Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate
SUMMARY: During the April 16 debate, George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Barack Obama to explain his "relationship" with former Weather Underground Organization member William Ayers and to "explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem." The previous day, Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers.
During the April 16 Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia, ABC News chief Washington correspondent and co-moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Barack Obama to explain his "relationship" with former Weather Underground Organization member William Ayers and to "explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem." Stephanopoulos stated that Ayers "was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that, and, in fact, on 9-11, he was quoted in The New York Times saying, 'I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.' " The previous day, Stephanopoulos appeared on ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show. Both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers. Stephanopoulos responded: "That's a damn good question" and "I'm taking notes right now."
During the April 16 debate, Stephanopoulos asked Obama:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to give Senator [Hillary] Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers -- he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that, and, in fact, on 9-11, he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
An early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
During his appearance on Malzberg's program, Stephanopoulos responded to Malzberg's suggestion that he ask about Ayers by saying: "What do you think the question is on that?" Malzberg said:
MALZBERG: William Ayers is a man who was head of the Weather Underground, a radical group in the 60s and 70s, set bombs at the Capitol, set bombs at the Pentagon, and was quoted in The New York Times oddly enough, ironically enough on September 11 before obviously the events of that day, saying that he didn't go far enough. He doesn't regret it at all, and he wished he could have done more. Your campaign has described your relationship with William Ayers as "friendly." How could a man running for the presidency of the United States possibly have anything to do, or have anything but disdain, for a man who did what he has done to this country?
Stephanopoulos responded to Malzberg: "That's a damn good question."
In his appearance on Hannity's radio program, Hannity suggested Stephanopoulos ask about Obama's "association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground, who on 9-11, of all days, in The New York Times was saying, 'I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough.' " (Contrary to Hannity's and Stephanopoulos' suggestion, Ayers' comment had nothing to do with the 9-11 terrorist attacks, but happened to have been published in The New York Times the morning of September 11, 2001.) Hannity continued: "When asked about it by the Politico, [Obama campaign chief strategist] David Axelrod said they have a friendly relationship and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?" Stephanopoulos responded: "Well, I'm taking notes right now." Hannity went on to ask if Stephanopoulos "want[ed] any more questions," to which Stephanopoulos responded: "Yeah, keep going."
Following the debate, on the April 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity credited Stephanopoulos for asking the question: "Now, look, I watched this debate, and, by the way, all credit finally to ABC News and George Stephanopoulos and [co-moderator] Charlie Gibson, 'cause they asked very tough questions. Finally, the media asked him about Bill Ayers, which we have been pointing out."
The Los Angeles Times blog Show Tracker reported on April 17 that Stephanopoulos "denied he'd been spoon-fed the question by Fox News host Sean Hannity":
"We have been researching this for a while," Stephanopoulos said in a phone interview from New York. ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper, he said, had blogged about the issue April 10, after it was first reported by Politico, the political news website. "Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it's being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election."
From the April 15 broadcast of WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show:
MALZBERG: All right, now the last time they debated, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, was back in February 26 and that was before the Reverend Jeremiah Wright tapes became public and were broadcast all over television. Is this something that you think ABC -- you and Charlie Gibson will bring up?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I'm not going to talk about my questions specifically, but I think, you know, the -- there's a lot that's happened since the last debate, and you can bet we're going to cover the waterfront and get the right mix of questions that deal with sort of the personal character, the campaign controversies, and the issues that are on top of people's minds as well.
MALZBERG: All right, George. Let me ask you this -- and I'm not going to ask you then to answer -- I won't ask you if you can ask this -- but do you think between now -- I remember the panel you moderated that I was on at D.C. a couple of weeks ago. You asked, you know, what's going to be big, and I said it's basically up to guys like you as to what's going to be big for the general public and the mainstream media. Do you think the William Ayers story will --
STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you think the question is on that?
MALZBERG: What do I think the question is? William Ayers is a man who was head of the Weather Underground, a radical group in the 60s and 70s, set bombs at the Capitol, set bombs at the Pentagon, and was quoted in The New York Times oddly enough, ironically enough on September 11 before obviously the events of that day, saying that he didn't go far enough. He doesn't regret it at all, and he wished he could have done more. Your campaign has described your relationship with William Ayers as "friendly." How could a man running for the presidency of the United States possibly have anything to do, or have anything but disdain, for a man who did what he has done to this country?
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's a damn good question.
MALZBERG: Well, thank you. I hope you ask it. I mean, I'll be watching anyway.
From the April 15 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY There are two questions that I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama and I don't know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is his -- the only time he's ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground, who on 9-11, of all days, in The New York Times was saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough." When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said they have a friendly relationship and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm taking notes right now.
HANNITY: September 11, 2001, of all days, there was an article in The New York Times and there are a number of quotes about Bill Ayers and the Politico had in there the comments about -- from David Axelrod. I think that's an interesting question that nobody in the media has really brought up. We've highlighted it a little bit more here on this program but -- let me see if I can help you. Do you want any more questions?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, keep going.
HANNITY: The Chicago Reader talked about and commented -- has comments of Barack Obama -- why he attended the Million Man March.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hmm-mm.
HANNITY: And most people don't know that, I don't think.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's been pretty -- didn't he write about that in his book?
HANNITY: I don't remember that in particular, but I know that he was quoted extensively in the Chicago Reader December 8. I forget the year. We're going back a couple of years. My memory is not that good, George.
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: I spent a lot of time talking with pollster Scott Rasmussen who is very clear that the impact in the Democratic primary is insignificant --
KATE OBENSHAIN (Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute advisory board member): Yeah.
HANNITY: -- but it is major as we head toward the general election as a new narrative, [Fox News contributor] Pat Caddell, has emerged. Now, look, I watched this debate, and, by the way, all credit finally to ABC News and George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson, 'cause they asked very tough questions.
CADDELL: Really?
HANNITY: Finally, the media asked him about Bill Ayers, which we have been pointing out. He gave a pathetically weak answer. They finally asked him about Reverend Wright and some of the inconsistencies here. A new narrative has emerged. I mean, he was once hopeful, optimistic, likeable, and now people are questioning a lot of issues about him. This has changed dramatically for him, hasn't it?
[...]
HANNITY: Here, Kate, let me go back to you. This is -- and I don't want to reiterate too many points here, but most of the country, until tonight -- you know, we have been all over the Ayers issue both on radio and television. We've pointed it out. The new media's been on it. But now, other people are going to become aware of that issue. They asked him about the flag lapel. You know, we add to that Reverend Wright. We add to that Michelle Obama's comments, and we add to that --
OBENSHAIN: Yeah.
HANNITY: -- what he said -- what he never thought would be heard in front of a bunch of, you know, rich San Francisco liberals about people in Pennsylvania, who are the heart and soul of this great country.
I liked George in the '90s.He seemed to to be civil and smart.
Clearly I was wrong. A decent journalist, with the connections he had, should never have accepted this role.
Isn't Ayers some kind of big Establishment cat these days? If so, where's the problem?
Ah yes, war on the 60's... next we'll hear them call Vietnam a noble war-- oh wait, they already do..... all these guys who've never served.
Exactly.
In my opinion, it's up to the wingnuts to explain to us why this loose, 40-year-old connection to some aging radical is bad for Obama and bad for the country.
Yes, he was rewarded for his terrorism with a professorship at an establishment inititution and a bastion of left wing "thought" - Univ. of Chicago. Like Obama's own undeserved "professorship," Ayers seems to have received his reward for his liberal lunacy.
The University of Chicago is well known as a pretty conservative school. Obama took hits early in the campaign from Hillary supporters for being a part of such a conservative institution.
Do you think or do you just type?
I'm not sure I was indicting the University in its entirety. I was countering the assertion that the University of Chicago in totality is a liberal institution.
Colon - hi. Still foaming at the mouth when your idol's (Obama) terrorist connections are exposed on the national stage?
terrorist connections are exposed on the national stage?
Ok, smarty pants, is this "relationship" is so dangerous that it makes you wet your pants, explain how this is worse than Bush being in business with the Bin Laden family and holding hands with every Saudi leader?
They are the real terrorists, not oldy moldy ones, idiot.
Your ignorance really has a foul odor. You know as much about the University of Chicago as your moron Bush knows about math. Most people who know nothing about a subject are smart enough to learn something before they open their piehole. Not you.
------------------------------------------------
The economics dept. at U of C is definitely right-leaning but that definitely can't be said about the rest of the univ. incl. its English dept., where Ayers teaches.
Colon - hi. Still foaming at the mouth when your idol's (Obama) terrorist connections are exposed on the national stage?
Are you drunk? No one here has blamed anything on Zionists or Jews. There is no one to blame but you morons who were dumb enough to vote for Bush twice.
Just asking? Stop downplaying the evil of your white supremacist friends.
---------------------------------
Did Hal Turner, who is a douche bag, set off bombs and participate in terrorism and violent acts against his country? Just asking.
I don't care what you look like. Stop apologizing for white supremacists and cheerleading for F*cks News.
No, but GWB, who is a douchebag, is very friendly with relatives of Osama Bin Laden. In your wingnut world, using right-wing logic, that should make GWB, who is a douchebag, a terrorist.
Now, GWB, who is a douchebag, in my humble opinion is not a terrorist because he is friends with a family with members tied to terrorism. GWB, who is a douchebag, is a terrorist for what he's done to the Iraqi and American people.
Did Hal Turner, who is a douche bag, set off bombs and participate in terrorism and violent acts against his country? Just asking.
Actually, Ayers didn't do any of that, either. He was acquitted of any and all charges. No bombs ever exploded, so none were "set off."
Do you ever have a single clue about the lies you keep perpetuating, or do you post out of mere ignorant stupidity?
Just asking.
I'm not completely sure but isn't what George did by accepted for a question from Sean by being on his show potentially an ethics issue that would be a fireable offence to the rest of us?
I mean.... ethics being a potential problem for Sean isn't likely to matter to FOX or him.... but ABC might need to save itself by ridding itself of George?
Maybe? Possibly? Perhaps?
Funny, I have that reaction too... AND I have it when I watch Olbermann.
i agree. You're a total sociopath, especially when you watch Olbermann.
Not understanding the show could make one a sociopath. Now get some help. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
As we both know, Foghorn, there is nothing on which to take Obama to task - with regards to the issues. With right-wing fools, it's just another "Look over there" distraction.
Again, righties have NOTHING to offer...so they try to derail and focus attention elsewhere.
I think its time these wingnuts start condemning their associations with every wild eyed gun toting bible banging lunatic in this country.
Well, that has happened already but mainstream media won't give it the minute of the day. It's been pointed out that Hannity has helped launch the career of white supremasist Hal Turner.
THey guy was a regular caller to Hannity's show and Hannity welcomed him chumly until word got out that folks were on to this and he would lose lots of sponsors.
How come these tough questions weren't asked of George W. Bush in his debates? Such as (if we're going down this path):
1. Did you or did you not used to be a frequent cocaine user?
2. How do you explain yourself as being good friends with a family and a country that has shown itself to be a provider of funding for terrorists who have carried out attacks against America?
3. Why are all of your records from your years as Governor of Texas sealed in your father's Presidential library?
4. Why are all of the investigations that were conducted by the SEC against you sealed and not viewable by the public?
Mags,
Good questions but moot.
If anyone needed a better reason to support the Dems' decision to ditch the Fox News debates, this is it. It's not because of potentially "tough" questions. It's because of recycled tabloid crap like this that does not serve any constructive purpose in a debate between two candidates.
Is this going to help me decide which candidate is going to do more for the kitchen table issues that affect me and my family? HELL NO.
My wish is that the backlash continues and this becomes a wake up call to the media that we the people demand better from journalists. Fat chance.
Well guess what...Hillary thought it was a damn good question as well...
-- I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.
And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.
his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.
Nice try with the faux outrage, since the article was published the morning of 9/11 BEFORE the attack occurred.
Ayers was part of a group that committed illegal and heinous acts. Trying to tie Obama to him in this lame guilt by association is one thing - weak though it may be, but to try to wrap a 9/11 bow around it is just as slimy as Coultergeist going after the 9/11 widows.
The RNC playbook is getting pretty moth-eaten.
Let me get this right. the guy with big ears hangs out with a rabid pastor for 20 years. the guy with big ears hangs out with a guy who's sorry he didn't plant more bombs. he hangs out with his wife who hates the u.s. and is a limousine socialist. AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO IGNORE ALL OF THAT, RIGHT?
Obama is an infant, a whiner, and a dangerous radical. He's like Laurence Harvey.
Being the scared little coward who shields himself from everything your warped worldview dictates to be eternally evil, I wouldn't expect you to understand that most of the rest of the reality based community can be good patriots without destroying those with whom they disagree.
Shut up and go back to sleep rumplewhiteskin. The country is sick of you wingnuts.
--------------------------
Obama is an infant, a whiner, and a dangerous radical. He's like Laurence Harvey.
Rumplestilskin, you seem to be strident and hysterical. People in your party have become so pessimistic and angry. How much hate is there with you? You guys really are out to get Obama aren't you. I wonder if you love America or not. And I don't see a flag pin on you.
(I just want to credit the many Republican commentators that often use these phrases that make no sense but seem to rally deluded Republicans, as the original source of what I wrote. I still keep wondering why Democrats won't fall for it.}
you people are really mindless.
As opposed to what, "artificially mindless?" Is that what it's called when wingnuts purposefully distort and misunderstand perfectly clear English sentences?
Actually, no. It's called "stupidity." And you display it in its purest form, uncut by knowledge of any sort.
Punk.
Hillary's wrong, too. Not surprising, considering how most of what she says about Obama anymore is low-rent, tabloid crap as well.
It was a ridiculous question for a debate. This question represents the kind of crap you expect in a one-on-one interview on cable crap shows like Hannity or O'Reilly, but it serves absolutely no practical purpose in a debate, where people are trying to figure out which candidate has the best ideas and the best proposals on how to deal with the problems that affect them.
It's nothing more than a complete and total waste of debate time.
Sorry to disappoint, Col...but those were Hillary's words...not mine...which you would have known had you been awake during the debate.
Personally, I had better things to do with my time than watch another senseless debate. There was "America's Next Top Model", "American Idol", "Top Chef", and one sock drawer that desperately needed rearranging....
I don't think Hillary's posting here, and you seemed to be impressed with the 9/11 connection. I just wanted to see you really get into it.
I was still at work during the debate, sorry.
Sorry to disappoint
Obviously, you're not, or you wouldn't keep making disappointingly inane posts.
Sorry to break the news to you, but that was Obama who served on the board with Ayers, Hillary brought it up at the debate when he denied he was close with him.
She reminded him.
IT WAS OBAMA AND NOT HILLARY
If you want some dirt to spread on Hannity, look up "Hal Turner" on Wikipedia. Hannity was really chummy with this crazy, violent neo-Nazi. Some guy named Shabazz brought Turner up on H&C and Hannity panicked and said he didn't know the Nazi and then Kirsten Powers had to bail him out. Hannity needed to be saved by a girl! Lol!
That is quite the sexist remark.
I know this is not a popular view to post here...but this Ayers guy planted bombs in more than one place in DC. His group planted bombs in which people died. I do not konw if any of the bombs that Ayers planted killed anyone or not...I am not suggesting they did or did not....I do not know.
I know he planted bombs, and it is fair to ask BO about his association with the man. I also thought BO's answer that he as 8 when this guy did that stuff was a very fair and great answer. I do not however, think it is a cheap shot to ask him what he thinks of this guy, and what if any association he has or does not have with him.
Solon
Thats really my point. I dont know what the association is. I have heard clips on tv, but I dont know the story. I think a lot of people fall into that category. Thats why I think it was a fair question, and why I also said I though BO's answer was good as well
POV...Sen. Obama did answer the question about Ayers. But the ever fair-minded Right does not wish to believe him. WHY? Sen. Obama has answered the questions about Rev. Wright. But the ever fair-minded RIGHT does not wish to believe him. WHY? ETC. ETC. ETC.
If you don't believe him, DO NOT, I say again, DO NOT vote for him. He is our guy, you have yours.
My question is...When President Bush used those wonderful 16 words and it was found out that they were not the most truthful ever spoken, those that did not believe him were called unpatriotic..And the RIGHTIES voted for him again. So, if your guy lied and the RIGHT voted for him, please allow us to vote whichever way we please.
Also, NEVER bitch and moan when the Keating stuff is brought into play by saying it is too far in the past when the LEFT gets around to exposing McBush.
P.S. I bet you believe that Bush REALLY did serve his his full tour during a time of war.
Prince
Lol....wow..really dont know where to start with a response, and I honestly have not had enough coffee to yet to do so. So for now I will simply say that all the Keating stuff is fair game in my view.
POV, At what point does your view change? The guy answered the questions over and over, if he is lying, he is done and Sen. Clinton may get the nod. At what point (your 2nd. cousin) are answers accepted? Who decides, The voters? The media? Websites? Posters?
The problem is that partisans want statements coming from the other side to be lies so no answer is a correct answer. Gotcha politics is just advertising chum for all media.
P.S. Is it Decaf or some elitist coffee with a "resume"example... 7 pump chai latte caramel with foam? Is that a real thing? Enjoy your coffee and I hope the view(another cousin) out of your window is a great. But don't answer that because someone may not believe you.
Prince,
Those 16 words were not a lie. Two investigations by the British back this up.
BALONEY. Just because the British are standing by a report NO ONE ELSE BELIEVES, where all the evidence is showing it is wrong, doesnt mean it was true. The CIA didnt believe it. They made him take the same reference out of his speech in Cincinatti earlier. It was FALSE, it wasnt believed. They ADMITTED it shouldnt have been in the speech and it is frankly ludicrous. Niger doesnt even HAVE control over their uranium industry and international consortium does. They couldnt get any uranium to Iraq if they wanted to. We HAVE an Iraqi document that shows they turned DOWN an offer for uranium from the Congo. You guys just wont let a zombie meme die if it has propaganda value no matter HOW well and often it has been debunked. Give this one up its a loser.
Prince,
You are also ignorantly spreading a false meme regarding McCain and the Keating 5. The following is an excerpt from Wikopedia entry regarding the NYTimes but it does put the Keating 5 allegation to rest.
Robert S. Bennett, whom McCain had hired to represent him in this matter, defended McCain's character. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain. "And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest and honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the New York Times to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain's public statement about this is correct. It's a smear job. I'm sorry. " [20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times
What falsehood. I only mentioned when it is brought up. Never said Sen. McCain was guilty of anything..especially by association. But don't whine when he is asked about it over and over. That is my point about the questions of the RIGHT, the LEFT and the media. The question has been answered. If you(not you AA) don't like the answer fine but it is an answer.
Concerning the escape hatch using British Intelligence, don't we double-check the "intelligence" before we use info to wage WAR.
And who is the DECIDER...he decided wrong but I think he KNEW it was bunk about Niger and WMD's...My question as always, how does a Commander-In-Chief send ground troops to attack a MADMAN who has USED WMDS? What if he did have WMDs and used them..would we do the same? Probably-then what?....but this mob knew they did not exist. Unless we found them and aren't telling anyone....Bush answered, I believe he lied..
If anyone thinks Obama lied..so be it.
If only media would have pushed harder to learn the true nature of Cheney's relationship with PNAC and satan we wouldn't have had that demon micromanaging torture sessions from the White House.
Dick.
Take that guilt by association nonsense where people are stupid enough to buy it because it ain't sellin' here.
I would not try to sell someone as dumb as you anything but perhaps a clue, a new wardrobe, and perhaps a life. I would also throw in a few bucks so you can get a date with a real woman.
Not all questions or comments here are asked in a fake or distruthful manner. Dont thank me for my concern and talk to me like a child. Apparently you are to damn dumb to know when an issue is real and needs to be discussed. If there is nothing to this issue, then so be it. It was discussed in the national media, and was a fair question.....as well as a good answer from BO.
Man up.
And I'll talk to you in any manner I so choose, crybaby. I thought you cons were the tough guys.
I'm done being nice to you lying conservative pigs. You cons are not my friends and you prove it daily with your slimy attacks on liberalism. This bs narrative is part and parcel of the, "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a terrorist." It's sick.
F U POV. Go get yourself a stack of tissues and trade exciting torture stories with Dick and George.
Roundy
I must have missed the part of you being nice. If you ever do become an advisor to BO....I would suggest leaving out the lying conserative pig line. Does not go well with his Obmican theme.
You're a phony. You have no principles or decency to offend in the first place and your feigned indignity is just another way you lying pigs attempt to control your opponent.
P.S. I really think you should answer for your deep and abiding relationship with a known torturer. Your non answers only confirms our suspicion that you and Dick Cheney have colluded in the past to disappear U.S. citizens and perform heinous acts of human indignity upon them.
You know Roundy, Mental Illness can be treated. I could recomend a very good treatment plan for you. And besides, "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son".
Furthermore, you have failed to elucidate a principled position or pony up any facts pertaining to your inquiry about Obama so you fall back on shameless pretexts.
You gotta do better than that if you want a measured discussion, chump.
Roundy
The only thing that scares me is the pure desperation with which you attack anyone who simply says that it was a fair question, It show the fear and desperation you have over this election. McCain must really have you nervous. If BO can nit handle that question in a dem debate....and by the way I think he did just fine....what will happen to him in a general election.
Your anger, fear, and agression mask much deeper issue. I am betting you drive a large pickup truck or wear cowboy boots or something. I am also betting that you are trying to compensate for something that may be smaller than average given to you by nature.
I also really like the way you just insulted, most farmers I've ever known and large swaths of cowboy boot wearing, truck driving sections of Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico and Florida.
Flippin' elitist.
There was no mock concern. My only real concern is your mental health. As for your penis, it has not been established that you have one. You claim you do, but you have offered no prrof that said tiny organ in fact exists. I am sure you dream about having one, but that is a conversation for another post.
Am I an elitist? I dont think so. If I were, do you really think I would talk to someone like you? Dont think so. Farmers are cool.....who does not love John Deere. Cowboys and old westerns rock. I have a stsetson in my closet.
But back to you and your issues of inadequecy, you are so narrow minded you view everything as an attack. My first posts were not an attack. Since you are kind of slow.....this one is. But fear not, I will still talk to you after McCain is sworn in. I will not forget about you when we discuss and debate McCain's policies, and how the media are reacting to them.
Your cognitive dissonance is legendary. Do yo really not see the contradiction in those two sentences?
As for the rest of your petty post. Not too bad. You may have a future in writing for Bill O'Reilly.
^5 Roundhouse.
----------------------------------------
I'm done being nice to you lying conservative pigs. You cons are not my friends and you prove it daily with your slimy attacks on liberalism. This bs narrative is part and parcel of the, "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a terrorist." It's sick.
F U POV. Go get yourself a stack of tissues and trade exciting torture stories with Dick and George.
"...as well as a good answer from BO."---POV
My god you must have a low opinion of the intellects of the posters to this board. That offering your hand after knocking somebody down makes it OK.
Eddy
I dont have a low opinion of the posters at all......but when some one like roundhouse calls you a dick for asking a serious legitimate question.....I fight back. Solon and I fight all the time here....and we often leave the topic after a few posts and get into creative name calling and insults.....but we had a very reasonable exchange on this issue. That however, was not something roundy was interested in....so i fought back. Thats all.
I would not try to sell someone as dumb as you anything but perhaps a clue, a new wardrobe, and perhaps a life. I would also throw in a few bucks so you can get a date with a real woman.
Not all questions or comments here are asked in a fake or distruthful manner. Dont thank me for my concern and talk to me like a child. Apparently you are to damn dumb to know when an issue is real and needs to be discussed. If there is nothing to this issue, then so be it. It was discussed in the national media, and was a fair question.....as well as a good answer from BO.
"If there is nothing to this issue, then so be it. It was discussed in the national media,..."---POV
What did you think might be to the issue? That Ayers is an active terrorist and Obama is perhaps aiding and abetting him? Or that Obama sympathizes with terrorists? In just bringing it up, these implications are made and the damage is done. You can't unring that bell. ......... In case you missed it, the national media is and has been a joke for many years now.
Eddy
The bell was rung before the debate and before the question. Prior to a few days ago, I had never heard of the guy. Solon said a few posts ago that he thought the guy gave BO a couple hundred bucks. Did I expect BO to say he gave him 2 million and was his BFF.....no I did not.
But I still think it gave BO a chance to address the question...in front of millions of people. I heard him answer it, and there was no spin in the answer in that I heard it live and in real time. Just because some here dont like the question does not mean that the question will go away. At least BO was able to deal with it on his terms.
Hey, POV, I belonged to a church where the priest was found to have abused children.
So go ahead, ask me if I've denounced him or if I'm really a closet sex criminal.
That's the point, of which you have apparently no view. Too bad you got your feelings hurt, but you are in the 1% of people who have heard of AND care about this Ayers "controversy".
"Considering the Pope meet privately yesterday with abuse victims, an that the church moved, hid, and protected priets for years who had abused children, yes, it would be fair to ask. "
I'm guessing you're not Catholic.
I will have to say that the Pope actually impressed me (and I'm agnostic) when he met with the victims of the church's sexual abuse. It wasn't in his schedule, and he seems to genuinely care about the issue.
And on the other hand, he used to be a Nazi. I guess you've gotta take the good with the bad.
DB,
I'm surprised at you for spreading the false impression Pope Benedict was a Nazi.
The son of a rural Bavarian police officer, Ratzinger was six when Hitler came to power in 1933. His father, also called Joseph, was an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move home several times.In 1937 Ratzinger’s father retired and the family moved to Traunstein, a staunchly Catholic town in Bavaria close to the Führer’s mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden. He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941.
He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. “Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one,” concluded John Allen, his biographer.
Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from Dachau concentration camp.
Ratzinger has insisted he never took part in combat or fired a shot - adding that his gun was not even loaded - because of a badly infected finger. He was sent to Hungary, where he set up tank traps and saw Jews being herded to death camps. He deserted in April 1944 and spent a few weeks in a prisoner of war camp.
He has since said that although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile - comments echoed this weekend by his elder brother Georg, a retired priest ordained along with the cardinal in 1951.
“Resistance was truly impossible,” Georg Ratzinger said. “Before we were conscripted, one of our teachers said we should fight and become heroic Nazis and another told us not to worry as only one soldier in a thousand was killed. But neither of us ever used a rifle against the enemy.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/new_pope-hitler_youth.htm
Sorry for the small print. Let me try again.
The son of a rural Bavarian police officer, Ratzinger was six when Hitler came to power in 1933. His father, also called Joseph, was an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move home several times.
In 1937 Ratzinger’s father retired and the family moved to Traunstein, a staunchly Catholic town in Bavaria close to the Führer’s mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden. He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941.
He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. “Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one,” concluded John Allen, his biographer.
Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from Dachau concentration camp.
Ratzinger has insisted he never took part in combat or fired a shot - adding that his gun was not even loaded - because of a badly infected finger. He was sent to Hungary, where he set up tank traps and saw Jews being herded to death camps. He deserted in April 1944 and spent a few weeks in a prisoner of war camp.
He has since said that although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile - comments echoed this weekend by his elder brother Georg, a retired priest ordained along with the cardinal in 1951.
“Resistance was truly impossible,” Georg Ratzinger said. “Before we were conscripted, one of our teachers said we should fight and become heroic Nazis and another told us not to worry as only one soldier in a thousand was killed. But neither of us ever used a rifle against the enemy.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/new_pope-hitler_youth.htm
If Ratsinger didn't have the balls to refuse to join the Nazis, as others did, what made him holy enough to become the "Vicar Jesus Christ" and the "Keybearer of Heaven"? Your evil is mindblowing.
Your characterization of the Pope in his youth is very unfair Heru. There were lots of people in the German army that were not of the mentality of the Nazi leaders. Not rebelling doesn't make him a coward nor complicit.
Furthermore, the Pope is not divine or ever claimed to be divine.
Well Obama's friend Ayers only gave him a fundraiser when he announced he was running for President. They are all his friends Ayers and Rezko and Pastor Wright.
Mahren,
Obama and Ayers served on the same Woods Fund board where Ayers was Chairman at the time, I do believe. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a connection to Rezko and the Fund.
Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in Ayers home back in the mid 90's.
Ayers, contributed $200 to Obama’s senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements according to various sources.
IMHO it was more than just a passing acquaintance.
Have you done your research on McCain yet? After all, you are intending to vote for him and I don't think you should be ignorant of his associations, right?
I really think that if ABC wants to be consistent, George could really ask McCain some whoppers on Sunday, don't you if we are staying in the same spirit of the other night's debate.
Maybe he can ask him about speaking at Bob Jones and Liberty University. Or why McCain had an affair and married the woman who he was cheating on his wife with only 3 wks after his divorce. If we talk about his associations, should George ask him about his wife's old substance abuse problem or her plagerism of Food Network recipes for the McCain site? Maybe, since we are into inneundo, he can ask about the names McCain supposedly called his wife. Or his flip-flop on his own religion and the religious right. Maybe they should ask about supposed fights McCain had with other Senators that were rumored to be physical.
Or this connection:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/mccain-top-aide-linked-to_n_83251.html
Since you are worried about connections to crime, what about McCain and the mafia?
http://www.ktracy.com/?p=868
Should he be asked about all of the lobbyists on the payroll?
What about Renzi? http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022208R.shtml
Then after that, he could ask about all of McCain's flip-flops.
After all that, maybe he could ask about the economy.
Maybe George can introduce a new generation to Charles Keating who gave McCain $112,000 before being convicted of fraud and racketeering.
Wow. The liberal apologists get tough with the Dems for the first time ever and the crybabies can't stop whining. It's about time they went after these frauds!
I do think it's pretty ridiculous to be making these "connections (from the "liberal apologists", apparently to the dittoheads) to Obama, and it's also pretty laughable that the media is able to convince a lot of these suckers that these are important issues the demand answers.
But beyond all of that, there's another element to the Ayers non-issue that's pretty funny; Aren't the hard-core conservatives the ones with the big boner for the 2nd amendment, which they explain as being necessary for private citizens to defend themselves if their government gets out of line?
Why is it when somebody actually quits flapping their lips and does something, they all turn loyalist and start building the gallows?. I guess the right to bear arms is a conservative issue like war-- It's pretty cool to talk about and cheer on other people, but they don't actually take any action, just drag down others who make the commitment. I guess somebody needs to stay home and make flags.
Tough questions? What a joke. It took them over an hour to ask a question about the number one issue that concerns voters. The majority of people dont care about the Ayers, they want to know if they will have a job next year. And whether or not the dollar will have any value except as toilet paper. But by all means ask him about what he thinks of what someone else did 40 years ago, thats important.
Well, then, I suppose it would be fair and reasonable for the media to ask John McCain about that NY Times story of him and the female lobbyist - REPREATEDLY - to "give him a chance to explain" to folks who may still have lingering doubts (or bring it to the attention of folks who never even heard of it.) Oh, and, of course, he should be asked about it in the event ABC or FOX moderates any national debates... just so he can make sure the record is crystal clear, in case anyone is still wondering (or never heard) about it ...
And don't forget to bring up the Keating 5. So what if the Keating 5 prosecutor himself vindicated McCain. Let's keep bringing it up -- just to give McCain "an opportunity" to put it to bed again, of course...
Mark
Dont forget to ask him repeatedly about his age and health concerns around rumors of high blood pressure and a heart condition, or prostate cancer.
Besides that, I've seen no evidence that Obama's relationship with Ayers was anything more than a marginal professional acquaintance. The fact that they may have given speeches at the same event proves.....what?
This is another phony controversy. It's all the Republicans have this time around, so expect more of the same.
Notice the attacks now by these RIGHT WING ZELOTS. Their going for guilt by association personal attacks rather than attacks on polocy because they know that their far RIGHT ideas are not as popular as they used to be. They can thank BOY GEORGE AND DEAD EYE DICK for that.
Nerzog,
It seems to me this was a Democratic Debate and not a Republican one. To blame Hannity for one question is silly. It was on ABC with George Stephonopoulos, former Press Secretary of President Clinton. Would you describe him as a right wing sycophant?
I must admit, I get a kick out of all of you whining. Now you see what the Republicans have had to endure. Have you forgotten about all those questions about Romney's and Huckabee's respective religions? Questions about hired help at Romney's home. Questions about Thompson and his wife? Guiliani and his association with Kerik? Of course you don't.
So...what is the point of this weak article? To somehow make the question invalid? To make it invalid because someone right of center suggested it be asked? How can anyone out there think this was a bad question to ask (regardless of where the idea for it came from)? If Hussein wants to be president, I think it is necessary to explain why he has held meetings in the house of a man who committed terrorist acts against the US.
Hussein...that is funny. Johnny numbers, your credibility is a new number....0. Henceforth, I, as Prince, declare you Johnny Zero.
Next week, Sen. Obama must answer questions concerning flag pins. Not enough Republicans have heard his answer but know the question.
WHY DO REPUBLICANS ALWAYS SPEAK IN HEADLINES?
"Next week, Sen. Obama must answer questions concerning flag pins."
Thanks for bringing that up. When he originally decided not to wear one anymore, this was his statement about it: "I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.”
Here is what he said the other night when addressing the fact that he put one on again: "I have never said that I don't wear flagpins or refuse to wear flagpins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and once again distracts us from what should be my job when I'm Commander-in-Chief."
So, if I am to take Hussein at his words here, he just lied. He has specifically said "I decided I wont wear that pin on my chest." Hussein is a corrupt, lying politician...just like most of the others, on BOTH sides of the aisle.
I'd like to know George Stephanopoulos arrangement with the Council on foreign Relations and the right propagandists and what is his role in their campaign to get J. McCain into the white house .
Let's cut the crap out , this isn't about "Bad journalism " it's PURE and unadulterated PROPAGANDA , that even former KGB agents are on record admiring , because they say Russians just assumed PRAVDA was lying , yet Americans THINK they are getting the truth from so called news networks.
From CNN hiring PSYOPS from Ft. Benning as " interns ' in the 90's , to all the Generals , CFR members on CBS , CNN and NBC . The main stream networks are infiltrated with sycophants and agents . The pro war banners on CNN; MSNBC ; comments from Browkaw (CFR member) " we broke it ,we OWN it " ). The U.S. backed war on Somalia directly and with Ethiopia is virtually CENSORED in the U.S. media , you have to go to the UK's TIMES to find out , U.S. military is doing regular bombing runs , "renditions" in Somalia region .
Fox is the easy target but it goes a lot , a lot deeper than that .
Honestly, who cares who influenced Stephanopoulos to ask a more than acceptable question about Obama's relationship with Ayers.
There's nothing wrong with vetting the relations the candidates had or have with anyone with a questionable past and/or present.
To all you people complaining that Barack was asked a question not related to any issues, wake up. If you don't know his policies by now then you must not pay attention much when he's on the stump directly telling you his policies and beliefs. You must not read his website that tells you what his stance is on the issues. Debates are a chance to ask the candidates questions not normally covered by things they say on the campaign trail. It's about getting to know the character, the experience, and the ability to handle tough situations. For example he totally bombed the question about the capital gains tax http://tiny.cc/fUWkR
Pardon me, but as a voter I loved that debate. I saw Barack Obama squirm and lie at least twice. How dare the media of other networks criticize ABC, we saw the real Barack Obama and it was not a pretty sight.
I am sick of hearing him constantly telling us what is wrong with our country, but he never tells us HOW he is going to CHANGE IT. WITH HOPE?
Hillary Clinton laid out her plan and in case the Obama worshippers weren't listening it was wonderful and she proved to me she is capable and ready to be the President of our nation.
The questions were perfect!!!!! It was rather late but better late than never.
How sad. Obama is constantly required to apologize and explain past relationships, yet other candidates are not held to the same standard. Our "Great Decider" decided to go to war on the premise of weapons of mass destruction. How'd that go. Moreover, Bin Laden admits to 9-11 and we go after Saddam Hussein. Go figure. Bush and daddy are both seen in pics holding hands and cheesing with members of the Bin Laden family and Obama has to explain his past relationships?!? Let's be honest, what some of you Obama haters really want is for him to explain why he's black. You just can't admit it because it wouldn't be politically correct.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Our valiant soldiers are still dying overseas because of a bogus war! But all F*CKS News has to do is send out a memo, and we're talking about Obama's past associations from the '70s. Was that the decade Bush Jr. was abusing alcohol? I don't know. I do know over 4,000 U.S. lives have been lost. I do know many more innocent Iraqi lives have been lost. I feel for some of you conservative posters here, because no matter how wrong or ignorant your media figures are, you are willing to defend their ignorance.
And for those of you who want dirt on Hannity, look no further than his relationship with Ted Nugent. I think I spelled that right. Anyway, this racist, sexist bigot comes on stage with Nugent and basically endorses some of the hateful rhetoric spewed by Nugent. All archived on Media Matters.
I hear you conservative parrots. 'But Hannity isn't running for president.' True, but there was a time in this country where you had to be respectable in order to be a journalist who's opinion was valued. What right does Sean Hand Job have to question Obama's associations, when his associations, as a prominent media figure, are as shady as a room full of Dick Cheney's.
OK, lets ask our Fearless Leader, Mr. Bush, about his relationship with the Bin Laden family as well as his close ties to the Saudi royal family.
I really want to know more about a SITTING president being friends with known terrorists.
I think it's a good question to ask a person running for President of the United States why they are friends with a confessed and unapologetic terrorist bomber.
I agree. Look up W's connections with Otto Reich.
Can we all remember the scene in the war room where Stephanopoulos is talking to someone who is about to go public with a claim that Bill Clinton fathered a black baby. George says something like " if you go forward with validating this , no one is going to believe you, and any role that you might have as a serious player in electoral politics is going to be gone forever.'
Not everyone that can both anticipate and pen his owm obituary!