Patterico's Pontifications

Oh, but Patterico! Don’t let mere facts get in the way of the Sacred Narrative!

Speaking of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Obama knows the game; he will be protected and defended by people who, frankly, have no idea what he will do (look at poor Chris Buckley, who admits that Obama is a socialist, but says he won’t act like one…based on, who knows, monkeys flying out of his backside; McCain, on the other hand, is awful beyond words and cannot ever change).

Here is the progression:

Obama: “X” is absolutely true.

Right leaning commentators howl about inaccuracies and distortions.

One week later:

Obama: “X” is absolutely true.

MSM: “This is a complicated issue, and it is being distorted by the Right Wing Noise Machine. What Obama meant was...”

Obama: “X” is absolutely true.

MSM and various pundits: Besides, it’s just politics. And McCain does it worse. But Obama didn’t do anything wrong

It’s a sweet game, to watch people do the limbo with facts to support this empty thin-skinned suit of a man. And he positively smirks about it. He knows perfectly well what he is doing.

For the “Hope and Change Brigade,” if they get their way? Not all change is good.

It’s like Biden. Palin gets run through a wringer, and Biden has a laundry list of gaffes, mis-statements, and contradictions…ranging from pseudo-racist cant (“…a clean guy…”) that would not be tolerated from a Republican, to prior attacks on Obama himself.

It doesn’t matter. That’s just old Joe Biden, that scamp. Palin is the eevvviiillll one.

The Narrative continues.

I am reminded of the old curse from Greek mythology: be careful what you wish for—you might just get it!

Eric Blair (e60b98) — 10/16/2008 @ 8:34 pm

This is John McCain’s reward for having shown some class: to have the object of his praise lie about him to his face.

Absofreakinglutely.

Great catch on the video – had forgotten about this one. Here’s more on the Ayers and pro-abortion lies too.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 10/16/2008 @ 8:35 pm

Not my catch. I should have made that clear. I meant to but forgot. It’s radio host Mike Gallagher. Let me update.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 10/16/2008 @ 8:37 pm

Kathryn Lopez also responded to Obama’s accusations and posted 4 ads that were not negative.

Too bad McCain didn’t come back at Obama more forcefully, and instead of saying It’s not true, asked Obama, Do you really wanted to lie to the American people, again?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRkYzQ0MmI5NzUyNWIxOTU5NjUwOTUyMzA2OWIyZTk=

Dana (658c17) — 10/16/2008 @ 8:39 pm

Obama continues his campaign of lying about everyone – himself, McCain and Palin – while having his acolytes attack his critics like Joe the Plumber.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/16/2008 @ 8:43 pm

Comment by Dana — 10/16/2008 @ 8:39 pm

*saves 4 more links for discussions with somewhat pushy Obama-infatuated family members* 🙂 Thanks, too, Dana.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 10/16/2008 @ 8:47 pm

I believe the McCain vid above to be one most contemplative, gracious and yes, quietly heroic moments not only of this campaign but of time in general. It resounds with genuine admiration and humility. In the end, McCain ends up with this great reflection of the man he is. Whether or not he takes the WH.

Dana (658c17) — 10/16/2008 @ 9:09 pm

As far as Obama is concerned, they’re 100% negative because 0% of them say “Barack Obama for President.”

Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 10/17/2008 @ 2:51 am

DAMN THAT BARACK OBAMA! On top of all the other terrible things we’ve told you about him HE’S WRONG ABOUT OUR CAMPAIGN BEING NEGATIVE!

Phil (3b1633) — 10/17/2008 @ 4:37 am

DAMN THAT BARACK OBAMA! On top of all the other terrible things we’ve told you about him HE’S WRONG ABOUT OUR CAMPAIGN BEING NEGATIVE!

Comment by Phil — 10/17/2008 @ 4:37 am

Well, golly gee-whiz, Phil, it’s such a shame to devote an entire INTERNET POST to this topic when we should be talking about…err…well, whatever it is you think we should be talking about. Will the Pads trade Peavy? Anyone getting ready to aerate their lawn? What can I do about my !@#$! Land Rover leaking oil all over my garage floor?

Hot tip, “www.philspontifications.com” is available.

CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/17/2008 @ 5:41 am

Wrong isn’t the word, Phil. Lying is.

Pablo (99243e) — 10/17/2008 @ 5:57 am

Obama is king of the liars. Unfortunately, he phrases his lies in pretty packages and wrappings that have millions of Americans snowed. Obama is a member of the leftist illuminati that has painted him as the savior of America.

Jeff (8f2767) — 10/17/2008 @ 6:32 am

I don’t think you get it. What Obama said was absolutely true, just like he said.

Because anything said about Obama that is not worshipful is negative.

Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/17/2008 @ 6:39 am

Wrong isn’t the word, Phil. Lying is.

Comment by Pablo — 10/17/2008 @ 5:57 am

If I had to grade your reading comprehension of this post (note the VIDEOs) using the method they used when I was in school, you’d get an “F.”

These days, you probably get a non-judgemental smile from the teacher, a voucher for a Health Mex combo at Rubio’s and a “Big Ché” writing tablet.

CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/17/2008 @ 6:55 am

Yeah, McCain should let the media take care of keeping Obama honest, just like they do with him.

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/17/2008 @ 8:06 am

FactCheck.org stated that Obama’s assertion about 100% of McCain’s ads being negative couldn’t be measured accurately because he didn’t state a time-frame. This can be quibbled over, but the real point being missed here is that nearly 75% of McCain’s ad have been off the issues and targeting Obama’s character with innuendo and ‘guilt-by-association’ tactics. Criticizing an opponent’s policies or voting record is not the kind of negative advertising that Obama was talking about. Furthermore, when voters complain about it, they’re talking about attack ads that attempt to assassinate a candidate’s character and engender suspicion about his background. Using that as a measuring stick, none of Obama’s ads have been “negative” and the vast majority of McCain’s have.

JohnRJ08 (9adef6) — 10/17/2008 @ 8:24 am

FactCheck.org stated that Obama’s assertion about 100% of McCain’s ads being negative couldn’t be measured accurately because he didn’t state a time-frame.

If that is a case, that gives further evidence of their lack of desire to actually check facts, JohnRJ08.

JD (f7900a) — 10/17/2008 @ 8:26 am

The only truth ‘Hussein the Marxist’ has ever told was when he say’s ‘I’m Barack Obama’ and now that (truth) has been brought into question and into court.

Every working American should say:
I am ‘Joe the plumber’ and ‘Joe the Plumber’ is me.

Scrapiron (6afa35) — 10/17/2008 @ 10:07 am

So your argument that McCain is not running all negative ads is an ad from over a year ago? An ad made before Obama was even selected?

If you are going to call someone a lier, you should not actually lie when you do it!

This makes you look pathetic and dishonest

John Clayton (1a1ad1) — 10/17/2008 @ 12:01 pm

Factcheck would have to show a reason why Obama didn’t mean in the presidential campaign, which was the context of his statement. I don’t think even Obama meant to say that 100% of McCain’s ads have been negative since his last positive one.

Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/17/2008 @ 12:12 pm

#

So your argument that McCain is not running all negative ads is an ad from over a year ago? An ad made before Obama was even selected?

The VERY FIRST AD EMBEDDED ON THIS PAGE was from the night Obama accepted the nomination at the DNC.

Oh, snap!

If you are going to call someone a lier, you should not actually lie when you do it!

If you are going to call someone a “lier” (sic), you should make sure your point isn’t completely invalidated by reading more than three sentences into the post.

This makes you look pathetic and dishonest

Comment by John Clayton — 10/17/2008 @ 12:01 pm

At least it’s only an appearance.

CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/17/2008 @ 12:17 pm

Point 1: I live in Florida, which is supposed to be a battleground state.
Point 2: Everytime I turn on the TV, I hear at least one, usually two or three Obama ads. Currently the two most frequent ads I hear are the one attacking McCain’s health care proposals (the one that says ‘You’ll be left hanging by a thread’) and one in which Obama talks impressively to the camera about health care without actually giving any details. Another ad, attacking McCain as being merely the continuator of Bush’s “failed economic policies”, was getting some heavy air time, but it seems to have dropped back in the rotation.
Point 3: I’ve heard plenty of ads for Congressional races, especially those involving los hermanos Diaz Balart, from both the incumbents and their Democratic challenger. Almost all negative on both sides, but then one of the challengers is Raul Martinez, so it’s hard not to be negative in that one. (GOP ad punchline: We know Martinez is corrupt enough for Washington. But that doesn’t mean we should send him there.) We don’t have a Senate race this year.
Point 4: Since I heard a radio ad from the GOP on behalf of McCain “and his Congressional allies” touting stem cell research quite a while back–before the conventions, I think–I can’t remember hearing or seeing any ad for McCain, other than the one in which he congratulated Obama for winning the Democratic nomination. Not a single one, negative or positive or mixed.

So where is he playing these ads, negative or positive? On the three AM reruns of Mystery Science Theater?

kishnevi (7e1f91) — 10/17/2008 @ 12:41 pm

It’s really impressive how well uber-conservatives can pick random lines from things and hammer on them without RESEARCHING the entire subject. If you had done any research at all instead of just spouting off and relying on youtube as evidence, you would have seen that The University of Wisconsin had just released a report the day before the debate comparing the two candidates recent advertising…and guess what was found? 100% of John McCain’s current and most recent ads before the debate were negative. Obama should have explained where he got his info from, that would have given McCain no way to respond. Yes, obviously not ALL of his campaign has been negative, but every campaign starts off positive and then gets down and dirty during the last month or two. That’s just politics as usual. Both camps are doing it, and yet both are calling foul play on the other for it.

As usual, cherry-picked quotes are mis-interpreted, and people are too lazy to do any work in order to find the truth. Both are guilty of lying and misleading the public, and it’s only made worse when ignorant supporters blindly accept their statements as truth. I am truly disappointed in how stupid and lazy we ALL are.

Mike (89d327) — 10/17/2008 @ 12:50 pm

University of Wisconsin

Do you have a link to this report?
What is the time frame for its’ research?
How do we know that they have reviewed every ad that has run on both sides of the debate?
We know that they are a non-partisan observer in this?
And, that they have no ideological axes to grind?

We await your reply to these and other questions that have arisen in this matter.

Another Drew (7894e6) — 10/17/2008 @ 1:10 pm

Here’s a link to the Associated Press article concerning the project:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glxLRJGYXl2qCzirOL_o5HIuXamAD93MEJV80

Here’s the link to “The University of Wisconsin’s Advertising Project” which is also at the end of the AP article:

http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu

I’m not trying to sound like a jerk, but everything is getting so out of hand, and everyone is picking these tiny little snip-it’s of a conversation to talk about and criticize, when in the long run it makes absolutely no difference, especially in light of all our nations current issues. I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone, and I should’ve worded my previous comment differently, but it gets frustrating to watch both sides jump to conclusions without doing some fact checking of their own.

Mike (89d327) — 10/17/2008 @ 1:31 pm

My major point is that we shouldn’t just accept everything that’s said by either our candidate of choice or the media outlets as truth. Everyone has an agenda to fulfill, and 95% of major media outlets lean one way or the other despite how often they claim to be indifferent and fair balanced. I just want people to do fact checking on their own and take some action. I support Obama, but I don’t expect people to fall in line behind me. Everyone chooses their candidates for a reason, I just want people to truly understand their own reasoning. Do I think Obama is perfect, certainly not, but I feel he’s the better of the two. That’s it, nothing more nothing less. I don’t hate on people who are picking McCain. They’ve made their choice, and if they can provide solid reasoning for doing so, more power to them.

I do however hate on people who don’t take the time to do simple research, regardless of who they’re voting for. I’ve actually told someone they should’nt be allowed to vote because they said they’re voting for Obama simply because they want a black president. That’s ridiculous and completely ignorant. You vote for someone because you agree with & fully understand their stance on key issues affecting the nation.

Anyway, I’m starting to ramble. If anyone is interested in more statistics, I recently heard of a website called fivethirtyeight.com, they’ve got some interesting stuff and claim “Electoral Projections Done Right”. They call out just about everyone it seems from Fox News to AP to MSNBC to CNN. It’s worth a look if you’re interested in that sort of thing.

Honestly though, sometimes I just can’t wait for this whole thing to be over. I’m sure whoever winds up in the White House will do a fine job, and I don’t envy them at all because they’ve got a of work ahead of them.

Mike (89d327) — 10/17/2008 @ 2:00 pm

typing error: the last line should say “they’ve got a lot of work ahead of them”

Mike (89d327) — 10/17/2008 @ 2:11 pm

No matter who does end up in the White House has a huge task ahead of them, but it will be an even bigger task for us to have to live with Obama’s socialist-based decisions if he is elected. We will be paying the price for his elitist illuminati associations for years to come.

Jeff (3396e6) — 10/17/2008 @ 2:32 pm

Mike, a couple points…
One – The AP, which is doing the reporting here, is not an un-biased source. Their slanting of the news away from Bush and the Republicans has been well demonstrated here and elsewhere;

Two – The study only looked at a one-week window. A one-week window cannot prove anything in a campaign that lasts three to five months or more. For one thing, many of those ads were never run before, and will never be run again, as they are tactical moves to deal with a current event.

And, there is nothing wrong with “negative” advertising if what is reported is the truth. In many cases in politics, partisans deride as “negative” those things that are embarrassing facts, but not untruths.

This explaines the vitriol that was the response to the “Swift-Boat” ads. The ads spoke to facts as recounted by people who had been with Kerry in-country, or who described his anti-war, and anti-warrior, activities after returning to the States. There were no un-truths in those ads. But, they are derided as “negative” because those truths are so inconvenient.

Not having seen the ads in this one-week study (one of the advantages, so to speak, of being in a non-battleground state is you’re not inundated with this crap) I can’t speak to the veracity, or lack of same, of these ads. But, I would criticize any report that labels as “Negative” any ad that just reports “Facts”.

Favorite Quote:
“Facts to a Liberal, are as Kryptonite to SuperMan.”
Larry Elder

Another Drew (7894e6) — 10/17/2008 @ 2:36 pm

Obama Bin Lyin

atmom (94bb58) — 10/18/2008 @ 8:06 pm

10/16/2008

The Always Truthful Barack Obama

29 Responses to “The Always Truthful Barack Obama”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out