Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Does Obama have fleas?

Not literally, of course. I'm thinking of the saying, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". Both the Obamas have had associations with some pretty flea-infested dogs. And now the fleas are coming back to bite them. Consider this ad Obama is fighting to have suppressed:

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY

It's carefully worded, and I don't see that it says anything that isn't true. He claims it does. Yet his campaign's official response to it doesn't specifically refute anything it says. Is that because it can't?

This reminds me of John Kerry and the Swiftboaters. Kerry's campaign refused to talk about what the Swiftboaters said, and the MSM went along with that. I was appalled at how the Media simply refused to discuss the matter. If the accusations were not true, they could have easily explained to us how and why, but they didn't even try. Why? Because they couldn't.

Now Obama is supposedly taking a more aggressive stance than Kerry did, but it seems he also can't refute what is undeniably true. Is the best he can do is to silence his opponents by whatever means possible? That's what fascist thugs do when they know they can't win arguments because the facts don't support them; they try to forcibly silence the critics.

Unfortunately it's a tactic that's being increasingly used by the Democrats in this country whenever they are confronted with facts, and it is one of the reasons I have lost all respect for the Democrat party generally. Sadly, it seems to be the best they are capable of.

The hard left associations of the Obama's are well established, no matter how much they would like to white-wash it now. This stuff ought to have been vetted much earlier on by the press, but it wasn't. Maynard at the Tammy Bruce blog has this post this morning regarding Michelle Obama's speech last night:

Michelle Obama
[...] The problem with the Obamas is, in a word, their long history of close association with hatemongers. These are not casual connections; they go to the core of what they've done with their lives so far. And now, on the very eve of the election, this offensive history is to be erased and replaced with a manufactured image that will appeal to mainstream (that is, the sane and decent portion of) America. And they expect you to buy into this nonsense.

Who are you going to believe? The pretty speeches, or your eyes and your brain?

Exactly. The problem isn't false accusations, it's the fact that people have eyes, and brains too. Michelle's speech was an emotional appeal, which in itself isn't wrong, but facts need to ALSO be considered, because emotions can deceive if they are not grounded in understanding of the facts. Speaking of facts, see the rest of the post for some of Michelle's interesting connections.

Pretty speeches don't change the facts. The whole of Obama's campaign seems to depend on pretty speeches. Something more ought to be required.

The Obamas can explain away their hard core leftist/terrorist connections any way they'd like to. They have every right to explain and counter criticism aimed at them. They have even had some good explanations for some of their controversies, thus far. But to try to silence people for pointing out facts that they can't deny, is contemptible.

Related links:

Obama Responds On Ayers

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

Obama, Ayers and Dohrn - birds of a feather

Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers

No comments: