Barack Obama’s Campaign Goes After Conservative Talk Radio Again
Once again the Barack Obama campaign is looking to silence a radio talk show host who dares to speak out against Barack Obama and his policies.
WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.”
They are talking about an author who wrote an anti-Obama book, but they don’t stop there. It is their duty to smear the man who dares to speak out against Obama.
David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering,”
This is not the first time that Barack Obama’s campaign has gone after talk radio because they do not agree with the positions that are taken by radio hosts and their guests. When Stanley Kurtz wrote an article that questioned Obama’s ties to a domestic terrorist who Obama still calls a friend, he was invited to speak on a radio talk show. Barack Obama’s campaign also tried to silence this show.
Evidently if you do not agree with Barack Obama than you must be an evil, intolerant, hate mongering, smear merchant. Therefor you should be silenced.
But this is all happening before he is president. What will happen if he is elected president? For starters we can expect a return of the “fairness doctrine” to shut down conservative talk radio, thereby silencing the biggest forum for conservative conversation. He will silence those that disagree with him. But will it stop there?
Maybe after Barack Obama reinstates the “fairness doctrine” to silence conservatives he will go one step farther. Could we see a return of the Aliens and Sedition Acts? Don’t laugh, it would be the next logical step to someone who so desperately needs the comfort of knowing that nobody can question his policies.
America's Watchtower 
Ah, poor babies. Is the mean black man scaring you?
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with color and everything to do with policies. For you to assume otherwise just shows the rest of us your own shallowness.
LikeLike
Well, I think that the conservative talk radio has a lot to answer for. You aren’t held to the same standards as the MSM [which has a low enough standard as it is] – which means you can get away with spreading a lot of disinformation.
Just the other day I was reading something about how the first time Clinton ran, a lot of folks on the talk radio were questioning the links he had with the Russian Communist Party – all because of a trip he had taken to Russia when he was younger.
You’ve been questioning these ‘links’ for the entire election, and yet you’re no closer to any particular conclusion – just a big grey area you’re perpetuating – a smear. Don’t you think that if there were any substantial links between a major political figure and terrorist organizations acting against the American interest that an entire host of intelligence agencies would be investigating this? Especially today – in the context of the War on Terror.
If you’re comparing the policies then fine, good on you — that’s what an election is all about. But a lot of what I’ve seen in the comparison of policies [and this includes the MSM] has included a great deal of distortion. How many people know that Obama’s tax cuts will cut taxes to more Americans than McCain’s?
LikeLike
Funny how McCain’s people aren’t going after the media or talk radio but Obama’s people are…
It’s free speech, people!!
LikeLike
The mean black man is going DOWN with his ship. And so are all his black sheep. Imagine — a black man and all his black sheep sinking in his black ship. Wouldn’t that be an awesome sight now?! Al Mubarak Hussein Bin Obama — I repeat, Al Mubarak Hussein Bin Obama — he’s sooo GOING DOWN!!!! Not everyone in the world likes him…and I’m not even American.
LikeLike
It sounds like BHO does not like hearing the truth. De-nile, it ain’t just a river in Egypt. Another month of partisan politics, ain’t life grand? This does seriously make Obama sound like he just want everything his way.
LikeLike
Ant G, Ayers is a friend of Obama’s. I am not suggesting that means Obama has ties ti terrorist organizations. But Ayers himself is a terrorist. I just question Obama’s judgement.
As for Clinton, perhaps they should have looked more closely at his ties to communism. After all as president he did give our nuclear secrets to the communists.
LikeLike
I sometimes wonder about the definition of terrorist. Terrorism is a criminal act designed to affect the course of political events. While some acts such as the killing of civilians are so repulsive they may warrant the death penalty, other [more minor] terrorist acts should be treated no differently from a similar criminal act. What was the Boston Tea party, if not a terrorist act? Ie. The unlawful theft and destruction of property as a political act. I think we should refrain from using ‘Terrorist’ as a blanket term.
My understanding of Ayers is that he led a radical leftist resistance against the Vietnam war in the sixties and seventies. He detonated several bombs, including one in a police station. But he never killed, or even injured anyone. The only people who died were members of his own group when they blew themselves up.
He turned himself into the police in the 1980’s and was subject to the courts of the US [about which I know very little].
Since then he’s been working closely with the Mayor of Chicago on Education Reform. And it is in this context that Obama knows Ayers [30 years after the fact]. Does that means that the Mayor of Chicago has ties to terrorist organisations? Does that mean that Chicago is a state that sponsors terrorism?
I think it is difficult to be so definitive, and I think that both conservative media, and MSM could offer a lot more context around this issue, and also help people realize that issues such as this are not simply black and white.
Guilt by association is a very dirty political tactic. A lot of people on the left have been trying to get Obama’s campaign to make more of the fact that Palin’s husband is/was a member of an Alaskan seperatist group, and the extremist comments made by pastors that are linked to both Palin and McCain. And yet, I think that on the whole he’s resisted a lot of this and run a pretty clean campaign.
LikeLike
PS. What communists did Clinton give nuclear secrets to? I’ve never heard of this.
LikeLike
Here are a couple of links on Clinton:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE4DB1431F93BA15753C1A961958260
As for Ayers, he said that his only regret was that he did not do more damage. Does the fact that he didn’t accomplish his goal of killing people make it any less of a crime?
As for Obama and the mayor of Chicago, I am not calling wither a terrorist or sponsor of terror. I am just questioning the judgement of anyone who would choose to associate with someone of this man’s character.
LikeLike
That Ayers quote was something of a misquote I believe — I think when he said “I only wish we’d done more,” he was in fact referring to the American people as a whole – as in “I wish we’d done more to end the vietnam war.” (But I don’t expect you to be swayed by this – I can’t produce a source, and this was only something I read in passing.)
Was his goal ever to kill anyone? I think the stated goal of his organization was to protest the Vietnam war, and try and get the nation to withdraw.
I suppose what I just don’t understand is this notion that you can only associate with people who have always done/said politically acceptable things.
Yes, Ayers committed stupid criminal acts for something he believed in — 30 years ago (presumably when he was young and idealistic) for which he has since paid the price. Now, he is working to reform education — presumably something he also believes in. You object to Obama or the Mayor of Chicago (with countless other people) associating with Ayers because of his character.
But just what IS his character?
PS. The Clinton debacle seems like something that would’ve been driven by the nuclear industry. They wanted to make money by selling their technology. Admittedly, it was probably a dumb move – but to say that Clinton “gave” US military secrets to the communists is a bit of a misrepresentation don’t you think?
LikeLike