Replies

Re: “Taking him to task for a comment on his forum, that his staff doesn’t monitor, seems rather suspect to me. In your post you said Obama’s team exercises editorial control. That was somewhat misleading in that they don’t monitor the sight, and you should have known that.”

I know nothing of the sort (i.e. that they don’t monitor the site). I created a blog in which I posted anti-Obama material, using the same standards of decorum we expect at Free Republic. The postings and my account were history within 36 hours, which suggests that they do monitor the site very closely. I therefore stand by my assertion that they do exercise editorial control. The fact that this control seems highly selective is hardly complimentary to the Obama campaign. It suggests nothing of the kind. It suggests that one of the posters over there probably saw your posts that were not compimentary of Obama, and the sight staff. The sight staff being under the employ of Obama, they ditched your blog. Bud, they followed the precise policy that was related at the WND site.

In contrast, Tony Wicher’s material about the “Jewish Lobby” and “Zionist Thought Police” stayed there for more than half a year, and it went under the bus only when it became an issue elsewhere on the Internet. Same for the New Black Panther Party page. Same for a wish that President Bush had been assassinated, and that John McCain, an “old man,” should “visit the undertaker.” I see that later on you dismissed my suggestion that you report stuff like this. Neither you or I want it there. If you had badgered them about it and they hadn't taken it down, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with you, but you didn't. What am I supposed to do with that. You state that they left it up. Yes they did. It's a leftist sight and the leftists didn't report it. That's doesn't surprise me much.

Re: “Are you notifying them of offensive posts? Has their staff refused to take down offensive posts?”

When I last checked, I have not recieved a W2 statement from the Obama campaign. I do not get paid to monitor his site for hate speech that might embarrass his campaign, and to tell him to throw it under the bus before his opponents use it against him. Yes, I understand that. The problem is, the sight's stated policy according to WND, is not to monitor the site. That seems to be the case. So if we don't like them leaving that stuff up, we should say something to them. If we don't say something to them, aren't we in effect allowing that stuff to stay up without trying to get it taken down? Someone could say we don't mind it being there either. You're admitting you saw it. You're now admitting you left it there, without reporting it. No harm no foul, but someone has to report it if we want it taken down.

To answer your question, though, I did report several instances of libelous material (false accusations of crimes) that I did not want to quote elsewhere because I would be repeating the libel, even in a condemnatory context. At least one such item (actual libel) was still online more than a week after I reported it. I won’t repeat the details but it was directed at AIPAC, that “Jewish Lobby” that Obama’s people like to talk about. Libel was even directed at Democrats whom someone or other disliked. Okay great. Look, you have no obligation to help Obama's staff clean up his sight. That's not exacly my point here. My point is that they have a policy and seem to be following it. In at least one of several instances, they seem to have responded to your mention of problematic materials. In the other instance, it sounds like they didn't follow through. If it was also critical of Democrats, I'm not sure why.

Obama has a Wright problem. He has a Fahrekan problem. I've seen other names mentioned as well. He is way overexposed on the issue you have tagged him with here. My point is, get him for those abysmal connections, pointing out what the people have done that he still respects and associates with. Don't get him for what some lamebrain posted on a site that his team doesn't monitor. And don't blame him team for not taking it down, if even you don't want to bother to see that it is taken down.

If you're going to frequent the place, you have somewhat of an obligation to contribute toward keeping it clean. And if they ignore you over and over on things like you clipped and brought here, I do think that is a rather important thing to report. I would very much support your reporting that far and wide.

Re: “ The problem is, the sight’s stated policy according to WND, is not to monitor the site. That seems to be the case.”

That is what they say, just like MoveOn.org said it didn’t see the hate speech on its site until it became a public scandal.

“So if we don’t like them leaving that stuff up, we should say something to them. If we don’t say something to them, aren’t we in effect allowing that stuff to stay up without trying to get it taken down? Someone could say we don’t mind it being there either. You’re admitting you saw it. You’re now admitting you left it there, without reporting it.”

During wartime, the only “report” a convoy commander gets that one of his ships has strayed is that of the torpedo that sinks it. A speeder’s first warning of a speed trap normally consists of the state trooper’s lights flashing behind him. Didn’t England lose the War of Independence because its soldiers insisted on marching around in bright red coats while beating drums to advertise their presence? Why do you think that I have some kind of duty to help the opposing side avoid the consequences of its bad actions instead of using those actions against it?

By this time, MyBO has gotten nailed for this hate speech so many times that it should have cleaned itself up and kept itself clean. The fact that it has not done so speaks for itself.

If McCain makes an error or misstatement, do Obama’s people give him a chance to do the equivalent of taking his move back? Do you remember what the Democrats did to Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond (noting that Thurmond renounced his pro-segregation positions decades ago)? Did Obama’s friend Al Sharpton counsel Don Imus before doing everything possible to wreck his career? Why should I warn Obama about the hate speech on his site instead of using it against him on the spot?

As I said, I did tell them about the libel of AIPAC (and I also told AIPAC). It took them more than a week to remove the comment in question, which suggests that keeping outright libel (at least of AIPAC) off the site was not among their highest priorities.