Wow. Really grasping at straws here, aren't we?
Here's some more right-wing blog regurgitating:
The right-wing regurgitator? Guy by the name of Howard Gutman.
Post-Partisan Dirt-Digging in Alaska
- Thread starter BPSCG
- Start date
In the context of the rest of the interview and the statements he made regarding her choices because of her son, I agree he went to far. He made it clear that he was speaking as an individual and not as a spokesman of the campaign when confronted by Ingraham. Regardless, I also think Obama would be right in firing him and would actually like to see that happen despite Gutman's later apology for his statement.
However, based on what was quoted in this thread, I do not see that as a question of her parenting abilities. It is a comment on her decision making process and the willingness to offer up what many would consider a moral or ethical stance for the sake of political expediency.
You and others may disagree with me, so be it. How we interpret and view statements becomes a matter of opinion. How a candidate and his campaign staff interpret and regard statements make them official viewpoints.
Boo
ProbeX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,446
It was McCain's hypocrisy that was being addressed.
ProbeX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,446
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
From the link:
This isn't exactly a denial of the story in the OP. It just denies that the people sent were from DC or Chicago (the rest of the country is still fair game), and they weren't Obama or DNC "staffers".
It's a classic "non-denial denial".
NotJesus
Unsaviory
You left out this bit:
John Fund has promised to provide more information about his original story. Until he does, I'm... oh, what's that word?...
Oh yeah -- skeptical.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Your own article (from Fox News) says:
I haven't seen a single source yet that has cleared this up. If you find one, let me know.
If Gutman still works for the campaign, then your question is fair. Until you find out, you're simply regurgitating a right-wing blog topic. I know this is politics, but at least try to bring some skepticism to the table.
Fair enough. Wouldn't be the first time a reporter got screwed by his sources.
Let me get this straight.
In a possible disagreement between Fox News and a Democratic party operative who himself says he works for Obama, you're trusting Fox News.
That noise you just heard was the sound of Hell freezing over.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
The HuffPo link says the guy is "an original member" of the finance committee. He has posted one article there, on April 9. This establishes that Gutman was with the campaign from its inception until at least April 9.
There's no disagreement here, just lack of clarity.
Here's a fair question to Obama: Does Howard Gutman still have a formal role in your campaign?
If the answer is yes, THEN you get to ask your question.
Please:
"Howard points." Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
Gee, dontcha wonder why Obama spokesman Bill Burton didn't add, "...and Howard Burton has no connection to Senator Obama's campaign"?
And dontcha wonder why Howard Gutman didn't answer Ingraham's bewilderment that the Obama campaign would attack Palin's parenting with, "I am not connected with the Obama campaign"?
Here's a fairer question: "Why haven't you fired Howard Gutman yet?"
NotJesus
Unsaviory
Just a bump while we wait for John Fund to substantiate his Democratic-mini-army-air-drop-into-Alaska story, as promised.
Just checked the WSJ website and doesn't look like there's anything new.
But you must admit, the Obama camp's denial of the story sounds a little odd - "...we haven't sent anyone from Chicago or Washington..."
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
What I don't understand is why it would be so bad to drop a bunch of lawyers and investigators into Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.
I understand that the Obama campaign denies this story. But it strikes me as a perfectly sensible thing to do with a politician who, for all intents and purposes, was completely unknown by the vast majority of the population just two weeks ago.
I have to assume that McCain, like Clinton (and, I would guess Obama too) has had possibly hundreds of researchers trying to dig up "dirt" on each other for months now. Indeed, one can envision that the McCain people had two very full files on both Obama and Clinton...and that Obama has a thick file on McCain.
One also has to assume that were the situation reversed, the GOP, its candidate, its operatives and affiliated 527 organizations would be flooding the zone looking for dirt.
In addition, Ms. Palin seems, for the moment at least, intent on not answering any questions about anything...not too mention that one of the first things that comes out about her is her possbily tricky ethics situation viz her ex-brother in law...a story that it didn't take DNC lawyers to dig up, but rather one that's been discussed in Anchorage for months.
Anyway, what would be so wrong with 30 Lawyres covering the state looking for dirt? Shouldn't we know it all now and not three months from now, after all she could be President next year?
I know the Obama people say they haven't done it...my ferverent hope is that they have...or someone has.
I understand that the Obama campaign denies this story. But it strikes me as a perfectly sensible thing to do with a politician who, for all intents and purposes, was completely unknown by the vast majority of the population just two weeks ago.
I have to assume that McCain, like Clinton (and, I would guess Obama too) has had possibly hundreds of researchers trying to dig up "dirt" on each other for months now. Indeed, one can envision that the McCain people had two very full files on both Obama and Clinton...and that Obama has a thick file on McCain.
One also has to assume that were the situation reversed, the GOP, its candidate, its operatives and affiliated 527 organizations would be flooding the zone looking for dirt.
In addition, Ms. Palin seems, for the moment at least, intent on not answering any questions about anything...not too mention that one of the first things that comes out about her is her possbily tricky ethics situation viz her ex-brother in law...a story that it didn't take DNC lawyers to dig up, but rather one that's been discussed in Anchorage for months.
Anyway, what would be so wrong with 30 Lawyres covering the state looking for dirt? Shouldn't we know it all now and not three months from now, after all she could be President next year?
I know the Obama people say they haven't done it...my ferverent hope is that they have...or someone has.
Last edited:
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
NotJesus
Unsaviory
OK. It sounds a little odd. On the other hand, it seems John Fund has been talking out of his bunghole.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
But again, will someone please explain to me why parachutting 30 lawyers into Alaska to reserach Palin would be wrong? Heck, McCain only met her once before nominating her...shouldn't we know all of the good/bad and ugly? Do we?
Again, I hope that someone is doing this...and want someone who would be offended/upset/afraid of dirty campaigning to tell me what is wrong with it if it were true?
Again, I hope that someone is doing this...and want someone who would be offended/upset/afraid of dirty campaigning to tell me what is wrong with it if it were true?
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
I would just like to say that the skeptical people who never bought into the post-partisan crap in the first place were 100 percent correct.
It was a sham. The followers were duped. Just like we said.
NotJesus
Unsaviory
I don't think it's wrong. I'm sure the Democrats have been looking into Palin. Why wouldn't they? This story was just an excuse for Republicans to say, "Hey, Obama's supposed to be above old-style dirty politics but look at him doing it just like everyone else." They have to try to beat him up with stuff like this because they have no substantive issues to run on. The mini-army air-drop bit was probably just an attempt to juice up some mundane news -- Obama campaign looks into Palin's background -- and make it seem scandalous.
Three days now. Looks like he's got nothing to back it up.
For headscratcher4: Why is it a big deal? Because Obama has made such an issue about how he was going to have a kinder, gentler type of campaign, focused on issues rather than personalities, and this (if true, and there doesn't seem to be any independent verification of it) sounds like an attempt to dig up dirt on the candidate.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with digging up dirt on candidates, provided it's somehow germane to his/her fitness; "candidate X didn't file taxes for three straight years" is germane, "candidate X smoked marijuana in college" is not.
ETA: NotJesus types faster than I do. But I'm prettier.
Last edited: