The Case for an October Surprise Sooner Than Later

Posted by Mike Merritt in Election 2008 on

(Cross-posted from Poligazette)

Earlier, our own Michael van der Galien wrote about the switch in the McCain campaign to attacks on Barack Obama’s character, judgement, and associations.  In particular, he discussed Sarah Palin’s questioning of Obama’s past associations with domestic terrorist William Ayers.

I seriously hope that ‘questions’ are not all the McCain campaign has.  How many staff members do they have on their campaign?  Surely there are people looking for any and all facts with which to destroy Obama?  And if there is something, I would think that releasing it sooner rather than later would be the proper thing to do.

More...

I’m an Independent who wanted McCain to win the Republican nomination because he was the politican from that party I’ve generally liked the most, despite my quibbles with him on many issues.  But if questions are all that his campaign has, every day they bring up these questions without any proof of their accusations makes my consideration for the McCain/Palin ticket lessen.

If there is proof of an inappropriate association, then where is it?  If Obama really got a radical outlook under the wing of William Ayers, proof must be out there.  Questions are not enough.  If questions were all that was required to prove something, law enforcement would have a rather easier time closing murder cases.  If questions were all that was required to prove something, scientists would be able to prove so much in a short amount of time.  But questions should never be a substitute for proof, and until the McCain campaign can provide some proof of inappropriate associations (being on an education-related board is not an inappropriate association), then they are still questions.

But what to do with such proof?  Well, I think it would be best to release it as soon as possible.  Release it too late, and there is no time to analyze it.  Worse, it could backfire, being seen as a desparate attempt to sway the vote just prior to election.  Releasing such proof sooner rather than later lets voter verify that this is indeed the truth.  And politicans should never treat their voters as dumb, because that too often backfires (how many times did Clinton win primaries after the ‘common consensus’ was that she was toast?).

Besides, a relationship with Ayers where Obama is shown as a radical in the same vein as Ayers would spell doom for the Obama campaign.  He simply wouldn’t be able to recover from it.  Not even a month out.

Now, the same things I said above are just as true of the Obama campaign.  If there is anything they have, sooner rather than later is better.

I can’t speak for all Independents, but I don’t sit well with “we have something and it’s coming.”  A few months ago, we waited and waited for the ‘whitey’ video.  It never existed.  Verifiable evidence is fact.  Anything else is fear-mongering.

2 Comments







mega •

Listen up. I am a democrat and know that no one in the military or civilian leadership would be given a clearance with this guy’s background. Ayers and Rezko, Wright and Farrakahn. Need I say more folks. DO you really believe the Feds would allow an average citizen a clearance if they had this guy’s background. HELL NO! He is a radical. And if that doesn’t get you going what about the campaign manager who had a photo of Hugo Chavez in their campaign office last summer…. Start thinking… radical OBama

Michael

Any suggestions that Obama is a radical are based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Questionable judgment in even ever seeing these people? Probably. Does it point to a radical? Not that I’ve seen.

And a source on the Chavez photo?