Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama Nation: a work of fiction

Obama Nation hit the bookstores as a bestseller … or did it. It appears that the deceptions of this book do not end with the bibliography. This book made the bestseller list due to huge bulk orders and strategically placed purchases it is these forces that are behind the book’s supposed success.

Mr. Corsi, how many copies of your own book did you buy? 1,000? 10,000? More? The right wing machine bought up huge numbers of this piece of kindling to attempt to lend it credibility and to get Corsi on the talk show circuit. According to Mary Matalin, the book's publisher, it is a piece of scholarly work and would neither deny or confirm that there was any fact checking at all for this book. Which I take to mean - no fact checking. Media matters has gone through the book and done an excellent job of exposing the lies in his book. These lies which range from accusing him of being a Muslim to continued drug use and other ridiculous assertions. There are too many falsehoods in this book to comment on them all but Corsi, like so many conservatives, conflates the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq and uses this conflation to suggest that Obama wants to start pulling out of Afghanistan. This can't be further from the truth. Obama not only has repeatedly called for removing troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan but actually introduced a bill in 2007 saying just that. I personally don't think that either war was or wise to get involved in but Obama has not said any of the things Corsi accuses him of.

As someone with a graduate degree in history and has spent countless hours reading actual scholarly works, the excerpts I read do not measure up to even a poor scholarly work. What really makes Corsi's work a piece of garbage is that he admits that the purpose of this book was to discredit Barak Obama. It's one thing to reach these conclusions after doing objective research it is quite another to reach this conclusion and search and/or make up facts to support a predetermined outcome.

This piece of fiction would not even be worth covering except for the fact that Faux News and the like put this guy on and let him spew this nonsense without challenging any of the facts. I am sure a lot of people will read this book and believe what it has to say because it is on the bestseller list and because they see this guy on TV. However, if you want to read some fiction there are a lot more entertaining reads out there. I don't know what it is about this smear machine that has cropped up but the but they certainly do not seem to be deterred by annoying things like the facts. There are plenty of good ideological critiques that can be made of Obama from a conservative point of view but Obama Nation is not one of them. It seems to be effective to repeat a lie so many times that it becomes accepted as fact - Corsi and the Swiftboat Liars did it in 2004 and Corsi is at it again. It's the same mouth-breathing mentality that Faux News is guilty of every time they show a picture of Osama Bin Laden and have an "Obama" caption under it. They think they are being cute but they are being stupid and making America more stupid at the same time. I have a question for those that actually buy and read this book - why?

Posted by T.C. Sned at August 15, 2008 9:19 AM
Comments
Comment #258582

Fortunately, the only ones who will buy the book and give it serious consideration…are the ones who wouldn’t vote for Obama in the first place.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 15, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #258585

Why? For the same reasons people buy and watch films by michael moore. Thankfully, less people will be gullible enough to make Corsi a star, as many did with moore.

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2008 2:13 PM
Comment #258586

I have seen the author interviewed on Larry King, I believe it was. He could not defend himself, let alone the content of his book. What a boob!

But, hey, this is America, where the absurd and over the top can make you rich, powerful, or famous. Or as our president exemplifies, even all three.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #258587

P.S. the guy even admitted to pulling stuff off of individual’s blogs for inclusion in his book, despite the blogger’s having presented no evidence whatsoever, just asserting an opinion or wishful thinking. Credibility and this man are antonyms.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2008 2:38 PM
Comment #258589

kctim - You may disagree with Michael Moore’s conclusions but I have yet to hear someone dispute an actual fact asserted in his movies. There is a big difference between drawing a conclusion based on evidence and manufacturing the evidence to begin with. The same goes with Al Franken who had a team of fact checkers for his books - again you can still disagree with the conclusions he draws from the facts.

I am fine with people taking the facts and drawing a conclusion other than the one I would draw. It makes for a point of debate - like the one’s we have here in this forum. I have a problem with people making up facts to support a conclusion that they have already drawn. It has become an epidemic in politics. Bill Clinton certainly has his share of responsibility in sending our discourse down this dark path but the way it has been exponentially abused in the last 8 years and the subjects like life and death that have been the sad victim of these lies has been breathtaking.

Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions but facts are facts and Corsi isn’t entitled to invent his facts.

One of the problems with the way business has been conducted since Bush took office is that he and his supporters do not seem to think that their policies or ideas will be accepted based on the facts they lie to start a war, they lie about exposing CIA agents, they lie about firing US attorneys, they lie about John Kerry’s military record, they lie about Barak Obama. All I am saying is TELL THE TRUTH and let the people decide. If I told as many lies as these people when I was a kid I would still be tasting soap.

Posted by: tcsned at August 15, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #258593

Cheney/Bush has lied, even when the truth would have sounded ten times better for him…he can not do otherwise. I think if he told the truth, his nose would fall off.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 3:14 PM
Comment #258594

My point, I think…if I even had a point…was that Corsi comes by it natural…his President made him do it.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 3:16 PM
Comment #258595

Come on Tom. moore is the king of manufacturing dissent and evidence in order to spread his predetermined conclusion that Republicans are evil. In fact, every time moore creates a new “masterpiece,” somebody from the right does exactly what Obama has done here.
Corsi and moore are two peas in a pod man, and defending one while condemning the other is nothing but partisan BS.

I’m with you on telling the truth and letting the people decide. Maybe then all this opinionated talk of “lies” would calm down some. Well, according to Pelosi that is.

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2008 3:32 PM
Comment #258596

Dude, Corsi isn’t really all that big a fan of the President.

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment #258597

tim,

Perhaps not a fan…he just follows his lead.

In order to spread the kinds of unfounded crap that he’s spreading about ‘O’, he is either partisan or greedy. Either way he’s following in the shadow of His Royal Majesty, Cheney/Bush.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #258602

A reporter asked McCain his reaction to this new piece-of-trash swift-book Obama Nation.

McCain’s response:

“Gotta keep your sense of humor,”
HA. HA. How high-minded, clean and respectful McCain’s Rovian-style BS campaign has become. But of course, character assassination is the only way this despicable old geezer stands a chance to win.

Sounds a lot like Lieberman telling that TV talking head that:

“To some extent the appearance of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears — people complain about it — they should just relax and enjoy it. The idea is to draw people into the ad. The point of the ad is really quite strong: Who’s ready to lead America?”
Who is ready to lead America? Well in 2000, Rove and all of Rove’s men, with the help of a bunch of right-wing Swift-Vets like Corsi claimed that McFuddie-Duddie was a traitor to America, that his time as a POW had rendered him unstable and unfit for command, and that he had fathered a black baby out of wedlock. McFuddle kept his “sense of humor” so well at that time that he claimed he came close to leaving the Republican Party. Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 15, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #258603

John,

Let’s just call all of it a pack of lies and be done with it. This is another “do you still beat your wife?” expose

No reputable author uses himself as a reference in his footnotes.

So pray tell us, oh mis-speller of easy words, what new will be “reveiled”?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 15, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #258609

I find it rather curious that some on this blog have no trouble trashing McCain because of his age while tolerating no racial comments (real or imagined) about Obama. Are we all not above racism, sexism, ageism and all the other ism’s that are just plain hateful?

While I don’t plan on buying a copy of Obamanation, I can understand why some will. There is a hunger for more information on the Democrat candidate that is just not being provided by the mainstream media. It took a rag like The Enquirer to get the story out about Edwards.

With so much at stake in electing our next president the voters expect full media coverage…warts and all.

When the stories regarding Obama’s association with unsavory characters such as the Rev. Wright and others were first released they were soundly denounced by Obama. Then when the mainstream media was forced to acknowledge these stories the candidate began to answer question and reverse his positions. Many, including me don’t believe we know the dem candidate well enough to make a decision. And, that’s not our fault.

Informed voters are the backbone of America. We need information. Unfortunately if a vacuum exists when it comes to the “real” Obama then something will fill that void.

Posted by: Jim M at August 15, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #258612

Jim,

At what point in time did we decide to consider outright bulls@#t information?

Look I’m fine with real information, real facts, and if someone can come forward with them more power to them.
This scurrilous slander is nothing of the sort, and if Corsi had facts he could truly surely back up I’m sure this tome would literally fly off the shelves.

If the loony fringe right had something on Obama why wait? Why not put it out there in front of us so we all could decide?

Or is it more important to win an election through fraud and slander?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 15, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #258614

On Corsi:

“Let’s review some of what we know about Corsi.

1. Corsi cavorts with white supremacists.

2. Corsi is guilty of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic statements or associations.

3. Corsi is a known plagiarist (according to a conservative!).

4. Corsi is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist — desecrating the memory of everybody killed in that horrible terrorist attack.

5. The Associated Press reported that: “Corsi writes for World Net Daily, a conservative Web site whose lead headline Thursday [August 14] was ‘Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice.’”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-matzzie/memo-to-right-wing-donors_b_119244.html

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 15, 2008 7:07 PM
Comment #258617

The density of the average Limbaugh/Hannity conservative is such that no amount of reasoned argument or documented evidence to the contrary will sway their ‘beliefs’ - which is all it is - more akin to a faith-based religious dogma than a conclusion reached by evidence or even a political philosophy.

I have about given up on these types which comprise a surprisingly large portion of voters. These citizens are so hopelessly underinformed of issues that they deserve whatever happens to them. If McCain wins because people are so gullible as to believe Corsi’s trashing and lying about Obama, well… we deserve what we get.

I hate to say it, but I foretold to my family much of what Bush/Cheney company would do once in power. The trashing of safeguarding economic regulations, ie. ‘privatized’ IRS collections, the pilfering of public lands for private business profits, etc. My Limbaugh conservative family is impressed enough to consider asking me for information… something they are woefully short on, almost through an effort to be uninformed. They say they won’t vote for a Republican again… but they’re turning back. They listen to this trash… and they WANT to believe it is fact. Sean and Rush said it was true… there must be a grain of truth in it. Poor b*st*%ds… they are just as illiterate in money. They actually need the help the Democrats offer, but are too ignorant to know which party historically benefits them the most. Hard working, play by the rules patsies!!! Bush pawns. If they only knew how those boys must laugh about them.

Posted by: LibRick at August 15, 2008 7:24 PM
Comment #258620

Jim M:

I find it rather curious that some on this blog have no trouble trashing McCain because of his age while tolerating no racial comments (real or imagined) about Obama.

I don’t feel it is off the mark to trash McCain because of his advanced age because age is an issue that directly affects how he will function as a president. As we all know, Reagan was far too old in his second term and was suffering from the first stages of Alzheimers, and George W. Bush is very obviously mentally challenged. With the problems this nation is currently facing, we certainly don’t need another mental incompetent holding the office of the presidency.
McCain has already demonstrated with repeated gaffes and glaring mistakes that he can’t keep extremely important facts in his head from one day to the next. That’s a sign of deterioration due to his advanced age (or perhaps common stupidity).
Race on the other hand, has no bearing on intelligence, competence and ability, so it is an insignificant detail to dwell on.

There is a hunger for more information on the Democrat candidate that is just not being provided by the mainstream media.

The mainstream media for the most part isn’t interested in giving the American people information. They are focused on selling us glossy entertainment. When it comes to politics, that equates with providing a nasty, partisan dogfight daily. If voters actually hunger for more information about Obama (which judging by your comments makes me suspect you really don’t, Jim M) they can go to his website and read a great deal about his policies, plans and ideas about leading this nation. If they are interested in the details of Obama’s personal life, they can read the two refreshingly honest books he has written on his life and experiences. Btw, he has a third book that is due to come out soon.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 15, 2008 7:50 PM
Comment #258622

Mary Matalin is probably a front for someone else who is trying to manufacture consent among the non-congnoscenti. Michael Moore is pretty accurate in most of what he does. I only disliked when he picked on Charlton Heston, clearly elderly and confused.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 15, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #258626
You may disagree with Michael Moore’s conclusions but I have yet to hear someone dispute an actual fact asserted in his movies.

Erm, then you haven’t looked very hard?

The Lies of Michael Moore

More Lies from Moore

59 Deceits in Farenheit 911

Well, that took about 12 seconds of searching… If you want a good complete list I can spend about an hour and find a few thousand more I’m sure…

Outrage from the Left! LOL

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 15, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #258627

ohrealy,

To say that Moore took advantage of the situation misses the point.
Charlton Heston was the head one of the most influential lobbies in the country.

Heston was as infirmed as we are led to believe, he should have never been placed in that position by his aides.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 15, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #258629

Rhinehold,
Christopher Hitchens? The New York Daily News quoting some O’Reilly flack?
Please. I’m afraid you’re going to have to try a little harder than that. A link to an independent or non-partisan source de-bunking Moore might be a trifle more believable.
Btw, your last link doesn’t work.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 15, 2008 9:05 PM
Comment #258630

VV,

Don’t worry, Rhinehold will link you to Hannity next…or perhaps Coulter?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #258631

LibRick

I don’t think it is so much the density of these folks as it is an easy willingness to be led into a world of denial centered around a false icon. They are easily swayed and manipulated people who belong to a sort of pseudo conservative cult. They like the idea that believing in, following and worshiping the good conservative book somehow makes them better people. They would have it no other way. Of course the current day conservatism they worship is a false icon that preys on their gull abilities. It is an icon that represents and preaches surreal values while at the same time practicing quite the opposite. They are handily led from one false notion or half truth to the next by their shameless conservative cult leaders. The GOP relies on the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Faux News etc to keep these believers constantly supplied with enough false liberal bashing garbage as to not allow room or time for clear thought. Any who would question their ways are instantly labeled as heathens and doubters not worthy of membership in their holier than thou cult. As witnessed here on watchblog there are clearly some who actually put stock in the conceited and absurd notion that claiming conservatism actually makes them better people than so called liberals. They speak of liberals as though they are some sort of devil worshiping cult intent on leading them into a life of shame and remorse. They use labels to grow hatred.

I have often wondered how so many people can be so easily and so obviously manipulated. I have come to the conclusion that some want to be out of convenience and others just do not know any better. How it is that any large number can continue to blindly support a party that has done nothing more than use them for eight years now really is beyond me. I guess maybe they are the sort of people that would rather continue to suffer than admit they have been wronged by the wealthy at their expense.

I personally have no problem with elements of conservatism in principle. However it has been a long time since anyone in government has actually practiced it. They use it only in name to achieve an end that has little to do with real conservatism or its values.

The conservative cult is alive and well, still feeding on the fears and anxieties of every gullible soul they can suck into their grand scheme of power by deception fueled by exaggerations of fear and notions of doubt.

Posted by: RickIL at August 15, 2008 9:14 PM
Comment #258636

I’m tired of half baked conspiracy theories.

Posted by: StephenL at August 15, 2008 9:49 PM
Comment #258640

If I were you, I’d leave it in the oven until it’s done…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #258643
Please. I’m afraid you’re going to have to try a little harder than that.

Typical.

I was told that ‘no one had ever said that Moore had lied’ and I, in about 12 seconds, found and linked to several who do.

If we want to rehash the validity of Moore’s lies, we can certainly do that, and I will spend more than 12 seconds putting together the information, but that wasn’t what I was responding to.

But, instead of accepting that the original statement was incorrect, there is nothing but character assassination thrown out. I’m starting to see what some in the red column have been saying for a while about the way people are starting to ‘debate’ around here.

BTW, there are some very obvoius lies and misrepresentations in Moore’s films. For example, he ‘states’ that Gore would have won the election if the Supreme Court had never intervened in the recount, which we know to be a false statement now and at the time he made it. Things like facts are a cheap commodity for Moore, just as they are for Corsi. Oh, and for Media Matters for that matter. Seriously, if you want unbiased sources why are we mentioning Media Matters in the same forum?

But instead, what I see are nothing but partisan hackery. *sigh*

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 15, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #258645

Rhinehold,

I am not enamored of Michael Moore, and I recognize some exagerations and perhaps falsehoods in his work. At the very least I question his ethics…but, he is one man, and that one man does not speak for dems or liberals. While he has great influence on some, that influence does not compare to those on the other side, i.e., Limbaugh, O’Riely, Hannity et al and their influence on Repugs. And if you want to throw rocks at Moore, please don’t leave the professionals out. After all you speak for indepenants and third partiers, not the reds.

Damn…that took me more than 12 seconds…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 10:45 PM
Comment #258646

People who actually saw Farenheit 911 might know that Moore blames the Florida mess directly on Jeb Bush eliminating anyone (about 90,000 individuals) who had a name similar to a felon anywhere in the US, from the voter rolls, if they though they were likely to vote for Gore. I think he probably mentioned the Rpblcn SCOTUS in passing, here is the first part of it, for those writing about it who’ve never seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbgCttq8L_8

Posted by: ohrealy at August 15, 2008 10:52 PM
Comment #258647

>But, instead of accepting that the original statement was incorrect, there is nothing but character assassination thrown out. I’m starting to see what some in the red column have been saying for a while about the way people are starting to ‘debate’ around here.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 15, 2008 10:33 PM

Rhinehold,

I apologize for sniping, but it is very difficult not to. I remember prior to the 2006 changes in Washington, how many darts and arrows were aimed the other way. I should not expect others to absorb that kind of vetch without complaint. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #258648

ohrealy,

And he is misguided in his assessment. Did he mention the voters turned away from voting in the panhandle because the state was called early or the attempts by Democrats to discount military abstentee votes from overseas that arrived before the election but didn’t have a postmark?

There is a lot of blame to go around for what happened in Florida, most accurately the fact that Gore couldn’t win his home state of Tennessee, which would have made Florida meaningless…

But it doesn’t change the fact that both parties are not above trotting out all kinds of people who attack their opponent while taking the ‘high road’. Moore was invited to the Dem convention and many high level Democrats called Farenheit 9/11 ‘the most important movie ever, everyone should see it’ because, well, it would help them get elected, they thought. Let’s see if the Republicans do the same with Corsi? Or did they learn and are taking the high road of letting their attack dogs bark while pretending they don’t exist or matter?

Marysdude,

Thanks for that, I appreciate it more than you know.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 15, 2008 11:03 PM
Comment #258651

I don’t know why we have to rehash the 2000 election over and over again. I’m very familiar with what happened there. Besides the fraudulent removal of legitimate voters from the rolls, 27,000 in Duval Co(Jax)alone, the current AG of FL was running for the Senate, then a resident of Altamonte Springs, in Seminole County, which I am also very familiar with, where his representative made sure 20,000 questionable Rpblcn absentee ballots were filed properly, and that Democratic absentee ballots were thrown out. The same thing happened in Martin county, with 5000 Rpblcn ballots. The military absentee ballot non-issue qualifies as the biggest lie here. More ballots were sent in after election day than before it, in the real world. Those were very small numbers compared to the real problems that occured.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 15, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #258653

Rhinehold:

But, instead of accepting that the original statement was incorrect, there is nothing but character assassination thrown out.

That’s bunk. Look Rhiney, if you’re going to try to make a point — any point — you’ve got to at least look like you’ve made an effort provide a link to info that doesn’t make people automatically roll their eyes, you know?
Links to Hitchens and some O’Reilly flack are auto-eye-rollers in the Blue column. Surely you know this.

As for Moore, I think he makes films about subjects that are important, asks a lot of very good questions, and a good percentage of the time, goes digging to find correct answers. On his website, he always gives a list of his sources, so people can go digging if they suspect he’s gotten something wrong. I can respect that, and so do a lot of other folks. Does Moore always get everything right? Is he totally non-biased? No. But then, who among us is always right and completely non-biased about everything?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 15, 2008 11:40 PM
Comment #258658

ohreally,

We have to rehash to 2000 because our party got cheated out of a presidency that would probably ended much more positively than this one, and the red side won’t accept that because it hurts their feelings to be called cheats.

It’s kinda like this Iraq stupidity…when they speak of it they want to forget how we got into it and will say, “well that’s in the past, let’s talk about the present and future”. They look at all their ethical and brainless shenanigans of the past and want to brush it aside because it hurts too bad to confront it all.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 12:05 AM
Comment #258659

PS: They are still trying to justify the impeachment fiasco…some people never learn.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 12:06 AM
Comment #258661

>look at all their ethical and brainless shenanigans of the past and want to brush it aside because it hurts too bad to confront it all.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 12:05 AM

OOops! Look at my brainless use of the word ethical when I meant UNethical…oh, well age gets to us all. Ooops! I’ve done it again…I’m not supposed to say anything about AGE…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 12:33 AM
Comment #258662

M-dude, I have to agree with the R-man on this. Gore just was not that good of a candidate, not even to carry the states that Clinton carried, or his own home state. W will go down in the list with the likes of Hayes and B Harrison, as popular vote losers whose picture is never going to be on the currency. On the topic, and just to swing a bat at a hornet’s nest, some folks are starting to refer to this year’s election as Team Smug vs Team Satan.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 16, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #258667

You’re up to your neck now dude.. ;), and aggravating, frustrating, disappointing and just plain “pi** ya off” bad as it gets, we will carry the Florida theft into oblivion. Doesn’t matter how much proof and positive information is produced, it hits the spin machine and is launched into oblivion. And I guess we all know that Diebold has all their machines cranked up to “perform” again this election!!

Posted by: janedoe at August 16, 2008 3:48 AM
Comment #258670

I looked at the Slate site about Moore’s movie and while he was called a liar all the copy seems to be questioning conclusions he drew from the facts like the Saudi royals flying out of the states, Bush making a very trite statement on a golf course, sitting there reading My Pet Goat while we were under attack. There is a distinct difference between drawing a conclusion (a point of debate) and inventing a fact (a lie). The mediamatters.com site goes point-by-point and debunks Corsi’s lies. None of these anti-Moore sites do this with evidence - they just call him a liar. Most of these sites have long convoluted arguments as to why Moore is a liar but they never seem to really get to the point and address things point-by-point. It seems like instead of trying to dazzle with brilliance they try to baffle with B.S.

In addition, according to his publisher, Corsi’s book is a scholarly work. Scholarly works should at least meet some level of truth. Maybe a peer review, at least a fact checker for god’s sake.

Posted by: tcsned at August 16, 2008 9:23 AM
Comment #258671

>Scholarly works should at least meet some level of truth. Maybe a peer review, at least a fact checker for god’s sake.

Posted by: tcsned at August 16, 2008 09:23 AM

tc,

That is only if the writer/book is left leaning. If it’s right leaning it gets a pass on reviews and fact requirements.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 9:58 AM
Comment #258676

Rocky says, “At what point in time did we decide to consider outright bulls@#t information?”

Rocky, have you ever read the editorials in the NY Times? Have you ever listened to Dan Rather? How about some of the bullshit on CNN?

VV says, “we all know, Reagan was far too old in his second term and was suffering from the first stages of Alzheimers, and George W. Bush is very obviously mentally challenged. With the problems this nation is currently facing, we certainly don’t need another mental incompetent holding the office of the presidency.”

VV, may I remind you that Obama forgot how many states comprise our union. If your “opinion” counts, so do those expressed in Obamanation. Your statement quoted above is certainly not factual.

As for early Alzheimer’s, both Bill and Hillary made millions on their memoirs but neither could remember anything while testifying. It would appear that the Obamanation has a faulty memory as well.

Your house speaker, Nancy, told America that she was going to “save the planet” by not allowing offshore drilling and now has stated she is reconsidering that position and perhaps won’t save the planet. Even the Obamanation is coming around to the reality that a majority of 65% of Americans, using their common sense, want more drilling and use of America’s vast oil resources.

Both President Reagan and Bush were and are men of conviction, not political whim and pandering as is the Pelosi and the Obama.

Posted by: Jim M at August 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #258677

Erm, I suppose documentaries aren’t subjected to meet some levels of truth as well? What kind of hypocrisy is that?

And tcsned, I’ll just start with one of the first ones of the film Farenheit 9/11, a lie used to create a false impression to the viewers. We can start there and keep going if you want, or you can admit that there is at least 1 lie and probably more and accept it as part of the reality that both liberals and conservatives are susceptable to this type of machination.

In the film we are told that ‘under every scenario of recounting Gore won’. Except that isn’t true. And we are given a headline that says “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won Election.” from The Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. Except, it wasn’t a new article, it was an op-ed piece that even the writer of the editorial says was wrong to use as he did. The headline was also ‘modified’ to look like a news article. The paper has since had their lawyers involved, demanding a retraction and apology, which has not come.

The FACTS are that Bush would have won every recount that was underway had they been allowed to continue.

And no, I am not here to ‘rehash’ Florida 2000. It is a matter of public record that Bush won the initial count, won the automatic recount and would have won the recount underway when the Supreme Court stepped in. At no time was Gore ever winning. I’m not sure why so many are fixated on this notion that Gore somehow was ‘robbed’ of an election he was never ahead in, but that is the mindset of some people I guess. It isn’t how they want it to be so it must be wrong. There is nothing you can do about people’s willingness to believe what they want to believe, I deal with that in speaking to religious people all of the time, it’s not much different. But all you can do is use that information to identify them as being willing to suspend rationality and reality to keep their beliefs and move on.

So, if you want to keep defending Moore, please do. I am sure everyone will like to see all of these deceits and lies brought out again, it makes such interesting reading (not). Or, you can just admit that both sides do it and this is nothing new. I doubt that will happen of course, as I’ve seen there are people on the left commenting here that just can’t admit that the Democratic Party is possible of any wrongdoing, nor any liberals either. That that is an entirely unreasonable view to take, it makes it hard to debate with people who are clinging to their religion that tight.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 16, 2008 11:00 AM
Comment #258680

Rhinehold,

It all boils down to an outlook:

You say taking raw data and presenting it in a way that makes someone look bad is the same as fabricating out-and-out falsehoods and presenting tham as fact. It’s legal to look at it like that, but don’t you feel a little squeemish?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #258682

Jim,

“Rocky, have you ever read the editorials in the NY Times?”

The key word here is editorial,

From Merriam Webster;

Main Entry: 2 editorial
Function: noun
Date: 1830
: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article

Surely we can tell the difference between an editorial opinion, and a book that proports to be fact.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 16, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #258684

No, Marysdude, in the case of Moore it is not taking raw data and presenting it in a way that makes someone look bad, unless you count CHANGING what is being presented. And now, that doesn’t make me squeemish.

For example, he edited a debate to make someone say something that he didn’t say. That is not presenting facts in a way that makes someone look bad, it is altering facts in a way that makes someone look bad. That is the difference. Just as the example I presented, he has a statement made that is INFACTUAL and presents it as fact.

If that is just presenting fact in a politically favorably way, then surely what Corsi is doing is no different? Or, better yet, I’ll take clips of Obama saying something and edit it to make it look like he said something else. Would you be for that? Because that is precisely what Moore has done…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 16, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #258685

BTW, this is one line from the article here that I wanted to make sure didn’t get lost in the comments:

What really makes Corsi’s work a piece of garbage is that he admits that the purpose of this book was to discredit Barak Obama.

And, to bolster his opionion, he quotes Media Matters, who’s MISSION STATEMENT is exactly that…

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

They are anything that ‘forwards the conservative agenda’ and look to counter it. How is that different exactly? It’s not like Media Matters has a penchant for being honest about anything, they seek out conservative stories and attempt to debunk it, many times with made up facts or their partisan viewpoints. How anyone can use them as an unbiased or non-partisan source is by definition invalid.

Let me take an example: Media Matters counters a suggestion that gas prices shot up after Dems took office in Jan 2007. The price of gas went from around 1.50 a gallon to around 2.50 a gallon up until 2007 with a short jump to nearly 3 in 2006 during the early summer season when it usually goes up a bit. THEN, after Jan 2007, it rose nearly 2.00.

Now, anyone ‘rationally’ looking at the data will agree with the assessment that gas prices did go up dramatically after the Dems took office. No one can say that they caused it, that is hubris. But instead of arguing that, Media Matters tries to tell a different story, that gas prices were ’ on the rise ’ well before Jan 2007. Unfortunately, there is a difference between a slow rise with occasional peaks and valleys and the ‘hockey stick’ chart that gets created after Jan 2007…

That’s the type of unbiased reporting that Media Matters does…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 16, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #258689

Rhinehold-
Media Matters does readers and viewers of its content the favor of presenting the context around controversial comments. While sometimes they might be gadfly-ish on what might be superficial issues, they are the last people you can accuse of taking things out of context.

As for Corsi? I read an excerpt of Unfit For Command, and it read like the work of a men consumed with hatred with Kerry. Even where some benefit of the doubt was justifiable or possible, the text I found was corrosively unfair to him.

When you sum that together with his racist, sexist, and generally ill-willed postings on Free Republic, you’ll find a man who embodies irrational hatred of liberals and Democrats.

It’s the last thing your side of the political aisle needs to be focused on, because it’s what’s helped take Republicans off of their moorings. There will always be people who believe in conservative values. The question for folks like you and others is how can they practically work in the real world, and by working sell those values.

As for that gas price notion? Well, were’s the damn cause? Is it just vague, Democrat-originated bad luck? I would say that Bush and Republican policies are at fault. And I’ve got more than a vague presumption of cause and affect to back me up. First, you have the favorable energy market regulations that have allowed traders to bid up the price of oil arbitrarily, on any and all pretexts. Second, you have the Bush administration allowing the consolidation of oil companies. Less competition means lower incentives to keep prices down. Third, those mergers lead to those companies shutting down refineries, a move that raises prices through its artificial effect on supply. Lastly, You have the mandated inclusion of Ethanol, which also plays a role in high prices at the pump.

To blame the Democrats for rises in gas prices is a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc: After this, therefore because of this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2008 4:39 PM
Comment #258692

Rhinehold,

Okay, Michael Moore is a do-baddie, and should be shot at dawn…and, Corsi?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #258694


Jim M states “Both President Reagan and Bush were and are men of conviction, not political whim and pandering as is the Pelosi and the Obama.

Posted by: Jim M at August 16, 2008 10:56 AM “

Jim M yes they have their convictions dont they. The problem is we as a nation are tired of this kind of republican leadership.

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

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/061108Lendman.shtml

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #258697
It’s the last thing your side of the political aisle needs to be focused on

Libertarians are focused on Corsi?

Okay, Michael Moore is a do-baddie, and should be shot at dawn…and, Corsi?

Well, as I’ve said, I have no love lost for him at all, he is the same ilk as Moore IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Comment #258699
you’ll find a man who embodies irrational hatred of liberals and Democrats.

Kind of like Howard Dean and the Republicans? I get it now…

To blame the Democrats for rises in gas prices is a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc: After this, therefore because of this.

That’s why I didn’t blame them for it, and specifically said “No one can say that they caused it, that is hubris”. I just defended the statement that after they took office the price of gas shot up dramatically. That is true. What it may or may not mean is a different story. Media Matters tried to say that was wrong.

I would say that Bush and Republican policies are at fault.

Of COURSE you would, Stephen, because you operate in the world of Left is right and Right is wrong. But there are still a few of us who would rather look at facts and expand the possibility of what is going on BEYOND the realm of the political. Perhaps it’s not the Repbulican OR Democrats that people investing in oil have decided that it was time to buy oil future. I know, it’s a thought that doesn’t compute with some, that the government isn’t the end all, be all of everything…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #258702


I don’t doubt that oil and gas prices went up because Democrats won the election in 2006. However, we must remember that at the time, everyone was being swayed by the false assumption that the Democrats were going to stop the war. Many people were also under the false assumption that the Democrats were going to stop enabling the oil companies.

Anyone can call themselves progressive. If Media Matters was truely a progressive institution, they would be going after liberals as well as conservatives.

Yes, the liberals will cave on off shore drilling because while they may go at it with a different philosphical approach, both liberals and conservatives are in the business of giving the people what they want, and what the people want is to continue to consume at the rate they have been doing it.

The people want continuity and as a result, the desire for continuity outweighs the need for change.

No politician is going to hold up a mirror and say to the American people, look in here to find the source of our problems.

Posted by: jlw at August 17, 2008 3:22 AM
Comment #258707

Rhinehold:

Libertarians are focused on Corsi?

If you are Libertarian Rhinehold, then why are you constantly defending Republicans, and Republican viewpoints? You may not realize you do this with the vast majority of your comments to this blog, but you do. You’re not alone of course. There are plenty of others here who likewise claim not to be Republican, yet vigorously jump to their defense all the time. I find it tiresome.
Here you are in the Blue Column giving us links to Christopher Hitchens and O’Reilly’s flacks. That kind of thing is more of what people on the left have come to expect from common rightwing trolls, rather than Libertarians.
Why aren’t you talking about your candidate, Bob Barr, instead of defending a bigoted assh*le like Corsi whose Rovian swift-book is chock full of meanspiritedness, laughable errors, and blatant, shameless lies? Why are you here attacking Michael Moore, who everyone knows isn’t even a member of the Democratic Party?
Btw, Moore is a muckraking filmmaker who can make any damn kind of movie he wants to — and quite obviously he doesn’t give a rats tuchus if some people on the right are going to have a problem with them. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that hordes of Americans have been lining up to see his films for many years.

Lib Rick and Rick IL,

I think that both of you are right. The GOP has just given this nation the most bottom of the barrel, sh*ttiest, most lawless, most nasty, most anti-American, most Constitution-shredding, and most transparently dishonest leadership this country has ever seen. And they’re running an old, warmongering, temperamentally unstable, blitheringly confused idiot of a candidate — who is promising them exactly more of the same, and in many ways even worse, leadership. It stands to reason that only complete ignorance, stupidity, gullibility, and blind support for a pseudo conservative cult that will allow these folks to live in a world of complete denial would garner votes for their party in this election.
You would think that the vast majority in this nation would be ready for a changing of the guard — and yet some of the polls are telling us that this race is now tied? How bloody depressing is that?

After all this nation has endured over the course of the horrific Bush/Cheney years, you wouldn’t think that Rovian lying, swiftboating, and fear mongering would still be so effective — but it seems as though it is.
And in that case, maybe it is time for Obama and the Democrats to really start punching. And I mean brutally hard, knockout-style blows. Not just in retaliation for their crap, either. I mean start picking the fights and put him on the defensive. And keep on punching non-stop until the election.
If going negative is the only thing that people respond to these days, then lets give them plenty to chew on and spit out when it comes to McSame.
So far there are two factually incorrect swiftboating books, and also an anti-Obama smear film that is due out in September.
Maybe Democrats need to produce their own books and films about Mr. McFuddle. They can use subjects such as: His crooked Keating Five history. His shady and numerous lobbyist connections. His adultery on his accident-victim wife, and the abandonment of his three young children for a beer heiress who he met in Hawaii who was half his age. Or how the media is letting McCain totally off the hook for all his gaffes and grave mistakes, and how whenever anything manages to get brought up, some pundit has to whip out his POW past as an excuse for everything. In fact, even his campaign spokesmen are whipping that out now whenever a member of the press dares to ask a tough question. Oh how can anyone question anything John McCain does — don’t we all know HE WAS A POW? Bringing up his POW past is now to McCain, what mentioning the phrase 9/11 was to Guiliani — and it’s ridiculous. The fact that he was shot down and tortured for five years in Vietnam doesn’t let him off the hook for everything negative or crooked he’s done ever since.

Just my own cranky opinions.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 17, 2008 4:58 AM
Comment #258708

VV,

Winning is nice, but bringing ourselves down to the lowest common denominator seems a little excessive. I think I’d rather lose.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2008 6:45 AM
Comment #258715

A word on these lists of “lies” told by Michael Moore: In my experience, much of it is the commentators just disagreeing with an opinion, or as in this case, missing the entire point of a satirical dig:

7. In the golf course scene (about the middle of the movie), Bush had just heard about a terrorist attack on Israel. He called the press together to make a quick statement condemning the terrorism against Israel. He was not speaking about attacks on the United States.

This was, of course, the infamous “now watch this drive” scene. Here’s the full video, and if anything, the addition of all that other footage makes the contrast even more jarring. Switching gears that fast makes it look like he really wouldn’t be bothered if he had the choice.

Here’s another item:

15. James Bath did not invest bin Laden family money in Bush’s energy company Arbusto. He invested his own money.

From Moore’s site

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Bush’s good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself, in turn, invested in George W. Bush.”[emphasis mine]

Here again, they miss the point, but more importantly, the fact. By using the world “himself” Moore is correctly relating that this was Bath’s own investment. The fact checkers failed to check their own facts. The fact also remains that Bush’s friend, who invested in Bush’s company was a Bin Laden Money manager as well.

17. Prince Bandar has way too much influence on the U.S. government, as Fahrenheit shows, but American coddling of the Saudi tyranny is a long-standing bi-partisan tradition, not a Bush invention.

While, true in a sense, this one is misleading. For one thing, Prince Bandar IS a close friend of the Bush’s making what would normally be a close diplomatic relationship close in personal terms as well, to the point where he was called “Bandar Bush” by Dubya’s family. This become especially concerning when you hear of Prince Bandar being allowed to see America’s war plans for Iraq ahead of time.

35. John Ashcroft didn’t really lose a Senate election to a “dead guy.” Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash a few weeks before the election, and the Missouri Governor had promised to appoint Carnahan’s widow Jean Carnahan if voters pulled the lever for Mel Carnahan.

This is a rather indicative case of hairsplitting, and a bit funny at that. The lady did not even actively campaign for the seat, so it’s reasonable to assert that she was not the main draw, but her husband instead. And her husband, of course, was not among the living at the time he won that election.

49. The scene of American soldiers making fun of a man underneath a sheet is not torture of a prisoner of war. They are making fun of a drunk who passed out in the street.

We could file this under “Well, that makes it all better, now does it?”. Since the 2004 release of Farenheit 9/11, the results of Bush and Cheney’s leadership on troop morality has become much clearer, particularly with Abu Ghraib.

Let’s be realistic here. If we expect every soldier in any war to commit no sins, to evidence no bloodlust, to not feel in anger at the loss of comrades that retribution, even against civilians, is justified, we’re dreaming. And it will happen in war. It’s what happens before and after these kinds of events that matter.

The relationship between those above and those below in this war has been rather toxic, the leadership more or less cheering on a degeneration into expedience and dark side tactics, and practically lionizing obvious cover-ups of the results.

Moore has different opinions about what’s going on than the authors of that list, but Mr. Kopel insists on even making and ideological difference.

This comes out here, for example:

58. In Fahrenheit, Moore pretends to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq-the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria-who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq. Here is what Moore said on April 14, 2004, about the forces who are killing Americans and trying to impose totalitarian
rule on Iraq: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” Do you really think that someone who wants Iraq to be ruled by Islamist or Ba’athist tyranny, and who deliberately kills innocent civilians with car bombs, is like the American Minutemen?

Remember, this is one of his “deceits”. Moores point, whether you agreed with it or not, was that the media framing had the motives of these people wrong, equating people in this 2003-2004 period with terrorists. He said nothing about liking the Baathists, much less liking the terrorists. And one can hardly say, at this point, that we brought peace and quiet to Iraq.

Bush supporters hyped up, again and again, the little sort of terrorist connections, trying to justify the bigger terrorism allegation that never panned out. Moore was also contrasting the relative peace we had with Iraq beforehand, and the normalcy, if not freedom, of the average Iraqi’s life under Saddam, with the war zone it would become after our invasion. Kopel could talk about all the people who fled Iraq before then, but what about those who flee it now?

It is possible, despite all the Republicans allege, to go into a war like this with good intentions and moral motivations and screw it all up. The Iraqis did have something to lose, with loss of peace, and the failure to create it in the aftermath of our invasion, and invasion, which on point of fact we engaged in without real provocation from the Iraqi side.

In the end, so much of the focus of Republicans is on how things look, to the point now where it’s very difficult to sift through facts and get straight answers and good policies out of them. People have come to believe that they cannot trust that the GOP wants their input or wants their opinion when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, and that they will simply keep on lying, deceiving and rationalizing, so long as they remain in power, until they get what they want.

That is why the Republicans are laid out on the slab, why they are hemorrhaging membership in Congress, and why Barack Obama, if you look at the electoral vote totals, is likely to win the presidency in November. Americans want an end to PR politics, or at least a de-escalation of it. They want truthful, balanced, knowledgeable leadership. They want somebody who’s not trying to force them to stay in a war they’ve long since tired of.

All the Republicans have left to defeat Obama is BS like Corsi’s. They are in the game of winning not on substance, but on the exploitation of people’s ignorance, their emotions, and their prejudice. People like Corsi or Kopel might claim to be separate from the GOP, but their help proves especially convenient. Even if they do not visibly support the leaders of the GOP, they have the odd habit of showing up to slime opponents and critics. They’ll profess some unconventional political affiliations, but will attack precisely those people who are causing problems for the GOP, whether it’s a candidate or a filmmaker. That’s awfully convenient. It’s also par for the course with the Republicans, who are no strangers to these stealth tactics.

The question for this election will be: do you want a party that has to go to such great lengths to sell you on themselves and defeat the competition, or do you want the party that better fits what you want from the get-go?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #258716

VV and dude both have great points…all legitimate, but what do we do? Anyone else see the interview of both candidates yesterday at Saddleback? McCain dodged several questions, and his responses primarily involved incidents during his VietNam days. Why is it so hard for people to see that having been shot down and imprisoned, and, yes..tortured, is not an endorsement?? He also repeatedly jumped on the terrorist bandwagon, repeating once again, issues from the past. He is relying on pity and fear to carry him along. I’m personally sick of it all, but the Repubs can’t seem to find anything new and positive to use, so we go with the same old, tired, rhetorical bull***t…..


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/16/MNMP12CJPC.DTL&type=politics

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html

Posted by: janedoe at August 17, 2008 12:41 PM
Comment #258717

VV says, “You would think that the vast majority in this nation would be ready for a changing of the guard — and yet some of the polls are telling us that this race is now tied? How bloody depressing is that?”

I find myself agreeing with VV which is astonishing for me. McCain was not my choice in the primaries and I will vote for him only because the alternative candidate is opposed to nearly all of my political beliefs as a conservative.

That Obama doesn’t hold a commanding ten or fifteen percent lead at this point is evidence of America’s distrust of him and dislike for much of his political agenda. Remove the 70% to 80% of die hard liberals and conservative and in the remaining 20% to 30% will be found those who will determine the outcome of this election. These uncommitted independents are seeking honest answers based upon reality, not better oratory, untried and untested government experimentation, higher taxes or lowered security.

Neither candidate has demonstrated real appeal to these voters and I believe they will remain uncommitted right up to election day. Much depends upon gas prices and world turbulence come November 4th. Painting McCain as too old or a Bush clone isn’t working for the Obama camp. Constantly having to explain away past associations of Obama isn’t helping his cause either nor is his drumbeat of higher taxes. American’s aren’t fooled by his tax the rich and corporate America strategy as these independent voters mainly work in corporate America and feel rich with their investments both privately and in their retirement portfolios.

I predict the Independent vote will begin to swing towards McCain, not out of love for the man or all of his policies, but rather, out of fear of the unknown, untested, and too liberal Obama.

Posted by: Jim M at August 17, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #258718
If you are Libertarian Rhinehold, then why are you constantly defending Republicans, and Republican viewpoints? You may not realize you do this with the vast majority of your comments to this blog, but you do.

No, I attack Democrats. That is not the same as defending Republicans, though I am sure you would like people to think so so that you don’t have to work hard at your defense.

Where have I defended Republican arguments in these comments sections? Please copy and paste the quote…

I find it tiresome.

Yeah, I am sure you do, because you have to defend yourself and your party instead of just saying ‘We’re better than those guys’. I could care less.

Here you are in the Blue Column giving us links to Christopher Hitchens and O’Reilly’s flacks.

I responded to an idiot statement with links that proved that point wrong, that ‘no one called him Moore a liar’. And now you want to use that as ‘proof’ that I’m a secret Republican spy when, as I have stated before, I have never voted for a Republican nor supported one. I was, at one time, a Democrat. Take that as you want, but as usual I am sure you will ignore it.

Why aren’t you talking about your candidate, Bob Barr, instead of defending a bigoted assh*le like Corsi whose Rovian swift-book is chock full of meanspiritedness, laughable errors, and blatant, shameless lies?

Again, please quote one place where I have defended Corsi?

Why are you here attacking Michael Moore, who everyone knows isn’t even a member of the Democratic Party?

Because he was supported by Democrats, was invited to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and we were told by Democrats, during an election year, that his work was ‘the most important work of our time’. Yet it was the same type of garbage that Corsi is putting out, and now you expect Republicans to denounce it when there was no call from the left to denounce Moore then, or now. It’s called ‘HYPOCRISY’ and if you would look at my archives, you will see that is what I am most about fighting against and the Democrats are chock full of it.

Btw, Moore is a muckraking filmmaker who can make any damn kind of movie he wants to — and quite obviously he doesn’t give a rats tuchus if some people on the right are going to have a problem with them. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that hordes of Americans have been lining up to see his films for many years.

And a lot of Americans are going to read Corsi’s work. So what is the point of the article again and your defense of it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #258719

BTW, why am I not supporting Barr? I have. You ignore those comments apparently. And I haven’t been free to write articles for the past 3 months dealing with personal things.

Apparently that is some ‘proof’ of my Republican ways as well.

What a completely idiotic argument and assessment. Is this how you examine all people who disagree with you? If you aren’t with us you’re against us?

Wonderful.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #258722

Jim M-
The virtual tie stuff is pretty much BS. On one level, it’s a misinterpretation of what margin of error means. Kevin Drum on the Washington Monthly blog illustrates why.

I originally wrote about this back in 2004, but here it is again. The idea of a “statistical tie” is based on the theory that (a) statistical results are credible only if they are at least 95% certain to be accurate, and (b) any lead less than the MOE is less than 95% certain.

There are two problems with this: first, 95% is not some kind of magic cutoff point, and second, the idea that the MOE represents 95% certainty is wrong anyway. A poll’s MOE does represent a 95% confidence interval for each individual’s percentage, but it doesn’t represent a 95% confidence for the difference between the two, and that’s what we’re really interested in.

In other words, the confidence doesn’t immediately drop to zero when its within the Poll’s margin of error. The MOE represents the point where confidence is 95% in the numbers. The larger the lead, the more confidence you have in the results. The larger the MOE, the less confidence you have in the result, and in the lead. In the poll they talk about.

Drum eventually works around to this point: if Obama has a three point lead, and the MOE is 2%, then it’s 93% certain that the numbers are real. So, it’s about 2% difference from the confidence we would put forward these numbers as a lead.

Even if we were working at a 4 or 5% MOE, the numbers still have around a 75% chance of represent Obama as ahead, if he has such a lead. Even a 1% lead has a better than half chance of being correct, given the 5% MOE. With the Gallup tracking poll’s 2% MOE, we’re talking a 69% chance that the lead is genuine.

So, it’s more correct to say that Obama likely has a slim lead over McCain at the moment.

The real question is how these numbers will fair with Obama back on the campaign trail, leading up to the convention, with a VP choice, and in the general election, with Obama and him debating.

It’s funny here that you guys are celebrating a tie. So let me tell you, this is the best you guys can get without Obama self-destructing. From here, it only gets more difficult as the campaigns get more intense. You have a black person who twelve percent of people believe is a secret Muslim, and he’s still winning without even really trying.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #258725

Stephen,

The saddest thing of all:

‘O’ is winning without trying

‘O’ is winning while on vatation

‘O’ is losing only because Hill’s die-hards are still talking about voting cross-ticket. I want to cry every time I hear or read those words. These turkeys would PREFER four more years of Cheney/Bush, than to vote for the best qualified candidate, just because he beat there pick in the primaries…none are so blind—-

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2008 2:16 PM
Comment #258727

VV

You would think that the vast majority in this nation would be ready for a changing of the guard — and yet some of the polls are telling us that this race is now tied? How bloody depressing is that?

I have not reached a level of depression yet. I do however find myself amazed at the notion that so many can in light of the last eight years even give McCain serious consideration. I think it is a bit early to start putting a lot of stock in polls. At this point the campaign has been largely posturing to set the tone for what sort of campaign it will be when the s-it really hits the fan after the conventions. It is clear at this point that the usual slimy swift boating, hate and fear induced tactics will be used by the GOP. I would think that many have figured out by now that McCain and his party has nothing new or of substance to offer.

I have given the notion of punching back with the same degree of vitriol and shameless attacks some thought myself. I think I am with dude on this one. I would rather lose knowing I fought an honest fight with the best of intentions than win via a campaign of deception based on the perpetuation of fear, hatred and false notions. I think it is important for the dems to retain a presence of credibility and civility. Lowering standards would make them no better than the trolls they hope to defeat. To be honest I think the GOP is hoping that the dems will take the same route as them. It would provide additional ammo in that they would twist the situation to make it appear as though the opponent is just as sleazy and lacking of integrity as themselves. If the dems can not win on issues it speaks more of the gullabilities of the voter and their penchant for self affliction than it does the dem candidate.

I still do not believe that the election will be particularly close. Once people have had a chance to see the two on stage, face to face, the reality that McCain has nothing new or of substance to offer will be quite obvious to those who pay attention.

I certainly do not expect the Dems to lie down and die. All they need do is present an accurate and honest picture of McCain. The truth should in this situation be enough.

Posted by: RickIL at August 17, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #258728

>All they need do is present an accurate and honest picture of McCain. The truth should in this situation be enough.


Posted by: RickIL at August 17, 2008 02:37 PM

Yeah, but, RickIL, his picture keeps changing, how do we present an honest production when you can’t grab onto the sucker???

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #258730

dude

Just keep showing those many faces over and over and over. Nothing speaks better than the truth. And nothing shows that truth better than lots of TV time. Obama bought in almost double the amount of campaign contributions over McCain last month. I suspect that trend will continue.

Posted by: RickIL at August 17, 2008 3:32 PM
Comment #258735

So is this “broken” again????

Posted by: janedoe at August 17, 2008 6:43 PM
Comment #258736

Hmmm…guess not. Tried posting a while ago and got the spiel about new posters being reviewed..

Posted by: janedoe at August 17, 2008 6:45 PM
Comment #258737

VV

I also find it depressing. I am depressed because the american voting public in general is lazy and more interested in the latest reality show than they are politics. They listen to snippets on TV or radio from right wing fear mongers and believe everything they hear without bothering to spend time doing research or truly learning about a candidate.

I am also depressed because I am sure the republicans and diebold are gearing up to steal the elections again and so whether Barack is behind or ahead may be unimportant.

Posted by: Carolina at August 17, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #258740

janedoe, Sorry about the glitch. I moved the site back over to a dedicated server this afternoon. I tried to keep it as seamless as possible but I think you happened to hit the site while i was getting it back up and running.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at August 17, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #258743

I was just responding to dude and RickIL, with a comment that some factions will not change their positions or beliefs, no matter who the candidate is, or what his/her platform is.
This appearance yesterday of Obama and McCain just confirmed that in my mind. Asked the same questions seperately and apart, McCain answered several of them by immediately going back to his Naval Acamemy and VietNam. He is totally using pity and fear to promote himself.
The audience went crazy, as did they on the abortion/stem cell issues. This man has nothing new to say, and the old stuff he says has no future plans or ideas in it. Since the forum for this was a gigantic church, the audience was set perfectly for the conservative mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html

Posted by: janedoe at August 17, 2008 10:00 PM
Comment #258744

Another level to that BS I was talking about was the Electoral college. Put simply, we don’t elect the president according to overall popular vote. If we did, we wouldn’t be in the second Bush term.

The poll numbers indicate that Obama would have a substantial lead in the electoral college. It’s not close. It’s pretty substantial.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2008 10:49 PM
Comment #258745

janedoe

Since the forum for this was a gigantic church, the audience was set perfectly for the conservative mind.

I do not believe in mixing politics and religion and am not in the least bit surprised that the people in the audience chose to place the importance of theological beliefs before practical issues. As you say there is a portion of our voting populace that has no broad vision. They are limited by what they have been taught to accept as the only way. Please do not mistake that last statement as an effort to debunk the value of the church. I think the church has a place in this world when used properly. It is great at providing a place to socialize, organize and provide assistance to those in need. However I do not think it has any business in determining political policy or as to how I or anyone should live. Many beliefs across the spectrum of theology are outdated, archaic and regressive in light of todays needs. Many of their leaders have been proven to be just as immoral and easily influenced as the heathens they choose to condemn. They use the notion of fear by way of eternal damnation to advocate the worship of an icon that supposedly is all loving and good. Talk about a redundancy. They use this same method to influence their members in matters of politics. I have known people that put all their faith in the beliefs of a pastor. They take it to heart and are all too ready to accept anything he or she preaches as fact. This imo is cultism at its best. Republicans have gone out of their way to associate the label conservative with moral value and have readily and falsely applied that label to themselves. As though they are the keepers of morality. They have used that label of conservatism as a means of clear separation between themselves and the liberals they advertise as soulless heathens. The key word being used . Used as a deceptive form of false labeling to further their agenda.

Unfortunately there are way too many who are willing to be led by those who just happen to say the right thing at the right moment, regardless of the lack of conviction behind it. Some are simply easily duped and find it easier to be led through life than question where they are going.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the audience was set perfectly for the evangelical mind. A mind that has been conditioned to believe that liberals are the antithesis of morality. Of course we all know which bastion of moral authority perpetuates that notion.

Posted by: RickIL at August 17, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #258746

The Kerry book worked because it had a lot of fact. Such a the fact that John kerry lied about fighting in Cambodia…lied to congress. Lied about tossing his medals away…etc. Kerrys activist dishonest worked against him.

Obama has similar problems. He has some really poor associations with racists, bigots, hate-mongers from the far left.

It’s already a best seller and everyone is talking about it…including Obama.

I don’t think the truth about Obama is going to hurt him much. Not enough people are paying attention and the press will cover for him.

It’s afterward, when he’s in office and the real truth comes out in the form of policy that people will be shocked that they put an activist progressive liberal pushing socialism into the White House and he’s taxing them to death and burying them with more government spending.

Posted by: StephenL at August 17, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment #258747

Marysdude:

Winning is nice, but bringing ourselves down to the lowest common denominator seems a little excessive. I think I’d rather lose.

Rick IL:

I have given the notion of punching back with the same degree of vitriol and shameless attacks some thought myself. I think I am with dude on this one. I would rather lose knowing I fought an honest fight with the best of intentions than win via a campaign of deception based on the perpetuation of fear, hatred and false notions. I think it is important for the dems to retain a presence of credibility and civility. Lowering standards would make them no better than the trolls they hope to defeat. To be honest I think the GOP is hoping that the dems will take the same route as them. It would provide additional ammo in that they would twist the situation to make it appear as though the opponent is just as sleazy and lacking of integrity as themselves. If the dems can not win on issues it speaks more of the gullabilities of the voter and their penchant for self affliction than it does the dem candidate.

Well, I’m not with you two on this at all. You seem to think that the concept of polite, conscientious fair play is more important, but I think, no, in fact I KNOW that America can’t AFFORD TO HAVE THE DEMOCRATS LOSE THIS ELECTION.

John McCain has now demonstrated that he is willing do ANYTHING in order to win. We are dealing with Neocons here, are we not? Thugs and bullies who have NO SOULS. They endanger all of our lives with their evil bullsh*t senseless wars-for-profit, who steal from us and our childrens futures, who beat up on us continually, who lie and cheat, and then scream of how Democrats are what’s wrong with this nation.

And how do we react? With being more concerned with maintaining the proper dignity? Screw That.
We’re the ones at fault if we don’t start playing by the same damn election year rules the GOP keeps insisting on. Namely: character assassination and vicious all-out swiftboating.
Sure, it would have been just great if McFuddle had stuck to his word and run a clean, respectful campaign, BUT HE HASN’T. And that means we have to play by the same old Rovian Rules they’re setting out. It’s past time that Democrats, all Democrats, start showing the GOP how completely disgusting and totally lacking in decency we think they are — and that we’re mad as hell about it. Then we should proceed to rip their bloody heads off in a way they’ll never, ever forget.
That’s the only way a normal person can win against insane, evil bullies, and it always has been since time immemorial.

Did being dignified and respectful at all times win Gore the election, or Kerry the election? NO, it didn’t. But acting like Gangsters and Thugs won the day for the GOP in both of those elections. It’s sad to say, but the reason they’ve been winning is obviously because this nation is brimming with too many brain-dead, uninformed, troglodytes, who indeed may well outnumber the intelligent, rational, free thinking, emotionally mature people we have at this point.

Please don’t mistake what I’m saying here. I’m not suggesting that we lie or swiftboat John McCain. Democrats are better than that. But what we clearly need to start doing is begin telling the truth about this corrupt, warmongering, immoral old geezer, in an EXTREMELY STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE WAY.
Clearly they want to make this election all about Barack Obama’s character rather than the mountain of serious issues and problems their party and disastrous leadership has created for the nation. Well, I think we can cover both of these things aggressively. Cover our ideas and solutions to the many problems and issues that need addressing, AND talk forcefully and aggressively about John McCain’s numerous and glaring character flaws.

Rick IL:

I think it is a bit early to start putting a lot of stock in polls.

I’m not really putting a great deal of stock in the recent polls, but I am keeping an eye on them now that the Swiftboating and Character Assassination has begun in earnest. A tactic that is sure to continue for the rest of the election season. And what the polls are now saying is that the Rovian playbook is once again working to make a very weak and even laughable Republican candidate seem plausibly electable. Well, at least effective enough to get them close enough to allow the GOP voter caging and disenfranchisement techniques, as well as the rigged computerized voting machines do the rest.

And for all of the above reasons I’ve outlined, I am convinced that the Democratic Party needs to get really aggressive in order overwhelm the tried, tested and successful BS election strategy that the GOP has been using on us.

Rhinehold:

And I haven’t been free to write articles for the past 3 months dealing with personal things.

Yeah, right. That’s why you’re on here constantly writing articles for the Center Column and arguing in so many of the threads with everyone.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 18, 2008 12:13 AM
Comment #258751

I didn’t mean to make it sound as though I have no place for church or religion in my life, either. It isn’t the church, but more the deep evangelical slant of the congregation. Which is why I felt there was more than a slight advantage for McCain to begin with.
I just have such a hard time understanding what so many people find attractive and compelling about McCain. He is a dottering, bumbling, old fool with a questionable sense of humor and more than minimal signs of dementia showing. But hey……who can speak to taste. Too bad his supporters can’t understand that we’ve had 8 (nearly) years of being the butt of jokes around the world.

Posted by: janedoe at August 18, 2008 2:07 AM
Comment #258753

Some news about the Saddleback event:
Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’
In other words, McFuddle had the ability to listen to the questions being asked, and a long time to think about his own replies to those exact same questions.

McCain spokesperson:

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

Everyone is just supposed to take their word for it. I guess because Republicans are all such “Good Christians.”

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Doh! There it is again!!! The POW Excuse.
It’s so darn versatile, it can be used on virtually any breach of ethics.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 18, 2008 2:44 AM
Comment #258755

I’m quickly getting as frustrated…no……infuriated as you VV. There just doesn’t seem to be anything that isn;t TOO nasty, TOO dirty, TOO sneaky, TOO untruthful for those on the McCain payroll, including the old goat himself to be part of !
On a bit brighter note, this may give us a bit of fresh air to consider:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flacampaigntroops0817sbaug17,0,2850660.story

Posted by: janedoe at August 18, 2008 4:12 AM
Comment #258757

VV,

You say we can’t afford to lose this election, so we must get down and dirty to do it?

Then what makes the difference whether we win or lose the election…nothing will change if we become them.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2008 10:34 AM
Comment #258758

VV,

I guess what I’m trying to say is…McPain keeps saying we can win in Iraq. You and I know that ‘winning’ is out of the question, because no matter what the outcome of the war, it was begun in dishonor, and any outcome will be the result of dishonor, hence no ‘winning’.

The same then goes, as far as I am concerned with campaigning dirty…the end, no matter which way it ends, is bound to be dirty.

If the school-yard bully kicks the little girl until she cries, does he ‘win’?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2008 10:39 AM
Comment #258759

VV, janedoe

I am not suggesting that the dems take a non aggressive approach. I am merely suggesting that they attack aggressively with the truth. We should indeed vigorously attack the character of McCain and his party. It is just that in this situation there is no need to fabricate half truths and vague notions as the GOP is so fond of doing. I believe there is more than enough legitimate negative McCain information out there to sink a fleet of battle ships. We should pursue those liabilities while at the same time make our agenda for the future clear. In other words an aggressive smear campaign based on truth backed by a clear vision of better times for this country. The GOP has clearly set the tone for this campaign. They have opened the door to character assassination and turnabout is indeed fair play. The republicans can not win on issues so they must resort to negative attack ads based on false realities to pump fear and hate into the campaign. We can win on issues. Issues combined with an effective campaign of negative republican revelations should be a winner. The people of this country have not forgotten the last eight years. They just need to be reminded on a steady basis of who is responsible for those times and which maverick candidate sided with those responsible over 90% of the time.

Posted by: RickIL at August 18, 2008 10:40 AM
Comment #258760

StephenL-
Look, the accounts Corsi used in the last book are unsupported by the documentation for the medals won by his accusers. He makes charges, like Kerry falsifying a report, based on initials which, if you actually take a second to recall Kerry’s full name, aren’t even his. Much of the evidence is anecdotal testimony thirty years on, and is contradicted by other eyewitnesses. Furthermore, some of his accusers previously supported him in his previous Senate Campaign.

The real truth, which the Right can’t handle, is that

a)Obama’s not a stealth candidate. People know what to expect.

and

b)They. Want. It.

The days of the GOP Fringe Right calling the tune are over. You had your chance, and you blew it. The only thing you folks have left now is slander and libel. You can only win by misleading people about Obama, by going more negative, more quickly than most major candidates for president in recent history.

This is your proud achievement: to tear people down, and then raise your virtue as being different from them. Your tax policy has exploded the national debt. Your economic policy is impoverishing the Middle Class. Your foreign policy has weakened America, and your military policy has lost us a war. What else do you have to offer us than deception and manipulation?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2008 11:27 AM
Comment #258761
And I haven’t been free to write articles for the past 3 months dealing with personal things.
Yeah, right. That’s why you’re on here constantly writing articles for the Center Column and arguing in so many of the threads with everyone.

Let’s take a quick look at my article history:

08/13/2008: The Otiosity of Fear
08/05/2008: Democrats Screw the Poor Again
04/09/2008: The M Word

Let’s see, an article in April and then two more in August… That seems like more than 3 months.

It’s no wonder that RickIL, a fellow Democrat of yours, is trying to caution you to use the truth in your attacks, something that easy to check and you can’t even get that right?

Oh, and the two articles I did write this month, one is critical of Democrats, the other of Republicans. What a closet Republican am I! *rolls eyes*. The fact is, there is no place in the Republican party for me, thankfully, because I am an athiest, socially liberal, pro-abortion rights nutjob. In fact, the same reason that I am not welcome in the Deomcratic party, my stance on individual liberty, is the same reason I can’t stomache the Republican party and am not welcome there. And yes, I have spoken on there several times about Barr and you can bet your ass that I will be posting about him in articles coming up, along with the Libertarian Party and the fact that we are quickly losing (or some say already lost) the sense of individual liberty here in the US.

But there has been a distrubing trend here at Watchblog in the past several months that I am hoping is just temporary. You see, this site was once dedicated to the notion of ‘Critique the Message, not the Messenger’. Unfortunately, lately, the site has become DailyKOS lite with comment after comment that break the Rules For Participation over and over again. And the moderators have either gone elsewhere or given up, I’m not sure which. Just in this thread I’ve seen Republicans accused of having no soul, being crooks, criminals, evil, etc… Had Republicans done the same to Democrats my guess is that you would be screaming bloody murder, but it’s all ok in your book when the target are evil Republicans, right?

It’s no wonder that many who came here in years past are leaving these days, the time when this was a forum where we could discuss ideas hard and agressively, but civilly and with the understanding that the other person you are debating with are humans with just different ways of viewing life and as valid to those ideals as you are seemingly gone and the possibility of that being true is apparently lost on a whole group of posters here.

If what you are wanting is a place to say anything that pops into your head without worry about having to back it up with reason or fact just because it denigrates Republicans or bolsters Democrats, there are already places like that around the web, all too many of them. If that isn’t what you are looking for, I have to wonder why it seems that this is what is being pressed for here? And will you be happy when all Republican supporters and anyone who doesn’t suckle at the Progressive teat have found other places to visit?

But hey, that’s just the closet Republican in me talking, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #258764

“Obama’s not a stealth candidate. People know what to expect” Thanks for the comedy interlude, but I think BHO’s most ardent supporters are expecting something very different from what they are actually going to get if he is elected. IMO, he is to the right of William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of The United States. Clinton drew down the military, causing the next guy to use private contractors for their crusading. BHO would actually increase their roll.

On R-man and libertarianism, it would be better if there was an article on that in the green column. We’ve had a little discussion before on who’s taking over the Libertarian party.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 18, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #258765

ohrealy -

Actually, if you’ll check, you’ll find it was BUSH Sr. who did the big drawdown of the military. I was stationed at the Navy base in Bremerton, Washington at the time and I well recall how, from ‘90 to ‘92, downtown Bremerton went from being ‘the #1 place to live in America’ to a place virtually bereft of business. Even the McDonald’s ran out of business!

FYI, the invasions of Afghanistan (which was the right thing to do) and Iraq (the WRONG thing to do) were accomplished with the military built under that anti-military dope-smoker Clinton….

But that’s the habit of conservatives, though - loudly proclaim how the Dems are going to ruin the nation’s military…even when it’s Bush Sr. who did the biggest military drawdown since the end of WWII, and it’s his kid Bush II who’s run the military into the ground even while spending more on the military than the rest of the world put together.

See what happens when you Swiftboat a war hero and vote a deserter into the White House? That’s what you Republicans did.

But be sure and blame the Dems - that’s the patriotic thing to do!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 18, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #258769

Rhinehold, I think your comments are actually some of the most inflammatory in here….they’re just done with subtlety that may escape some…ie, “rolling eyes” or “sigh”. Some comments are quite demeaning and condescending, but you seem to have avoided being chastised for the couple of years that I’ve been watching and reading here. Guess longevity does have it’s privileges.
RickIL, part of me agrees with what you’re saying about maintaining a level of decency and fair play. We certainly do have enough ammunition to continue in that mode. Those that we oppose don’t understand that concept, though. So, if playing nice completely goes over those heads, then we need at some time, to drop to their level to get their attention.
It’s just incredibly frustrating, and as time gets shorter to the conventions and the really big efforts to win….my hope and excitement diminish. I think often of one of d.a.n.’s favorite sayings…. “the voters deserve what they get”….or something to that effect.

Posted by: janedoe at August 18, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #258776

janedoe

“The voters have the government that the voters elect” I was trying last night to remember dan’s quote. It is so true.

If push comes to shove I could understand having to stoop to GOP levels. However I feel it is a bit early to resort to such drastic action. We will have a more clear and concise picture of the situation after the conventions. VV is correct when she states that we simply can not afford any more years of the status quo.

Posted by: RickIL at August 18, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #258780

janedoe,

There is a difference in attacking someone’s arguements or attitudes and attacking them personally. If someone says something inheritely stupid, I will flag it as such. But if you catch me calling someone stupid, that would be a violation of the rules. Or calling someone evil, or saying they have no soul, etc.

Heated discussion is good. Attacking people personally is not. I have yet to find one person on here that I know personally so it would be hard for me to think they are ‘evil’ or have no soul, etc. So I wouldn’t suggest such a thing.

That is why part of the rules of participation, that everyone abides to when they click on the ‘Post’ button (go ahead and look below, you will see the acceptance) deal specifically with such behavior.

Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. This means you may critique any points made in another person’s writing or comments. But, you may not criticize the person themself, nor their right to comment at WatchBlog. This also means you may not criticize categories of people who visit and participate at WatchBlog (e.g. All Democrats are commies or, All Republicans are idiots). To be in compliance, critique of what other WatchBlog participants say, must be aimed at the points being made in their content.

Trolling and flame baiting are NOT acceptable. This means comments whose primary effect is to provoke hostility or anger in other participants at WatchBlog are not tolerated.

I hope this helps as one of the column managers here I am concerned that the line is being crossed far too often to allow the type of discourse, hard but fair, that made this site the great site that is has become. Seeing, over the past several months, many of the long time posters leave has been disheartening to someone who actually cares about what the site stands for.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #258782

jane doe,

It is indeed wonderful news that our active military troops are supporting Obama with campaign donations six times as much as they are McSame. They’re not stupid. They know which party will bring them home, and which party has been looking out for their best interests.

Dude:

You say we can’t afford to lose this election, so we must get down and dirty to do it?

Yes. Down and Dirty with the Truth. A sh*tstorm of truth telling about the cesspool that is John McCain and all of his advisers, associates, and big contributors.

Then what makes the difference whether we win or lose the election…

If you don’t see why we MUST win this election, then I suspect you haven’t been paying enough attention.

nothing will change if we become them.

We simply aren’t capable of that — our moral principles are too strong to lie and make stuff up the way they’re so proud of doing. But we can do exactly what they’ve been doing, not with lies and fabrications, but with the Awful Truth.

I guess what I’m trying to say is…McPain keeps saying we can win in Iraq. You and I know that ‘winning’ is out of the question, because no matter what the outcome of the war, it was begun in dishonor, and any outcome will be the result of dishonor, hence no ‘winning’.

Agree completely. A Pyrric Victory, brought to us by the GOP — the War-For-Profit Party.

The same then goes, as far as I am concerned with campaigning dirty…the end, no matter which way it ends, is bound to be dirty.

It’s not dirty when it’s merely tit for tat, and it’s only the truth.

If the school-yard bully kicks the little girl until she cries, does he ‘win’?

Yes, he does win. And that bully has been winning for far too long. Time for the “little girl” to pick herself up off the ground and go kick the crap out of that psychopath. And whether she ruins her dress, and gets a little dirty and bleeds a little in the process, doesn’t matter. Because her wounds will heal and the dirt will wash off, and tomorrow the whole playground is going to thank her for taking him on.

Rick IL:

I am merely suggesting that they attack aggressively with the truth. We should indeed vigorously attack the character of McCain and his party. It is just that in this situation there is no need to fabricate half truths and vague notions as the GOP is so fond of doing.

So it seems that we do agree then. We don’t need half truths or vague notions. Using the plain truth about McCain and the Republicans is more than enough — but it’s got to be done aggressively and relentlessly, and by each and every one of us. I’m sick to death of seeing Democratic politicians being interviewed where the first thing out of their mouth is: “we all know that John McCain is a legitimate war hero.” Who gives a crap? Everybody knows his story. The GOP didn’t give a rats ass that John Kerry happened to be a war hero too — they categorically denied him any respect for it. And John Kerry wasn’t flying in a plane dropping bombs from the air in Vietnam like McCain was, he was on the water getting shot at daily.
As for the rest of your post, well said, and I couldn’t agree more.

Rhinehold:

Let’s see, an article in April and then two more in August… That seems like more than 3 months.

You’re right. I believe the fact that you’re constantly arguing with everyone in the threads of this blog made me think you had written more articles.

It’s no wonder that RickIL, a fellow Democrat of yours, is trying to caution you to use the truth in your attacks, something that easy to check and you can’t even get that right?

Actually, it seems that Rick and I are pretty much in agreement. As for the rest of your diatribe, allow me to quote John McCain on the swiftboating of Obama:

“Gotta keep your sense of humor,”
Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 18, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #258784
But we can do exactly what they’ve been doing, not with lies and fabrications, but with the Awful Truth.

So why is the Obama campaign spreading lies and mischaracterizations themselves?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_the_dhl_deal.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/not_pictured_here.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #258791

No Rhinehold, you only (think) you win, because perhaps you do have some obscure powers to control postings and posters. I’ve watched some get thrown off here for violating the rules far less than you have. You just have a subtlety that avoids repercussions. And there are others who continue to violate the rules blatantly and repeatedly and who continue to do so without comment, or follow-through.
I do agree that to call names and be less than civil is no way to make a point and earn credibility. I don’t agree, however, that the forum has deteriorated any. People move on and others come to take their places. Others have just simply given up after repeatedly and with great effort through research, proven points, yet never receive agreement or acceptance of points made. It’s kind of like talking to that brick wall thing.


Posted by: janedoe at August 18, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #258797
Its about $20 per Black enlisted personel!

Wonder where you pulled that information from? The article didn’t designate color, sexual preference, religious beliefs or any other personal attributes.

Posted by: janedoe at August 18, 2008 2:49 PM
Comment #258798

Rhinehold

You really do seem to support everything republican. Maybe it is not intentional but that is what comes across.

Are you suggesting that dems should ignore inflammatory false accusation and act as though it does not exist. Many republicans take great pride in implying exclusive rights when it comes to morality and religious issues. This is a trait they associate with the label conservative. A label they are all to willing to use to their advantage. They seem to find no fault in using that label to perpetuate false notions so long as it benefits their cause. Do you feel it is morally correct to deceptively use claims of greater morality or religious belief to build false notions against an opponent? If so, what about this practice makes it ethical to lay claim to an ideology they do not practice? Time and time again the GOP has resorted to a nasty campaign strategy based on the perpetuation of false deceptions aimed at presenting themselves as the party of goodness and high moral values. The reality is that they as a party fail in every aspect of living up to a standard they use to belittle the other guy. This is not a judgment on conservatives in general. It is a judgment on the GOP and anyone who is dim enough to not see through their campaign spin. I know many fine people who actually in real life practice conservative values. Most are quite capable of seeing through the bull and making an informed decision on their own. Then there are others who are easily swayed. It is that tactic of fear and hate mongering to reign in these others that does not sit well with me. And just to be fair I noticed you forgot to mention that there also is no shortage of liberal slammers on this site.

This is the dem column. If dems feel this is a relevant issue then why should they not point it out? If they view notions as fact why should they not be allowed to present those notions as viewpoint? Are we suppose to compromise our beliefs in an effort to appease those who strive to strike us down? Sorry, but I see no practical good coming from failing to meet our opponents head on. This liberal wimp is sick and tired of being the recipient of ruthless and hateful attacks on my humanity by a party that has no more rightful claim to it than I. I will not ignore that reality in an effort to avoid controversy.

Posted by: RickIL at August 18, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #258799
No Rhinehold, you only (think) you win

I nevers said anything about winning…

because perhaps you do have some obscure powers to control postings and posters.

Well, it’s not obscure, I am the managing editor for the Indipendant Column and have been for several years. And I think I’ve removed the postings of 3 people in that time, none of them debating me, for clear violations of the rules.

I’ve watched some get thrown off here for violating the rules far less than you have.

Specifics? Examples? What rule have I violated?

I don’t agree, however, that the forum has deteriorated any.

And you’re free to your opinion. I disagree for the points I’ve made.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 2:57 PM
Comment #258802
You really do seem to support everything republican. Maybe it is not intentional but that is what comes across.

Name one time in this thread I have supported a republican or republican view?

Finding fault with a Democrat is not supporting Republicans. Hard as people try to make it so…

Are you suggesting that dems should ignore inflammatory false accusation and act as though it does not exist.

No, I suggest that they not participate in them themselves if they are going to say that they are something bad. If I say that murder is abhorrant and then spend my weekends killing people, that would sort of take away from my arguement, wouldn’t it? And as I pointed out, Obama is not above playing the same game, how does that make him any better than McCain?

Many republicans take great pride in implying exclusive rights when it comes to morality and religious issues.

And it is obvious that they are full of crap. It doesn’t give anyone else the right to play at their level and THEN act as they are taking a high road…

Do you feel it is morally correct to deceptively use claims of greater morality or religious belief to build false notions against an opponent?

Nope, not when either party does it.

Time and time again the GOP has resorted to a nasty campaign strategy based on the perpetuation of false deceptions aimed at presenting themselves as the party of goodness and high moral values.

As does the Democratic party. Posters IN THIS COMMENTS section have stated as much, that they are morally superior in their views and that the winning is more important, because of this, than the how. How are they any different except to the one who believes it?

The reality is that they as a party fail in every aspect of living up to a standard they use to belittle the other guy.

And you’re suggesting that the Democrats don’t ‘belittle’ the other guy? Have you been reading what people say about Bush and the words they use? I don’t like him and never voted for him but even I can recognize when it goes over the line…

And just to be fair I noticed you forgot to mention that there also is no shortage of liberal slammers on this site.

I think that John represents that group quite well, I don’t see people patting him on the back or attacking anyone who calls him out on his lack of backing of his statements.

This is the dem column. If dems feel this is a relevant issue then why should they not point it out?

Who is saying that they can’t?

If they view notions as fact why should they not be allowed to present those notions as viewpoint?

They can, as long as they aren’t violating the Rules of Participation. You know, the whole point of the website? This isn’t a Dem Only column, it is a column on a website that has Democrats posting in it, with those from the other areas of political debate given the freedom to comment as well.

Are we suppose to compromise our beliefs in an effort to appease those who strive to strike us down?

No, but you are expected to act in accordance with the paramaters set out for that debate. And I don’t recall saying that it was ‘all Dems posting’ here either…

Sorry, but I see no practical good coming from failing to meet our opponents head on. This liberal wimp is sick and tired of being the recipient of ruthless and hateful attacks on my humanity by a party that has no more rightful claim to it than I. I will not ignore that reality in an effort to avoid controversy.

And that is why we attempt to hold the line here, RickIL. If someone outside of this forum attacks you personally, why do you think you should be able to bring it in here and then lash out at those who are not?

Again, debate hard and strong. Be ruthless. Just follow the Rules of Participation that we all agree to when we post, that is what I am calling for.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 3:14 PM
Comment #258803

RickIL -

Gotta take up for Rhinehold here. While I strongly disagree with the great majority of what he says, if I read his posts correctly, he supports legalization of marijuana, understands that the war on drugs is an utter failure, and that the zero-tolerance attitude of law enforcement towards drug users has led us to being ‘the incarceration nation’.

And I think he and I would agree that, once legalized, the drugs should be taxed to death - economy saved!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 18, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment #258804

Glenn,

Thanks, and yes you are correct. I also support the sales tax of marijuana. I go a little further, I don’t think the government should be telling people what to do with their own bodies at all. I also don’t think abortion should be illegal, that we should be saying ‘under god’ in a pledge that is required to say or that we should be pushing any religious views on anyone. I support the ACLU, the EFF and PPA, and any other organization that attempts to restore individual liberty, not just from the ‘evils of conservatism’ but from the ‘good intentions of liberals’ as it were.

You see, in order for a Law to be that, it has to be backed with force. No law exists on the books that isn’t back with the one power that government has that no one else does, the legal right to use force on individuals. And, as a result, must be limited from employing that force save for the protection of our individual rights, rights that can only exist as long as no one is forced to provide anything for another.

So, there you go. My sad tale of why I can’t be a Republican or Democrat, I don’t believe in using the power of government for enforcing morality, save the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All markets should be free, but can only be free when no monopolies exist and no assistance is being provided to one member of that market (tax breaks, etc). Income tax allows for no ability to examine ones own situation and determine for themselves the amount of assistance that they can provide another and direct taxation (duties, fees) should be used for the purpose collected, not go into a general fund to be fought over by pigs attempting to suck as much muck as they can from trough. Only then will corruption in Washington wane…

Oh, and I do plan on responding in my article thread, I have some points to make that you might have missed (grin) but again, thank you for seeing that I am not a closet Republican out to confuse and trick Democrats…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #258817

I don’t want to reread the whole thread to see if a particular comment was posted here, but on the Sunday morning shows yesterday, they were all saying that the race is a tie, so I don’t get S.D.’s elaborate statistical analysis, probably Friday, of how that is not a fact.

On this forum, I think people are a little confused because there is no longer as much response from the red column side as previously.

I guess that The Awful Truth was a Michael Moore reference.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 18, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #258840


Ohrealy: When the polls are close, that usually means bad news for the Democrat. McCain and Obama tied at 45% in Ohio. If that poll holds up, Obama can forget about Ohio.

I am being distracted by some guy I used to work construction with. He is making a clamor picking through my neighbors garbage bags looking for cans, nasty. I wish I could give him some monitary assistance but some poor downtrodden illegal immigrants have our jobs now, thanks to the Democrats.

I heard a statistic last night on the radio which is quite disturbing if true. The unemployment rate among 45 to 60 year olds is 43%.

Vote for change, vote for Nader.

Yes I know, if I just knew the liberal truth, I would know that a revolution is taking place and I wouldn’t be helping McCain stop the revolution.

Posted by: jlw at August 18, 2008 8:14 PM
Comment #258844

I agree that the polls seem to be very bad news for BHO, but remember, he has Babar helping him.

Vote for change, vote for McKinney, the only candidate who is actually different from all the others. I never cared for Nader at all. Corvairs were good cars, the drivers were the problem. Rear engine vehicles handle differently, and Americans weren’t used to them back then.

I wouldn’t vote for JMcC, but he is actually the most sensible of the other candidates, so he will probably win. He has a son in the military. He’s not going to keep us in Iraq any longer than BHO.

People posting here should use more distinctive names. On some of the shorter ones, or ones very similar to others, I can’t remember much about what they previously posted.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 18, 2008 9:16 PM
Comment #258848
vote for McKinney, the only candidate who is actually different from all the others.

Right, voting for racism is always the best way to go…

Too bad she’s on the ballot in so few states.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 18, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #258855

Rhinehold

You and I have had a similar conversation before. I do know that you are not a closet republican. That however does not detract from the fact that you come across often as being very anti democrat. Much more so than anti republican. I would characterize your ideology as more of a hybrid. As much as you strive to be an individualist you still have very definite opinions that tend to be a bit lopsided toward republican values. At least that is the perception I get. And no it is not something I am looking for. In actuality I tend to agree with a lot of your leanings. Where I tend to disagree is with the practicality of those leanings in regards to the problems of today.

I am a bit miffed at your post on rules of participation. While I do not disagree with them, I am confused as to what exactly bought that subject up. I can not recall reading anything derogatory that was aimed at a specific individual or is particularly inflammatory. Maybe I am missing something here. There are some posts that are a bit more emotionally involved than usual but I do not see those as cause for concern. Everyone here including yourself skirts around the edges of acceptable protocol from time to time. There also is not a person here who has not been creative at getting a dig in once in awhile. People will get overly emotional from time to time and perhaps go over the line. So long as they do not make a habit of it I see no reason for concern. Threads also tend to morph out into alternate issues. But those usually tend to correlate with the main topic to some degree. If I missed something here that shows I am wrong I apologize for implying that you were holding dems to a different standard than republicans.

As for the morality issue, I would like to say that I am not claiming any particular superiority for dems. Only the right to declare myself and fellow dems as moral people. I see the practice of applying a false notion of immorality to a particular group of people as immoral. Fact is the GOP has worked diligently to perpetuate an image of liberals as lacking in values. All I want is to even the field by helping confused and misled people realize how absurd it is to claim that any one party or person has exclusivity rights to virtuosity, ideals or values.

The fact that people accuse Bush, Cheney and crew of being less than adequate or maybe even immoral is fair play so far as I am concerned. They have not exactly been up front with the American public and have largely created the persona of secretive deception that surrounds them. They have perpetuated suspicions and as a result are their own worst enemy so far as public perceptions go.

Posted by: RickIL at August 18, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #258858

One thing is clear here:

you are all completely and totally obedient to your shadowy puppet masters. Can you not even see the utter similarities to each other?

What a bizzaro world we live in.

Posted by: beijing rob at August 19, 2008 2:12 AM
Comment #258877

>you are all completely and totally obedient to your shadowy puppet masters. Can you not even see the utter similarities to each other?

What a bizzaro world we live in.

Posted by: beijing rob at August 19, 2008 02:12 AM

But, not YOU, right???

Posted by: Marysdude at August 19, 2008 1:03 PM
Post a comment