The Spoils Of Goon?

Brian, when Hillary brought up Ayers in a debate, Obama brushed it off and countered with an attack on Hillary’s connection to somebody. He took his usual indignant attitude that such questions were somehow un-American and distractions in the way of the people electing him. I remember an interview long ago when a Chicago paper asked Obama about Ayers. He said they "knew" each other "because their children attended the same school". Of course, Obama knew Ayers long before he had children and the Press HAS reported that Michelle was friendly with the wives of Khalidi, Rezko and Ayer, often having dinner together or involved in real estate dealings. Obama denied he ever had a starting fundraiser at Ayer's home. Isn’t he lying and if so, why has no media outlet besides Fox, taken this falsehood on? For this they are called FAR RIGHT?

I read Barak and Michelle were seated with Ayers at a party for Khalidi. A video tape has been suppressed due to the fact that a number of anti-Israel things took place at this event and would have caused trouble for Obama before the vote. It doesn't take much to see why the vetting of Obama's associations met an unwilling press. Think PBS would run a documentary on the failed housing efforts of Obama in Illinois or the groups sharing in the flow of money from Annenberg and Woods Fund to Trinity or from Rezko? This was not a circle that most Americans would find troubling? I wonder if a Kennedy took notice that Ayers dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan. Why was Fox the only media that dared to out this fact when all had time to investigate? Gee, let me guess, fear or koolaid?

And where was the mainstream Press when Ayers held a recent Press conference and claimed he never was part of any organization that advocated violence or harmed anyone. Not a single “professional” reporter refuted that bogus claim. I wonder why. Even the Chicago Tribune refuses to retract a similar claim of their citizen of the year while suggesting Palin's youngest child was really her daughter's. You simply refuse to see the filtering and the pressure mentioned above. The US is now convicting members of certain groups in Chicago and Michigan with illegal ties to Hamas. Clinton signed the Material Support law. I believe money Obama and Ayers gave Khalidi's wife went to groups that worked with one group recently convicted. Obama funded Trinty from two boards. Shall the Press really vet the groups Trinity passed the money to? And although it was common knowledge in Chicago that Obama went to a small private toast of Auchi, Rezko's sugardaddy, the Press didn't question Obama's claim he has never met the man. Really? Can you explain the obvious free pass? And the fact much of media refuses to take up simple journalism to flush these question out, is not because of the fear of retribution?

Several Democrats I know call the Pew Report on bias a "Right Wing" smear and frankly that lead to some heated words at Thanksgiving for me up there in Weston last week. My own sister called the 80% approval rate for Palin in Alaska a bogus claim spread by Right Wing media. Wow. She says she gets her news from MSNBC.

I remember at the time, I smelled a journalistic crap when reading the reports on this from WAPO, the LA Times and the NYT. Some call it Paliwood. I hope this doesn't merge with Bariwood. Bias is the flip side of the fear of retribution, both deadly for American journalism.

Your #1: BS. You're saying that the campaign does NOT represent the candidate, that nothing the campaign does can be held against the candidate. Uh uh. It most assuredly does and can. It is the official agent for speaking for the candidate--he owns it.

I've already pointed out that If the commercial had been more skillfully crafted, they could have avoided providing a legitimate basis for complaint

There is no legitimate basis for CRIMINAL complaint and/or regulatory repression, which were the threates made. You're arguing against the First Amendment. You are free to whine all you like. What part of "attempting to suppress speech using threats of persecution by the state" did you miss?

Your #2: But if it's a matter where the context is deliberately factually inaccurate, a different standard applies.

No, it doesn't. You have nitpicked out a very iffy characterization in order to apparently endorse (or at least rationalize and excuse) attempting to use the state to actively persecute political speech that you do not like. That is indeed a REAL different standard.

Your #3: I clicked through and snuffled around quite a bit on this one. Instead of finding accounts of actual prosecutions

That the attempts o bully mostly failed and never managed to get cooperation from the state under this adminstration says good things about the people threatened and hopefully about the system, but not about those making the threats. Apparently in Brian-world an unsuccessful bully is a completely justified and even vindicated one. Yes, when a potential President's agents threaten your broadcasting license, it's a credible threat. And when they threaten you with a Justice Dept they will likely be in charge of the next election round, there is indeed a potential chilling effect.

So spare me the sophistry, nitpicking, and tap-dancing. If you wish to endorse and approve the atempted suppression of free speech using the power of the state by dismissing and even rationalizing such thuggery, ust come right out and say so. The nitpicking characterized accuracy of the ads themselves is utterly besides the point unless you actually support the use of such repugnant thuggery in suppressing political speech. The ONLY way in which your nitpickery acquires any relevance to the topic is as supportive apologetics. Apparently you're all in favor.

Now, go re-read the post and see if you can figure out where you went off track.