink “STAR” Has anyone reported this? I’d like to know what it represents?
    Thanks very much,
    mark

    Comment by mark (68959d) — 10/26/2008 @ 6:05 pm

  190. mark, you got a photo? Cause this sounds pretty nutty to me.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 10/26/2008 @ 6:10 pm

  191. Great Blog! Druge got me here.

    LAT is suffering the natural consequences of advocacy journalism… 75 layoffs today and dwindling readership. Unless they learn to act big and corrrect such problems, they’ll spiral into a vicious leftist chat room… for which there is plenty of free competition.

    But the point behind the story that begs addressing is… who is the seducer here?
    Is it Obama chasing radicals, or vice versa?
    Said another way, what did/do they see in Obama?

    Comment by Gift of the Maji (27547c) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:58 pm

  192. “There are two things that are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. And, I’m not too sure about the universe.” Einstein

    I’m sadden by this election to find out that this once great country has so many of these humans in it…

    Comment by Paul (8436bf) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:32 pm

  193. To see obama’s “STAR” tattoo check out the video of the second presidential debate (google it).
    Look at the back of his head when he turns from the camera. At the rear of his head above the hairline is a large black inked tattoo of a STAR.

    It’s there check it out!!!
    What does this represent?
    He has denied having tattoos to the LA TIMES

    Comment by mark (68959d) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:50 pm

  194. mark – Do you have a newsletter?

    Comment by JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:54 pm

  195. JD,

    NO?

    Comment by mark (68959d) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5450 secs.