Media bias regarding Obama’s & Palin’s past associations

Note: This article was co-written and edited by Michael and Nate


Ever since Gov. Sarah Palin was announced as Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential nominee, the press has dissected her past record, associations, and personal life. This was, of course, a necessity since Gov. Palin was a virtually unknown figure to the national scene prior to McCain disclosing her as his VP choice.

At the same time, Sen. Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President back in January of 2007 which has given the press 22 months to investigate Sen. Obama’s history. In recent days, it’s become very clear that some portions of Obama’s past, though relevant to the election, are being either ignored or downplayed by the media.

For example, once Gov. Palin was announced as McCain’s VP, it was soon discovered that she may have affiliations with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a state-level third-party group in Alaska which some say advocates for the succession of Alaska as part of the United States. Since that revelation, the media has written about her possible connection with the AIP numerous times, questioning her and her husband Todd’s association with the AIP.

Take these stories as examples:

New York Times: A Palin Joined Alaskan Third Party, Just Not Sarah Palin

MSNBC: Palin spouse was member of states’ rights party

Los Angeles Times: CNN bid to tie Palin to secessionists is a stretch

Truth be told on the matter of Palin and the AIP, the media did it’s job and got to the bottom of it. The non-partisan political fact-checking website FactCheck.org investigated the matter and released their findings:

Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.

The party’s chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.

The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin “never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time.”

These types of videos are also available via YouTube which feature Gov. Palin addressing the Alaska Indepence Party during their state convention:

In truth, the AIP shares many basic conservative values as those espoused by the Republican Party such as smaller government, states’ rights, and agreements on social issues such as traditional marriage and abortion. However, some other aspects of the AIP are questionable with regard to the mainstream of American politics, such as their desire to see Alaskans vote on whether they want to actually be a state of the union.

Still, the media did what it’s best at – it discussed and vetted the issue so that voters can now decide if it matters to them or not. What does this mean for Palin? That’s for you the voter to decide.

I am proud to say that our website, YouDecide2008.com, had commentators who have explored Gov. Palin’s connections to the AIP from both sides, quite thoroughly.

Now back to Sen. Obama’s past associations with third-party political groups. In recent days, evidence has surfaced that Sen. Obama, while running at the state level in Chicago, Illinois, became a member of the prepubescent political party known as the New Party. The New Party was not an official “third-party” as they did not seek to run under the New Party title on the ballot during elections. New Party members would run for office as Democrats in order to garner more widespread appeal under a recognizable party name.

The New Party sought to take the Democratic Party more to the left with regard to many policies including wealth redistribution, and further socializing numerous programs such as health care, education, and retirement. For weeks, rumors about Sen. Obama’s affiliations with the New Party have been nothing more than rumors, however, in recent days some evidence has surfaced which has cemented Sen. Obama’s association with the group.

The New Zeal blog uncovered these newsletters, distributed by the New Party National Committee, which tout Sen. Obama as a “member” of the party who won his Democratic primary for state senator.

Here is a close-up on this front page:

Here’s the ultra-close-up of that front page, discussing members of the Chicago New Party, such as Barack Obama, and their victories in certain primaries:

What does this mean? Well that is for voters to decide, however, it is surprising that within the last 22 months neither the media, the Clinton Campaign, nor the McCain Campaign has presented this information to the voters for their discernment. The New Party shares many of the Democratic Party’s goals on labor unions, social justice, and other typically Democratic issues, however, they differ on issues such as wealth redistribution through forceful progressive taxation. One substantial issue the New Party had with both major political parties was the influence corporate money had on their politics, a benign political position compared to its other stances.

The real point in bringing this information to light, something the media hasn’t done, is to try and bring a semblance of balanced reporting to this campaign.

Another group closely associated with the New Party was the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, who Sen. Obama was also associated with through meetings as well as receiving their endorsement for his state senate campaign.

Here is an excerpt from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Party website which congratulates Barack Obama on his primary victory while running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996:

Secondly, the NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

In the excerpt, the DSA states that Sen. Obama is asking other New Party members to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

Again, what does this mean? That is up to the voters to decide, however, the media has never questioned Sen. Obama’s affiliation with the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Party, nor his membership in the Chicago chapter of the New Party.

Questions were asked about the extent of Gov. Palin and her husband’s involvement with the Alaska Independence Party, however, not a single question has been posed to Sen. Obama concerning his membership with the Chicago chapter of the New Party.

Will the media ask Sen. Obama these or similar questions:

Why did you seek out the New Party for membership in Chicago?
Do you agree with their ideals of wealth redistribution?
Do you still believe in their shared goals with the Democratic Party?
Did you believe the Democratic Party wasn’t socialist enough in it’s policies when you joined the New Party?
Did it bother you that the New Party sought election victories while running secretly as Democratic candidates?
Did you ever participate in the New Party’s strategy of “piggy-backing” as a Democratic candidate?
An endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America requires candidates sign an agreement to push the DSA agenda, did you sign such an agreement in 1996?

There are many avenues a good reporter could question, however, if you search around the internet the only reference to the Chicago New Party will come from blogs, not the same major media establishments which instantly and thoroughly delved into Gov. Palin’s connections to the AIP.

So the bottom line here is that in our duty to provide all sides of factual information during this election season, we have presented more information concerning Sen. Obama’s past associations in a similar manner to Gov. Palin’s associations. The only difference is that the media has not examined Sen. Obama’s in the same regard as Gov. Palin’s. It also important to note that FactCheck.org has never discussed Sen. Obama’s association withe New Party to either confirm or dispel the extent of the association.

The bottom line here is to present all information about each candidate in a balanced format so voters can make up their individual minds on the issue and whether it matters to them.

For further information on Gov. Palin’s connection to the AIP or Sen. Obama’s connection the New Party, visit our ever-expanding commentary section.


Note: This article was co-written and edited by Michael & Nate

  • EricF

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

    Obama’s birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
    Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
    ————————————————————-

    things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm 😛

  • EricF

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    if this is real its over for Obama.

  • Deb

    This is just my belief and I have no hard evidence. When JFK ran for president his father went to Chicago to get the support of the mafia in Chicago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6jDMksJDJQ

    When Obama graduated why did he move to Chicago? How did he go from an unknown to winning the democrat candidate. JFK was also a pretty much unknown. And Obama likes to compare himself to JFK.
    http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-elected-illinois-democratic.html

    You have to read for yourself and make your own decisions. I just think it very strange that he rose up so fast and very little is questioned about his associates. When he is asked he gives vague answers. And why are all the media networks exceptfor FOX in Obama’s back pocket.

  • Michael

    Deb, I think we run a risky game when we begin to speculate about candidates or past presidents like that. Chicago is an incredible city– and when Obama moved there it was the second largest in the country— and the largest in the Midwest.

    Obama’s rise was due partly to luck and partly due to his own skill. When he ran for the Senate seat in Illinois, he caught a lot of lucky breaks, which he admitted too– and then landed the guest speaker position at the DNC in 2004. That was luck, but it was his oratory and words that made his case at the DNC.

  • Deb

    Michael,

    I did say it was my belief, but looking at the people he started associating with once he got to Chicago makes me really wonder. And I am not talking about Ayers. I am talking about the people who were known to be involved in the Chicago mob. I don’t believe for a minute that it was luck. I am going to be doing more research on this. Seems as though the more I look the more I find.

    For JFK it was true.

  • Bruce

    Ericf

    I kind of feel sorry for you, every time I read a post from you its some conspiracy theory or some extremely hateful comment. I hope that you can one day release from your angry ways and join the world of peace and togetherness. Take a few Valium and relax man. You are starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh

  • Michael

    the JFK period was still a period of incredible power with the mafia. I have no doubts that JFK was not the first, nor the last.

    i’ll be interested to see what you come up with. As of now, a man who was president of Harvard Law, and who is an incredible speaker– does not surprise me in being able to move forward in this world at the rate he did. What is refreshing, is that Obama (and Palin for that matter) have shown that it does not take a lot of old money or decades to become nominees for the highest offices in the land.

  • Frank

    “The real point in bringing this information to light, something the media hasn’t done, is to try and bring a semblance of balanced reporting to this campaign”

    OMFG, Nate en Michael, you have gotta be kidding me. Obama has been vetted througout this campaign, he has had questions about every shady person he has said HI to.

    About Palin. Who cares if Palins husband was a member of the alaskan independance party? I dont

    Palin is getting critized beceause she is an religious freak/hockey mom who doesnt know anything about world affairs.

    Id like to see the time when some commentary is written about Obamas stance on the issues. But offcourse, most of you would rather have a unqualified president with a flagpin on his coat then a qualified guy whithout one.

    In stead of actual arguments Obama is attacked by calling him socialist, liberal, communist, unpatriotic, anti american, muslim, elite or anything other that passes for an argument these days.

    Please, why dont you want an intelligent guy in the white house?

  • You can get some of your answers here:

    http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng120.html#anchor441916

    An endorsement from Chicago DSA does NOT require a signed agreement from the candidate; likewise, some of the premises your article and questions are based upon have a tenuous basis (at best) with reality. They make for a great story, though, especially for conservatives who may need to be worked up at point in a discouraging campaign.

    Be well,
    Bob Roman

  • EricF

    ** Nuked by Admin **

    No obscene profanity please, even when you censor yourself, thanks!

  • Akusete

    I agree with Frank in that a candidates stance on important issues rather than obscure personal relationships. But a candidates past political affiliations are very relevant.

    The extent to how much this article reveals about his past stances on issues I’ll have to search for other sources before making up my mind, but thanks for writing the article.

  • EricF

    oh yeah. the liberal msm should be ashamed and all you Palin bashers should be ashamed for the blatant sexism you put on display for the past month or so. what a disgrace, i am disgusted. i have never in my life personally witnessed such widespread sexism against a public official. let me just say that… “for the first time in my adult life i am ashamed to be an American” and you should be too. this type of behavior only highlights the epic moral decline that has taken place in America over the past few decades. I have never once heard or seen the Obama campaign come out and denounce this type of behavior, nor has the msm.

    grow up!

  • dale

    EricF tard,

    I just bought a box of tissues, and never you mind what I need them for. One thing I don’t need them for is it being over for Obama. If I wanna cry I usually just do it over the sink, it’s cheaper and the neighbours can watch me, they love how sensitive I am.

    You can predict the end as much as you want, the end may come one day if you neo-cons get a candidate that spreads your hateful message with a little more gusto than McCain is willing to do. However, this campaign will not contain that day, no matter how many times you say Obama Bin Laden or mention ol mate Bill.

    Until then go back to being the … ** Edited by Admin **

    Note: Vulgar personal comments are unacceptable, thanks!

  • EricF

    real nice Dale. just what i expect from the “im better than you” ultra liberal types. very disturbing.

  • Babs

    EricF, Fox News has picked up this video and is moving over the day. This would be a deal breaker IF the MSM would pick it up. Dollars to donuts they won’t, though. They haven’t vetted him yet – why start now?

  • Michael

    Please, everyone, let’s dispense with the personal attacks.

    Frank– the point of this article was that no one has asked Obama about this in the mainstream media. We are not in any way arguing that Obama has not been vetted.

  • Babs

    Michael, thanks for the post, but I’m particularly offended by Dale’s. I think that’s over the line:

    “Until then go back to being the closet homosexual and open racist we all know all you conservatives are. By the way, Bill Hedges old me your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries.

    Also, my cousin wants to meet you, he totally has a thing for closeted, angry bad-boys. Can you send me a picture? He’s not too picky, but he’s not desperate.”

    We don’t need this these types of comments.

  • EricF

    “We are not in any way arguing that Obama has not been vetted.”

    i dont think he has. everyday its like more stuff keeps coming out. its a pattern and it seems that he wasnt thoroughly vetted by his party or the mainstream media.

    “use your brain vote McCain”

    thats the new rally chant.

    its over.

  • EricF

    watch over the next week how many dems jump ship. i have a feeling there is going to be major fallout from all the issues raised during this campaign. there are already calls for an independent commission on the collapse of the housing market. i really hope that happens so we can get some real answers instead of just one sided accusing and finger pointing.

  • Dreadsen

    Now look at all of this factual information right here and this Eric Guy is still interested in birth certificates and other conspiracies. But if the McCain campaign wasn’t wasting their time with some of the dumber approaches they would have come up with this long time ago.

    As far as this article goes this is quite damaging.
    But this article has some logical flaws in it’s parallel comparison.

    You all show those few little article on the AIP as if it has been fully vetted by the media.
    I thought fully vetted meant every voter know about it. Or now a days fully vetted probably means the way Obama’s other associations or rumors have been covered.

    Also this article went out of it’s way to suppress the other damaging reasons besides the AIP wanting a vote. Like other entries on their website with American Hating quotes from their founder. If you aren’t including that then you have to exclude the effort to vindicate her by presenting a selective set of evidence then claiming “you the voter decide”. So that wasn’t covered with neutrality.

    How can you say that the media is bias towards Obama’s associations? There is a point of debate about the handling of this one particular association which i have further comments for but I don’t know about you. But I don’t know anyone who really knows about the AIP the way they know about Ayers, Rev Wright, Acorn and to a lesser Rezko. You don’t need internet or Cable to know about them. All you needed was free local News and you probably got sick of one of them.
    William Ayers was covered in the New York times about 14 or 18 times since March.
    How many articles were written on Rev. Wright since he sprung on the scene until now? How many multiple times have each individual news outlet covered it?

    How many articles were written on William Ayers since he sprung on the scene until now? How many multiple times have each individual news outlet covered him?

    How many articles were written on Michele Obama’s “love for America” since she first stated this? How many multiple times have each individual news outlet covered it?

    Now how many times has Obama HIMSELF and his campaign had to answer questions about the above issues REPEATEDLY.

    Once those issues were brought up Obama had to actually answer questions about it himself. And he VOLUNTEERED instantly not even 24hrs after the hoopla broke out to talk about Wright everywhere he could.

    This article is also misleading the way it presents the AIP being fully vetted. When he presents questions which should be posed to Obama one would assume that Palin has faced the media on this issue and answered questions of this nature.

    Those questions you pose for Obama notice in every interview Sarah Palin has been in, no one has asked her about the AIP. Not ONE question. You see an article here or there and blogs about it. Just like this new socialist party thing with Obama. They start off as blogs FIRST before a few media outlets start trying to cover them.

    Now all those questions laid out above are good questions which should be presented to Obama.

    but lets make the point that those similar questions have never been presented to Palin and she has not addressed them herself.

    This socialist info is NEW and obviously made it under the radar. Now if this information was in existence in the OPEN meaning all the people who have been digging information on him had presented all of this 22months ago and the media was ignoring it all of this time then i believe you would have a case of bias.
    Or if as soon as Palin jumped on the scene the Media instantly blasted AIP all over. But that also is not the case. It stayed in blogs for a long while before CNN actually tried to do a story on it.

    But this is socialist party things is fresh and new. This isn’t something that has always been open and available until now.

  • DJS

    Here is some very interesting reading.

    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-file-10-barack-obama-and.html

    I have been sitting here trying to come up with the right words to say in order not to be called a racist because I am not. But you have to admit that when it comes to all the profiling that is done it is not your average American white person who is living in proverty. Having said that I look at Obama and his ties to Chicago and the large population of poor black people. Unfortunately he did a disservice to them by befriending Tony Rezko who got plenty of money from the government and never put it into the slum areas he owned to improve the standard of living.

    This “spread the wealth” of course will or should help people who live in communities like the one in Chicago. My biggest concern is that over and over again we hear about these people not having the same opportunities as white Americans and therefore have no way to pull themselves up and get out of the rut they are in. But Obama did it. And if you look at other black Americans, Condi Rice, Colon Powell, Michelle Obama, a number of black Americans hold seats in Congress the list could go on. Why is it that some of these people are able to pull themselves up by the boot straps and make something of themselves while others can’t? I remember when my ex husband was taking the civil service exam to become a cop and they lowered the passing grade because they felt that the minorities couldn’t pass the higher grade. Is it that we are enabling these people because society looks at them as poor and uneducated and we don’t believe they will do as well as a middle class white American?
    We don’t very often give them a chance. Seems as though it is just assumed that as a whole they are not as smart and that is why they are given the label so many white Americans have given them.
    I guess what I am trying to really say is that I believe they (meaning any minority who is a citizen of this country) deserve to be treated equally and I think we hurt them by making it appear that the only way they can succeed is if we lower the standard.

    With all that said because Obama has basically determined himself to be black (even though he is half white)it only stands to reason his idealism and belief of “spreading the wealth”.
    With all that said though I am still not going to vote for him.

  • Stalin

    Babs and EricF

    I have listened to the audio and to a normal person this would be very disturbing. However, the Obama minions have turned their brains off at this point and will vote for him no matter what. I honestly think that we could have proof that he is a convicted felon and it would make no difference. The MSM and the 5th estate want this guy elected at all costs.

  • NiceKing

    EricF concerning the youtube audio link you posted, seems to me that you have fallen for the bias, taken outta concept, conservative river. ever wondered why it is an edited not a full video?? let me help you out…

    September 6, 2001
    Listen to the Entire Program
    Slavery and the Constitution
    Richard John – Associate professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author of Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse
    Barack Obama – Illinois State Senator from 13th district and a senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago
    Jan Lewis – Professor of history at Rutgers University, in Newark, New Jersey. She is the author of the forthcoming book Women, Slaves, and the Creation of a Liberal Republic

    try this link, and click on 6th september 2001:
    http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/od_rasep01.asp#010906

    sounds to me it was nothing less than a constitutional law professor lecturing on history than political advocacy..

  • Stalin

    NiceKing:

    You can try to marginalize EricF and the audio he posted, but you can’t deny the truth. Obama has now twice been caught using the mantra “distribution of wealth”. The man is a socialist. The man that you envision in your head (thanks to the media) when you vote for him, is not the man that he is.

  • Babs

    You’re right, Stalin, and NiceKing just proved it. *LOL*

  • EricF

    lol watch the spinsters try to remain calm and explain it away.

  • DJS

    Here is what we have been looking for. For all the Obama followers you can just ignore this.

    http://obamaimpeachment.org/

  • EricF

    im surprised charges havent been filed yet against the entire Obama campaign for attempted robbery of the American people. 😛

  • Deb

    So has anyone figured out just why the MSM doesn’t go after Obama like it does McCain and Palin? I wish I could watch the news on any channel and get an unbiased report about both candidates. FOX news can sometimes be a little to conservative but all the other MSM’s have Obama painted as the Messiah. I stopped watching the news because I was afraid they would start showing him coming out from the skies and back to earth as our savior.
    This is the worst election yet for news coverage.
    EricF..I’m with you. When is someone going to wake up and really check this guy out? I have said it before but it is so true that if he was after a job with the FBI he wouldn’t pass the security check. But we are going to allow this man to be our president. What does that say about the office of the president?

  • EricF

    http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_voter_fraud/2008/10/26/144303.html

    Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud

    heres an interseting little article. it seems Hillary supporters are saying they were disenfranchised by their own party.

  • IndiMinded

    Keep insulting my intelligence, McCain supporters, it really exhibits your class. Kindergarten I’m thinking

  • Stalin

    Here’s the Huffington Post lame response to the Radio Interview. Instead of discussing the issue, they resort to insults of Matt Druge. Quite sad:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/drudge-drops-obama-bombsh_b_138096.html

  • Deb

    EricF…I am surprised this didn’t come out sooner. It would only stand to reason that if they are doing it now then they did it to win the primary. I wish Hillary would come out and question it. If she did it would be all over for Obama because all the people that voted for her would realize it is Obama’s fault she wasn’t named as the candidate.

    I just found another interesting website.

    http://www.squidoo.com/ThinkAmerica#module12283106

    I was especially interested in the one titled “Democrats bring back slavery”.

  • Raymond

    You people are JUST figuring this out? I have been saying for the past YEAR that Obama has been getting a free ride in the media. Not just a free a ride, but a free attack machine. Obama never had to do what Bill did for Hillary, or what Palin is doing for McCain, because the mainstream media has been doing it FOR HIM!

    Don’t think for a minute that Jeremiah Wright was a thorn in Obama’s side. The media was brilliant in that approach. They got the image of digging up on Obama when in fact they were investigating someone CLOSE to him. Most Americans (especially liberals) were not smart enough to read between the line and detect the difference. Obama escaped the digging up of personal garbage by letting his close association do take the fall. The media was more than happy to play along.

    Don’t even get me started.

  • Dreadsen,

    We weren’t saying that Palin has been fully vetted either, though clearly there has been a media effort to bring out all of her past indiscretions to light. Plus, FactCheck.org tried to tackle the issue and at least get some clarity.

    Furthermore, the articles were there simply to illustrate that the media has, at least, discussed Palin and the AIP. I even pointed readers to the commentary section to find your article and others on the subject. The point is that Todd Palin has more questions to answer since Sarah Palin wasn’t a member, though I know you question that finding from FactCheck.org.

    The parallel attempt is simply to show that the media was, at the minimum, interested in writing about Palin and the AIP. Anyone can do a Google search and find lots of information, some of it wrong, some of it right.

    The problem is that Obama’s connections to the New Party have never been discussed or mentioned by the same media which has discussed Palin and the AIP. That is the point here.

    The “rumors” of Obama’s associations have been around, but the media hasn’t investigated the issue. Now with these newsletter scans, I felt we should make a story on it.

    I saw this as an opportunity to actually do a service and bring this information to light. After consulting with Michael, he felt similarly and we proceeded in this manner of drawing the comparison.

    But that’s why you’re all here, to add to the story or dispute portions of it, at least it’s now being discussed.

  • PeoplePower

    OMG – okay, so an unauthenticated document starts floating around the internet and every Obama-basher jumps on it as if it is an *absolute* fact. SO typical.

    Let’s add more fear-tactics to the burning of the country! Reagan said (of Dukakis, I think), “He’s a card-carrying member of the ACLU.” Umm, the ACLU is such a radical organization it fought for Rush Limbaugh’s rights to keep his medical records private. But, hey, let’s label someone a “Liberal” with a big ‘L’ and we can scare people into thinking they’ll turn the country communist…that’s what the Republicans think of their supporters – small-minded and easily swayed by radical and hate-filled rhetoric.

    And I see many of you falling for it again.

    Here are some samples of the tactics used by the Republicans to trick you with fear and deception into voting for them:

    Oh no, look out for all the gays coming out of the woodwork to get married. Oh no, if you elect a Democrat and the terrorists will win. Oh no, all of your daughters will have to sign up for mandatory abortions. Oh no, they’re going to take all of your guns.

    You had better run-scared to the safety of the Republican bosom or America will be destroyed.

    Lies, hyperboles, exhaggerations and outright filth…and yet it continues to work, as the Republicans are extraordinary at understanding the psychology of the voter and how to manipulate it (Atwater & Rove are masters at it).

    For the record, if this NP-information were truly credible, it would have surfaced *LONG* ago and spread around the ‘net like you’re attempting to do with this thin whisp of a new indictment.

    Then the msm would have picked it up months ago and perhaps there would be some serious coverage of it (if it were true) or it would be eliminated due to being a non-issue.

    The fact that it’s just surfacing now raises questions about its validity.

  • EricF

    “Then the msm would have picked it up”

    right! because the msm has no bias to speak of. sheeeeshhhh.

    there are so many unanswered questions and Obama is doing nothing to answer. if none of this stuff is true then why isnt he making that clear for everyone? why does he keep sidestepping all the controversy? im just sayin. seems like commonsense to me.

  • OMG – okay, so an unauthenticated document starts floating around the internet and every Obama-basher jumps on it as if it is an *absolute* fact. SO typical.

    If I thought for a minute those scans were forged, I would have never posted this since I don’t traffic in rumors, I prefer truth and facts. I can only speak for myself and Michael on this article, though the point was not to “bash” Obama, but just ask the questions about why this hasn’t been discussed in the media. The rumors of Obama’s association have been floating around, though were never substantiated which is why I would never discuss it as news.

    You can argue about media coverage and why it wasn’t covered earlier, that’s legitimate, and a question I can’t answer.

    Apparently the newsletters are held in the DC metro area and the originator stated that they would provide them if anyone would like to see them. I am working on perhaps viewing them personally for more verification. Will report/update the story if I get the opportunity.

  • Dreadsen

    EricF

    “if none of this stuff is true then why isnt he making that clear for everyone? why does he keep sidestepping all the controversy? im just sayin. seems like commonsense to me. ”

    It’s not that black and white.

    Why isn’t McCain and Palin blasting this at the top of their lungs?

    That’s the commonsense part. If you expect Obama to come out and address something his opponent hasn’t brought up you’re crazy. Now this does beg the question. Why isnt’ McCain bringing this up? Does this mean McCain actually has a socialist agenda as well?

    If this was something really risky and dangerous or legit i would wonder why McCain and Palin aren’t bringing this up. You know they have to be aware of it.

    If you read what factcheck has to say about Acorn you would see that Acorn is blown out of proportion. But McCain blew that trumpet.
    The socialist word is flying all over the place with high up officials. McCain sitting on this and not bringing it up knowing that it would help him big time should raise an eyebrow.

  • PeoplePower

    EricF – because the addressing of a trumped-up charge gives the charge legs of its own.

    If you and I were running for the same political office and I accused you of being a criminal and made a straw-man case of it you have a few ways to respond:

    1. Deny the accusations as being utterly false
    2. Sidestep the accusations as being politically-motivated
    3. Completely ignore them

    If you choose options 2 or 3, the charges will only gain traction if the actual accusation against you is more than a straw-man; but if they’re bogus, the charges will fade away as rumor-mongering.

    On the other hand, if you deny the accusations, you give them credence and people will raise more questions about their validity (simply *because* you’re insisting on your innocence). Not only will the charges stay in the media cycle longer, but some people will begin to believe the charges – and after several news cycles they will begin to stick. And even if, later, the media reports them as being a straw-man, you will stand convicted in some people’s minds, despite the retraction.

    Your reputation would be forever tarnished in some segments of the population and you would not only likely lose the election, but you wouldn’t be able to run again (ever or for a very long time).

    And as for the msm having no bias, of course there’s bias. However, there are enough msm organizations that have little bias or are biased against Obama, that they *would* have covered it. I question the validity of the issue because it’s yet another fear-card being played *late* in the game.

    I question the voracity of it, because it’s a weak-linked argument that an endorsement by an organization of a candidate equals that candidate’s endorsement of the organization. It does not automatically mean that, it only means the organization finds preference in that candidate to the other options.

  • Stalin

    PP:

    Looks like you are coming unglued a bit there. If we had more time, we would probably find much about Obama as we have in the past couple days. What you are seeing is a grassroots effort to uncover the real Obama because the MSM won’t do it.

    Dreadsen

    Factcheck.org is an Obama surrogate, please find more credible sources.

  • “I question the voracity of it, because it’s a weak-linked argument that an endorsement by an organization of a candidate equals that candidate’s endorsement of the organization.

    PeoplePower.

    I would agree except the Newsletter refers to Obama as a “member” of the New Party who won a primary, not an endorsed candidate.

    Was he a “member” or just endorsed? We don’t know because this has never been vetted and discussed, as it is right now.

  • EricF

    its just one thing after the other. use your brain, all this stuff cant just be coincdence. if it was one or two questionable things i could give a pass but it has all piled up into a mountain of unanswered questions and Obama continues to sidestep instead of answering the questions directly.

    McCain is trying to run a clean campaign because we know the media is out to demonize him. he is doing the right thing by lettingthe case be made by the American public. none of these charges need legs anymore. they already have legs and if they go unanswered he cannot win. there are too many undecideds out there. not to mention the huge Hillary following that feel they were disenfranchised by the Obama campaign.

    you do the math.

  • Pats

    It’s amazing how you people waste your valuable time talking about what other people should have done. I believe the MSM know what they are doing. They don’t write for writing sake but for earning something from the sales of their work. All of you arguing are going to vote for the candidate you beleive will do you good, releif you from the economic anguish and ensure your safety. The MSM do likewise. Their failure to meet our expectations is not new except that we want to make it new for our own interests. Keep talking while you run out of time.

  • EricF

    why do i have a feeling there will be more people voting this year than there are people of voting age. lol.

  • DJS

    PeoplePower
    “OMG – okay, so an unauthenticated document starts floating around the internet and every Obama-basher jumps on it as if it is an *absolute* fact. SO typical.”

    So now you understand how we feel about the Obama followers bashing McCain and Palin. It’s not so funny when the bashing is against the M3essiah. It is obvious we aren’t supposed to question just follow.

    Talk about the media being biased:

    “This tragicomic episode also demonstrates how corrupt and biased the mainstream media are. The Chicago Tribune filed a lawsuit in 2004 to release Jack Ryan’s divorce records. Ryan was running against Obama for the U. S. Senate. This was a classic Axelrod/Obama smear maneuver. But now that Obama’s birth certificate is called into question, the Tribune sits on its hiney, putting a facsimile of a computer-generated document on its site and making no effort to obtain a copy of the typewritten 1961 original. Misleading its readers about the truth? Crooked, biased Chicago anyone?”

    I don’t care whether or not Obama’s birth certificate is fake or not. I care about a man who nobody seems to really know and nobody seems to care about knowing before he is elected to president of the US.
    I am not sure why all the Obama followers get so uptight when we start questioning the leqality of Obama and his history. If he has nothing to hide then there shouldn’t be a problem. But when you shut off any more interviews with a MSM because you don’t like the questions being asked or you drag someone through the mud because he asked you a question to clarify the candidate’s stand and expressed his concern about it I for one think there is a problem. This is America and we have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. At least for now. We have a right to question the candidates running for president and we have a right to be concerned.
    I would be pretty ignorant not to want to be as informed as possible before making a big decision for this country.
    It doesn’t matter who is being interviewed. We have the right to have any and all questions answered without reprocussions.
    As for McCain and Palin we don’t have to do any research because the MSM’s have done that for us. I wish they had done the same for Obama.

  • b

    THe media is and always has been prone to if not outright controlled by some faction in this country. It seems reasonable to me that the mass media journalism of today has its roots in the mass media journalism of the early 20th century. Big political machines of cities and regions outright owned or had otherwise insinuated themselves into the media machines and many other business’s and enterprises within their reach or jurisdiction during that era, often times operating as an overt front for their reprective political machines and bosses. Not to discount the many problems and flaws of the mass media of our times but compared to the first half of the 20th century I actually believe that we live in a era in which the media as an institution excercises its intellectual independence and freedom of the press far more than at anytime in our history, especially if you factor in the internet. That being said “the media” as an institution will never be totally independent of some faction, and thereby some bias.

    In regards to the Obama and Palin coverage I think they are just two different people that were rolled at two different times in our nation, reflecting different national moods and biases. With Obama I would add that even before he announced his candidacy there was already a bevy of activity and reports popping up about him being a Muslim, him not being and American citizen, Having been sworn in on the Koran, being some sort of Indonesia manchurian candidate via a school he attended as a small child, and etc, etc, etc. I think over the course of the last 4 years Obama has been investigated fairly thoroughly by the media and I think that in that time many in the national media, who I might add are fairly educated (a demographic that Obama overwhelmingly owns), have grown to like Obama and what he represents. It is also important to add that Team Obama have to this point ran a fairly awesome campaign, they have controlled the flow info for the most part and have been able to createthe public image that they wanted to create of thier candidate, they have controlled the core message of the times & a great many of Americans have responded positively to it… Change Change Change, (Obama set this tone and so far Hillary and McCain have had to adapt to it), in short it is important to realize that alot of people feel like they like Obama and like his messge and idealism.

    As for Sarah Palin, she came on the scene at a different time, and how many of you had ever heard her name before August? Obama has pretty much been a household name since ’04, so talk about unknown… people respond to the uknown when it is thrust upon them usually in a negative way. Not that Palin could not overcome this obstacle, but Team McCain did seem to overlook one very fundamental fact: most Americans have never heard of her before and Alaska is a totally different world than the lower 48 (I think many Americans think of it like that in a neutral way), so it was even more critically important to expose her as much as possible in a very personal way to the American people and media. The McCain people, not the media are the cause of the bias towards Palin, they didnot let her get out there, they did not expose her to the American people and the media in a real way, they totally stage managed it and limited people and the media’s access to the real Sarah Palin… I think she would have done fine jib jabbing with reporters from the very begining, not all dolled up by a bunch of carreer political hacks. The reality is that she was a total unknown on the national scene and you cannot run for the second highest office in the land by totally cutting the media off for a month, it seems fabricated and the media got hostile… add to that the only tid bits that we were getting from sources outside the cnn, fox, nbc and Team McCain, where reports from her detractors in Alaska, you tube clips from her church (another point… has anyone ever had there pastor and religious nackground looked into like Obama has?), things that in short did not help to create a positive national image. If I were advising her I would tell her to do her own thing to because the McCain people seem to only be running his camp into the ground and ruining her potential to run in the future.

  • b

    One more thing, I think the Obama campaign has been run much like the first George W Bush campaign, how much did you realy know about Bush, how bout his drug use, or the entire early 1980’s and late 1970’s which he referred to time and again as his time of just being young and stupid. Both the Obama and Bush camps have totally created thier candidates public image, sealed important records and refused to answer critical questions about thier past when they were “young and stupid”, both have raised record amounts of money, both have generated huge amounts of grassroots activity and voter registrations, and both have set the tone for the entire campaign with a simple core message and repeated it over and over and over.

  • DJS

    b..you talk about how Obama’s pastor and religious background was looked into. And to a point it was but I guess I have a really hard time understanding how a man who wants to be president of the US could sit in this church for 20 years with a pastor who preached God dam America. Even Oprah left the church because of his sermons. It is this radical side of Obama that really bothers me. But it isn’t just Wright and Ayers. There are so many of them on the list who to me would be questionable.

  • EricF

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    over a million hits in under 24hrs. the counter stopped keeping track.

  • Babs

    I’m not surprised. Hannity’s running it just about nonstop on the radio. I’ll bet Rush is having a ball with it. *LOL*

    But he’s not saying what we think he’s saying, right?

  • b

    DJS-

    Obama’s religion and religiosity has been looked into and questioned more than any candidate in modern American politics. I agree with you that what Wright said was crazy but I have been with my mom to her evangilical church that has spouted off and acted in comparably frightening fashion. I do not think that my mothers church can be characterized by a few frightening things that I have heard said over the years and I believe the same is true of Rev. Wright. Further, in my opinion what Wright was expressing in those few clips was a distinctly American veiwpoint coming from an old and probably somewhat angry black man that has seen the face of terrible oppression and bigotry. I do not excuse and I think that one should be able to express themselves a bit better than that, but I also no charismatic churches and I can understand the anger that underlines his and other similar pastors statements. I think it entirely racial and I think that embracing it by trying to understnd and listen with a little more context to what people like that express reagrdless of whether it is pleasant to ones ears or not is an important step in our national progress and easing the racial tensions that really do exist in many ways in our culture. I believe in social justice in many ways, and I believe that slavery and Jim Crowe as well as our attempted extermination of Native Americans are sins that we must embrace and undersand not because I or we “hate america” but because I believe that the consequences of those national sins still plauge us today in very real and apparent ways and still plauge the descendants of the victims. That is why I say that which Rev Wright said is racial but it is nothing foreign or to be feared.

    As far as the radical side of Obama and his other associations outside of Ayers, Wright , Rezko and whatever that economist name is, what other dubious association are you speaking of?

  • Babs

    “Obama’s religion and religiosity has been looked into and questioned more than any candidate in modern American politics.”

    In all my years, I can’t recall another Pastor so anti-American to be a Pastor for 20 years to a Presidential candidate. That might explain it, don’t you think?

  • JD

    A federal jury finds the Senate’s longest-serving Republican (Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens) guilty on all seven counts of making false statements on Senate financial documents.

    He was charged with concealing more than $250,000 worth of gifts and free home renovations.

    The 84-year-old is currently fighting for reelection to his Alaska Senate seat.

    ***

    I heard that Palin one time talked to and took a picture with this guy!!!! She must have been in on this with him. Seriously, if I find out that Sen. Ted Stevens endorsed Palin too than I think there is a huge conspiricy here.

    I mean, talking to… Taking a picture with… and being endorse by this guy should be enough for some kind of investigation! Or maybe they the MSM is just going to give Palin a pass on this.

    Why don’t you all see this!!!! I mean they are both republicans so she has to be guilty by association.

    Seriously people… GET REAL!

    Also, I demand to see Palin’s birth certificate 🙂

  • Dreadsen

    Nate

    “We weren’t saying that Palin has been fully vetted either, though clearly there has been a media effort to bring out all of her past indiscretions to light. Plus, FactCheck.org tried to tackle the issue and at least get some clarity.

    Furthermore, the articles were there simply to illustrate that the media has, at least, discussed Palin and the AIP. I even pointed readers to the commentary section to find your article and others on the subject. The point is that Todd Palin has more questions to answer since Sarah Palin wasn’t a member, though I know you question that finding from FactCheck.org.

    The parallel attempt is simply to show that the media was, at the minimum, interested in writing about Palin and the AIP. Anyone can do a Google search and find lots of information, some of it wrong, some of it right.

    The problem is that Obama’s connections to the New Party have never been discussed or mentioned by the same media which has discussed Palin and the AIP. That is the point here. ”

    Nate the problem is you say Obama’s Associations.

    Rev Wright vs AIP
    Acorn vs Aip
    Rezko vs Aip
    William Ayers vs AIP
    Michele Obama vs AIP

    compare the Way the AIP has been discussed in the media to those other Obama associations and there is no comparison.
    IF the media never discussed ANY of his associations or they devoted less coverage to the above associations than the time which was devoted to the AIP THEN that would be Bias.
    But being that neither is true then it is a flawed claim.

    Now onto Factcheck. See factcheck and Acorn. Does that satisfy Fox and the millions of articles i still keep seeing on acorn? There were still articles popping up on this site meanwhile factcheck had debunked the claims already. There is other claims about Acorn which Fact check has not mentioned or checked into. Just like the AIP. There are lots of things which factcheck isn’t checking on. Doesn’t mean the other facts make Acorn true or fase because fact check doesn’t mention it. The same goes with AIP.

    Now if the media really covered AIP then why haven’t you actually reported it? I mean if the commentary that I did is actually to be considered this sites report(despite the warning you have at the top of the commentary warning people basically not to take it too serious) then I will point out that Conservative Girl did a commentary on this new party with Obama. If my commentary is enough on AIP then shouldn’t her commentary be enough as well?

  • EricF

    Dreadsen, its over. the only way Obama can win now is if they steal the election through voter fraud. we all know ACORN committed masive registration fraud. dont even give me the argument that it was only the workers. its ACORNs fault if they didnt properly train these people or provide oversight.

    stop trying to change the subject, your starting to sound like Obama. lol.

    Dreadsen instead of making a block of text why not just do like Obama does and just say 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. thats what he does when he doesnt want to answer the questions.

    its over. McCain will be the next president. too many undecideds will go to McCain. not only that but all those disenfranchised Hillary supporters are going to vote McCain. i dont care what any poll says. its over.

    game over.

  • Pats

    I’ve just read a report in CNN that a plot to assasinate Barack Obama has been disrupted and two men arrested. Can anybody shed more light on it?

  • JD

    Federal agents have broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree, the ATF said Monday.

    In court records unsealed Monday, federal agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target a predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads. Agents said the skinheads did not identify the school by name.

    Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Nashville field office for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said the two men planned to shoot 88 black people and decapitate another 14. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

    The men also sought to go on a national killing spree, with Obama as its final target, Cavanaugh told The Associated Press.

    “They said that would be their last, final act — that they would attempt to kill Sen. Obama,” Cavanaugh said. “They didn’t believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying.”

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854293,00.html

  • Dreadsen

    EricF

    “Dreadsen instead of making a block of text why not just do like Obama does and just say 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. thats what he does when he doesnt want to answer the questions.”

    I wasn’t aware that he was doing this. You mean to tell me that someone asked Obama about something way off course like this and he just starting spouting out people will get a 95% tax cut?

    show me this i’m interested in a good laugh.

    Another point i guess the critical thinking and logic needed for you to understand the conversation i’m having with nate is too much for you to see that it has nothing to do with defending Obama at all. We are talking about Media bias. That has nothing to do with the fact of this being true or not true. Only about fair coverage.

    Pat

    A senior Barack Obama aide tells ABC News that Obama’s Secret Service detail had not been briefed on the alleged plot to assassinate the Democratic nominee, an indication that the plot had not reached the point of posing a serious threat to Obama.

    “They were given no heads up,” the Obama aide tells ABC News.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2008/10/obama-agents-no.html

    This stuff happens all the time. There have been more than a few assassination attempts. They just keep them quiet. Nothing on the scale of actually catching someone on a building with him in their sights though.

  • JD

    Why is the mainstream media not covering Sarah Palin’s Witch Doctor pastor?

    http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-104600

    Interesting…

  • Bruce

    EricF taken your Valium today yet? Obama was talking about Post Slavery days and the lack of support for the freed slaves and they needed a distribution of wealth. So if you want to keep on with your Rush Limbaugh stle rants cussing and racism please continue you only make your self look like a tard.

    On the Subject of people bitching about bringing up the 150k Shopping spree all i have to say is 4 years ago you repubs cried bloody freaking murder over Kerry’s $400 hair cut. So Suck it up Deal with it it’s your turn to eat that. $400 sure seems like a Deal now huh

  • U.S.A.

    Eric F

    Hope is good I guess but this has gone on long enough. On November 5th, will you remember all the “Obama can’t win now” comments you post?

    Get it through your head. It’s in the bag for Obama. Get over it. The stupid attacks on Obama only hurt the loser ticket. How can you loose control of your mouth like that knowing that in a week you will be proven a fool….for those who did not already know.

  • Deb

    b…here is a list of some of the questionable people Obama has been associated with.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZANq7nnc2w&feature=related

  • Mike A

    There is nothing Anti-American, unpatriotic, or radical about dissent. Critiquing unjust systems that have strayed from admirable philosophical roots is what this nation is founded on, with the right to free speech and the right to organize and the right to vote being the key components of my opinion. Right-wing conservatives against Obama are angry because these supposedly damaging associations ARE NOT WORKING, NOT BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ASKED. When people like Sean Hannity, day after day(yes I listen to him frequently when I’m in my car and feel the need to get pissed off) asks his listeners, “Why isn’t anyone asking about so-and-so, why don’t we know Obama, who is the real Obama?”…what is he really saying? He’s a journalist. Why can’t he find something?

    The media is accused of being liberal when right-wing smears don’t work. I know more than I want to know about Obama’s associations because they’ve been blaring in my face for months now, on every news outlet around at some point. I am not a mindless zombie marching to the ballot box. No one posting here should accuse each other of that. And I know by comparison a decent amount about McPalin’s. I’ve heard about her pastor, about her husband’s various beliefs, her wardrobe…about his involvement in the Keating 5, his ridiculous list of contradictions in interviews over the years, his voting record. Neither of these attacks should concern us. The hypothetical opposites would speak for themselves, so what’s the point? Example: If Michele Obama had been part of an organization that championed separation from the U.S., what a field day for the right. In all fairness, if John Mccain had been associated with extremist factions of the right, we’d be hearing all about it…oh wait, he’s had many but…let’s focus on the one thing we can agree on if we want a fair comparison. It’s not the media. It’s the campaign. Conducting a campaign and picking a VP is your first exercise in governing. Both of these tickets deserve a clean slate once the announcement for running is made. If the right wants to dip into the left’s past, then the left has the option to dip into right’s past. And vice-versa. The complaint from conservative right-wingers about the media seems to be based on the fact that the media is reporting about news-worthy things that are happening TODAY in Mccain’s campaign, instead of things that happened with Obama BEFORE the campaign. This is no way to prove a point.

    Let me appeal to conservatives on this issue pretending, for a second, I was voting for Mccain. I’d be furious with the campaign for relying on this to get elected. Is this how we want to win? Inciting incredible cries of socialism, terror, and fear? Is that all we got? Mccain has seen a primitive socialist nation up close. Does my candidate really think Obama will usher in some kind communist era? Do my fellow supporters really think this? Do they really think the entire media of the most prolific, lucrative, and examined nation in history is conducting some kind of conspiracy against us? What do we stand for? Where is the honest straight-forward meat about the issues? Why does meat of our issue agenda rely on distorting and/or blatantly lying about tax proposals repeatedly? How can we continue to claim we don’t know Obama after DOZENS of debates, interviews, interrogations, rumors, two best-selling biographies, hundreds of rallies open to the public, and a clearly stated agenda in his website? It’s like being on a basketball team’s bench, and watching my teammates try to win by continually shooting from half-court and nothing else.

    Conservative America, what do you stand for?

  • Bruce

    This Guilt by association game is a fireball for McCain sure you want to go there?

    You say Acorn?? Can we say FLA 2000 election 2004 Ohio?? Repubs are the true Voter Fraud Specialists. They raise a red Flag on Acorn in the Right hand so they Can Purge Votes with the left.

    Wanna talk about Ayers?? All I Have to say Is G Gordon Liddy, Richard Quinn, Keating 5 and many many more found by simple Google searches. They make Ayers Pale in comparison.

    Wanna talk about Wright?? Can you say Pastors Hagee/Rev. Rod Parsley and the OOOO so fun relation ships of Palin and her Witch doctor pastor and AIP

    So Ericf,

    You insist on screaming bloody murder over a snippet of an Obama interview that you take 100 miles out of context. God gave you 2 ears and 1 mouth, that means you should listen twice as much as you speak.

    So PLEASE STOP Ranting and raving till you are blue in the Face. Anyone with HALF a brain stem can tell you only get your news from Fox news and the Dredge report. I bet you get horny listening to Rush. I feel kind of sorry for you to be Honest. You show me that you have 0 depth of knowledge on anything outside of your own twisted view, Wake up and smell the roses there is a much broader world out there that you sitting on your computer with your mind racing with hateful racist and divisive commenting.

    Wake the F up guys! This Country needs to UNITE after this election no matter WHO wins.

  • EricF

    Bruce, all you other liberal nuts. lol. you guys just dont get it. its over. Obama cannot win now.

    but ok lets say he does win anyway. what do you think will happen?

    same thing thats happening now but only more intense.

    whats everyone doing right now?

    they are pulling their money out of the market on fears of an Obama presidency and what that means.

    my prediction is if Obama wins (highly doubtful) you will see the biggest selloff ever. you will see companies shut down shop in record numbers. you will see a movement of American wealth to other countries and other markets on a massive scale.

    dont get it yet? when you play class warfare the other side usually doesnt just bend over and take it up the arse. this is why i keep trying to tell you fools that the government cant control PRIVATE wealth. they can try but it wont work.

    also, i think its very unwise to be calling me a racist. wheres your proof? i guess you learned that from Obama as well. cant win onthe facts, pull the race card.

    pathetic.

  • Antonio

    EricF,
    Do you work? or, are you on vacations?
    I see you are permanently glued to your
    keyboard spreading agressive nonsense
    all over the place.
    Say, on the day of vote do note remain
    in front of your computer!

  • Mike A

    Funny how when Palin’s behavior, words, and past decisions are examined and at times criticized it’s called sexism. I am not a sexist. My opinion of Palin, along with Rumsfeld, Bush, and before him, Quayle, would not change at all if they exchanged their genitals. They are all idiots with too much power and exposure to keep themselves from seeming so. By comparison, I would not call Bush Sr., Reagan, Cheney, Powell, or Rice idiots at all. I may have differed with them on policy many times, but they are not idiots. Like Bush, Palin is only one of a couple different options: dumb opportunist or evil genius. Either way unappealing. And perhaps both at times, which is worse.

    Where is this race card that Obama supposedly pulls out EricF?
    Please provide us with one example where Obama used race to justify an act, statement, or policy of his own. When has he called someone else’s statement racist as an explanation for a differing opinion? And when has Mccain or Palin stepped up and calmed the actual hatred pulsing from the crowd at their rallies? Mccain did it twice a few weeks ago, and for a second, I thought he was a good man trapped on a train way off its rails. This was his one late path to victory, but he missed the chance of taking it further.

    There is a sick, seedy underbelly in this country represented by people who think they see into “the truth of things”, that they are saying what “no one else whats to say because it’s taboo.” People like Farraro and Limbaugh and Bachman who somehow think talking about race means saying racist things. And then they get all offended at the insinuation that they are racist.

    I take no pleasure from calling someone a sexist or racist. But when you judge someone, fear someone, or consider them second-class human beings for these uncontrollable qualities, you fall into this category. When you try a find faulty connections and post them here like Deb did, you fall into this category. And when you accuse others of labeling you these terms without reason, you reveal a side of yourself that you don’t realize speaks volumes. Bruce was hard on you, but he didn’t call you a racist, just the comments. The reason is he, like me, can’t understand why you fear Obama and claim the media has ignored his past. You comment about democrats trying to control private wealth was an actually intelligent debatable point. There’s so little policy-based opposition to Obama from these threads that don’t take it way over the top, like socialism, terrorism, association=guilt, we’re all doomed. I won’t apologize for wanting a man who works at Burger King and lives off of food stamps and canned good drives to earn more from his paycheck so billionaires can make slightly less money. So I guess I’m a Stalin-loving, Gestapo craving, anti-American who wants to purify bloodlines by executing huge groups of dissenting opiners not of my race or creed. Yeah, that’s describes me perfectly. Oh, I know, you must be twelve years old. Sorry. It’s admirable for a youngster to be posting here. Carry on kid!

  • Bruce

    Mike A,

    Well said Sir Bravo!

  • DJS

    Bruce..how can you say that Ayers is pale in comparison to Libby, Keating and Quinn? Ayers bombed the pentagon. His wife was on the FBI’s 10 most wanted. And it wasn’t because he was innocent that he didn’t go to jail.
    Keating 5 included 4 democrats. Three of who were found guilty. McCain and John Glenn were not found guilty. Even in some of their own words the others knew that McCain didn’t really want to be involved. He at least admits that there are things in his past he isn’t proud of and regrets being involved. That is why he fights to keep ear marks out of bills and has never put one in because he feels they are wasting tax payers money.
    On the other hand Obama has claimed the #2 stop for the most earmarks inserted into bills. Does that represent someone who is going to stop wasteful spending in Washington? I don’t see that happening.
    And now Pelosi is looking at the $80B+ tax revenues they don’t get because people are putting money in their 401ks for retirement pre taxed. If Obama gets in that will be changing in no time. Which will be a tax increase for anyone who is putting money in a 401k account. There goes his theory of not increasing taxes for most of us. The amount you put in your 401k could put you into the next tax bracket if they start taxing it. Then what incentive is there for you to put any money into the 401k?

    And EricF you are dead on. Rich people are always going to find ways to hide their money and get richer. If Obama gets in I predict that the stock market will be worse than it was in September and we could possibly see a crash. People are not going to leave their money in there and get hit with high capital gains taxes.

    I have bought and sold stocks on a small scale but some of the people I know have invested money for years. They are already saying that if Obama gets in they will sell off everything and take their money before the end of the year.

    MikeA..you obviously don’t have any idea that the rich will always get richer. If you talk to anyone who owns a business and you ask them what will happen if their taxes go up there are few things they always say. They let people go to make up for the lose, they raise their prices to offset the increase in taxes or they go out of business which means that the owner and all who work for them are out of work. Is this what you think is a good idea? Because the guy at Burger King making minumim wage isn’t going to get anything out of that. In fact he will see prices go up if nothing else.

  • Stalin

    DJS:

    You are correct regarding small businesses. As soon as I start feeling the pinch from Obama’s wealth redistribution, here is what will happen at my small business:

    1) I will cut back on customer entertainment. (this affects other local businesses, airlines, hotels, etc)
    2) I will eliminate 401K matching
    3) I will cut our health plan to the bare miminum if not completely. (aka HMO)
    4) I will reduce non-essential employees and services
    5) I will lay off employees that I can no longer afford

    Multilpy this scenario by 1 million businesses and that’s what you will get with the socialist Messiah

  • Babs

    Stalin is right. My husband and I own 2 small businesses, and that’s exactly our plan, except Number 5 will be our Number 1. That will aid in the 1-4, actually cutting costs much quicker.

    I notice the Dolphin’s owners have another – to sell out before Obama’s tax plans come into effect. The problem with that plan is – who’s going to be stupid enough to buy it?

  • Michael

    My, this post has certainly generated a lot of comments. To jump into the discussion involving Nate and Dreadsen– I would like to make a few comments.

    Dreadsen- I believe you are right in respects to the weight of negative campaigning in regards to Obama. He has clearly had to deal with more than any of the three remaining candidates.

    That said, you agreed as well that Obama needs to be asked these questions regarding his past association with the New Party. Perhaps the parallel here should not have been the quantity of vetting or the quality of vetting, but rather the type of shock-association linked to the two groups. AIP and the NP both contain within them elements that can be construed as revolutionary– and they both have links to Palin and Obama.

    We noted that both you and CG discussed Palin’s links to the AIP and the implications, but we tried to not take a side in this discussion– leaving that for the commentary section.

    DJS- no. Historically the stock market always does better AFTER an election, regardless of the candidate. What unsettles the market most is uncertainty.

  • Odonata28

    Bruce, Mike A, et al…..

    I say we make a bet with EricF. If McCain wins we all keep our mouths closed about speculations about voter fraud, and stand behind our elected president as proud Americans. If Obama wins, EricF, YOU much keep your mouth closed about why you think he won (beacause I am sure you will be screaming ACORN and buying votes), and stand behind your new president as a proud American. Sound good?

    I was just talking with my Dad last night saying if the tables were turned, if Obama had been running a nasty hate-filled, fear tactic campaign I would be ashamed and embarassed, and I would admit it to myself and anyone who asked (in fact, I am ashamed of how the to-be senator I am voting for is running his campaign, and would vote Republican if he wasn’t also running a terrible and mean campaign). I can’t see how you guys can stand behind McCain and Palin when they are running such a dirty campaign. I am not even sure how they stand on most issues. I think there are a lot of things that Obama’s campaign could have said about McCain that they haven’t touched, and I am proud of that. I think it’s sad, and I would be sad if McCain was my candidate.

    Someone on one of the other threads called me the biggest loon. Perhaps, but I am nominating EricF. I may be a lefty, but I am a moderate one and open to others opinions and ideas. I don’t take every word that Olberman and Rhodes says to me as perfect and infalliable. I like to do my research from several different sources, and I watch Fox, CNN and read the paper and blogs. EricF on the other hand is closed to others ideas and feeds off of the far right-wing retoric.

    This year Hope will defeat fear! Obama/Biden ’08

    P.S. I am voting early

  • Kinda funny that some nutty Republicans on here are attacking Obama’s tax plan when it’s more close to what Reagan had than what McCain is proposing and Reagan is regarded as a GOP God. McCains is nothing like Reagan and McCain has shot his mouth off many times how he was a Reagan Foot Soldier…WTF?

    What’s also funny is that McCain was clueless about the economy so he phoned Hillary up for advice.

    Seems some Republicans disagree with Obama but struggle to find things they agree with McCain.

  • Michael

    For one the title of this is Bias regarding Obama and Palin’s past associations. This is false.

    Look how long we have known about the AIP before CNN decided to report on it. It’s not like they jumped on it instantly. AIP was linked to Palin only a couple of days after her VP announcement in August and CNN just reported on it maybe 2 weeks ago?
    How long have we known about the NP? Even if it was swirling around just as long as the AIP when did the scanned images come out? I’m sure this all just came out a few days ago because if it was available I bet C.G. would have already written about it long time ago and EricF would have posted links to the info 20 times by now.

    I do agree Obama should probably be asked. He’s been asked about much lesser things. BUT if he is asked about THIS while not even ONE QUESTION about the AIP has been asked of Palin how would that look?

    Now if the AIP and NP are the ONLY past associations between the two with both being in the open for the same amount of time then i would agree. Or if those are the only past associations we are doing a parallel comparison on then that would be debatable but not false.
    But to claim that Obama’s associations are getting a pass from the meida while Palin’s aren’t is false.

    But this article did a lot more to present the case about the NP then it did about AIP. Because this article is NOT a commentary with a “disclaimer” it will be perceived as being completely factual or holding more weight. Then they will see Nates rebuttal in the same commentary of mine which you all are referring to.

    “This commentary is not representative of the fairness of this site overall. We allow guest commentaries from readers, despite the fact that they may be extreme. This article is Dreadsen’s opinion, not to be taken as fact or as an unbiased, impartial news article.

    So please, explore the rest of the site and take the commentary section with a grain of salt, a large one. :)”

    A full article on the AIP was never covered on this site. Only two commentaries. One commentary I have written and one C.G. wrote as a rebuttal. Now referring people to look at the commentaries for information will lead them to believe that the commentaries should be taken seriously. They will change their mind once they see the disclaimer. Look at some of the rebuttals in the commentary and especially Nates additional comment. Only a few takes them seriously. That being said C.G. has written a long one on the NP and a rebuttal to my commentary on the AIP.

    There is also a pattern here. Look at the style of the questioning suggested on this article and the style of questioning i suggested in my commentary.
    Then look at my commentary “The Republican Hate Machine” and C.G. commentary “The Barack Obama Hate Machine. Look at the wrap up paragraphs in both.
    You see where i’m getting at?

    So we have two commentaries on the AIP.
    With no article on the front page on the AIP.

    Then we have one commentary on the NP
    And one article on the front page of the NP that downplays the AIP and refers readers to a commentary which Nate himself has downplayed in the comments.

  • Babs

    You’re really twisted, pud. Reagan lowered taxes – when he came into office we had a 10% inflation rates and 21% interest rates. McCain IS a REagan Foot Soldier, but he disagreed on more than one thing with Reagan, as he has also done with bush.

    What’s funny to me is that in all of Obama’s glorious education, he also did not have a degree in economics.

  • Stalin

    Dreadsen:

    Not to be rude, but I really don’t think anybody cares about AIP. There is much more solid evidence linking Obama to the Chicago New Party and DSA than there is for AIP and Palin. Furthermore, we are talking about the #1 on the ticket vs. the #2.

  • DJS

    Michael..my point wasn’t that the stock market would go down because of the election. I was just saying that if Obama gets in with all his talk about raising capital gains tax the people I know will sell off everything before the end of the year. If too many people do this because of the uncertainity of the taxes being raised we could see a crash in the stock market. ErikF may have explained it a little better but we are talking about the same thing.

    nzpudding…and Obama is nothing like Kennedy but he likes to think he is. Obama has proven that he is not about cutting waste. What is supposed to convince us that he will change once he gets in? I am not sure why you are so concerned anyway. When he gets in it isn’t your taxes that are going up.

    As for the MSM being biased this is a list from the AP on Palin since the beginning of Sept. So for all you Obama fans she has gotten hit just as hard if not harder and again he is after #1 spot she is the #2 spot. Most of you act like she is running for president.

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/palin_negative_headlines/2008/10/28/144911.html?s=al&promo_code=6F48-1

  • captain

    obama’s birth certificate doesnt have the seal of california on it, he has a birth document that anyone could just forge and pay for, he has no proof he was born in America, yet nobody notices, im really getting tired of the media bull******** us and trying to sway poll scores for the uninformed citizens who dont know what each candidate wants, what the propositions are for. the commercials dont help anything, they just show what they want you to see, not what is all there. i say that presidents should not be allowed commercials, nor any lashing out publicly, just a news spot to talk about what they want and will DO for our country, not just all talk like most presidents.

  • CNN on Obama and the New Party group.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9blZl_bBveA

    So it took those actual scanned images for one of the major outlets to take it more seriously.
    4 day response that’s not bad for CNN.

    Now CNN is the only major outlet to have covered AIP and the New Party Group. No one else touches either one.
    Maybe Hannity will do a full 5 hour special on this group.

  • Deb

    Dreadson…Hannity doesn’t have to worry about being thrown off the plane so he could do a hour special on it.
    Is this how Obama is going to run his presidency? If you don’t agree with him or support him you’re out of here.
    I have a 4 year old grandson who isn’t that childish.