Patterico's Pontifications

10/29/2008

L.A. Times on That Tape of Obama at a Dinner for Radical Palestinians’ Rights Supporter Khalidi

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:27 am

I haven’t yet blogged about the L.A. Times‘s refusal to release a videotape of Obama’s tribute to Rashid Khalidi, a radical advocate for Palestinian rights, at a dinner held in Khalidi’s honor.

Reporter Peter Wallsten’s April 2008 story described some disturbing anti-Israel sentiments expressed at the dinner:

“During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

The tape has gained new relevance lately, in part due to a request for the release of the video (which was denied), and in part due to revelations of close ties between Bill Ayers and Khalidi. Some people wondered whether Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were at the dinner and appeared in the video. In addition, Gateway Pundit contacted reporter Peter Wallsten about whether the tape would be released, and Wallsten said no, and added that he didn’t know if Ayers had been at the dinner.

Conservative critics say that a videotape of Obama at such a radical event would harm his candidacy, and if the paper won’t release the tape, it must be political.

When I first saw this story, I immediately thought two things:

  • The L.A. Times is the paper that broke this story. If they were intent on burying the story, why publish it?
  • Maybe there are issues relating to the confidentiality of a source.

The thing that made me more and more suspicious, however, is that the paper wouldn’t explain what was going on. The newspaper seemed to take the Arrogant Big Media Position that it simply wasn’t going to release the tape, and that’s the end of it, and they didn’t need to explain why.

It hasn’t worked out that way, and the controversy has grown larger and larger. The McCain camp is now demanding the release of the tape.

Today the newspaper is publishing an article on the controversy. The article doesn’t say word one about Bill Ayers, but it does finally give us an explanation for the decision, straight from editor Russ Stanton:

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

That seems reasonable. So why didn’t the paper just say this up front?

Instead, up until today, the paper has given various other responses. Ben Smith of Politico reported yesterday:

L.A. Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan wouldn’t discuss the decision not to release the tape in detail.

“When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report,” she said, and asked, “Does Politico release unpublished information?”

Smith says the answer is yes. Meanwhile, according to Charles Johnson yesterday:

Brit Hume opened his Fox News show with this story today, and reported that the Times is now saying “No comment.”

The Los Angeles Times is supposed to be an organization whose mission is to disseminate relevant truths. Why was it ever saying “no comment” in response to legitimate questions about its refusal to disseminate a seemingly relevant videotape?

I think that, with Stanton’s response, we’re at the end of the story. Journalists do need to keep promises to sources. Am I wrong? I don’t think I am.

They really ought to pull it out again, however, and tell us if Ayers and Dohrn were there.

Y’all didn’t promise the source not to do that, did you?

150 Responses to “L.A. Times on That Tape of Obama at a Dinner for Radical Palestinians’ Rights Supporter Khalidi”

  1. All you need to do is reverse the situation and ask whether the LAT would release a tape showing John McCain speaking to an extremist right-wing group.

    Old Coot (1ee5b7)

  2. This is what truely terrifies me. An Obama Administration will perhaps be the least scrutinized one by the press in American history.

    Say whatever you want about Bush, but if he so much as breathed funny, there were “anonymous officals” ready to provide breathless commentary to every major network and paper in the world.

    It is very likely that these same types of sources would simply be ignored or dismissed.

    Dissent from Obama policy is evidence of racist attitudes, after all.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  3. Let’s play a game, shall we?

    It’s 2000, and 2 weeks before the election, the LAT obtained a copy of a video showing then Gov. Bush addressing a dinner dedicated to (the KKK is too easy), lets say Pinochet.

    Would they have released the tape then?

    Techie (62bc5d)

  4. Racist hatemongers

    JD (5f0e11)

  5. Also, I denounce myself as a racist hatemonger for having the gall to question weither Obama! is anything less than pure as the driven snow……

    Crap, I denounce myself again.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  6. Late excuses are suspect. I tend to go with the first thing offered and that was the dismissal of “we already reported on it…go pound sand”

    It’s only after they realized this issues wasn’t going away that a so-called “promise to the source” popped up.

    I don’t buy it.

    Darleen (187edc)

  7. Seems like just another crutch to avoid disclosure. No doubt they don’t care to let the sun shine on another of Obama’s revealing actions. Funny thing is that The One was here in Florida last week promising that He would be bringing badly needed sunshine to the state, as in openness of what government is doing? When has that been the case throughout his past or with the most ethical Congress in history? Why would not the nation be subjected to the demands of George Soros and Mayor Daley? Still awaiting a list of the relatively normal people Obama has associated with to any extent.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  8. Techie, as it happens I have the tape from that event myself. After I write about it in my upcoming book, revealing outrageous crimes that our president may have committed (no smoking gun, but lots and lots of brass casings with no fingerprints), then I will destroy the tape. After all, I promised to my unimpeachable source that I would not release the tape – or name the source.

    pssst! I can’t tell you her name, but her initials are “Lucy Ramirez.”

    BitterClinger (47b0b8)

  9. Perhaps the LAT can ask the source to allow for the release of the tape?

    At the very least, the LAT should be able to say, “We recently asked our source for permission to release the tape or describe the contents. The source did not agree and we need to continue to abide by our original agreement.”

    Anonymous (58dd39)

  10. Old Coot is right. Reverse the situation, and even if the LAT decided to stick to principles (making the dubious assumption that they actually have any), that tape would be leaked on YouTube in no time flat.

    Seriously, now. Is there anything stopping the newspapers who have deployed hordes of reporters to dig up everything possible on Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber from using their resources to dig up another copy of this tape? Would it really be that difficult if they wanted to do it? Again, reverse the situation, and it’s obvious that if this tape was something to do with McCain, Palin, or even Bush, they would be going after it with a vengeance. Sadly, it takes Republican blood in the water to get the sharks in the media excited.

    RJ (640d51)

  11. Obama being a Democrat means the tape will not be released by the LATimes.

    A Confidential tape held by the times that was embarassing to the Governator, a Republican, was released by the LATimes.

    LA Times Releases Confidential Tape, when the subject is GOP.

    PCD (7fe637)

  12. Ace of Spades is offering a $25k reward for the video:
    http://minx.cc/?post=276820
    I don’t think he would care if it came from the LA Times or their source.

    zmdavid (fa43ca)

  13. Yes, PCD, but did they release the full recording in violation of a promise to a source?

    I hate defending this paper, but if that’s what’s going on, I think it’s defensible.

    My only issue is, if that’s what’s going on, why didn’t they tell us that right away?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  14. Of course, I am also considering the possibility that there is nothing of value at all on the tape in question, and the LATimes is doing this deliberatly in order to entice McCain to demand it louder.

    It gets hushed in secrecy, and with more arcane claims of “protecting promises to the source”, and we get all wild with the possibliites with what that might mean.

    Then, the day before the Election, they release a tape, and there is nothing important at all on it, and the late night crowd has a field day with “Gosh, isn’t that McCain a crazy racist paranoid?”

    Yes, I am THAT Cynical.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  15. Where are the usual “Speaking on condition of anonymity” types that always pop-up when the subject involves national security or the perfidy of a Republican?

    In addition, are we to believe that this is the only tape available? There has to be another one floating around out there or at least a transcript. Did LAT only promise not to release the tape and a transcription? The relevant portion probably is the tie-in between Ayers/Dorhn and Khalidi with a benediction by Wright or Pfleger.

    The good news is the mere mention of this tape may sway some undecideds and change some minds because of the nature of the cover-up. In any case, the LAT has amateurs on it’s team. Only left-wing ideologues brainwashed in leftist journalism schools could show such a terrifying lack of street creds and unethical behavior!

    These folks prove their disdain for democratic principles by railing against a Patriot Act then violating the rights of those who disagree with them I.E. Joe the plumber and the Orland Sentinel Biden interview a la Seinfeld “No more interviews for you!”

    Free speech lefty style!

    vet66 (1e01a3)

  16. Did he really say that, madmax? Florida has one of the most open governments in the country, and with the line item veto, they have even removed the turkeys (ie., earmarks) that were once such a huge problem. Our national government could learn a thing or two from Florida, but not the other way around, and certainly not from a man who tries to bury his past associations with crooks and terrorists as deeply as possible.

    RJ (640d51)

  17. This late excuse does not explain Jamie Gold’s snarky responses.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. I wonder what other Chicago luminaries might have been there? It might be embarrassing to someone besides Obama.

    zmdavid (fa43ca)

  19. I can’t begin to guess why the LATimes wrote anything at all about the tape. But the journalistic practice here really stinks.

    If Ace of Spades were not a blogger (and thus having higher journalistic standards than the dead tree types at LATimes) he wouldn’t have to offer a reward for the tape. He could just claim to have it – write whatever he wanted to about it – and refuse to release it in order to protect his source.

    The LATimes couldn’t refute what he wrote without releasing the tape themselves.

    BitterClinger (47b0b8)

  20. It would be a simple matter to have the LA Times release the tape, if the right-leaning blogs and radio talk shows used the tactics of the left.

    Approach this using innuendo and “sources” to make releasing the tape more beneficial to Obama than keeping it secret. All stories should follow this general outline:

    Obama Praises PLO Call To Destroy Israel

    The Los Angeles Times has refused to release video of Barack Obama praising PLO terrorists in their fight to destroy Israel due to the devastating effect it would have on the Obama presidential campaign, according to sources close to the story.

    Media experts have speculated that the video, which the LA Times has admitted shows Obama and PLO terrorist spokesman Rashid Khalidi praising poetry glorifying the killing of Jews, would solidify the ties Obama has to both international and domestic terrorists.

    Let the pressure to release the tape come from Obama’s side, not ours.

    jwest (a1a2d6)

  21. LAT’s new motto:
    “The public’s right to know be damned!”

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  22. Patterico, if the Times “confidential source” excuse is true, I would not be surprised if the Times only recently asked for permission to release the tape. Otherwise, the Times would have offered the “confidential source” excuse in its the first response (or two) about this matter. Of course, a promise to a confidential source should be made when the information is obtained, but I don’t think that’s what happened here.

    In my humble opinion, I suspect the Los Angeles Times was instructed by the Obama campaign not to release the tape, and they are just following orders.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  23. We only have the Times’s word for it that the source wanted to keep the tape confidential. If the source wanted confidentiality, why give the thing to a newspaper? After all, there is always the chance for a news leak!

    dchamil (2bbdce)

  24. Newspapers are willing to release classified government documents that imperil ongoing military and intelligence operations, but they draw the line when source confidentiality is a consideration?

    *spit* Newspapers have serious problems when it comes to priorities.

    Bugz (29eca2)

  25. There is nothing on that tape that Baracky and his buddies in the media will not just flush down the memory hole.

    JD (5f0e11)

  26. Do you know how to keep a secret? Don’t tell no one, that’s how!

    dchamil (2bbdce)

  27. If Baracky wins, just wait until after the election – all types of stuff like this will suddenly be “discovered” by a newly “concerned” media. What a joke the MSM has become, and even worse, the ultimate joke will be on the general public.

    Dmac (e30284)

  28. Why did they make that promise to begin with? Yes, if somebody said “I’ll give you this, but only on this condition,” they should (generally) honor that obligation. But why accept it to begin with? Whose agenda are they promoting here?

    In my experience, most sources have some agenda or other. What did this one have to gain by giving the video to the Times under that condition? It might be as simple as that it’s a hand-shot video, and releasing it would reveal who the source was. That would be understandable. But on the other hand, the source could be an Obama supporter who wanted to inoculate Obama against future revelations like this, by getting the story out in a way which minimized the damage it caused (by denying McCain’s campaign an easy video spot). If that’s the case, then the Times is due heavy criticism for agreeing to be a pawn for that.

    PatHMV (653160)

  29. This might be old and I’m sure it’s racist but here’s Khalidi talking about his good buddy Obama.

    Sorry for the distraction.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  30. But I don’t mean that the Times had to be ordered not to release the tape.

    It’s perfectly possible that someone on the flaming liberal staff of the Times decided that were weren’t going to release it just because they were asked by certain Republicans to do so. For a Times staffer to comply with the request of a Republican would be a betrayal of their fellow union brothers in the newsroom.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  31. One quote from someone at the LA Fishwrap explaining why they were not releasing the tape is that, to paraphrase, the LA Times is not a video service. Of course, on their site, they do indeed have a ‘video service’.

    Journalists do need to keep promises to sources. Am I wrong? I don’t think I am.

    In this case, I think you are wrong. Who gives newspapers audio/video tape with the expectation that the paper would not publish it? If the Fishwrap feels that describing the tape is enough, would they have done the same with just describing the Rodney King videotape, and not play it (like the media did ad nauseum)? Sorry, but I feel this tape is a real Jew-hating fest, with Obama adoringly agreeing with everything said. I think that’s the real reason why the tape has not been released and, if the LA Fishwrap has its way, it never will.

    RickZ (06fa85)

  32. Sorry for the distraction.

    I’m afraid we must now denounce you, CW…

    And you should be ashamed! You are doing NOTHING to help Michelle Obama put fresh fruit on her table…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  33. The Times has a duty to its readers not to mislead them or allow them to be misled. And if the ordinary subscriber of the Times were to view a video of The One attending a “Jew-hating fest” with a PLO supporter they might, foolishly, question the candidate’s commitment to peace and change. Therefore, the paper must protect us from our own ignorance… by keeping us ignorant.

    After all, an ignorant citizen is the Times’ best subscriber.

    BitterClinger (47b0b8)

  34. p.s. BitterClinger formerly posted here as “Don” but he got envious of all the clever usernames out there. “BitterClinger” is the best he could do. No relation to Jamie Farr.

    BitterClinger (47b0b8)

  35. If you changed the name and the party, am I the only one that thinks that there would be no issue about any anonymous source, and that this video would be playing on every TV channel in the country?

    JD (5b4781)

  36. 16 RJ
    page 8a of Oct. 22, 2008 Sun-Sentinel headline

    “Obama promises to bring ‘badly needed sunshine’”

    He stopped at the Deli Den in Hollywood and footed the $53 bill for bagles, cream cheese and potato latkes himself.

    Then it was off to Miami, where Obama showed his passionate side.
    “In just 14 days, you and I can begin to bring some badly needed sunshine to Washington, D.C. ”

    Sorry if I gave impression Fla. didn’t have sunshine laws. Why hasn’t The One already done something about sunshine in DC? Afterall he has all that experience as senator, eh? More pertinently why isn’t there sun shining on his OWN ASSOCIATIONS? WHY ISN’T HE PROUD OF THE VARIOUS SPEECHES HE’S MADE ? Such as the one praising terrorists? What dirt is the media covering up for their boy?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  37. And you should be ashamed! You are doing NOTHING to help Michelle Obama put fresh fruit on her table…

    That’s an excellent point. Perhaps Ace’s $25K reward could be utilized to refill the fresh fruit supply in The Messiah’s home.

    Old Coot (1ee5b7)

  38. This is just a distraction from the issues that the American people really want to talk about, like how Baracky is going to spread the wealth, how to keep fresh fruit on the table for Michelle and the kids, and how racist you people are.

    JD (5b4781)

  39. And this tape will prove what?

    In regards to Khalidi, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well.

    During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

    A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.

    The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”

    The Other Ed (8285f1)

  40. And this tape will prove what?

    We have no idea, and that is pretty much the point. The LA Times has declared themselves to be the bouncer, blocking access.

    This is not just about having ties to Khalidi, or Ayers, or Dorhn. It is about judgement. Plus, it would be interesting, enlightening, and newsworthy to see what Baracky had to say, and how he reacted, after hearing the speakers that came before and after him.

    JD (5b4781)

  41. No, there is no so-called guilt by association problem for John McCain at all.

    Those grants were all in the 1990s, when even Israelis like prime minister Ehud Barak thought some kind of democracy could be encouraged among the Palestinians. They were wrong. But Obama’s festive dinner with Khalidi happened in 2003–after the Intifada, after 9/11. Obama just seems to enjoy consorting with terrorists and their sympathizers.

    You’re just spewing propaganda, and I would not be surprised if you’re being paid to do so.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  42. OIDO – I like the fact that it thought it would be cute and post it under 2 different names. Double the credibility.

    JD (5b4781)

  43. OIDO – I like the fact that it thought it would be cute and post it under 2 different names. Double the credibility.

    Comment by JD — 10/29/2008 @ 8:16 am

    Genuine grassroots astroturf.

    zmdavid (fa43ca)

  44. I strongly disagree.

    The only thing they can legitimately promise to a confidential source is to keep confidential his or her identity.

    Promising to keep confidential something that’s newsworthy — and then using that as an excuse for hiding evidence — is a flagrant perversion of journalistic ethics.

    To begin with, they have a duty to “[i]dentify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.”

    And while they’re supposed to “keep promises,” that’s not an excuse for making bad ones. Instead, they’re supposed to “[a]lways question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.”

    And they’re supposed to recognize that “an overriding public need” can justify intrusions into privacy.

    Finally, they’re supposed to “[r]emain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility” and “[r]efuse … favors … and special treatment.”

    Journalists aren’t supposed to bargain with their sources about what they will or won’t report. It encourages corruption. It encourages the reporting of half-truths, which are half-lies. What they’re doing here is corrupt.

    How is the source supposed to be confidential anyhow? Is the tape stolen? If so, playing it won’t reveal who did the stealing or who transmitted it to the LAT.

    On the other hand, if the tape was given to the LAT by its maker, then presumably everyone who was at the dinner saw that guy with the camera. He’s not confidential from them, and they already know he’s betrayed any explicit or implied promise of confidentiality he might have made to them because they know the LAT has the tape.

    Beldar (fac5dc)

  45. The bogus John McCain association with Khalidi is being posted on all the blogs by Obamabots. This has nothing to do with a personal relationship between Khalidi and McCain. Obama, Ayres and Khalidid were a close association for years. There has been an interest in how Obama got accepted to Harvard Law School. He was close to Edward Said while at Columbia. Khalidi succeeded Said. These associations will never been explained once Obama is elected.

    He has raised $100 million in fraudulent internet donations. ACORN has submitted thousands of voter registrations that are fraudulent. We will never know the true story once he is elected.

    I worry about the future of the country but maybe the young people who are voting him into office should learn the hard way. The problem here is that they will be convinced that this is the way it is. In the Carter years, there was little appreciation that the economy could be better and gas rationing was necessary. Only after Reagan changed everything did it become apparent how bad Carter was.

    The Republicans are the stupid party and the Democrats are the corrupt party. Republicans do less harm but neither has any ability to make things better. That the voters do not understand this is the greatest threat to democracy.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  46. OIDA – That cartoon is the Baracky campaign in a nutshell.

    JD (5b4781)

  47. How about a class action by LAT readers, claiming that “the public has a right to know” about such an important issue as whether a candidate for President is anti-Semitic.

    Kevin (0b2493)

  48. Mike K – Let them make that argument. Then, were the media actually doing its job rather than being lapdogs for the Baracky campaign, Baracky would then be tied to every single grant given out by CAC, Woods, and Joyce that he participated in.

    JD (5b4781)

  49. The whole “confidential sources” argument is ass-backwards.
    .
    Confidential sources are used to RELEASE information, not bury it. The source of the information isn’t relevant, the information is.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  50. cboldt – That is only true if it helps Baracky, or hurts McCain.

    JD (5b4781)

  51. No, there is no so-called guilt by association problem for John McCain at all.

    If Israelis now get to decide who American politicians can and cannot have dinner with at each point in time OIDO, could they at least do them the courtesy of publishing a list?

    snuffles (677ec2)

  52. Let’s see. Tape gets to LA Times in spring ’08. Must come from someone on the inside in Hyde Park. Now who would want to leak damaging info on Obama in the spring, before the nomination has been decided? A Clinton supporter?

    Obama's Neighbor (f28dac)

  53. sniffles comes by and, SHOCKA, intentionally misses the point.

    JD (5b4781)

  54. That sniffles and the LA Times do not want to let anyone see this, and make their own conclusions, suggests that this tape would not serve Baracky’s interests.

    JD (5b4781)

  55. Is the point that every single time the right thinks they have something on Obama, it just points out something much much worse that John McCain has done, JD?

    snuffles (677ec2)

  56. Did you know that Bernardine Dohrn, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama all used to work for the same Chicago law firm, Sidley & Austin?

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  57. Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 10/29/2008 @ 9:08 am

    Only those of us who have not been in a state of suspended animation the last six months.

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  58. snuffles–

    Is the point that every single time the right thinks they have something on Obama, it just points out something much much worse that John McCain has done, JD?

    No I think that it just points out how easily your mind is clouded by trivialities, distortions, exaggerations and other forms of misdirection.

    Obama campaign motto: “Deceive, inveigle, obfuscate.”

    Kevin (0b2493)

  59. At some point, the fictional nation of “Palistine” has to recognize that there are consequences to losing wars that one starts.

    But, hey they’re only blowing Jewish children in the marketplaces and pizza joints, so, maybe we shouldn’t get that bent out of shape.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  60. “blowing up”

    Techie (62bc5d)

  61. My only issue is, if that’s what’s going on, why didn’t they tell us that right away?

    Maybe they omitted something explosive that was on the tape? The latest rumor is that it shows Baracky toasting Khalidi and talking about Israeli genocide, etc. This way, they can tell themselves they are ethical while suppressing an integral part of the story.

    No, the LAT wouldn’t do that!!

    (The reward grows bigger….Release the Tape!)

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  62. sniffles – No, that is not the point. Not that you will answer, but how has McCain done something worse than this?

    james haddon hates him some Israel, to be sure.

    Why is it that the objectionable Leftist like to cloak themselves as teachers or writers or historians rather than who they are? Khalidi was the mouthpiece for Arafat. Ayers is a domestic terrorist. That the Left would aggrandize Khalidi is telling, and why the tape should be shown.

    JD (5b4781)

  63. 61 Isn’t is reasonable to ask you bleeding hearts for Palis why Arafish rejected some quite generous offers by the Jews in the mideast for a Pali homeland? So why all the obstructionism and the 2nd Infitada? Why haven’t those rich Arab states opened their hearts and pocketbooks to Palistineans? Wasn’t it possible for Pali refugees to have taken some of those job that other 3rd world citizens and Europeans were happy to accept? Why do so many Muslims loathe Palistineans and yet use their so-called struggle against the Jews as reason to incite their own deprived citizens? How is that a people who receive the most foreign cannot rise above their refugee station? Why have they turned Gaza into more of a hell hole? How the hell can they breed like cockroaches and have the world’s deepest sympathy and still be victims 60 years later? Sort of like the generational poverty that the dem party is only to happy to keep blacks under, with the assistance of race whores like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  64. “…it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it.”

    Right.

    I too, routinely give information to newspapers that I don’t want disclosed.

    TakeFive (7c6fd5)

  65. WHY THE LA TIMES REALLY WON’T RELEASE THE TAPE…

    …because the image (video and audio) of the event would be so much more damaging to Obama’s campaign than any full print disclosure.

    Just like the audio of Obama’s own bitter-clingy words to his well-heeled San Francisco audience was so much more damaging than any print narration of the event.

    A picture is worth a thousand heavily-ellided out-of-context quotes, and so much more effective. Especially in an oppo ad. LA Times have invested too much of their credibility and shareholder equity carrying the Obama campaign’s water to blow it now by, you know, doing their jobs as journalists.

    furious (56af6d)

  66. via Transterrestrial Musings via instapundit, doug ross has gotten a tip from a source that has been previously reliable (they tipped him to the 6 “undecided” CNN focus group members that turned out to be DNC plants).

    [I] Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can’t release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

    It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha’s why they will not even let a transcript get out.

    I for one can’t imagine someone (likely with the HRC campaign) giving a videotape to the LA Times and asking them not to release it, not even a transcript.

    carlitos (ef1ff9)

  67. There is a high probability that it will show Obama reacting positively to Khalidi remarks that will not go down well in the Jewish-American community, a pool of votes that is critical to an Obama election.

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  68. You have me confused, JD.

    Does the right now want to overthrow the Constitutional right Americans have to assemble peaceably?

    Or are you trying to say Obama having dinner with a guy that John McCain funneled government money to is somehow bad?

    In what way?

    snuffles (677ec2)

  69. F*ck it…play the Demos’ game and force them to prove a negative. Now would be a good time for a 527 first-strike.

    Quite simple, really – if Obama didn’t actually say the words, release the tape to prove he didn’t say them.

    furious (56af6d)

  70. Sniffles:

    Oh, you can assemble peacably. Just don’t say anything you won’t mind being repeated to Jewish and undecided voters. Or Bitter-Clingy voters, for that matter.

    furious (56af6d)

  71. You have me confused, JD.

    I am sure that you have grown quite accustomed to that feeling, sniffles.

    Does the right now want to overthrow the Constitutional right Americans have to assemble peaceably?

    Bullshit. There is nothing above that suggests that their freedom of assembly is in jeopardy. We do have the ability to comment on the judgment of assembling with the likes of Khalidi and Ayers, no?

    Or are you trying to say Obama having dinner with a guy that John McCain funneled government money to is somehow bad?

    I see you have your TPM talking points. What changed in the world between 1993 and 2003 ?

    JD (5b4781)

  72. sniffles last comment was one of its more deliberately ignorant or dishonest comments it has made around here. No small task.

    JD (5b4781)

  73. # 61. james haddon

    Be careful who you get your history from, guys like Rashid Khalidi give liberal propaganda and call it history all under the guise of teaching when in reality its indoctrinating.

    Mythical “Palestinians” are not looking for a country for themselves, they are only looking to remove the Jews from theirs.

    Historical fact:
    From 1948-1967 both Egypt and Jordan (Trans-Jordan then) held both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and not once in that 20 year period did anyone even suggest a “Palestinian” state.

    Why?

    It was only after the 1967 war when Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza strip did the idea of “Palestine” arise. Before 67 the idea of “Palestine” was rejected by Arab leaders, it was seen as admitting defeat when their goal is complete Israeli destruction.

    ML (14488c)

  74. Reckon the LA Times’ source for the Khalidi tape is afraid that they’ll get the Joe-the-Plumber treatment if they come fully forward.

    furious (56af6d)

  75. It wasn’t Palestinians who flew the planes on 9/11, JD.

    They were flown by those staunch Republican allies, Saudi Arabians.

    Hard to keep straight, I know, but thems the facts.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  76. So how ’bout releasing a transcript?

    Joe C. (2caa4f)

  77. dosent matter if it is mccain or obama. we deserve to see the tape and make our own decision, after all this is our country, and we need to fight for it. STAND UP AMERICA DEMAND TO SEE THE TAPE. And then remember to you had to demand it from

    chevyguysgal (17b419)

  78. The trashy National Enquirer manages to explore the Breck Girl’s extra-marital relationship, love child and all. It was pertinent because the Silky Pony was considered in the running for a high level cabinet position under Obama. The rest of the media gave him a pass.

    So there is no journalist or media that has any ability to investigate a dinner with countless attendees, all apparently sworn to secrecy? No wait people or caterers, security men who could be questioned ? ReaR set

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  79. sniffles went and one-upped itself with #77.

    JD (5b4781)

  80. grr- got cut short and posted. Amazing that all those loyal members of the CIA or State have little trouble revealing state secrets, but pedestrian civilians can keep a secret about speechs. But then, whatever happened to the woman who did release that audio tape of the Anointed One in SF talking about Pa. state citizens clinging to their religion and guns? Don’t recall her getting the Joe the Plumber treatment.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  81. There you go confusing me again, JD.

    Is America supposed to change it’s opinion of the Palestinians because of something the Saudis did?

    That would be as dumb as blaming, say, the Iraqis for 9/11.

    Oh.

    That’s right.

    Six days to go.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  82. I said nothing about 9/11, you drooling moron.

    Doodad Pro (5b4781)

  83. Okay, so let’s say the video is out for the reasons stated. What about the audio? What about a transcript?

    The point of the promise to the source cannot be “the source only wanted to embarrass Obama a little, but not too much.” The only legitimate reasons for holding back the tape is that it was taken from an angle that might give away to other participants who the taper was. Audio probably solves that problem.

    Unless the audio includes other partygoers saying, “Hey Joe-the-taper, how’re you liking that new video camera?” If that’s the case, a transcript with such personally revealing details redacted would be adequate.

    Stanton’s statement shouldn’t be the end of it.

    Vail Beach (790ce0)

  84. McCain’s alleged ties to Khalidi go back to at the very least, 1993. Baracky’s personal ties to Khalidi, and this event specifically, are in 2003. Those dates come from the BS meme that you are pushing that McCain has similar, if not worse ties to this jackass. I merely suggested that there have been remarkable changes in the world, and in our positions on Palestine, especially in re. Arafat, since that point in time. That you are so brain-poundingly obtuse that you cannot recognize that is all on you. It is not confusion, it is ignorance.

    JD (5b4781)

  85. I think some people miss the bigger point.

    To the Radical Left, this tape isn’t a big deal and it wouldn’t be a big deal to their constituents, who think our “protection” of Israel is only for the bible banging Christian conservatives.

    It’s very clear that Obama is at least empathetic to the Palestinian cause. He will carefully explain that this is again, one of those policies America has been short sighted on.

    And most of the drones would eat it up and this tape thing would disappear and be called Fox News trumping up something that doesn’t matter, just like Ayers, Wright, etc.

    It doesn’t matter if this tape gets released, since the Obama media controls the message.

    Hawkins (3d318d)

  86. In case you forgot, it is racist to even question this.

    As it is racist to note that Baracky’s middle name is Hussein.

    I denounce myself.

    JD (5b4781)

  87. Whatever. It makes no freaking sense that a source would give a tape to the LAT on the condition it not be released. They lie. Hi, JD. There’s a whole blog in one of my other windows what doesn’t have any JD on it I think. That can’t be right.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  88. So Sniffy is not only an anti – Semite, but an ignorant one to boot. Funny how those two things seem to go together. Watch out for the money – changers in your temple, Sniffy.

    Dmac (e30284)

  89. I am with happyfeet. They are lying, lying, lying. It is their default position when it comes to Baracky.

    JD (5b4781)

  90. Today’s lead story at malkin’s takes you on a brief tour of some of the most shameful Obamedia moments.I like the objective media’s lovely picture of McCain licking his bloody lips- “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer” (sic) from Jill Greenberg by way of the Atlantic Monthly.
    http://michellemalkin.com

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  91. OK, so the LA Times won’t release the tape. Is there anything stopping an enterprising reporter from asking Obama what he remembers about that evening? Were Ayers and Dohrn there? Does he remember Khalidi saying anything inflammatory about Israel or the U.S.? Of course the (potential) Dear Leader will say that he doesn’t remember anything about that evening, but at least he’ll be on record about it and maybe, just maybe, someone at the LAT will leak some more details that might be somewhat incriminating. (I don’t expect any real bombshell here, but it might turn out that Obama applauded Khalidi after his speech or was seen nodding along to some of the more inflammatory lines.)

    JVW (499159)

  92. snuffles dripped: There you go confusing me again, JD.

    You’re in a constant state of confusion already. If JD confused you, that potentially could lead you to clarity.

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  93. I’m so mad at the LA Times

    …I’m thinking of opening a subscription so that I can send a huffy note to the published cancelling it.

    That’ll show’em.

    furious (56af6d)

  94. Why would you want to waste the cost of a stamp?

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  95. If Israelis now get to decide who American politicians can and cannot have dinner with at each point in time OIDO, could they at least do them the courtesy of publishing a list?

    Comment by snuffles

    More Jew-bashing from the Obamabot. I don’t care who politicians have dinner with but I think it is of interest what was said. The Obama crowd includes some pretty hostile Islamists.

    The Palestinians are in the same situation as the Prussian junkers and the Sudetan Germans. They started a war that they lost. Do you know what happened to the losers ? What do we call East Prussia now ?

    Poland.

    What do we call Sudetanland now ?

    Czech Republic

    The Palestinians lost the war they started. They could have become part of Jordan before 1967 but, instead, they went and started another war.

    They lost that one.

    Then came 1973 and another war they started.

    They lost that one.

    Then came 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Palestinians cheered and allied themselves with Saddam.

    Those that were working in other Arab countries got kicked out.

    Saddam got trounced in Gulf War I.

    Are you getting the picture yet ?

    The Prussians and the Sudetan Germans lost a war. Are they blowing themselves up in market places ?

    Mike K (531ff4)

  96. http://theobamafile.com/ObamaSupporters.htm
    For the full list, check the above link. And make sure to read about some of the actual supporters of Barack Obama.

    Found this Obama endorsement to be particularly interesting:
    Libya’s Qadhafi, in remarks made marking the anniversary of the U.S. air raid on Libya endorsed Obama.
    ‘There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.’

    ‘We still hope that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs.’

    OTHER ENDORSEMENTS AND SUPPORTERS OF BARACK OBAMA:
    Fidel Castro
    Raul Castro
    Nicaragua Communist President Daniel Ortega
    Barbara Ehrenreich Chairwoman of the Democratic Socialists of America
    Committees of Correspondence for Socialism
    Francoise Hollande, the head of France’s Socialist Party
    Michael Klonsky of the Students for a Democratic Society
    Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama
    Illinois Communist Party
    Communist Party USA
    Muslim Americans for Obama
    Muslim American Society
    New Black Panther Party
    Louis Farrakhan
    Malaak Shabazz, Malcolm X’s daughter has endorsed Obama
    Michael Moore
    Hamas
    Qadhafi
    Al Sharpton
    Socialist Party USA
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    George Soros
    Michael Moore
    Bill Ayers
    Jane Fonda
    Al Gore
    John Kerry
    Daniel Ortega
    Tony Resko
    ACORN
    CNN
    NBC
    MSNBC
    Jodi Evans (fundraiser for terrorists)
    80 percent of the French
    A separate survey showed that if Russians were allowed to vote in U.S. polls, they would prefer Democrat Barack Obama to Republican John McCain.

    ebbi (b9ecaa)

  97. Snuffy only knows one thing – it’s all the fault of teh JOOOOS!

    Dmac (e30284)

  98. “The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

    The Times is saying, in effect, that it won’t release the tape, because if they do, their nameless, faceless “source” won’t give them any more information, which would hurt the Times. However, if I asked the Times not to release a videotape because releasing the tape would hurt me, they’d laugh in my face. My desire to keep a matter confidential wouldn’t even be a consideration.

    Looks like the purpose of a free press isn’t to disseminate information, but rather to disseminate information when it’s in the best interest of the free press to disseminate it, and to suppress information when it’s in the best interest of the free press to suppress information.

    There are reason why some of us won’t buy newspapers any more.

    Dave Surls (c863ef)

  99. Of course, had the same standards applied by the Times’ editors existed in November,1963 and the LAT had the Zapruder film, the story would have been written thusly:
    “The President’s motorcade was re-routed after sounds of gunfire were heard by the Secret Service agents accompanying the President, Mrs. Kennedy and the Governor of Texas.”

    Kyle (9d9e73)

  100. Speaking in Ohio, Sarah Palin now calls on the Los Angeles Times to release the Khalidi tape:

    “It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that,” Palin said. “In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed. And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kow-towing, then the L.A. Times, you’re winning.”

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  101. “They were flown by those staunch Republican allies, Saudi Arabians.”

    It’s off topic, but the Saudis are our de facto allies, because that’s what FDR and the liberals wanted.

    “The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has always been a marriage of convenience, not affection. As the result of a bargain struck between President Roosevelt and Saudi Arabia’s founding king in 1945, Americans bought Saudi Arabian oil, and the Saudis bought American: American planes, American weapons, American construction projects, and American know-how. In exchange, the Saudis got modernization, education, and security.”

    http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2005/saudi-relations-interest-02-12.html

    It was the mighty libby wibbies who set up our deal with the Saudis, not the Republicans.

    One of the things I most despise about the Dems (and their legions of vapid followers) is their tendency to set up arrangements like our deal with the Saudis and then turn around a few years later and attack the policy they initiated and try and set blame for the policy on the opposition party.

    Dave Surls (c863ef)

  102. Meanwhile, the LAT has been utterly silent on the biggest election story of the month.

    Aldo (4ca181)

  103. Oh, how I wish you guys would put this much energy into the Bush’s connection to the Bin Laden’s. Anyone remember that quirky conspiratorial rhetoric?

    Oiram (983921)

  104. Oiram,

    I have looked into those bin Laden connections. Here is what I discovered.

    Aldo (4ca181)

  105. The Bush’s connections to Saudi’s were well documented, discussed and considered by the voters. The point, here, is that the LAT is denying the “public’s right to to know,” understand and evaluate Obama’s connection to a Jew hater.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  106. Oh Bullshit.

    I don’t believe for one second that a source gave the tape to a news organization with the condition they not publish it. If they did, why give it to the LA Times?

    They are sitting on it, blaming the source, and hoping the source won’t come out because s/he doesn’t want to cause problems for him/herself.

    This isn’t that complex.

    headhunt23 (9e1243)

  107. “Oh, how I wish you guys would put this much energy into the Bush’s connection to the Bin Laden’s.”

    LOL. See what I mean?

    Dave Surls (c863ef)

  108. One of the things I most despise about the Dems … is their tendency to set up arrangements like our deal with the Saudis and then turn around a few years later and attack the policy they initiated and try and set blame for the policy on the opposition party. Comment by Dave Surls — 10/29/2008 @ 12:44 pm

    Like Vietnam, failed security policies leading to 9/11, and the sub-prime lending crisis mess

    And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kow-towing, then the L.A. Times, you’re winning.” Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 10/29/2008 @ 12:40 pm

    Now that’s what we’re talking about, and that’s why so many wish that McCain would dump her and they wouldn’t have to deal with her anymore. (I must say, though, it would probably sound more impressive coming from the pipes of Fred Thompson)

    Oh, how I wish you guys would put this much energy into the Bush’s connection to the Bin Laden’s. Anyone remember that quirky conspiratorial rhetoric? Comment by Oiram — 10/29/2008 @ 12:49 pm

    And oh how we wish you’d put some common sense and worthwhile commentary into your posts.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  109. MikeK:

    You forgot the war the Palestinians waged against Lebanon in the 1980s. They were kicked out of Lebanon as bloodily and swiftly as they were kicked out of Jordan.

    H*ll, even their brother Arabs can’t tolerate them.

    “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” — Abba Eban

    furious (56af6d)

  110. “…it would probably sound more impressive coming from the pipes of Fred Thompson…”

    I dunno, getting a call-down from a strong, attractive woman can be pretty emasculating. No wonder Barry got personal about “pigs” and “old fish”.

    furious (56af6d)

  111. Is there anything stopping an enterprising reporter from asking Obama what he remembers about that evening? Were Ayers and Dohrn there? Does he remember Khalidi saying anything inflammatory about Israel or the U.S.?

    I found this one incredibly humorous. Baracky would probably just say that he was not listening, or that is not the Khalidi that he knew, or that he was not there. That is all based on the assumption that the media would actually ask him questions, or better yet, that he would have the audacity to have a press conference, which was practically earth-threatening when Palin did not, but I digress …

    Oiram – Are you fucking serious?

    JD (5b4781)

  112. #109 SURL, I love it, do you realize how different the world was when Roosevelt met King Abdulaziz?

    LOL. See what I mean Dave? (See my comment #105)

    Oiram (983921)

  113. #113 JD, just trying to illustrate the comparison. I was smart enough to see beyond the conspiratorial connections between Bush and the Saudi’s why can’t you?

    Your Smart JD. Save the republican party now by concentrating on serious issues not crap like this.

    Oiram (983921)

  114. a pool of votes that is critical to an Obama election.

    Please…

    The day the Jewish vote goes to anyone but the democrats, I’ll marry a fucking goat. Obama could state that he has one final solution to america’s problems, and the jews would STILL line up to vote for him.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  115. Is there anything stopping an enterprising reporter from asking Obama what he remembers about that evening?

    “Enterprising” reporter or “racist”? I denounce you, and I denounce JD for not denouncing you first.

    Of course they won’t ask him, even if they could get close enough to him! This is the first campaign by infomercial.

    I’m sure the tape has PLO love coming from The One’s lips, which will prove the LAT liars and The One himself not too keen on the Joooooooz.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  116. Is there anything stopping an enterprising reporter from asking Obama what he remembers about that evening? Were Ayers and Dohrn there? Does he remember Khalidi saying anything inflammatory about Israel or the U.S.?

    Considering how his camp acted when someone wanted to ask him about his tax policy and how it’s just a wee bit Marxist, I don’t think Obama will be listening to a single question regarding the dinner.

    Ever.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  117. Patricia, I denounce you for denouncing JD before he had a legitimate change to denounce himself…

    And, Patrick, I denounce you for not assuming that the hijacking of your domain was not a racist act by a racist group against a racist…

    Damn…we’re all getting good at this…

    reff (556669)

  118. conspiratorial connections between Bush and the Saudi’s

    The only conspiratorial connections were in the fevered and addled minds on the Left. Twoofer. LIHOPs. And MIHOPs.

    Not only to I denounce myself, but I condemn all of you racists as well. Good Allah, the racism is oozing out of your starched white bedsheets.

    JD (5b4781)

  119. Oiram, the reason why a lot of people are worried about Obama’s associations is that he, himself, is such a mystery. He stands there looking saintly and people imagine that he is agreeing with them about what they want. There has actually been quite a bit of comment from supporters about this phenomenon. He has even said it himself. Nobody knows what he will do because his entire campaign has used vague rhetoric.

    The few specifics, like his health plan, show that the plan is not practical. This was pointed out by Hillary in the spring because he does not mandate purchase of insurance by the “free riders.” Hers did.

    The McCain health plan actually addresses a known problem in the US health system, the tax consequences of employer provided health insurance. This forces people into employer plans because our own health care spending is NOT tax deductible. McCain tries to address this by taxing the employer plans and providing a tax incentive to buy your own insurance. This has been demagogued by Obama and misrepresented.

    The rest of Obama’s campaign is dishonest blarney like the “95% tax cut”. Nobody believes this.

    Then, when we see association with real terrorists, we get interested because it is the only information we have.

    Mike K (531ff4)

  120. Kind of off-topic, but interesting nonetheless…

    Michelle says Barack has done nothing.

    Barack says you do not make history by winning elections

    These would make sensational ads, were the McCain campaign and the RNC to have any fight left in them …

    JD (5b4781)

  121. #120 JD your always good for a laugh.

    Oiram (983921)

  122. I notice the story is bylined by “a Times staff writer”–whoever that maybe.

    It’s news when the Times says it’s news and not before.

    Kate (312b1e)

  123. I wish it were different, but frankly, I don’t believe the LA Times. The media is not losing its credibility – it has lost it completely.

    The LAT could easily release a full transcript with needed clarifying narrative of the visuals without releasing the tape or violating their imaginary agreement.

    But they won’t do that either.
    The reward over at Ace’s place is definitely in the motivational range…

    The tape will come out eventually. Probably later than sooner though.

    Dr. Dean (695f35)

  124. Oh, the tape will be released … after the election. Probably about 6:00 on the day before Christmas Eve. To an obscure wire service.

    JD (5b4781)

  125. #121 The rest of Obama’s campaign is dishonest blarney like the “95% tax cut”. Nobody believes this.

    Well even if we don’t look at the polls that show Obama in double digit leads, you still have to agree that somewhere near half the voters “believe this” and want this.

    Sorry Mike, but the reason Obama is such a mystery to you could be that you are just a bit partisan.

    Oiram (983921)

  126. ……… as am I (first to admit it)

    Oiram (983921)

  127. Oiram, can you explain how Obama will cut the taxes of 95% of those who file tax returns. And while you’re at it, is it $250K or $150K that will see tax increases? Seems Joe and Barack don’t seem to agree on what they want us to believe.

    Dr. Dean (695f35)

  128. #130 by making sure that 5% of those that file tax returns pay their fair share of taxes.

    Sorry didn’t catch the Obama Biden conflict.

    Hey Dr. can you explain how McCain is not going to raise taxes with the mess we’re in?

    An while your at it, could you explain to me how a country could go to war as we did without raising taxes (first time in U.S. history….. possibly the worlds)

    Oiram (983921)

  129. Well, my philosophy behind why Obama should be asked about the event is this: the one thing liberal reporters hate more than Republicans is being lied to, especially when it comes from a politician that they support. That is why Bill Clinton walked on water in ’92 (really, guys, try to remember back that far — Clinton was damn near as popular with the media then as Obama is today), but why all the media had grown so tired of him by 1999. I am thinking that if the (potential) Dear Leader says “I don’t remember that evening” or “I certainly didn’t hear anything objectionable or anti-Semitic” then some reporter might be tempted to take a look at the tape and see if it show Obama warmly greeting a notorious Jew-baiter or otherwise showing his radical side. I know the media probably won’t let that happen, but a man can dream.

    JVW (eb120d)

  130. oriam I’m pretty sure the Dr. meant how 95% can get a tax cut when 95% don’t actually pay taxes. You can’t cut someones’ taxes to less than 0. Then you would just be sending them a check and that would be welfare. But I think you understood that.

    me (285b4e)

  131. Oiram, the answer is in the tax cuts…since income to the government increased by nearly 50% in the past 8 years…without a tax increase…

    Now, if only Bush had held the line on spending, and pushed a bit harder on oversite of government agencies like Freddie and Fannie…

    Now, tell us if you will what a fair share of taxes should be…wife and I make $110K together last years, and our total tax bill, state, fed, and sales, was $44K….about 40%…

    You pay that much, and my response to that is, if you do, it’s too much of your fair share…and if you don’t, why isn’t yours as high as mine…???

    reff (556669)

  132. Hey Dr. can you explain how McCain is not going to raise taxes with the mess we’re in?

    I’ll answer…

    Because raising taxes puts further strain on the economy, and when you tax the rich out of a sense of retribution (because how DARE they make so much), you make it EVEN WORSE by taking MORE money from the people who are usually providing the jobs in the first place.

    As for the Obama/Biden conflict over taxes, Obama recently (last day or so I think) used $200,000 as his marker for who gets higher taxes, and then later on (later the same day/next day) Biden used $150,000.

    It’s a moot point, because your taxes aren’t going down anyways. Mark my words, check your W2s this time around, and then loook at them in 2010.

    And then cry, knowing you willingly allowed – if fact actively sought – what happened.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  133. #134 Reff, I’m not going to go down the tax pie hole, done it too many times on this site.

    Sorry I got the thread off topic.

    Oiram (983921)

  134. Last night, on another thread, I challenged truthnjustice to watch the film clip on Hannity & Colmes that showed Obama and Biden racing down the income ladder from $250K to $150K.
    I noticed that he posted after the event, but never mentioned anything other than he couldn’t believe anything on H&C because Hannity was a partisan, and Colmes was just there for cover (I’m sure Alan would feel complimented by that). That was the response of someone who’s mind is so open, his brains have fallen out.
    BTW, the top 5% of wage earners start at $156K.

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  135. Good Allah, the racism is oozing out of your starched white bedsheets.

    A racist comment if I ever heard one. FYI, that’s a ghost costume for Halloween!!

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  136. who’s…whose

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  137. The Los Angeles Times, ironically, is owned by the Tribune Company, whose other big paper, the Chicago Tribune, went to court to force the unsealing of the divorce proceedings of 2004 Illinois Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan. The divorce was messy and embarrassing, so Ryan dropped out of the Senate race. His opponent was Barack Obama. Instead, Obama had an easy race against Alan Keyes, America’s foremost political performance artist.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  138. Don’t remind me again of that disgraceful performance by my hometown paper – they got the nudge from Axelrod’s former cronies, who were then working at the Trib. Neither Ryan nor his ex – wife wanted any details to emerge from those records, and there was no reason for the public to be aware of it – resulting in a cakewalk for The One.

    Dmac (e30284)

  139. JVW wrote:

    OK, so the LA Times won’t release the tape. Is there anything stopping an enterprising reporter from asking Obama what he remembers about that evening? Were Ayers and Dohrn there? Does he remember Khalidi saying anything inflammatory about Israel or the U.S.?

    There are no enterprising reporters that have access to him. The remaining ones come in two varieties: Syncophants, and Pre-President-Elect-kneepad wearers. Finally forced to confront the bias that is obvious to everyone who is paying attention, guys like the Politico founders acknowledge it, but — like the people who “investigated” Rathergate for CBS — say it is not because of reporters’ personal or cultural ideology.

    Of course the (potential) Dear Leader will say that he doesn’t remember anything about that evening, but at least he’ll be on record about it and maybe, just maybe, someone at the LAT will leak some more details that might be somewhat incriminating. (I don’t expect any real bombshell here, but it might turn out that Obama applauded Khalidi after his speech or was seen nodding along to some of the more inflammatory lines.)

    If the people in the McCain campaign were as smart as I am (YEAH, I SAID IT!) they long ago would have had McCain highlight that he has truly been an “open book” — he has acknowledged his flaws and detailed his errors of judgment in his various biographical books and other works he has co-authored with Mark Salter, and has taken reparative steps to correct those errors (not all of which I condone, such as CFR). After Palin took the gloves off with the “palling around with terrorists” line, the Obama camp released that silly twelve minute video blowing up McCain’s role in the Keating Five incident as more than it was. It was already in the can, ready and waiting for the first McCain reference to his associations with anti-American socialist revolutionaries. The video flew like the Spruce Goose because you can’t discuss that situation without making reference to the fact that McCain was eventually exonerated while figures like waaay-lefty California Senator Alan Cranston were destroyed.

    I would have had McCain say into a camera:

    Good evening. Well, the campaigns that started so long ago are just about over. In less than a week, the polls will be opening all over the country, and you have a very serious decision to make about the future of America.

    As our electoral system was designed by our Founding Fathers 232 years ago, your vote for President is very valuable and very powerful. You only get to use it every four years, and, if you’re following the law, you will only do it once. Maybe you remember after casting your vote in previous years saying to yourself, “I sure wish I would have known more about that person before I voted for her, or voted for him.”

    I’d like to remind you about something that maybe you missed: Earlier this year, false allegations were made against me on the front page of the New York Times. In response, I decided not to retreat from reporters. I did the opposite. I held a press conference and answered every single question until they had nothing more to ask. I took that step because I knew what the truth was, and had no fear of being contradicted, AND knew that each American was entitled to the truth.

    It’s obvious, I’ve been around a long time. And you, the American people, know me. Whether you agree with me or not, you know what I’ve done. You know what I believe. You know who I am.
    I’ve confessed the mistakes I have made, the regrets I have, and explained how I have dedicated myself to correcting them. I’ve answered every relevant question about my background, my philosophy, my health, and the experiences that have led me to the principles by which I would lead. I have answered these questions frankly and completely, because I believe you, my friends, wouldn’t — and shouldn’t — expect anything less of someone who wanted to be your Commander-in-Chief.

    Every American should want to be fully informed before casting her or his vote. Senator Obama promises to bring “change” to not only this country, but to the entire world. But are you sure what kind of change he wants to bring? Is it the kind of change you really want? Many people have suggested that Senator Obama is a transformative figure. But have you asked yourself: “What will America be transformed into?”

    This is not an easy thing to say, but I believe it must be said. It’s my belief that there are serious questions about Senator Obama’s background, his health, his philosophies, and his experiences before being elected to public office that he doesn’t want to answer before he is possibly elected President, and, probably, not even after that. Here’s some straight talk, my fellow Americans: You deserve answers, but it seems like Barack Obama doesn’t want to tell you. When tough but fair questions are asked, too often, he has given a vague answer, or an answer that is technically factual that he has had to continually amend as third parties reveal more details.

    Too often, Senator Obama’s hardcore supporters in and out of the media and sometimes even he himself have cast unfair and untrue aspersions on those who are expecting full answers. I don’t understand why he wouldn’t be forthcoming about the answers if he, as I was when I was smeared by the New York Times, was confident that the truth would exonerate me.

    I hope in the waning days of a long and tough campaign, Senator Obama has the faith in the American people to, at last, come forward, and be completely honest and consistent in his responses. I’ve laid out just about everything about myself on the table for your evaluation, and asked you for your confidence and your vote. If Senator Obama truly has faith in your fairness, he will completely address the remaining concerns of millions of undecided voters that would lead to the electorate being fully informed before casting their precious vote.

    Finally, I want to say that in the event he chooses to answer those questions, you all may very well decide that he deserves to be the next President. That would be your verdict, my friends, and I will accept it. But remember, nobody decides who will be given the privilege except each one of you. Whether you select Senator Obama or vote for John McCain, don’t let anyone tell you it’s useless to cast your vote…

    That’s not all I would have him say, but it’s all I have time to write.

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  140. Official Internet Data Office relayed Sarah Palin’s comments:

    “It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that,” Palin said. “In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed. And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kow-towing, then the L.A. Times, you’re winning.”

    All I can say is OOOOOH! SARAH-CUDA!

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  141. “And why do we have to have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans when the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans is growing?” Later he added, “We’re at war. Tell me one time in the history of this country when this nation was at war when we’ve enacted tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest.”

    John McCain in Fortune Magazine, June 28, 2008.

    This was 4 months ago! Have his views changed that much in the last 4 months or is he just confused and playing to the electorate?

    Seems to me he was arguing against the tax shields created under President Bush (in an effort to win the primary). Senator Obama is now being criticized for making the same point. Hypocritical to say the least.

    Southern Yankee (9526b3)

  142. “SURL, I love it, do you realize how different the world was when Roosevelt met King Abdulaziz?”

    Nothing has changed as regards U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia. We have the same relationship with the Saudis we’ve had since the 1940s, and that relationship was 100% the creation of the liberal Democrats.

    So, if libby wibbies have a problem with it, they should blame themselves, and their old messiah (Roosevelt) and they can spare me the crap about “those staunch Republican allies, Saudi Arabians.” That hogwash might fly with leftoids who get their information from Pacifica radio, or the Daily Kos, but it won’t work with people who actually know something about the history of U.S. foreign policy.

    Dave Surls (c863ef)

  143. #145 Dave
    “but it won’t work with people who actually know something about the history of U.S. foreign policy.”

    One question: How dependent were we for oil during Roosevelt’s time? Texas was spewing quite a bit of black gold in those days from what I recall.

    Times Change My Friend: I’m glad your not still holding a grudge against the “libby wibbies” for slavery.

    Oiram (983921)

  144. My God All this over the L.A. times not releasing a video tape????

    Good lord people.

    Get a life

    Your making the 9/11 conspiracy theorist look like geniuses.

    What happened to the Republican Party????

    Oiram (983921)

  145. Oiram disingenuously wrote: My God All this over the L.A. times not releasing a video tape????

    Your tune would change if the Times released it.

    What happened to the Republican Party????

    After Reagan left the scene, the hierarchy came to a fork in the road. One arrow represented Reagan, the other Rockefeller. They chose Rockefeller. Back to minority status, but hey! They get to hang out with Sally Quinn again.

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  146. “…Texas was spewing quite a bit of black gold in those days…”

    And, American oil formations in the Gulf, the Outer-Continental Shelf on both Coasts, shale formations in the Heartland, and what remains to be discovered in ANWR & other parts of Alaska, could be spewing that Black Gold again if it were not for the Party of Pelosi/Reid/Obama!

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  147. Oiram, the question is: what happened to journalism to put it so much in the bag for one party?

    You’ve no explanation for why this is being suppressed other than the media working to fix the election of Obama. No candidate in the history of the United States Presidency has been so successful at suppressing his actual past with the cooperation of the media.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  148. The Los Angeles Times, ironically, is owned by the Tribune Company, whose other big paper, the Chicago Tribune, went to court to force the unsealing of the divorce proceedings of 2004 Illinois Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan…. Ryan dropped out of the Senate race. His opponent was Barack Obama. Instead, Obama had an easy race against Alan Keyes, America’s foremost political performance artist.” Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 10/29/2008 @ 3:11 pm

    Thank you for making that connection for us. Sounds like some one at the Tribune Company is a big Barack Obama supporter.

    [Had I thought of it soon enough at the time and had any connections, I would have put forth Mike Singletary as the Republican candidate to take Ryan's place. He has the Ill. name recognition, is bright and handles himself well, and is certainly more conservative than Obama, even if he's a Dem (I don't know).]

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  149. Well said, SPQR! The media has done nothing but cover for Obama and his leftist illuminati rhetoric for the past 21 months. I’m just glad that I’m no longer a member of the mainstream MSM because I would be throwing up on myself at the thought of this shoddy Journalism.

    Jeff (7ff0a7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4458 secs.