Why do McCain surrogates keep citing that recent NYT article about Obama and Ayers?

[FVZA_Colonel]

I remember it came out in the last five or six days, and I remember that it basically argued there was no substantive link between Obama and Ayers. So why do the Righties and McCain people keep citing it?

[Arrowhead2k1]

1. Because they're as dumb as a sack of nails and their campaign is pumping out the fail.

[yardwork]

3. I like that - pumping out the fail.

[billyoc]

6. pump--

:spray: :rofl:

[TheCoxwain]

2. The actual thesis of the article is besides the point ..(nt)

[KaryninMiami]

4. Because they probably didn't bother to read it?

If they had, they would shut up about it since it basically says there's nothing to this story.

[BayouBengal07]

5. And another thing to think about...

They trashed the NYT as illegitimate journalism when the articles didn't go their way. Now that there's an article examining (not to mention refuting) the "connection" between Obama and Ayers, it's OK to prop the Times up as a beacon of investigative truth?

[americanstranger]

7. They're depending on people not checking it out.

The low-info voters will hear NYT - Obama 'palling around with terrorists' and since it's coming out of Churchy Spice's mouth they'll accept it as gospel.

- as

[last1standing]

8. For the same reason I was just forwarded an email that says Obama will raise everyone's taxes.

While the links provided showed the exact opposite.

Mcsame and the pathological cheerleader are making a bet that the American people are so stupid they won't bother to actually read, let alone comprehend, the information they're providing. Based on the idiot who forwarded me that email, I have to say they're in with a chance. :(

[FVZA_Colonel]

13. It's really, really sad that they're assuming the American people are lazy and stupid, and relying

on that to try and win. Par for the course for Republicans, but sad nonetheless.

[LynnTheDem]

9. Obama LIVES ON THE SAME STREET!!! He is HARBORING that US university professor!!!

I'm SERIES!!1!

[cui bono]

10. For the same reason they're taking Obama's debate words out of context.

No integrity and no shame. Fucking liars.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. They know that most of their supporters will not bother to read the actual article

The New York Times is THE liberal media according to your basic right wing nutjob. If the Times carries a an article unfriendly to Obama it therefore must be true. I suppose we'd think the same thing if the Washington Times had an article on say, the Keating Five.

The fact that you actually have to read the article in order to realize that despite a rather vigorous investigation the author concluded that there was very little relationship between Ayers and Obama is not a drawback since they simply conclude that most people will not bother to actually read the original.

I wonder though if they are underestimating how the Internet has made it very easy for someone who has questions about the article to read it themselves. Back in the day, unless you subscribed to the paper, you would have had to travel to a library which got the Times and read the hard copy. Today a few clicks and hey presto you have it.

[nsd]

12. Bingo.

Your point about the Internet is well-taken, but I doubt that a significant fraction of people inclined to believe the Ayers attack will go online to check it out.

[Juche]

14. Ever talked to a diehard republican

They live in a bubble made of bullshit and all they need is to hear the word 'Ayers' to conjure up ideas of Obama making bombs in his basement. It doesn't matter if there is no substance, that has never bothered the radical right before. I read the article myself and it said Ayers donated $200 to Obama's campaign, they worked together on an anti-poverty board and Ayers hosted an event once.

[endthewar]

15. It sounds like a better reference than saying Hannity or Limbaugh