O'Reilly claimed "McCain has no power at all" in NC to stop state GOP from running ad attacking Obama
SUMMARY: Referring to a controversial ad by the North Carolina Republican Party attacking Sen. Barack Obama, Bill O'Reilly said: "[T]he reality -- and we've researched this -- is that Senator McCain has no power at all in North Carolina, all right? ... And that's the truth." But several people identified as having leadership positions in the North Carolina Republican Party also have "official" roles in the McCain campaign. Additionally, neither McCain nor the Republican National Committee, which has also denounced the ad, has suggested that the North Carolina GOP will face any repercussions for its refusal to pull the ad.
On the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host bill O'Reilly, discussing a controversial ad by the North Carolina Republican Party attacking Sen. Barack Obama and Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore, asserted, "[T]he reality -- and we've researched this -- is that Senator McCain has no power at all in North Carolina, all right? And Republican leaders in that state think that ad is going to help them, so they're going to go with it, no matter what McCain says." O'Reilly added, "And that's the truth. And that's what we do on 'Reality Check.' " But, contrary to O'Reilly's assertion that McCain "has no power at all in North Carolina," several supporters listed on McCain's website are also listed as having leadership positions on the North Carolina Republican Party's website and have also donated money to both the North Carolina GOP as well as Sen. McCain's presidential campaign. McCain has yet to remove their names from his website and has not reportedly returned their donations to his campaign. Additionally, neither McCain nor the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has also denounced the ad, has suggested that the North Carolina GOP will face any repercussions during this campaign season, at the party's nominating convention in September or otherwise, for its refusal to pull the ad.
Neither McCain nor the RNC has given any indication that they will try to force the hand of ranking members of the North Carolina Republican Party who also have "official" roles in the McCain campaign or the RNC. These include:
Ferrell Blount III and Richard Vinroot
On March 8, 2007, McCain's campaign released a statement saying, "U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that former North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Ferrell Blount and Former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot will support the Arizona Senator's presidential candidacy. In addition, Blount and Vinroot will serve as state steering committee members for Senator McCain's presidential campaign in North Carolina." According to its website, Blount serves on the central committee of the North Carolina GOP.
According to Congressional Quarterly's MoneyLine (subscription required), during the 2007-08 cycle, Blount donated $1,000 to the executive committee and $2,300 to McCain's campaign. Vinroot gave $250 to the executive committee and $1,000 to McCain's campaign in that same period.
Linda Shaw
RNC member Linda Shaw is listed on the official "supporters" page on McCain's campaign website. She is also listed as National Committeewoman on the North Carolina GOP's leadership page. According to RNC organizational rules, the national committeewoman is one of three state-level GOP officials (along with national committeeman and state party chairman) from each state who make up the "general management" of the national Republican Party.
Shaw has donated $250 to the NC GOP's executive committee in the 2007-08 cycle.
An April 24 Associated Press article reported Shaw's reaction to the ad:
Republican National Committee member Linda Shaw said Thursday she was shocked that her colleagues decided to produce and air the ad, which shows Obama with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and a clip of Wright's anti-U.S. comments.
"I do not support it," Shaw said. "I had nothing to do with it ... and I'm very disappointed."
Shaw, a longtime party leader, said she repeatedly urged state party chairwoman Linda Daves to withdraw the spot.
State Rep. Ric Killian
North Carolina state Rep. Ric Killian is also listed on the official "supporters" page on McCain's campaign website. Additionally, according to their website, Killian is a member of the North Carolina GOP's executive committee. Killian is Republican freshman chair in the North Carolina General Assembly.
Sen. Richard Burr
On March 9, 2007, the McCain campaign released a statement announcing, "U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that U.S. Senator Richard Burr will support the Arizona Senator as he seeks the presidency." Burr is listed on the official "supporters" page on McCain's campaign website. Burr is also listed as a member of the North Carolina GOP's executive committee.
Further, as the blog Think Progress noted, Linda Daves, chairwoman of the North Carolina GOP, asserted during an interview on the April 24 edition of NPR's All Things Considered that she has not had "a conversation with John McCain about" the ad.
From the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: We begin with Senator Obama reacting to John McCain's condemnation of a North Carolina political ad that mentions Obama and Reverend Wright.
OBAMA [video clip]: Well, my understanding is that the Republican National Committee and John McCain have both said that the ad's inappropriate. I take them at their word. And I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad, that he can get them to pull it down, since he's their nominee and standard-bearer.
O'REILLY: All right. As I said in the "Talking Points Memo," it's a very shrewd answer by Senator Obama, because if the ad runs, he can say either McCain didn't want, or was too weak, to stop it.
But the reality -- and we've researched this -- is that Senator McCain has no power at all in North Carolina, all right? And Republican leaders in that state think that ad is going to help them, so they're going to go with it, no matter what McCain says.
And that's the truth. And that's what we do on "Reality Check."
"So you got jokes now?"--Snoopy
Huh ?
I wonder if O'Reilly will stick by his belief if Democratic organizations run smear ads on McCain.
All that the Democratic organizations will have to so is run ads telling the truth about Gramps McCain, and O'Reilly will CLAIM that they're smear ads.
And just what "repercussions" should McCain or the RNC suggest for the North Carolina GOP during this "campaign season"? Or at the nominating convention, that would amount to a hill of beans?
McCain can barely sway Republican voters to vote for him, how much pull does one think he has with state party organizers?
Tommy - to a liberal state organizations are always subserviant to the National ones. The fools here somehow think McCain giving back donations from the state party leadership is going to help Obama.
Maybe big bad John should tell those hicks in the Carolinas that when he becomes president he will take away their toy funding. But perhaps they realize McCains chances of being president aren't good enough to sacrifice giving away their Governorship to a lefty.
Speculation??? Lack of specifics???
"Additionally, neither McCain nor the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has also denounced the ad, has suggested that the North Carolina GOP will face any repercussions during this campaign season, at the party's nominating convention in September or otherwise, for its refusal to pull the ad."
MMFA is clearly talking about stripping delegates, a threat the national GOP has made over other potential offenses as recently as last year.
What about during the campaign season? You didn't say what repercussions MMFA would like to see done in this regard to NC?
As for stripping delegates, you're not serious? You think running an ad deserves that punishment, isn't that a little excessive? You linked to a far different offense, no comparison.
Once again, MMFA blusters without specifics. Pony up.
I didn't say 'what' during the campaign season, because MMFA doesn't say. Your accusation was that it was all speculation and was entirely without specifics, and I showed that not to be the case. It was plain as day to anyone who has the slightest idea of what happens at a party's convention.
I'm serious when I state the fact that it's what MMFA is talking about, but as I just told you, I think the suggestion itself is ridiculous on their part.
Do I think it deserves that punishment? No, but I think it also depends on how McCain and the RNC really feel about the ad and how badly they want it pulled.
I linked to a far different offense? Wow, No $**t? Just like I told you it was different. But it was an offense committed by a state GOP, just like this ad was. Now we get to find out if the RNC values a clean campaign as much as they value their primary schedule.
Whether or not there is a comparison between the offenses, again, it depends entirely on how McCain and the RNC really feel about the ad and how badly they want it pulled. And, for the record, I highly doubt that they want it pulled that badly, which is why I called MMFA's suggestion pie-in-the-sky.
Solon - calling names and spewing insults does nothing to make your arguments any more credible. If you do not realize that McCain does not gather the favor of the conservative members of the GOP than you are not paying attention to the world outside of MMFA.
The state of NC is working under the 'Every man for himself" model. All those years McCain was a "Maverick" are comming back to haunt him. Now it is the conservatives who will be the mavericks and run away from him.
I don't think that someone who should be in a luny bin can really provide a service for anyone. Just my opinion.
And you prove that, by providing no service here.
And WTF is a "luny bin?" Does it have something to do with the moon?
Don't worry about Solon calling you a moron. He calls everybody a moron with whom he disagrees.
And in YOUR case, Rino Hunter, we call you a moron because you are in fact a moron.
But spare us your hypocritical indignation, Mr. Richard Smoker. Your first post calls us all fools here. What? You think you get to call us names and berate us for calling you names?
Screw you, punk. I'm so sick of your pathological whining over strong language as a means to undermine valid criticism.
If you read my original post you will see that my reference to "fools" was the author of the piece, and the editor who let it stand for suggesting McCain was in cahoots with the NC GOP because he refused to return a donation. Don't take is so personally.
By the way - you still seem very angry!
And to think you are somehow exempted from namecalling is simply more spaghetti-spined backpedaling from an ignorant con indulging in ritual humiliation.
Phony.
You're a weak kneed pouting hypocrite, DEMSOL.
I really don't think I'm lacking context. You are assailing indivduals.
I apologize if you took my reference to "fool" personally. The premise that McCain would return the donation of one of the leaders of a state party because of their disagreement over this add is indeed "foolish" and perhaps that is how I should have worded it.
Your ignorance is magnificent. To a Con Americans are always subserviant to capitalism instead of democracy. I'm going to support my assertion with as much evidence as you provided. -------------------------------
"to a liberal state organizations are always subserviant to the National ones."
OK Round - here is your chance to shine. If my premise is wrong tell me why Medao Matters does not respect the autonomy of the NC GOP over the national party?
But if you think this Democrats are extremists (read terrorist sympathizers) attack line as per the NC RNC ad is honorable behavior then have at it. I find it thuggish and I find cretins who do not denounce it are complicit in stoking the fires of hatred.
My premise is inherent in the context of the article in that Media Matters contends that the state party should submit to the wishes of the national party. The state party is an independant organization and unless MM explains why it should I am left to interpret that it is inherent in their belief system. By it's own admission this is a "Liberal/Progressive" organization.
The plural "fools" relates to the few, not single, stories that related to this topic here at MM since it broke. No intention to slur the posters. There are reporters who write these stories and editors who review them before they make it to publication. This is about a coprorate philosophy not the opinions of one author.
Furthermore, the article is about McCain and his RNC boys doing more than pretending to be offended by the attack ad out of NC.
My premise is inherent in the context of the article in that Media Matters contends that the state party should submit to the wishes of the national party. The state party is an independant organization and unless MM explains why it should I am left to interpret that it is inherent in their belief system. By it's own admission this is a "Liberal/Progressive" organization.
Round - The article clearly discusses the refusal of the NC GOP to bow to the National party and McCain -points which I clearly made in my original post. I reasonably and logically laid out my premise above and where it originated from. I also reasonably explained to whom and why comment of "fools" were aimed, but if I missed and struck you with my arrow I apologize. However it is now obvious to me that since you continue to ignore my true point contending the liberal view of the State I will interpret that as your inability to do so.
You assume this is a state's rights issue but this is simply about McCain doing the right thing and putting some teeth into his protestations. You assume from that false state's rights premise, that liberals are of one mind in their view of state rights and federal authority. Not so. It's a ridiculous generalization.
So you actually believe that the folks in NC are thinking - "We better not run those adds or McCain will give us our money back"? Doesn't fly with me. They don't care.
This is indeed about States rights - NC does not want to sacrifice it's governorship for the sake of supporting McCain. Another point I have made in my previous posts. Media Matters by it's inference that the state should bow to the national party implies that the National race should be a priority to the state race.
MMFA is not the DNC.
No one is suggesting they are. MMFA is not reporting that the DNC is asserting McCain return those donations, or the NC GOP be admonished, it is making those assertions on its own.
McCain's not able to reign in the renegade NC Republicans and you expect us to let him go toe to toe with the Islamofascists?
I don't think so.
Clearly a mockery of Ales' smear: “The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda,”
"Clearly a mockery of Ales' smear: “The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda,”" --Pete
Not being able to "face Fox "News" is a valid point, since Fox is more dangerous than Al Qaeda.
Fox is more dangerous than al queda?
HAHA, not surprised your fellow like-thinkers let that little gem fly by unchallenged and instead went after me........how hysterical.
Har! OpenMind. I hate to damage the love affair between me and Tommy that's been recently uncovered, but I do love the complete confusion that comes from most conservatives having their logic presented back to them with the names changed.
My favorite is making a really nice analogy that uses the wingnuts reasoning, and being told that my example is ridiculous.Usually they don't get that they've whupped themselves, but it's fun to see anyway.
McCain to Iran: Stop developing the N bomb or we will bomb you.
Iran to McCain: Screw you
McCain to USA: Well! I told them.
Stumping indeed.
Very nice, clear, and brief.
Thankyou 4cents.
The validity of that comparison stumps the mind.
And if anyone has proved that his mind is a stump, it is Tommy.
Wonderful, and then when everyone has made their choices we will all be proud of a real election where issues and policy rose above else.
The only question now is whether that will result in a President Wright, or a President Hagee.
This is where I have some faith that Obama can, if anyone can. I cannot imagine him running near the type of campaign that Hillary Clinton would, nor can I imagine that McCain will run the type of one that say a Rudy Giuliani would have. That would have been nasty and negative from the gutter downward.
I am not a McCain supporter but I do believe that he will not go that route, at least not himself - and I also have some faith, so far anyway, that he will not just let these sleazy attack ads go forward unchecked the way Bush did. I am not saying either campaign will be squeaky clean of negativity, but the blowback has to start somewhere, with someone.
If we have two heads of each ticket that won't stoop to this level and strongly denounce it, maybe, just maybe, it will not have the legs or impact it has in past elections.
I am sick of it, I am sick of Wright, I am sick of Hagee, I am sick of the Hannitization of our politics and I won't condone, support, or celebrate any of it, from anyone.
Being above the fray is over and done with, Tommy. Too much is at stake to just "take the high road". Lives are at stake. Our country's financial well-being is at stake. Hell, the constitution itself is at stake. Everyone knows what the issues are: Do you like things the way they are now or don't you? It's almost that simple.
If it takes gutter political ads featuring Hagee to get the Repubs out of the White House, then so be it. In this case, the ends justify the means.
A church is much more than its Pastor. Obama has stayed in a church that is truly doing wonderful things for people. He also has said that he does not like everything his Pastor has said, althoug if the GOP can only find 10 seconds of sound bites to throw out in a career spanning 20 years, then that shows the paucity of their argument against Wright.
McCain, on the other hand, knows what a bigot and clown Hagee is, and rather than disassociate himself with his views, actively seeks out and begs for Hagee's endorsement.
There's a big difference, and the fact that you can't (or pretend not to, the effect is the same) understand is consistent with your constant efforts to derail every discussion on MMfA.
I hope the DNC does not play the Hagee card. Thankfully, they haven't yet.
Well I hope it works for you. Have a good weekend Tommy. If anyone asks for your opinion on anything, we'll just say sick.
;-)
But several people identified as having leadership positions in the North Carolina Republican Party also have "official" roles in the McCain campaign.
And McCain really really tried to stop that ad? He tried and the NC GOP didn't listen? BULLSH*T Like I said win win situation. McCain APPEARS to take the high road, the ad plays for free while McCain APPEARS to take the high road and after a week of new coverage of the supposed "controversy" the ad is pulled. MISSION ACCOMPLISH! Typical from the "unofficial advisor" Rove.
BilldOReilly:"Senator McCain has no power at all ..."
Talking Points Memo: Grampy Impotent ! No threat to interns, but will take it out on detainees.
The Viagra Vote may be a lock.
Give me a break. Hillary was the first to use Ossama in an add to scare people.(POV)
Wrong again, Pointy.
An ad by the Republican group "Progress for America Voter Fund ," mostly funded by wealthy GOP donors, suggests Kerry can't defend against terrorists "who want to kill us." It shows images of Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11, 2001
Col
Correction....first in the 08 presidential election to use Osamma
Okay ... new rule. No using a dumbass troll smear unless you can spell it correctly.
It's "Osama."
First of all, McCain will keep the waters roiling on this ad issue because being the media darling (only because he's merely a sock puppet for corporatists) each time its is played in "news" segments is one more time it gets viewed and for which he does not have to pay!
Next, if as O'Really? says, McBush as the anointed Republican candidate for the presidency has no "de facto" power over the RNC in NC then it merely confirms what a pussy he always was and continues to be. McBush, the pupick he is, would be over his head in a farking mud puddle. Has he ever made in independent decision himself? As the son of a military man, you know he followed orders unthinkingly, In the military, he followed the orders of those superior him., at the Hanoi Hilton, in order to get better treatment for himself, he did the bidding of his captors (It's not that I hold this against him, but there were other who not break. I don't know whether I could have held out, all I’m saying is that he didn't, and a lot of others did ) and those in the Bush campaign who slimed him and his family in 2000, what was his reaction - the pictures of him hugging Bush ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION makes him a political whore , a wuss, or a wussy political whore.
Moreover, is he capable of making hard decisions or is dependent on the way political contributions flow. Why does he get a free ride after having been one of the Keating Five. It speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the Republican candidates when the best they could come up with was this piece of dreck.
And the tragedy is that this Howdy Doody doll could end up as this nation’s president. I'm already packing my bags, because if this useless ventriloquist dummy gets elected, I'm getting outta Dodge. Within fours years, Bangladesh will have higher GDP and we won't be complaining about immigrants not knowing English because we'll be learning Chinese with Hindi as a second language.
Sorry POV you don't get to define Wright. Have an opinion, who's to stop you? ten seconds of evidence, does not define a person or a career.
I think the cherry on top would be for McClunk to have the ad pulled, and be very visible doing so. Say on Monday. Its been imprinted pretty thoughly and he can say he stopped them and get away with it. Undoubtedly praised for it. The media then repeats this ad nausium. This reminds everybody of Wright and puts a warm fuzzy on Micky for the consum, ah, voter.
Pols can be a heart breaker.
Your definitions have a long history here. Few of them have been sustained. In fact I can't think of any that have been.
Okay, let me give it a try. I have decided to define PointOfView as a rightwing nutcase, and a racist. He/she is anti environment, anti education, pro gun control, and for forced child labor.
Now, I have little (if any) evidence to base this on, but, since anyone can 'define' anyone, I'll go with this for now. Once the polls come out, my opinion may be even stronger.
Rick
Had I said those things ohhhh i dont know.....on video tape.....you might have a point. But Wright said his racist comments on wait for it.....wait for it.............VIDEOTAPE. Now, I know it is hard for you to get this concept, but a large part of america is not far right like me.....or far left like you. A lot of people in the middle are offended by the racist things he said. So yes,....we all can define him anyway we like. Sorry about your luck.
I love America, and I ask to you point to any postings that indicate I do not.
So again, from your perspective, no woman could ever support the invasion, since women can not fight on the front lines. No senior citizen, no one with a disability, no one except those who fight can support an invasion. I guess no one who did not fight could support WWII and ending the concentration camps then.
The murder, rape, and torture of millions of Iraqi's under Sadam would then be supported under your twisted view. I am glad I understand where you are coming from. No one anywhere at any time can support any type of war unless they are there. I am not a police officer either, so I guess I can not support the cops shooting a bad guy......dont want any one hurt for my beliefs. I have said it before.......and I will say it again.....you far left loonies really scare me. And you will push McCain right into the white house.
". . . from your perspective, no woman . . . No senior citizen, no one with a disability, no one except those who fight can support an invasion."--POV
Are you a woman, a senior citizen, or disabled?
"I guess no one who did not fight could support WWII and ending the concentration camps then."--POV
You know the obvious differences, but I'll waste a few minute on you anyway:
During WWII, our allies (Europe), and our territory (Pearl Harbor) was attacked. The threat was from a country that had a goal of world domination. Our goal was to defend ourselves and our allies. And while most reasonable people don't want war, we understood that it was necessary to defeat Japan and Germany.
Now, while I'm certain Sadam would have loved to dominate the world, I doubt even he was stupid enough to believe he could attain such a goal. We attacked Iraq without provocation, like a school yard bully attacks the weakest kid at the merry-go-round. And most of us knew that the case for WMD was never made--in fact, Tony Blair said history will forgive us if we are wrong--proving that even he knew this was a total fabrication.
Now, if you and I believed in the mission, and if we were able and young enough, we would (or should) both be standing at the recruiting office to defend our country and loved ones from this menace. Therefore, either you don't believe in the mission, or you are a coward who is not willing to defend your country, but willing to have a war as long as someone else does the killing and dying.
So which was it ? There is no third option, and they're still looking for a few good men. Do you qualify ?
POV has, to this point, been unable to answer the very simple question "Why aren't you serving in Iraq?". Instead, he responds by calling those who ask the question "losers" and demanding "Why do you hate America?". He has assimilated the talking points very well.
One would hope that POV has at least an inkling of the enormous discrepancy between his speech and his action. But, based on his postings, that may be wishful thinking.
So, we're left with two possibilities:
1. He doesn't believe what he is saying, or
2. he's a coward.
I would choose door number 2.
"Are you a woman, a senior citizen, or disabled?" - theRick
Hey, let's be fair here, Rick. There's much that we haven't taken into account here.
1) POV's total lack of testicles does NOT necessarily make him a woman. Besides, look at all the women who ARE serving in Iraq.
2) His obvious immaturity, conversely, DOES indicate that its unlikely that he is a senior citizen, so no free pass there.
3) There are many forms of disability. He may indeed not be PHYSICALLY disabled, but strutting, loud-mouthed, saber-rattling cowardice are forms of EMOTIONAL and ETHICAL disabilities, common conditions among delusional wingnut warmongers.
C'mon, man... be fair. Would you want anyone pointing out YOUR inadequacies if YOU were similarly afflicted?
The murder, rape, and torture of millions of Iraqi's under Sadam
No No that was the 3rd reason for the invasion. Remember it was WMD, then Democracy THEN Saddam murdering. Don't take the reasons for the invasion out of order!
No one anywhere at any time can support any type of war unless they are there.
No No Didn't you hear THE MILITARY is STRETCHED THIN! They NEED more men and women. Since your so "rah rah war", YOU fight and let the one's that would rather be anywhere else come home.
And you will push McCain right into the white house.
Pushing may be the only way he'll get there. First he can't remember which is Sunni and which are Shiites. Then he may destroy the lower 9th ward and now we have to show him where he said that 2 days before. By the time November comes around we'll be lucky if McCain knows there is a White House.
Besides, Pearlene, a good number of Sadam's murders were committed back in the day when we were funneling the very means of committing such atrocities to him, because he was our TRUSTED ALLY.
And its not like he was the ONLY murderous dictator that we were quite snuggly in bed with. Was he really all that much worse than Pinochet, the Shah, the Contras, and on and on and on?
You're supporting the war.
Big Difference.
How many seconds do you find objectionable, out of the whole tape. How much of it merely makes you noxious. How much are you equitable about. Any parts you find yourself in agreement with? It is how much of a 20 year career. Is Wright or any of his parish redeemable, who gets to decide?
Maybe a little face time with Mr. Wright might change your mind.
eweston8542983
Why would I want face time with him......so he can pull an Imus and say how sorry he is? Or so he can try and convince me that the gove invented aids to kill black people? Or so he can convinceme we deserved 911. You have to be kidding me. I know exactly what the man is all about. He is a scammer, who has a multimillion dollar home to live in free of charge. He is no better than the tv preacher who convinces old ladies to send all their money in to him.
Another mind somehow unable to make an accusation to someones face. You do know that pior to shrub's time, facing your accusor was an important thing. Old fashioned and out of date? Not neocon/trendy?
You want to be an example.... of what? Not someone who'll stand up for a principle,but will sit down on his own stool.
POV, there's another interview of Wright coming up that might fall more into a "fair & balanced" mode you could enjoy. I saw a preview of it on Fox.
There's a monitor playing a loop of Wright saying "God Damn America" for an hour. Sean Hannity is standing next to the monitor wearing an American flag adult diaper, screeching at the top of his lungs as he wets himself and cries like a little girl. I think it's right up your alley.
yes.........i did watch it
But did you understand it? That's a whole other ballgame.
Liberal PBS. Once again either you slavishly and exclusively push rightwing propaganda or you are liberally biased. I guess reality DOES have a liberal bias.
But Faux News SAID that Wright was racist... over and over again.
What more evidence do you NEED, Solon? ;o)
Sure I do......i get to define him, like everyone else who heard his remarks. And looking at the polls, my view is winning.
You heard ten seconds of his remarks. His congregation has heard 20 years. And they all disagree with you, after having heard much more evidence than you.
Let's see, which should I believe? A GOP troll who constantly proves he has no idea what he is posting about, or an entire church community with 20 years more experience on a topic the trolls are spewing waste about?
"But the reality -- and we've researched this -- is that Senator McCain has no power at all in North Carolina, all right?"
I see another poster above, picked up on the word "power", and as they noted, it is used in a funny way (that has me remembering now the way Scottie on Star Trek would franticly inform Kirk that "he has no power!").
But as the clown o'reilly uses the word, it's funny that he says up-front "and we've researched this", because the use of the word "power" is what seems well-researched, for it's cleverness.
Truly, do you know how clever it is to use the word "power" in that way?
Of course Mr. McCain has no "power" in the manner implied by the clown o'reilly, which would be some kind of "legal authority" it appears...
That's got nothing to do with it. Never mind the idiocy of reminding us about the limited "power" or legal authority Mr. McCain has over private citizens in NC or anywhere else. It's not about that.
It's about whether McCain ADVOCATES what these people in NC (working on his behalf, if not under his legal authority or "power") are doing...
Does McCain TOLERATE his supporters in NC (and that's who they are, his supporters) running the ad in question...
Does McCain CONDONE, ACCEPT, APPROVE, ALLOW, PROMOTE the running of the ad in NC, by those who support him?
Do you see what I mean here? Do you see how those questions (and those exact words or many others like them) are cleverly avoided, by the idiotic but clever use of the word "power"?
But hey, this is already too much serious thought wasted, on what the clown o'reilly says (although I submit it still for your consideration, the observation of how irrelevant is McCain's "power" in this matter, and of how clever it was to use that irrelevant word in place of the others, which would indicate McCain's APPROVAL or ACCEPTANCE etc, of what people in NC are doing on his behalf).
I'm better left thinking of the more amusing way the word "power" was used, in saying:
"...Senator McCain has no power at all in North Carolina, all right?"
He has no power at all in NC, all right?
Just like Scottie when he's pleading to Kirk, about why they can't get the ship up to "warp speed" or "battle speed" or "ramming speed"... oh wait, "ramming speed", that's Ben Hur as a whipped slave in the galleys... that was their "power".
If you think this is a spectator sport or game, you are delusional. If you continue to advocate for us being in Iraq and are able bodied, you should enlist and relieve some of the soldiers who have had 4 or 5 tours. They're exhausted.
Claiming that the GOP nominee for President lacks the power to stop an offensive ad is ludicrous. He might not be the most POWERFUL Republican in the country, but despite the fact that many Republicans don't like him he certainly does have a huge amount of power in the party. He is also the most VISIBLE Republican in the country, and that alone gives him even more power. O'Reilly is lying. Again.
I like the ad and I hope it stays up. I gave the NC GOP $100 because I am proud of them for calling out Barack Hussein Obama. I am so tired of him getting these softball questions.
I can't wait until he is "Swiftboated" in the fall.
I thought one of our regular nits might be into some face time with Rev Wright. The idea seemed outrageous to him(?). Seemingly he'd rather condem from the back of the crowd, near an exit.
So how bought you SCP. Would you be willing to take your complaints to the source and express them to him?