Patterico's Pontifications

6/20/2008

Wow — David Brooks Absolutely Smokes Obama Today In His NYT Column Over The Campaign Finance Decision

Filed under: 2008 Election,Buffoons,Media Bias,Politics — WLS @ 12:55 pm



Posted by WLS:

This has probably been read by most here already.  But it pretty much lays on the table what critics of Obama’s politics of fakery have been saying about him for a while now.  Most of this was obvious to those who cared to look a year ago.  

The only thing new the campaign has revealed thus far in my view is that Obama is not nearly as smart as was thought to be the case, and his world view has been stunted by his failure to look far beyond the borders of South Side Chicago politics for the last 15 years. 

Harvard Law Review Editor??  Big deal — he never published an article. 

Constitutional Law Professor?? False — adjunct faculty lecturer who never published a single piece of scholarship on the subject and whose public pronouncements on the topic are laughable to those of us who have spent time studying the issues. 

The closing sentences are the best: 

He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

There you have it.  The Dems have settled on a nominee with less character and dedication to principle than the King of Triangulation Bill Clinton. 

What a party.   

157 Responses to “Wow — David Brooks Absolutely Smokes Obama Today In His NYT Column Over The Campaign Finance Decision”

  1. Should be “adjunct” not “adjust” I believe. Delete if you like.

    Al (b624ac)

  2. Well, it may have come too late! For those whose rose colored glasses refuse to allow truth to be seen, heard or read it’s a done deal.

    Sue (f9a0a4)

  3. Actually, I haven’t read it, if only because 99% of the time the NYT makes me want to break things…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  4. Racists. This sure as hell ain’t helping keep fruit in Baracky’s house.

    JD (75f5c3)

  5. IIRC Obama was a senior lecturer which isn’t too bad considering he’s no academic.

    The real question is what did he teach if he taught Into to law school 101: don’t get caught, then his claims are a joke.

    If he taught Advanced Constitutional Law 5000: Why we need the constitution, that’s something you can respect.

    DrT (340565)

  6. Brooks himself plays the sap here, a little. He grudgingly cites the possible strengths of a “fast Eddie Obama” in negotiating with the likes of Putin. Wrong. Obama is the worst of both worlds, and his “fast Eddie” would never be tough-minded on behalf of America. Something else interesting and perhaps even more telling happened yesterday: Obama groveled before CAIR over some non-offense offense involving some radical Muslims at a campaign event. If he was really tough and shrewd he would have seen the political smarts and opportunity (Sister Souljah moment, anybody?) in throwing them under the bus. But he couldn’t see it, because, yes, he really is a goo-goo. What a walking catastrophe.

    rrpjr (fb0748)

  7. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage.

    Yes, because being able to vastly outspend your opponent in pivotal districts is a “tiny” advantage in the general election. It’s not tiny, which is why conservatives are trying to turn his declining of public funds into a scandal.

    SEK (bd295a)

  8. If you’re saying the novelty of his race confers momentousness on what is really routine rhetoric, I’d agree.

    The “less character and dedication to principle” bit is overkill. Obama opting out of public financing is disappointing and not “change we can believe in.” It shows undecideds he represents “just more of the same’ – a toxic tagline.

    steve (6830b3)

  9. which is why conservatives are trying to turn his declining of public funds into a scandal.

    I rather think that the conservatives couldn’t care less about his refusal of public funds (First Amendment and all), but that Obama is so easily swayed from a position that he strongly asserts has been a “long-held” position. One that he publicly asserted for this very election cycle as recently as two months ago.

    Now, was that a lie on Obama’s part or a flip-flop to score political points when he thinks it is more advantageous to do so? (I mean, who wants to have rules in a thing like this*, am I right?)

    Just so you can gnash your teeth, here is the exact quote from the questionnaire filled out by Obama:

    If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

    OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

    Amazingly enough, he says he is “… the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.”

    That would be the law most commonly described as “McCain-Feingold”, right? McCain-Feingold, as in John McCain?

    * – by which I mean the election of the most powerful political figure on the planet

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  10. I rather think that the conservatives couldn’t care less about his refusal of public funds (First Amendment and all), but that Obama is so easily swayed from a position that he strongly asserts has been a “long-held” position. One that he publicly asserted for this very election cycle as recently as two months ago.

    I don’t think that’s the issue — I mean, it is what they’re saying, but the real issue behind this is that Obama’s vastly improving his chances of winning through a perfectly legal strategy.

    Because that’s what this decision is — strategic. McCain’s crying foul because he knows the disaffected Republican base won’t support him the way the Democratic base will Obama. (And when they do, they’ll turn out to have cracked wise about rape in the ’90s and he’ll have to distance himself from them.)

    Of course, if you really want to pick nits, I could argue that Obama isn’t even turning his back on his long-held beliefs. Read the GOTCHA! sentence again:

    I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.

    If the majority of donations come from ordinary people instead of moneyed special interests, he’s not being hypocritical. Compare who has been donating to Obama and McCain:

    Obama

    $200-$499: 42316 or 34 percent
    $500-$999: 28533 or 23 percent
    $1,000-$2,000: 27483 or 22 percent
    $2300+: 25093 or 20 percent
    $4600+: 2349 or .02 percent

    McCain

    $200-$499: 10925 or 21 percent
    $500-$999: 10094 or 19 percent
    $1,000-$2,000: 14103 or 27 percent
    $2300+: 15486 or 30 percent
    $4600+: 1251 or .02 percent

    Donors at the top of the scale are almost identical, but Obama has a far higher percentage of total donations coming from people at the bottom of the scale, whereas McCain’s trends in the opposite direction. You can argue that Obama’s not being a hypocrite, that his desire to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests is still evident … but that he’s turning down the public funds because his campaign isn’t being financed by moneyed special interests, but by normal people.

    Not that I’m selling this — politics requires compromises, especially when it comes to money — but given the likely difference between a McCain and an Obama presidency, I’m willing to buy it.

    SEK (bd295a)

  11. I still dont understand why everyone is so worked up about this. Except of course some one is scared of an Obama funding advantage. If he chooses to not take the money because he can do better without it, how is that an issue? Just think how all the republicans would react if the roles were changed between him and McCain. Just like SEK said in comment #7
    Yes, because being able to vastly outspend your opponent in pivotal districts is a “tiny” advantage in the general election. It’s not tiny, which is why conservatives are trying to turn his declining of public funds into a scandal
    All this reaction is just politics.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  12. I’m not sure I buy that Obama’s campaign is being funded by “ordinary people” rather than the “monied special interests” funding one McCain. One factor that makes it appear that was is that Obama’s fundraising is largely online, which lends itself to smaller but more frequent donations, whereas McCain is stuck with old-fashioned fundraising, where a donor often writes just one or two checks. Obama is not being funded by Joe Truck Driver, he’s being funded by every yuppie wall-streeter, lawyer, and dot-commer in the country. Nothing against them, but they aren’t the little guy they are made out to be either.

    Buzz (aaa903)

  13. I still dont understand why everyone is so worked up about this.

    maybe honesty & integrity isn’t important to you, but it is to many voters……

    redc1c4 (5c9f54)

  14. 313
    maybe honesty & integrity isn’t important to you, but it is to many voters……
    Talking about “honesty” and “integrity”, is this what this is really about? Like if Obama had not taken this stand it would have changed your mind about him. While we need to pursue honesty and integrity, lets not become hypocrites.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  15. SEK, I’m more than a bit surprised that you think that line of propaganda is actually convincing. Brooks already demolished that in the linked piece and you still run with it? As for Obama not being funded by “special interests”, the falsity of that has already been demonstrated. Obama’s own lobbyist corps has been revealed for all but the Obama cultists to see.

    That’s whats hilarious about the Obama shills, they can’t recognize when a talking point memo is obsolete.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  16. I don’t think that’s the issue — I mean, it is what they’re saying, but the real issue behind this is that Obama’s vastly improving his chances of winning through a perfectly legal strategy.

    Contradicting yourself within the first sentence… or denying honest arguments from the opposing side, simply because it would wreck your entire worldview to admit that they might have a point. To wit, Obama is not so much an agent for Hopey Changitude as he is a scheming old-school politico who got caught in a bare-faced lie/flip-flop from his “long-held position”, which he discarded the instant it became politically convenient to do so.

    This is clearly not the political position he once knew and respected. (Getting pretty crowded under that bus, what with Rev. Wright, his white grandmother, and his long-held principles…)

    You should have stopped after the third word.

    Read the GOTCHA! sentence again:

    Okay, let’s see…

    If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

    OBAMA: Yes.

    Gotcha!

    Spin it however you like, that is pretty emphatic.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  17. Interesting that this guy B Hussein O has the MSM so in his tank that they swoon at his every word. He is the consummate liar, aided by the media he can do no wrong. The MSM visualizes him as the Marxist Messiah and as such, he can do or say no wrong. The life he has led as a Marxist activist draws on the USCP and their auxiliaries in the MSM for continuing support. Check out the Communist Party website and you will find that the USCP and the campaign web site of B Hussein O are in lock step.
    While the USSR may have been destroyed by the strategies of Ronald Reagan, the American Communists were never destroyed. American Communists just pulled in their heads and slinked back into the faculties of our Universities and into the American MSM.
    We all witnessed the shock of the Clinton clan, once heralded as the most brilliant politicians in the world during each of the annual Renaissance Weeks at Hilton while Willie was President, when they were turned on and destroyed by the MSM during the Democrat primaries.
    We now enter an era that reminds me of my undergraduate days when the Communists in academe were just emerging from the onslaugh of the McCarthy hearings. These Communists in academia not only survived McCarthy, they went on to destroy the reputation of Joseph McCarthy and then survived the destruction of the Soviet Union, never surrendering their control of American Universities.
    B Hussein O is the champion of the left and the USCP, like his associate the traitor John F. Kerry. I dare say that like John F. Kerry, a substantial part of B Hussein O support comes from what was once the American Communist Party, but now has emerged again as the United States Communist Party that supports, not endorses B Hussein O.

    Stargazer From Savavannah, Georgia (a583a7)

  18. As I said yesterday — it has long been the pronounced view of the Dem party that public financing of elections is in the public’s best interest.

    Obama embraced the thought of public financing last year when it looked like a very probable matchup might be him (if he beat Hillary) against Mitt Romney. Romney had the ability to tap substantial fundraising sources, as well as putting in tens of millions of dollars of his own money.

    Obama also made this pledge prior to realizing the windfall that the internet-based fundraising scheme being constructed by his campaign would produce. He didn’t begin to realize the level of contributions that have been so remarkable until the 4th quarter of 2007.

    So, when he thought public financing would be a benefit to him by leveling the playing field against someone like Romney, he’s all for it.

    When it turns out that his opponent is a notoriously poor fund raiser like McCain, and his fundraising has surpassed all expectations, now the principle of what’s in the public good is meaningless to him because it works to his personal disadvantage.

    That’s situational ethics anyway you look at it.

    In other words, it’s no ethics at all.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  19. Whiners.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  20. That was deep, love2008. Real deep.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. SEK, I’m more than a bit surprised that you think that line of propaganda is actually convincing.

    I don’t, and I said as much. But it falls within an acceptable level of compromise, in that if it’s the medicine I have to swallow to ensure an Obama administration instead of a McCain one, I’ll take it. Am I disappointed? Certainly. Am as I disappointed as I would be if McCain wins in November?

    You know those pictures demonstrating the relative size of the planets? Earth represents my concern over this purely strategic move by Obama, whereas the disappointment I’d feel if McCain wins would be the Sun Arcturus.

    Brooks already demolished that in the linked piece and you still run with it?

    Actually, I’m not countering Brooks’ line of argument here. He claims Obama’s a very savvy strategist, and I’m agreeing — it’s clear Obama’s campaign weighed the risk of handing conservatives this talking point against the financial advantage his rejection of public financing would net him.

    Contradicting yourself within the first sentence.

    No, I didn’t. I claimed their motivation for declaring shenanigans is less about the integrity of a candidate they were never going to vote for and more about the competitive advantage his decision affords him.

    or denying honest arguments from the opposing side, simply because it would wreck your entire worldview to admit that they might have a point.

    And since I already admitted the criticism is valid, my worldview must’ve crumbled around me. Behold the shards of my shattered opposition to the war commingling with my belief in the sanctity of habeas corpus! What am I to think? Will someone Mirandize Fallujah already? Is that abortion DRM-free? Will the Mets be the next Supreme Court Justice?

    To wit, Obama is not so much an agent for Hopey Changitude as he is a scheming old-school politico who got caught in a bare-faced lie/flip-flop from his “long-held position”, which he discarded the instant it became politically convenient to do so.

    You’re right. Before, I didn’t think Obama was a politician. Now that I know he is, I’m throwing my weight behind McCain.

    No, wait, why would I do that?

    You should have stopped after the third word.

    ¿Qué?

    These Communists in academia not only survived McCarthy, they went on to destroy the reputation of Joseph McCarthy …

    Absolutely. Alcoholism and censure didn’t contribute to it one wit.

    SEK (bd295a)

  22. :) Get over it.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  23. Love2008. We will see who is whining Nov 5. Your empty suit will still be just a junior Senator from Illinois who lied to his constituents about his intentions to complete his term as Senator. I wonder is there is any marxist you would not vote for.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128)

  24. love2008, I can only imagine how you would react of Bush or Mccain told a bald-faced lie like Obama loves to do.

    Obama is worse than Nixon when it comes to telling the truth. He’s worse than anyone in the past century when it comes to inexperience.

    dismissing these real complaints that even the NYT agrees are severely important as “whining” proves that you have lost your integrity too. You have truly found your representative in Obama.

    The GOP brand is smashed, and it’s the GOP’s fault, and Obama is taking full advantage of it, as he should. He will probably win, but it’s not good to permit the powerful to get away with so much dishonesty. He’s not going to be an honorable president.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  25. Shit. I just fed the troll, like everyone else. He’s obviously making tons and tons of posts on this issue because he’s not sensitive at all to the issue, right? Obamatons are worse than Paulbots.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  26. I don’t think love2008 and SEK are trolls.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  27. A president should be able to do whatever he needs to do to win. He needs to be tough, calculating and ready to make the most difficult decisions even when it will attract alot of critism. As much as I would have liked him not to have put himself in this situation, I think he has done the right thing if winning this election is his goal. Whether I personally agree with it is not important. Whats important is what needs to be done. This is the same Obama that some of you accuse of being so soft and unable to take tough decisions. Well, there you have it gentlemen. i am sure if he had done the opposite, some of you would have still been able to glean out another reason to whine about.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  28. DRJ, “whiners” is trolling.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. I don’t [think Obama’s argument that I have parroted is at all convincing], and I said as much. But it falls within an acceptable level of compromise, in that if it’s the medicine I have to swallow to ensure an Obama administration instead of a McCain one, I’ll take it.

    I think he has done the right thing if winning this election is his goal. Whether I personally agree with it is not important. Whats important is what needs to be done.

    Translation: Anything goes, so long as it ends up with the Dems in power.

    Any lie, any flip-flop, any sudden change of heart, cheat, steal, get some dead people registered to vote, intimidate the opposition, whatever it takes, so long as the President isn’t a Republican.

    That about cover it? Have you got the intellectual honesty to acknowledge your admission that the ends justify the means when it comes to regaining the White House?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  30. #24
    He will probably win, but it’s not good to permit the powerful to get away with so much dishonesty. He’s not going to be an honorable president.
    Yeah you mean like this present administration and Iraq’s weapons of mass distraction? I agree with you there, the powerful should never get away with dishonesty.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  31. Hussein O hold the record for voting ‘here’ to avoid making a decision. He just set a new record, he is now the biggest liar to ever run for the office of POTUS and he’s doing it with less knowledge of the country than most 3rd grade students with a ‘D’ average. I can’t blame him for not taking the public funds, that would open his books and people will find out how many millions he is sucking in from his Isalmic friends and terrorists. His own bundlers and lobby groups have sucked in millions. Another one of his lies is he doesn’t associate with Lobbyist.

    I wonder how he will handle the fact the his belove congress critters have made it impossible to fire any of the Bush employee’s. They tried to put Bush in jail for firing a few worthless lawyers, will he stand up to what the democrats think, once a government employee always a government employee. I’m going to scream loud and clear to every outlet available if the next president, no matter who, fires anyone.

    Scrapiron (c36902)

  32. #11 – love2008

    “I still dont [sic] understand why everyone is so worked up about this.”

    — Anyone who values personal integrity does understand.

    “Except of course some one [sic] is scared of an Obama funding advantage.”

    — Many are scared of having a leader who lies without giving it a second thought.

    “If he chooses to not take the money because he can do better without it, how is that an issue?”

    — Because it’s a clear delineation of his lack of character.

    “Just think how all the republicans would react if the roles were changed between him and McCain.”

    — Forget the hypothetical; just try to deal, honestly, with the actual.

    Missed It By THAT Much (d55d4c)

  33. “A president should be able to do whatever he needs to do to win.”
    You shouldn’t comment here love, you should be the next contortionist at Cirque du Soleil.

    I prefer not to have a bald-faced liar or one who will throw ANYONE under the bus. Because when push comes to shove all of us are expendable to him.

    What is so special about a first term Senator who hasn’t done ANYTHING in office that makes him qualified to be President? He’s glib and charismatic. That’s it. The end. There is nothing else. He has a far left agenda that will cripple the economy and his foreign policy team will throw us under the bus. He really is Carter redux.

    Bill M (269b24)

  34. love2008, time to wake up and smell the gun powder smoke. The WMD in Iraq did not start with the Bush administration and president Bush did not sign the congressional bill to ‘get Saddam out of Iraq. Your beloved criminal Slick Willie did all of these things and Bush even kept the Clinton FBI/CIA directors (who passed the faulty intel on) on the payroll which was a big mistake. How about doing a little research on recent history, like maybe back to 1995 and quit making an idiot of yourself. You are capable of doing that aren’t you? My seven years old great granddaughter is. You aren’t one of those that injure themselves daily to join the pity, po ole me, party are you?

    Scrapiron (c36902)

  35. Cater is backing Hussein because he knows he will lose the position of ‘worst president’ in history. That’s a little smart.

    Drill here, Drill now. Each barrel of oil produced is $135.00 that stays home to employ an American.

    Scrapiron (c36902)

  36. IMHO the ruling Dem’s don’t seem to really have too much respect for Honesty and Integrity. As I recall, one of their big complaints about GWB after he went into Iraq was along the lines of, ‘Yeah we know we tought something should be done, but we didn’t really believe he’d go ahead and do it. ……. Integrity, in my book that’s doing what you say you’re going to do. If you say you won’t do something, then don’t unless you can give a compelling reason to do so.

    Buckshot (bc2ff2)

  37. I would like to see a random thousand or so of Barack Thank-You-For-A-Wonderful-Home-Tony Obama’s contributions audited. I refuse to believe that Bill Daley cannot outdo Norman Hsu when it comes to straw donors.

    nk (d86adb)

  38. #29
    I am sure you are matured and discerning enough to understand my point. No need getting all silly.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  39. #27 – love2008

    “A president should be able to do whatever he needs to do to win.”
    — Translation: anything goes; there is no right and wrong.

    “He needs to be tough, calculating and ready to make the most difficult decisions even when it will attract alot [sic] of critism [sic].”
    — Translation: being amoral is a job requirement.

    “As much as I would have liked him not to have put himself in this situation, I think he has done the right thing if winning this election is his goal.”
    — Again, anything goes; the same philosophy that landed Jack Abramoff in federal prison.

    “Whether I personally agree with it is not important.”
    — Ironically, most of the people here probably agree with you on that.

    “Whats [sic] important is what needs to be done. This is the same Obama that some of you accuse of being so soft and unable to take tough decisions. Well, there you have it gentlemen.”
    — Yeah. He made a ‘tough decision’, and he got it wrong. But do you really think it was a toughie? You give the impression that you think it was a no-brainer.

    “i am sure if he had done the opposite, some of you would have still been able to glean out another reason to whine about.”
    — Again, throwing out a hypothetical instead of dealing only with what DID happen.

    Missed It By THAT Much (d55d4c)

  40. So what do they play on CNN today? Barak talkin’ bout how the RNC boogy man is going to race monger/swift boat.

    “they’re going to try to say that I have no experience, that I have a funny name, have I mentioned he’s black?” (paraphrasing)

    Who said that Obama? Who are you talking about?
    What is your answer when they say that you don’t stand for anything?

    Stephen (ea2146)

  41. Anything goes, so long as it ends up with the Dems in power.

    Let me correct that for you, so it’s line with what I wrote above:

    Anything legal goes, so long as it ends up with the Dems in power.

    It’s right up there, first sentence. And I stand by it: I want Obama to do everything within the limits of the law to be elected.

    Have you got the intellectual honesty to acknowledge your admission that the ends justify the means when it comes to regaining the White House?

    Do you want to know whether I’m going to be offended when Obama makes the inevitable move to the center in the general election and contradicts some of what he’s said in the primaries? Probably not. Like anyone who’s ever paid attention to any election ever, I know that politicians appeal to their base in the primaries and the entire country during the general election. I know what this entails. Do I believe Obama won’t temper some of what he said? Of course.

    Do I think he’s going to give up a shot at the White House in order to placate people like you who would never, under any circumstances, vote for him? I certainly hope not, as that would be stupid.

    What I hear in your complaint is the blinkered hypocrisy of the faux-idealist — you’ll admit to yourself that your candidate has, after reasonable deliberation, done what he must to increase his odds of winning; but when the opposition candidate does the same, you shudder at his lack of integrity, call him a flip-flopper, &c.

    Or do you want me to list all the ways in which McCain has already changed his positions to appeal to the Republican base?

    SEK (bd295a)

  42. SEK,

    But haven’t most conservatives criticized McCain for waffling or pandering on important GOP issues? Based on this thread and the general internet response, it seems the liberal response to Obama’s contradictory position has been excuses and applause.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  43. “Actually, I’m not countering Brooks’ line of argument here. He claims Obama’s a very savvy strategist, and I’m agreeing — it’s clear Obama’s campaign weighed the risk of handing conservatives this talking point against the financial advantage his rejection of public financing would net him.”

    SEK – Basically Brooks is admitting that Obama is a fraud and congratulating him for it because it is a good survival skill for a politician, nttawwt.

    I’m glad you’re happy. Seriously.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  44. Just for giggles:

    “A president should be able to do whatever he needs to do to win. He needs to be tough, calculating and ready to make the most difficult decisions even when it will attract alot of critism. As much as I would have liked him not to have put himself in this situation, I think he has done the right thing if winning this election is his goal.
    Whether I personally agree with it is not important. Whats important is what needs to be done.”

    I didn’t know you were so fond of the decision in Bush v. Gore

    fat tony (a62b50)

  45. Some of us here (not all) are whiners. Hypocrites. Always spinning words to make vapid and baseless conclusions. And when someone has a different view point, they blow up with vitriols and abusive stereotypes. Typical. Very predictable.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  46. love2008, consider how well your comment describes itself.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. Based on this thread and the general internet response, it seems the liberal response to Obama’s contradictory position has been excuses and applause.

    I’m not here to defend whatever liberal blogs you happen to read. I don’t speak for them, but I’ll allow my illustrious co-bloggers to speak for me. This is what political pragmatism is all about — defending an imperfect candidate because the alternative makes you wet your pants. Doesn’t mean he’s The Second Coming.

    For most people on the left and right, outbursts of political realism shatter the juvenile idealism they shouldn’t have had in the first place.

    Granted.

    But intelligent people understand — or should understand — that getting elected is like writing yourself a letter about who you want to be, trying your damnedest to live up to it no matter what happens, and being disappointed when you recognize the inevitable sacrifices you had to make in order to approximate your ideal self. You’ll notice, for example, I’m not countering the “Obama is a hypocrite” charge with a list of all McCain’s hypocritical statements. He is, but I expect him to be, so I’m not concerned when he plays politics.

    In short, I don’t like the cheap theater of contemporary politics.

    Basically Brooks is admitting that Obama is a fraud and congratulating him for it because it is a good survival skill for a politician. I’m glad you’re happy. Seriously.

    No, you’d be happy if I denounced Obama for being a politician and pledged allegiance to an unpolitical animal like John McCain, who has changed his position on nothing in order to remain a viable presidential candidate.

    American politicians live in well-insured glass houses. We can either admit that or pretend it’s only the other guy out there sweeping the shards from his yard every morning.

    SEK (bd295a)

  48. Okay SPQR. You win. If I have acted in anyway offensive, I apologise. I am not perfect. But I trust in God’s mercy to make me a better person each new day.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  49. “No, you’d be happy if I denounced Obama for being a politician and pledged allegiance to an unpolitical animal like John McCain, who has changed his position on nothing in order to remain a viable presidential candidate.”

    SEK – No, I meant what I said, but if you want to go all mind reader on me, I’d be happier if you’d acknowledge that Obama is an empty suit who has neither the experience or skills to be president at the current time and is a potential danger to the the U.S. in foreign affairs, that nobody knows what he really thinks and that you have irrational fears of people such as John McCain.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  50. love2008, I’m happy to let your comments speak for themselves as to your motivations. DRJ and I disagree, but I’m still right that you were trolling.

    You can classify my calling you out on that as ‘blowing up’ if you like. I”m just going to let your comments speak for themselves. I’m sure you’ll find a new username in short order, though, right?

    Mccain has indeed waffled occasionally, but nothing like this. Nothing even close to this. This is like Al Gore saying Global Warming is a lie. This is Obama abandoning the primary cause of his career. It displays an enormous problem with intellectual honesty.

    Many Mccain supporters say he’s got faults, but they are willing to live with them because of Mccain’s energy or war policy. But so many Obamatons refuse to acknowledge that Obama’s dishonesty and various other gaffes are in fact serious problems. They dismiss everything as an unfair attack, whining, or whatever else. That says a lot.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  51. So SEK, are you saying it’s all about the socialist agenda of the progressives and you don’t care if OB isn’t what he said he was as long as he turns us into France?

    Bill M (269b24)

  52. as long as he turns us into France?

    That’s a faint hope. He’ll turn us into a province of Kenya.

    nk (d86adb)

  53. SEK #47,

    That’s a lot of words to make the point that we live in the real world so we can’t expert perfection, but that wasn’t my point, was it? I’m sure you know my point is that Republicans haven’t given McCain the free ride on his contradictions that Democrats have given Obama.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  54. As for your co-bloggers, have you changed blogs or can you not find any posts critical of Obama at your own blog?

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  55. #52
    That’s a faint hope. He’ll turn us into a province of Kenya.
    There, right there is the root of all fears. This is the source of all this distrust and utter hatred of Obama’s candidacy. Empty suit, inexperienced, Hussein, etc are all guises to hide the real problem: Xenophobia. Obama does not qualify to be president of america because he is an african american, of Kenyan descent. He cannot be president because he will turn America into another third world nation like Kenya. Atleast someone is honest enough for the first time. Sometimes I wonder why he bothers. America is not ready for a black president, much less a Kenyan turned African American.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  56. love2008,

    I think the point is that Obama is a socialist, not that NK is a racist.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  57. And, of course, NK’s not.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  58. Jem #50,

    I misunderstood your comment. I thought you said love2008 and SEK are trolls, not that they are trolling. I don’t think either one is a troll but I’m sure everyone acts a little trollish at times. I’ve been cranky tonight and I wouldn’t blame anyone (like SEK) for noticing it.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  59. #57
    I agree with you DRJ. I believe he is not. I never said he was anyway. I just felt he shouldnt have mentioned that country in such a derogatory manner. Seeing how very sensitive it is. Obama is now an American. Relating him in that term is not just called for. America is a land of immigrants. Mentioning Kenya was not very smart. Nor necessary.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  60. He cannot be president because he will turn America into another third world nation like Kenya.

    That’s pretty close, actually. I do seriously question his American identity and his loyalty to America, given his associations with Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright and his marriage to Michelle America-Denies-Fresh-Fruit-To-My-Babies Obama.

    His association with the racket which is the Chicago Regular Democratic Party does not inspire trust either.

    Look, this guy may have been born in the USA but he spent his formative years outside of it. I don’t know how much of a bond he has with America and I don’t want to guess. He will be the Commander-in-Chief, responsible for defending her borders against invasion. I have no confidence that he will “push the button” should it be called upon him to do so.

    And, yeah, I know the argument “Vote for Obama or go get fitted for a white sheet you racist”.

    nk (d86adb)

  61. #27 lovetronbot-
    yes, urkel be a leader of great character and makes the tough choices. Why, he could have had a sister souljah moment the other day with a couple of moooslim women who demanded an apology because they couldn’t retain prominent seating at a speech he was giving. Naturally Urkel kissed theirs and CAIR’s derrierres. You should relate to that, seeing as you delight in being a Obambi sycophant or do you prefer the term marxist brown noser?

    madmax333 (98f7dd)

  62. #60
    That’s pretty close, actually. I do seriously question his American identity and his loyalty to America, given his associations with Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright and his marriage to Michelle America-Denies-Fresh-Fruit-To-My-Babies Obama.
    There you have it DRJ. Need we say more?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  63. #59,

    We crossposted. No, America is not a land of immigrants. America is a land of Americans, regardless of their antecedents.

    nk (d86adb)

  64. #61
    Hi Maddy. I missed you too.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  65. #60 funny you should mention that. Hotair has an accent on a story about Urkel saying Republicans will play racism in the election. Of course all blacks marching in lockstep to vote for the great black hope! half-breed can never be deemed racist. So if Pennsylvania and West Virginny thump B Hussein O it must be all that ridgerunner in-breeding and racism? It will be so funny if Urkel wins very big in blue states and McCain carries enough states’ electorally. All you obamatards will be screaming “unfair and we wuz robbed!” again. Boo friggin’ hoo. Funny how Grand Kleagle KKK Bobby Byrd is down with the Obamamessiah too.

    madmax333 (98f7dd)

  66. Don’t pull me into this argument. I’m already cranky as it is.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  67. No, America is not a land of immigrants. America is a land of Americans, regardless of their antecedents
    Glad to hear that NK. You have never disappointed me once. Thank you.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  68. “Look, this guy may have been born in the USA but he spent his formative years outside of it.”

    nk – Good point. Those years are the source of his foreign policy expertise, why he understands the world, plus the Winnie the Pooh thing. Childhood experience translates into childlike candidate.

    Thanks for the reminder.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  69. Don’t misunderstand me, I think it’s nice of SEK to drop by an say that intelligent people understand what is going on here, implying people on this blog do not, and that to criticize Obama for changing positions is to reflect the blinkered hypocrisy of the faux-idealist. It’s sweet, because if you read too quickly you can miss the condescension oozing from his words. Only juveniles who have not seen moves to the center in every election held would not understand changes in Obama’s policy positions. Suuweeet cloying superiority.

    Certainly nobody would think Obama woke up to the realization that the positions he once espoused were held by fringe leftists and considered untenable by the electorate in general. No, these are moves to the center. Gaffes are also not gaffes or mistakes in this universe.

    Unicorns on Aisle 1

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  70. I’d be happier if you’d acknowledge that Obama is an empty suit who has neither the experience or skills to be president at the current time and is a potential danger to the the U.S. in foreign affairs, that nobody knows what he really thinks and that you have irrational fears of people such as John McCain.

    Yes, I have an irrational fear of the sort of person I voted for in the Republican primary in 2000. Completely irrational.

    But thanks for playing.

    Wait! The game’s not over! Please list for me, in detail, the “experience and skills” required to be President. Then do an historical analysis of Presidential performance based on the possession of said skills. Begin, please, with the current President and work your way back.

    Also, inform me as to how improving the standing of the United States in the international community will be more dangerous than isolating ourselves from it.

    While you’re at it, I’d love your opinion on Obama’s books and websites in which he outlines, specifically, the positions he has taken of which you are ignorant.

    Then we can continue this conversation with talk of suits and the like.

    So SEK, are you saying it’s all about the socialist agenda of the progressives and you don’t care if OB isn’t what he said he was as long as he turns us into France?

    Yes, that’s right, because I am an elitist whose knowledge of politics is so transcendentally nuanced I consider statements like “[Obama] turns in us into France” unworthy of response.

    No, wait, I’m a political pragmatist who realizes that statements like “[Obama] turns in us into France” are meaningless expressions of fantastic ignorance about 1) Obama’s platform and 2) France. Because no one who knows anything about either could believe such a statement is anything but empty rhetoric. (Seriously, why not say “communist Russia” instead? It’s scarier.)

    That’s a lot of words to make the point that we live in the real world so we can’t expert perfection, but that wasn’t my point, was it? I’m sure you know my point is that Republicans haven’t given McCain the free ride on his contradictions that Democrats have given Obama.

    So long as you don’t count past and current Clinton supporters among Democrats, yes, you’re correct. (Insert conciliatory emoticon.)

    No, I don’t believe Obama’s gotten a free ride. I think he’s been scrutinized for months after the media stopped paying any attention to McCain. I mean, you have a wing of the Democratic Party devoted to showing the majority that Obama’s an unwise choice.

    With all this talk of comity in the liberal blogosphere, I’m beginning to suspect that conservatives aren’t reading half (i.e. the pro-Clinton) of the liberal blogs out there.

    As for your co-bloggers, have you changed blogs or can you not find any posts critical of Obama at your own blog?

    Aren’t you conservatives supposed to be pro-capitalism? I’m expanding, so in addition to the two blogs — one personal, the other a group blog focused on literary studies — I already had, I’ve joined another, comprised of historians, where I can get my literary-historical groove on. I’m franchising, you see. (I also wrote for Protein Wisdom a few years back, as some here will recall.)

    America is a land of Americans, regardless of their antecedents.

    PRONOUNS FOR OBAMA! ANTECEDENTS FOR MCCAIN! PRONOUNS FOR OBAMA! ANTECEDENTS FOR MCCAIN! (To riff on something from my other other blog.)

    SEK (bd295a)

  71. I think it’s nice of SEK to drop by an say that intelligent people understand what is going on here, implying people on this blog do not, and that to criticize Obama for changing positions is to reflect the blinkered hypocrisy of the faux-idealist.

    Or you might could say I have a respect for the intelligent people I’ve interacted with here. One or the other. (And “drop by”? Yes, because I only comment when I feel the distinct urge to condescend.) When I write “intelligent people see through the pragmatic decisions all politicians must make when shifting from the primaries to the general election,” I mean it. It’s not me being condescending — it’s true. If you fail to recognize that appeals to party bases differ from appeals to the general electorate, you are 1) blinkered, and thus willfully ignorant or 2) bone stupid. I understand why people would want to make such shifts meaningful, but given that citizen journalists aren’t obliged to toe company lines, I’m not sure why someone would want to extol the virtues of The Narrative.

    Perhaps you can enlighten me.

    SEK (bd295a)

  72. This stuff is too complicated for me. I’ll take the guy who was being tortured in a North Viet Nam prison camp over the guy who, at the same time, was attending a madrassa in Indonesia.

    nk (d86adb)

  73. “The Dems have settled on a nominee with less character and dedication to principle than the King of Triangulation Bill Clinton.”

    That must be the change liberals are hoping for.

    Jim C. (33af9d)

  74. SEK,

    Good point about Hillary holding Obama’s feet to the fire but I haven’t seen any pro-Clinton Democratic blogs taking Obama to task on this issue. Then again, I don’t get out much. Can you help me out with the names some of those blogs?

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  75. I guess I should be over it by now with my cynicism and all but I’m still astonished when I see pap like this regurgitated:
    “Also, inform me as to how improving the standing of the United States in the international community will be more dangerous than isolating ourselves from it.”

    SPQR (26be8b)

  76. I feel slighted at not having my comments refuted or receiving a response of any kind.

    Then again, maybe it’s because she has no response; after all, you can argue that the truth should be something different but you can’t argue that the actual truth is something different than what it is.

    Missed It By THAT Much (3ac258)

  77. I’ll take the guy who was being tortured in a North Viet Nam prison camp over the guy who, at the same time, was attending a madrassa in Indonesia.

    I know. What business did a six-year-old Obama have being in elementary school while McCain was in a POW camp? How patriotic can a boy who didn’t run away from his family, cross an ocean and illegally enlist in the US Armed Forces be?

    I’m still astonished when I see pap like this regurgitated

    I’ll have you know I gurgitated that myself, thank you very much.

    As for the details, I’ll compile a list in the morning and post it along with a list of links to blogs convinced Hillary will be sworn in come next January 09.

    SEK (bd295a)

  78. SEK,

    I don’t want you to go to that much trouble. Just a few names that come to mind quickly would be nice.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  79. Didn’t he just tell all the females in the dem party to get over their PMS moment and get back on the job…? I guess Winnie the Pooh is a match for his intel and should be SOD and head of Homeland Secutity combined. Bugs Bunny can take over for Sec Rice..

    Scrapiron (c36902)

  80. The Newsweek poll released late today is going to be the talk of weekend. It shows Obama with a sudden lead of 15% over McCain, whereas several polls since just after Clinton’s announcement have showed his lead from 4-8%.

    But the Newsweek poll is a fraud, and all you need to do is look at its internals to see it.

    Biggest fraud — the weighting of the sample shows that of 872 registered voters sampled, only 23% described themselves as Republicans, while 38% described themselves as Democrats, and 35% described themselves as independents.

    23% GOP v. 38% Dems.

    And the poll comes out Obama +15 — amazing how it works that way.

    The key is in the demographic assumptions the pollsters make about likely turnout. Those assumptions are not set forth in the methodology that Newsweek did publish, but if their demographic assumptions overly emphasized youth, college grads, and/or African-Americans within the sample, then the poll is going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in its outcome.

    For example, I think that AA represented roughly 11% of voters who cast votes in 2004. But if the assumption for this poll is that that percentage is going to be higher than historical voting patters – say 14% — then they survey more AA among the responders than the historical analysis of voting trends supports — and since Obama is getting 95% of the AA vote, Newsweek justed added 3% to his total based on an assumption and nothing else.

    Similarly, while registered voters under 35 vote at only about a 33% participation rate, if Newsweek assumes their enthusiasm for Obama is going to drive that number closer to 40-45%, then they survey more under 35 voters in their sample. Since Obama is carrying those voter by about a 65-35 margin, that slides a few more % points in his column.

    These kinds of skewed assumptions is the only way to explain how they would get a voter mix among 875 registered voters that included only 1 in 4 identifying themselves as Republicans, but nearly 2 in 5 self-identifying as Democrats and 1 in 3 self-identifying as independents.

    But get used to seeing this — the polls run by the liberal media outlets like this one and the CBS/NYT poll are going to put their finger on the scale of every poll with voter participation assumptions that are so favorable to Obama that you’d think he was Reagan running against Mondale.

    Its like surveying 100 “Adults” on a college campus of a university town and thinking you have a cross-section of the town itself.

    wls (0ee728)

  81. #80
    Bottom line, Obama leads McCain. And he has for some time now. It may change depending on the fall out from his recent decision to not take public funding even though he said he would. It remains to be seen how that will stall his pace. But I am guessing, not much.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  82. “While you’re at it, I’d love your opinion on Obama’s books and websites in which he outlines, specifically, the positions he has taken of which you are ignorant.”

    Wait a minute. I didn’t claim to be ignorant of Obama’s positions, did I? It must be SEK’s mad mind reading skilz at work again here.

    Our of fairness I might suggest he compile a list of Obama’s gaffes and explain wht they were not gaffes, but I fear the outcome would have as much success as the silly projects he suggested for me.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  83. I wonder whether SEK believes Obama’s announces support for the FISA compromise represents a move to the center or a flip flop, given that not much substantive changed from the bill he denounced in February. I’m going to guess a move to the center, because it’s an easy explanation as opposed to a flip flop and nobody wants to be accused of that.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  84. All this hoopla is not going to matter one wit.

    Sorry, SEK and Love2008, the story is out on Obama and it is not going to matter how much funds he has available to produce propaganda for the TV nor how lovey-dovey Chris Matthews goos. Obama is toast.

    The simple facts are that Obama did not win any actual election results in his nominating campaign within only Democrats voting. He was only strong in the caucus elections where the radicals of the Democratic party hold sway.

    Look at what happened in Penn and Ohio, Obama outspent Clinton by 3 times the amount and the results? Obama got his clock cleaned by 30% within the Democratic voters.

    Obama’s only real hope was to remain as hidden as possible and let the Chris Matthews and the rest of the “tingle brigade” fool voters into electing this empty suit. That chance is gone and Ross Perot isn’t going to syphon off 25% of the vote.

    The more people see and hear of Obama, the more disliked he is outside the radical marxist cirles.

    LogicalSC (816260)

  85. daleyrocks (#83), i believe it’s a flip-flop, and unlike the campaign finance issue, it’s something i care about. no amnesty for lawbreakers!

    assistant devil's advocate (1c545f)

  86. #84
    Obama is toast.
    Obama has been toast since Rev. Wright showed up three months ago. Problem is, he is still winning. Alot of Americans still prefer him to McCain. He has been known to survive crisis like this. That is a good sign of strong leadership, surviving heat. He seems to be doing that well dont you think?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  87. Problem is, he is still winning.

    He’s done a lot more losing than winning lately.

    He has been known to survive crisis like this. That is a good sign of strong leadership, surviving heat. He seems to be doing that well dont you think?

    Examples?

    Pablo (99243e)

  88. He has been known to survive crisis like this.

    Name one crisis Obama has ever had to endure in his entire sticking life…

    Odds are, your example won’t be from any point in time after he graduated from Law School…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  89. #87
    Examples?
    Come on Pablo! He’s still in the race. That should count for something. And everyone knows he might win.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  90. Alot of Americans still prefer him to McCain.

    I’m sure that “Alot” [sic] of Americans would have preferred either Gore or Kerry to Bush in the last two elections.

    But “Alot” doesn’t rise to the level of “majority”, or even “plurality” (since Billy Jeff never managed a majority, and we’re keeping things even).

    I’m sure you would accept that seventeen million people is “Alot”, but not so much when you consider the size of the voting populace (more than 121 million votes cast in ’04).

    So when Barry Hussein accepts the nomination in Denver, how many of you will start chanting “Selected, Not Elected”? (Since Obama lost the popular vote totals and all…)

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  91. #87 the sky is falling. I think the latest Newsweek poll has Urkel up by 15% over Juan McCain. Of course they have the same margin of difference between GOP and Dem voters in their samples. Something like 1 in 4 Repubs and 2 in 5 Dems. I guess some people will then say hey I vote for the winner and we need a “black” potus so rest of world will see just how enlightened we are. But I don’t see racial minorities governing Britain, France or Germany. Ok, the UN had that corrupt black clown Kofi Anus. I guess Urkel might be a better choice than those righteous black leaders of big cities like Dinkins, marion Barry and Kwame Kirkpatrick.

    As far as lovechild2008 propaganda about Omammi surviving heat, the anointed one used dirty tricks to eviserate various opponents in earlier bids. Nice how a friendly chicago way judge opened up sealed divorce records of Jack and Jeri Ryan too. Funny how ok for Kennedys or Hillary to be carpetbagger senators, but GOP Alan Keys was bad. I’d take Uncle Tom Keys over Obambi any day of the week. He’d follow the constitution at least. Read editorial in local lib rag denigrating the conservative dissent in the rights for terrorist case. Those libs get it ass backwards saying that our constitution demands writ of habeus corpus in all cases. Now foreign terrorists get special despensations. I wonder how many of us wish that our armed forces just killed all terrorists on the field of battle? But I guess what’s best for trial lawyers is best for lib campaign contributions also.
    Hopefully Obamalamadingdong will lose like Gore and the worshippers like lovechild will move to Canada or cuba and enjoy that “free” health care.

    madmax333 (08b259)

  92. #88
    Name one crisis Obama has ever had to endure in his entire sticking life…
    Rev. Wright is one crisis that comes to mind. Seems like he has bounced back from that. That is except on this blog. Hi scotty. :)

    love2008 (1b037c)

  93. #91
    I just love your posts Maddy. LMHO. Please dont stop! “Lovechild” LOL. Thats a rib cracker right there. 😀

    love2008 (1b037c)

  94. Well, considering he lost a couple of states he was supposed to win after the Rev. Wright issue, and how his poll numbers never bounced back (they dropped and held), I don’t call that much of a “come back”…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  95. #80 sorry missed your post that negates mine about same newsweek baloney.

    Lovetron talks about how strong Urkel is. Look at how Hillary took him to task in latter stages of primary race. And the vote totals. I’m too lazy to check but I know Obambi ran up huge margins in Cooke county in particular. Subtract that and see just how lame his vote is compared to Hillary’s. Funny how Hussein O. did so awful in Pa. despite the big black margins in Philly and Pitsburgh. Must be all those racist whiteys keeping the proud black half-breed down. Hope! Change! Black Power! Higher Taxes (even if revenues thus fall),
    sing Kumbaya, Give Peace a Chance and War, what is it good for? Embrace the Euroweenies and UN despots. Meet with those terrorist dictators without preconditons, but don’t dare meet with Juan McCain and discusss the issues. Gas prices need to be up there with what Utopian Europe pays to encourage mass transit and less carnon usage, unless you are the oracle or the breck girl. Local rag editoralized same recently. Keep sending those petrodollars to the Arabs as opening up US oil exploration will only lower costs by 3 cents a gallon??? Don’t know how they pull those numbers out of their ass. etc, et al

    madmax333 (08b259)

  96. Come on Pablo! He’s still in the race. That should count for something.

    Yes. It counts as still being in the race. What it doesn’t count as is evidence of surviving crisis.

    Pablo (99243e)

  97. What you fail to mention, Maddy is that now Obama is doing better than McCain in some of these battle ground states you just mentioned. Against Hillary it was a tough choice between two outstanding and historic candidates. Hence the tightening contests towards the end. Mix that with voter’s remorse on both sides. Rev Wright, Bosnia etc. But now it is a race between not just Obama and Mccain. But between staying on in Iraq indefinitely and pulling out carefully and surely. It is a choice between two opposing economic view points. It is a choice between the same old politics and change. Obama represents to many a breath of fresh air. A new and better USA. He represents sensible diplomacy that wins not only our allies but our enemies too. That my friend is the reality before us all.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  98. What you fail to mention, Maddy is that now Obama is doing better than McCain in some of these battle ground states you just mentioned.

    Not so much Barry doing well, as McCain doing poorly. You seem to think this is the same thing. You are incorrect in this.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  99. If Brooks smoked him, let’s hope he didn’t inhale.

    tehag (60337f)

  100. #98
    Following your line of argument Drumwaster, during this on going Euro2008 football encounters. Lets say Turkey beating croatia after suffering a major set back in the game proves that croatia was weak and not that the Turks were strong. How do you defend that? What about Hillary? Did he not also beat her? Was she also weak?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  101. What about Hillary? Did he not also beat her? Was she also weak?

    Ever heard the phrase, “Selected, Not Elected?”

    Paul (19c9b7)

  102. Also, love2008, your analogy is flawed. The fans (voters)aren’t directly involved in deciding the victor.

    Paul (19c9b7)

  103. David Brooks isn’t the only one hammering Obama: check this out. (No, this is not an AP link.)

    But Obama’s announcement Thursday that he would become the first candidate to opt out of the public financing program for the general election was a big deal for some of the nation’s most influential newspaper editorial boards, which have long been ardent champions of campaign finance reform and which had thought they’d found a kindred spirit on the issue.

    Friday morning, scathing editorials in many top broadsheets characterized Obama’s move as a self-interested flip-flop, dismissed his efforts to cast it as a principled stand and charged that Obama wasn’t living up to the reformer image around which he has crafted his political identity.

    The scolding could mark a turning point in what has been, on balance, fawning treatment of Obama, an Illinois Senator and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, on editorial pages.

    Apparently you Obama defenders forgot that McCain-Feingold is huge with the MSM.

    Negative press–coupled with the very early branding of Obama as a liberal–could cause much trouble as he seeks the presidency.

    Paul (19c9b7)

  104. Thats good to hear. Now with the MSM against Obama we wont hear more conservatives whinning about how Obama is getting all the fair treatment from the media and how they are fawninig over him. So that when he does beat McCain, it will be fair and square. If anything, the media loving Obama has not really helped him much. It has hurt him more by turning mainstream Americans against him as a media favorite. It’s all good.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  105. Lets say Turkey beating croatia after suffering a major set back in the game proves that croatia was weak and not that the Turks were strong.

    You seem to forget that we are still very early in the cycle. From a technical standpoint, neither party has actually nominated a candidate. The polls you use to attempt to prove your point show the main flaw in your idea that Obama is “beating” McCain, when the methodology has shown that they are likely to be much closer.

    First, the low number of respondents gives a much larger margin of error. Second, we are not given the questions asked to garner the answers given (“If you knew John McCain eats puppies garnished with babies blood, which major candidate would you choose for vote for this November?”). Third, the relative percentages of political parties (15% more Democrats than Republicans, and the Democrat is winning by 15%? Whodathunkit?).

    Finally, John McCain is NOT popular among many conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) for exactly the same reasons they wouldn’t vote for the stripling from Chicago’s South Side (next-door neighbor to Leroy Brown, who stands about six-foot-four) – he is a back-stabbing politico who changes his political views as often as he changes his audience.

    Obama might techincally qualify to be elected President (being a natural American citizen over the age of 35), but he does not rise to the level of competence, honesty and morality I require to be the President of the United States. (Neither does McCain in my book, but when push comes to shove, I trust McCain to prosecute the War against Islamofascist terrorism more than I would trust B. Hussein (who would sooner meet, sans conditions, the terrorist supporting President of a nation with whom we have been in a State of War for the last thirty years, than the American generals who are actually prosecuting that war).

    His military policy is “run away”.
    His thinking about the economy is “raise taxes”.
    His entire platform is “I’m not George Bush!”

    That worked out SO well four years ago. (Don’t forget that “the polls” had Kerry ahead of Bush right up until the vote totals were announced.)

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  106. Now with the MSM against Obama we wont hear more conservatives whinning about how Obama is getting all the fair treatment from the media and how they are fawninig over him.

    Pointing out a fact is whining?

    So that when he does beat McCain, it will be fair and square.

    When?

    He comes in already with a 57% liberal rating, and now the press has turned against him over campaign finance. That does not bode well for Obama.

    If anything, the media loving Obama has not really helped him much.

    So now you’re calling the press irrelevant. Okay.

    It has hurt him more by turning mainstream Americans against him as a media favorite.

    So the press is irrelevant, yet being the MSM’s Anointed Messiah damaged him.

    Whatever you say.

    Paul (19c9b7)

  107. The pledge as I recall was to get out if McCain did. But that excludes lawbreaking I think.

    MCCAIN BREAKING THE LAW IN PLAIN SIGHT
    I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC’s rules, we’re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

    I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He’s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn’t — the Republican head of the FEC — said he’s not allowed to do that. He can’t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

    The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain’s lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn’t really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC — a Republican — says McCain cannot do this on his own.

    Brooks “All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo.”
    I’ll give him that. But the moralizing whine of someone who’s going to vote for McCain no matter what?
    Nice try.

    just another reader (c5aefa)

  108. just another reader – Your problem is that you assume the site you cite has any credibility. As has been proved true so many times in the past, they don’t. Try a real source.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  109. all guises to hide the real problem: Xenophobia.

    It never takes long for the Left to start calling people racists. It is as predictable as Levi mooning everyone.

    If you are using JoshuaMicahMarshall as a cite for anything other than a partisan shill, it is to laugh.

    JD (191be1)

  110. Boo hoo!

    love2008 (1b037c)

  111. The same site has the AP Feed.

    Liking the messenger is a luxury Mr Rocks, not a necessity.

    “”We believe that Senator McCain had a clear legal right to withdraw from the primary matching fund system and he has done so,” Potter said. “No FEC action was or is required for withdrawal.”
    Potter said McCain will continue with his campaign and not adhere to the public financing system’s limits on spending. Without a full commission, Mason has little enforcement power. Likewise, without an FEC, McCain has no way to appeal Mason’s conclusion.”

    just another reader (7aa4f5)

  112. It’s interesting to watch political memes form and evolve. Here, Brooks apparently thinks he’s original by saying Obama is throwing things “under the truck.” What truck? What is he talking about. Does he mean “under the bus”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_under_the_bus

    If there’s anything Republicans know about Obama, it’s that he likes to throw things and people under busses. Whatever the hell that means.

    I’d love to know who first started characterizing every action Obama does as “throwing xxx under the bus” or as Brooks puts it “throwing xxx under the truck.”

    I think it started, as best as I can remember, when he compared Rev. Wright to his white grandmother. Someone compared that to “throwing his grandmother under the bus.” It’s absolutely everywhere in conservative circles.

    It’s definitly become for Obama what “flip-flopper” was for Kerry — a nice, easy-to-remember characterization that you can apply to almost anything.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  113. just another reader – And what has happened with this story since it first came up in February, Mr. Reader? Have there been any developments or was it yet another red herring from the liberal media?

    I did like TPM’s report today (yesterday?) blowing apart the conservative myth that released Guantanamo prisoners have returned to the battlefield. It’s unfortunate that they misquoted Scalia and that they also missed the story. I’ve come not to expect much from these Soros funded sham operations, though.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  114. Phil,

    Throwing someone “under the bus” is a well-known phrase meaning to scapegoat and, when it comes to Barack Obama, if the shoe fits …

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  115. … and while I’m not sure who started the “Throw Grandmother under the Bus” theme, I think it was Rich Lowry at NRO.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  116. I’m not here to play kids games Mr Rocks.
    Bring something more to the table.

    just another reader (a97832)

  117. I wonder why they did not point out that Baracky put a hold on the nominee for the vacant slot on the FEC?

    Phil – He threw Granny under the back of the bus. Racist.

    just another reader is not playing games, daley. Watch out. It warned you.

    JD (191be1)

  118. Good Allah, the nominee for the vacant FEC seat wanted voters to identify themselves before voting? Racist evil bastard, that man is. Good thing Baracky was able to put a hold on him, and force him to withdraw the nomination, so the FEC could be hamstrung through the Presidential election season. Change we can believe in.

    JD (191be1)

  119. just another reader is just another fevered Obamatron. Its little bon mots are par for the course with the moonbat fringe.

    JD (191be1)

  120. “Baracky put a hold on the nominee for the vacant slot on the FEC?”

    You’re referring to Hans von Spakovsky.

    The rest’s not worth answering. And that includes your obsession with nonexistent voter fraud. I’d rather have a discussion of how how O-bomba copped out on FISA.

    Adios

    just another reader (a97832)

  121. I’ll remind you again in parting, that McCain is still breaking the law.
    This thread started on campaign finance and that’s where I’ll leave it.

    ciao

    just another reader (a97832)

  122. I guess that makes him a multilingual drive-by “just another reader.”

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  123. that includes your obsession with nonexistent voter fraud

    Evidence of this assertion?

    I’ll remind you again in parting, that McCain is still breaking the law.

    Argument by assertion is so much easier, isn’t it?

    So, essentially, you argued that McCain was getting some type of advantage since there was no a full complement at the FEC. Then, when it was pointed out that the reason there was no a full complement was that the Baracky Obamessiah put a new and changey hold on the nominee for that position, you scurry away squealing McCain broke the law because I say so.

    JD (191be1)

  124. I’d rather have a discussion of how how O-bomba copped out on FISA

    Go visit the gleeeeens, all of them. Each one of the sock-puppets has their own update so far. Update XI should be up any minute.

    JD (191be1)

  125. You’re not allowed to ask for evidence. That just perpetuates the patriarchal dichotomy of “right and wrong” and it’s racist besides. Don’t JAR’s feelings count for anything?

    {/moonbat apologist}

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  126. LOL,
    In the end the qualities of wisdom, strength, personal charactor and trust define a man. If you were in a jam, serious trouble, who would you rather have your back, John McCain or Barack Obama?

    Amused Observer (22788c)

  127. So, essentially, you argued that McCain was getting some type of advantage since there was no a full complement at the FEC. Then, when it was pointed out that the reason there was no a full complement was that the Baracky Obamessiah put a new and changey hold on the nominee for that position, you scurry away squealing McCain broke the law because I say so.

    Funny how they always seem to resort to that, isn,t it JD?

    Paul (19c9b7)

  128. If you were in a jam, serious trouble, who would you rather have your back, John McCain or Barack Obama?

    To quote Jack Benny: “I’m thinking it over.”

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  129. JD learn to read. From #111:
    “Potter said McCain will continue with his campaign and not adhere to the public financing system’s limits on spending.
    Potter is McCain’s lawyer.

    Obama said he’d follow McCain’s lead and Mac chose not to lead.
    On FISA, I figured a prosecutor wouldn’t be so quick to support retroactive immunity, and a soi disant stickler for constitutional integrity wouldn’t defend the administration in it’s actions. Ah well.

    Amused Observer. In a foxhole I’d rather have someone smart. That gives O’Bambi the advantage. McCain’s a bit dim. He can’t even remember his own policies. His advisors aren’t much better. Joe Scarborough: “Can we afford the tax cuts?” Hilarious

    just another reader (a97832)

  130. JD learn to read. From #111:
    “Potter said McCain will continue with his campaign and not adhere to the public financing system’s limits on spending.”
    Potter is McCain’s lawyer.

    JAR, do you know what month this is?

    Paul (19c9b7)

  131. I’d rather have a discussion of how how O-bomba copped out on FISA

    Well then, start a blog. Then you can write about it all you want.

    Paul (19c9b7)

  132. The rules haven’t changed dear. And the rules say we’re still in the primaries until the conventions.
    Reading is Fun-da-men-tal.

    A lotta dim bulbs on this site.

    just another reader (a97832)

  133. JAM #129:

    Obama said he’d follow McCain’s lead and Mac chose not to lead.

    I thought Obama wanted to be President and lead. Has he changed his mind and now he wants to be the VP?

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  134. The rules haven’t changed dear. And the rules say we’re still in the primaries until the conventions.

    So?

    Do you know why I asked the question, “JAR, do you know what month this is?”

    Check your AP link. Reading is Fun-da-men-tal.

    A lotta dim bulbs on this site.

    And you’re burnt out.

    Paul (19c9b7)

  135. I’ll remind you again in parting

    I thought you were leaving, bucko.

    Paul (19c9b7)

  136. @78: The biggest liberal anti-Obama site is Talk Left, and if you check out who they regularly link to, you can witness the gyrations of those who wish for nothing more than a Democratic self-immolation in November.

    SEK (bd295a)

  137. Thanks, SEK.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  138. daleyrocks, one last go-round, then it’s into the kill-file with you. You wrote:

    nobody knows what he really thinks

    I countered, approximately, with “have you read his books and comprehensive websites.” Your response?

    I didn’t claim to be ignorant of Obama’s positions, did I?

    You see how those two statements contradict each other, don’t you?

    No, you don’t. So it’s into the kill-file you go.

    Onto other matters:

    The more people see and hear of Obama, the more disliked he is outside the radical Marxist circles.

    And how, pray tell, would you know what goes on inside radical Marxist circles? Seriously, I find it odd that so many people appeal to a demographic which 1) likely doesn’t exist, 2) harks back to McCarthy-esque scare tactics, and 3) demonizes half the country … but patriotically, you know.

    SEK (bd295a)

  139. I was curious how some left-wing sites are covering this story. Hahahahah! It seems I’ve been banned from commenting over at Kevin Drum’s washingtonmonthly.com.

    You know Drum wasn’t nearly as much of a hack back in his calpundit.com days. You see Drum has now gone 3 days and 24 new postings without mentioning Obama’s cynical reversal on public campaign financing. When I tried posting to mention this fact I got back an error message saying that I am prohibited from commenting. What a cowardly hack.

    Brad (700007)

  140. JAR @ 129:

    Keep your facts straight.

    The controversy over McCain is whether he agreed to accept public financing, and abide by spending limits, in the PRIMARIES. He indicated he would because his fundraising was so poor, but then he secured a loan to float his campaign, won a couple early primaries, and the money started coming in. He never took any public funds, and the legal question the Dems are trying to push is whether he was obligated to do so under FEC regulations after he announced that he would.

    In Feb. 2007 Obama challenged all the candidates, in both parties, to pledge that they would accept public financing in the GENERAL election — which covers on the period between the conventions and the Nov. election date. Everyone knew that only a horrible fundraiser — like McCain — would even consider accepting public financing for the primaries. Candidates always opt out of public financing for the primaries. The 18 months leading up to the Iowa caucus is one big fundraising period — why take public financing and the limits on spending that go with it.

    Obama made the challenge regarding the GENERAL, and while others were non-committal, McCain accepted.

    This happened before Obama became a cash-cow fundraiser, and the real fear from the Dem’s side was Romney and his personal fortune. The challenge was meant to put Romney on the spot — agree 18 months ahead of the election to not use his personal fortune in the 12 week general election campaign from Sept to Nov, 2008. Take the $85 million in public money, and be limited to spending just that — same as the poor community organizer from the South Side of Chicago.

    McCain never once suggested he wouldn’t participate in the public financing of the General. Doing so frees the candidates up to just campaign, and not have to fund raise.

    McCain agreed to Obama’s proposal in Feb. 2007.

    Obama backed out without McCain doing anything to provoke him.

    wls (0ee728)

  141. WLS – Not only that, but unlike Baracky’s willingness to sit down with Ahmadinnerjacket and talk things out, Baracky was too scared to even have his lawyers meet with McCain’s lawyers to discuss it. Change we can believe in. Si, se puede!

    JD (191be1)

  142. just another reader should change its name to typical moonbat.

    JD (191be1)

  143. WLS,

    Good comment. I hope you feel as good as you sound.

    DRJ (6ae0d1)

  144. “While you’re at it, I’d love your opinion on Obama’s books and websites in which he outlines, specifically, the positions he has taken of which you are ignorant.”

    Equates to:

    I countered, approximately, with “have you read his books and comprehensive websites.”

    SEK – I think I can approximately see that if I turn upside down and sideways. Since he changes his mind on policy positions from day to day, I stand by my position that nobody knows what he is thinking. Thank you once again for playing.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  145. JAR – Is this blatant illegal activity by McCain’s campaign still going on? Surely they have been prosecuted or fined for it by now. What is the current status of these dastardly deeds?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  146. Assertion of any Republican is proof of a crime. Actually, daleyrocks, it is the seriousness of the charge, that really is the most important. The actual facts, not so much.

    JD (191be1)

  147. jar cannot be expected to understand the differences like primary and general election monies. Plus, that wasn’t a challenge or a pledge, just a potential suggestion that may or may not be followed much further down the line, subject to change without notice, depending on whether or not it is politically advantageous to me at the time. Just ask Phil. It is true.

    JD (191be1)

  148. WLS, the A Team.
    Okay.
    I got sloppy. I operated on an assumption and that assumption was wrong. Others who knew more were more careful and limited their comments (and I’m not referring to anyone here) to the absurdity of McCain’s harping on the issue, as opposed to the issue itself. Obambi backed out of a promise. But that says nothing about McCain. WaPo laid it out at the time. McCain Got Loan by Pledging to Seek Federal Funds

    More from the AP here. And the head of the FEC is a Republican.

    just another reader (a97832)

  149. [Avoiding the spam filter.]
    A discussion of the details here
    Sorry for the sloppiness.

    And here’s more bad news for McCain from Michael Isikoff
    McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs.
    And again, don’t accuse me of being an Obamamaniac. From my perspective he’s pretty mediocre. He’s better than Clinton, but no by much. On FISA and on Israel he’s lousy.

    just another reader (a97832)

  150. Obambi backed out of a promise. But that says nothing about McCain.

    ‘Nuff said.

    (For my money, McCain is no more worthy of the exercise of my sovereign franchise than is Barack Awombomaloobompawombamboom Obama. But I’m not the one spinning the breaking of a promise as a good thing – it’s the Hopey Changitude Crowd doing that.)

    But why are you trying to equate the two? McCain promised to accept federal funds as a means of establishing collateral for a loan he never used! Or are you trying the Tu Quoque (“they did it too!”) tactic in an attempt to make the scandal go away? (Even though they – McCain – didn’t actually do anything wrong?)

    And the head of the FEC is a Republican.

    So what? The Vice-Chair is a Democrat. ZOMG!!!!1!1! ScandaLICIOUS!

    *Sigh* There is an even number of FEC commissioners (to be exact, there are supposed to be six, no more than three of which can be from any one political party), so being chairman doesn’t mean that there is any tie-breaking capability. Are you accusing him of official impropriety by deciding this in McCain’s favor? Do you always commit libelous actions so freely?

    (Do you actually bother to think before typing?)

    Furthermore, the FEC cannot get together and decide anything until they have a quorum. Guess which junior Senator from Illinois (and currently the presumptive nominee from the Democratic Party for President) has put a Senatorial “Hold” on the processing of the new appointee for the FEC, which would enable them to reach that quorum? I don’t withhold any blame from Sens. Feingold and Reid, who are equally complicit in preventing that nomination from proceeding, but Obama should withdraw his Hold so that the FEC can punish McCain properly. If he is, in fact, guilty of violating anything. Given the generic liberal attitude of “accusation=conviction”, I won’t hold my breath.

    Meanwhile, Obama has still broken his word. McCain hasn’t (at least on this issue).

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  151. JAR – You are just going for the incredibly weak all politicians lie defense, therefore we should be willing to hold Obama to a lower standard.

    It’s stupid, but anticipated. Hey, look over there!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  152. I’ll wait for WLS to reply if s/he wants to. The rest of you don’t add anything to the discussion.

    just another reader (a97832)

  153. “just another reader”, an amusing attempt by you to wave away substantive refutations of your claims.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  154. The rest of you don’t add anything to the discussion.

    Translation: “The talking points don’t cover that, so I’ll have to fall back on ‘pretend the arguments don’t matter’.”

    After all, the Vice-Chair of the FEC is a Democrat.

    Which reminds me: If the refutation doesn’t ‘add anything to the discussion’, what does that say about the original argument you’ve made?

    Hoist. Petard.
    Pot. Kettle.

    Pick your metaphor. I’ll be over here laughing at you.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  155. The rest of you don’t add anything to the discussion.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Paul (0ea0cf)

  156. I think JAR JAR Binks is hinting that he/she is a proglertarian.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  157. Ob_ma’s name, may his name be praised, should not be spoken by you kaffirs. PROOF: Ob_ma cares: Someone asked HIM and HE said “I care.” I personally asked him about the seeming flip flop re: campaign financing. HE looked at me sadly and simply shook HIS head. I needed no more that that – I profusely apologized and immediately checked into a re-education camp, “support group”. Now I see that I in fact LOVE Big Brother OB_MA, the ever merciful.

    Say all the mean things you want about OB_MA – someone is watching! Ask Kozinski.

    Californio (f08de7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5286 secs.