“General Betray-Us” newspaper scolds on negative campaigning

Isn’t that sort of a non sequitur Ed? The “Betray Us” ad wasn’t part of an election campaign.

“General Betray-Us” newspaper scolds on negative campaigning

The New York Slimes have no room to talk. They’re the traitorous rag that hand delivers critical information to Osama bin Laden’s cave. They’re the eyes, and ears for Al Qaeda.

A vote poll taken today by WorldNetDaily:

Here

Theophile on July 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM

When I scroll to the top of the page, I see a the “betray us” ad right there. To the right of it, there is an ad for Days Inn. Do you mean to tell me Days Inn didn’t pay more to Hot Air than MoveOn?

2) It’s fair to criticize the New York Times for their editorial content. It’s a weak argument to go after them for the ads they run. The “betray us” ad no more reflected their views than the lingerie ad on page four.

I mean, I see the ad right here on Hot Air. Does that mean Hot Air is in Soros’s pocket? Please.

No, but then again, I doubt that Hot Air gave a him a highly discounted rate the way that the New York Times gave the MoveOn guys for their ad.

You always know when an ad is being effective and doing the job it was intended to do when the opposing political party pundits start howling at the moon….

entagor on July 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM

You nailed it! Well done!

What the difference between the government bailing out banks who mess up and socialism?
Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM
The first is the government stepping in to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. The second is a bad situation that has nobody around to keep it from getting worse.
Kafir on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Kafir, what a great statement. I am going to pass it on

issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) NYT

Sophmoric attacks are the best because they are easily refuted. A true sophmoric attack will turn anyone but a moron against the attacker

and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers). – NYT

Blatantly false accusations are almost as good because they are easily disproven.

The problem with a charge that a nominee ‘turned his back on wounded soldiers’ is that part of the accusation stands. Whether the nominee ‘turned his back’ or not, he cancelled.

Each time you refute the blatantly false accusation, you have to mention the no-show

Each time you mention the no-show, the listener is reminded you had time to play basketball, or go to France. Thus refuting the part you deem false, broadcasts the part that is undeniably true.

Very similar to a no-show at a wedding later revealed to be shopping at the mall the same date

It doesn’t matter how you cut the cake Obbie didn’t go. Obbie didn’t fight hell and highwater to go. A parent would have skipped the basketball and visited his som. Obbie is not the parent but the son becomes everyone’s som

1) For two weeks now, McCain hasn’t been doing anything but talking kaka about his opponent. That’s just not a winning strategy. He’s got to start talking about why he is a good choice, not why the other guy is a bad choice.

2) It’s fair to criticize the New York Times for their editorial content. It’s a weak argument to go after them for the ads they run. The “betray us” ad no more reflected their views than the lingerie ad on page four.

I mean, I see the ad right here on Hot Air. Does that mean Hot Air is in Soros’s pocket? Please.

3) No matter what you think about Gen. Pertaeus, you must agree that the MoveOn ad is a piss-poor way of advancing a political agenda. It’s so juvenile that it just totally lacks the capacity to change any minds. If you are on the fringe left, and I mean left of Kucinich, you’d agree with the ad, but then you didn’t need any convincing in the first place. Everyone else just kind of rolled their eyes and said “Jeez, what jerks!”

The only value the “betray us” ad had was that people kept talking about MoveOn. The more the ad is denounced, the more publicity MoveOn gets. It’s the political equivalent of the Paris Hilton sex video. Think about that the next time you feel the urge to post that picture

What better time, or better situation, than this to emphasize that the Times is doing all it can to provide cover for their designated candidate…from refusing him the opportunity of fair response, to providing cover from legitimate criticism of the Democratic candidate.

This could be shoved right back down the collective throats of Keller/Pinch and all the rest.

If only McCain would fight.

The Times are the worst hypocrites on this issue, and their distorted, venal, and essentially idiotic editorial today proves it.

Dam# Captain,tell it like it is!!!

The NYTimes and liberals in general have always been about what position they can take that best accomplishes their political goals,not about doing what is right or telling the truth.

If Obama takes the White House,watch their views on War do a 180 degree turn concerning civilian causalities,Soldiers causalities,bombing…etc.etc.etc.

All of a sudden,”war will be the answer”.

There will be a “military solution” if Chicken Hawk Obama is sending in troops.

Bombing and killing terrorist will not create more terrorist if Chicken Hawk Obama is in charge while the killing is being done.

No bid contracts and Haliburton being involved won’t be proof of supplying the “war machine” if Chicken Hawk Obama is behind it.

There will be front page stories and pictures of Soldiers with children in the NYtimes and other media showcasing all the freedom that is being brought with
Chicken Hawk Obama in charge.

Our Soldiers won’t be “dying for nothing” if it’s Chicken Hawk Obama sending them off to war.

The NYtimes won’t be able to print all of those pictures of the big anti-war protest because there won’t be any with Chicken Hawk Obama in charge.

He!!,all of those anti-war democrats that continuously send our men and women off to war will be yelling about taking down Pakistan the same way they yelled about taking down Saddam up until we actually took him down,then they yelled about how big dumb ol’ Bush tricked all of them despite their superior intellect.

Liberals have a vast history of condemning the very things they do the most.

Dusty on July 30, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I didn’t understand your post at first because I didn’t notice the time stamp that you were referring to.

Nicely done. Better explaination than my own.

The interesting thing is that no matter what Obama does, it is self-serving, flip-flopping and socialist.

This pretty much sums it up.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I’ll make a correction. Obama does do somethings right. He’ll smile nicely at a swoon of fans. He’s not all bad. I’m sure he’s good to his family as well.

No matter what Obama does politically, it is self-serving, flip-flopping and socialist.

Hope I summed it up better.

I have no problem’s with the so called “negative” ads if facts are used. McCain needs to show the difference between BO and himself.

You have to remember that when he visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was part of an official US delegation. In Germany, he was with his campaign. Someone at the hospital brought up the idea that his visit may be inappropriate because he was with his campaign. Yes, he could have gone on his own, but since he was no longer part of the US delegation and on his own with his campaign, he played it safe.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Interesting, because I could have sworn he was there as a Senator and an Individual; as his campaign insisted:

“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator”

I realize you say “with his campaign” and not that the visit was part of his campaign, however the point is valid. If the visit was as a Senator and an individual then there would obviously be no problem.

Saying Obama didn’t visit troops because press was not allowed, then opting to go to the gym is a FALSE personal smear on Obama.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

I’ll agree with you here, because it is poorly worded. Press involvement had little to do with and his campaign had everything to do with it. But you know my reason is that it was because he couldn’t, out of his own choice, separate himself from his campaign strategy, just like Mr Private Individual’s Speech was then used by the campaign on Obama’s website for fundraising.
—-

[Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM]

It does, but I don’t take it the way you do. Obama is the epitome of honesty and humility. He, rightly, ought to have two pictures in the dictionary by now and it’s a shame that dictionary producers in this country are private enterprises.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Obama’s “explanation” is demonstrably lame, and shows a lack of moral courage that should disqualify your Savior from any job beyond rolling burritos at Taco Bell.

If his pet ex-general is not a senatorial aide and the rules — which apply to all — require that a politician be accompanied only by a staff person, what’s not to understand?

The military has said that they had made preparations for The Messiah’s visit, and there is no doubt that Obama’s appearance would have cheered up the wounded regardless of his smarmy political views.

I suggest you either put on some sunglasses to protect your eyes from His radiance or see a doctor for treatment of those leg-tingles. Clearly, they are out of control.

You can be helped, Tom.

Tom_Shipley is doing exactly what people should be doing on hotair: debating like an adult.

barry norris on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Aren’t you the same barry that said :

That’s clearly shown on the video. It’s not debatable.

Debating like an adult.

issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)

Let me give another example: DC Gun Ban, when we had this debate about liberals taking away 2nd amendment rights, I mentioned that I was buying more firearms and ammo, because that right might someday be taken away. One of the liberal trolls sarcastically said “As if you are going to need to defend yourself against the big bad liberal government”. Well, I don’t want THAT history repeating itself.

The thing with Tom Shipley, is he’s gullible to the point he doesn’t see the socialism right before his eyes.

issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)

See? This is what they do. They are socialist, but they THINK YOU ARE STUPID! So if they just call you sophomoric, then you’ll say, “Oh, I’m sorry, you aren’t a socialist, you’re a MARXIST”. Tools.