« No Laugh-A-Minute | Main | A Dog's Breakfast »

The Race

No, not La Raza. But the race between Obama's bearers and John McCain.

N7 (3).jpg

[Justrand, that one was Justforyou.]


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32864.

Comments (73)

When a candidate makes more... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

When a candidate makes more gaffs, there are more negative things to report about that candidate. That it is not bias.

When journalists (if you ca... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

When journalists (if you can call them that) correct Obama's gaffs (my Muslim religion) and pounce on McCain's gaffs (the fundamentals are strong) that's bias. When the MSM runs any negative information about McCain they can did up (even from anonymous sources) while they fervently suppress known negative information about Obama (LA Times video) that's bias. When someone can't see such obvious bias you know they have their head up their ass, or maybe up Obama's ass.

Michelle Obama was praised ... (Below threshold)

Michelle Obama was praised and adored in numerous women's magazines over and over. Flattering photos, endless fawning over her sense of style, praise for her mothering talents, etc. They all but ignored Cindy McCain. She got two full pages about her drug addiction and turmoils in the Washington Post. Mentions of her enormous charitable work were almost side notes. She was always portrayed in the context of human failing.

And that's just the spouses.

Sad, but true.... (Below threshold)

Sad, but true.

Sorry Cockroach, that carto... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Sorry Cockroach, that cartoon is about as spot on as you can get regarding how the media handled this election.

Mac Lorry,Obama ma... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

Mac Lorry,

Obama makes a minor slip of the tongue, when he said, "What I was suggesting - you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."

McCain said, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." That can not be explained as a mere slip of the tongue. It shows that McCain did not understand the nature of the greatest financial catastrophy in a generation. The banking crisis was headline news so of course McCains response would garner headline news.

My point is that Obama made few gaffs, all of which were minor in compared to McCain's gaffs.

It seems like you are arguing that the media should have made as big a deal of a minor Obama gaff as they did a major McCain gaff. And for not doing so, you are calling the media biased.

You guys are sounding like ... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

You guys are sounding like a nation of whinners.

Cockroach, I can refute you... (Below threshold)

Cockroach, I can refute your argument that "When a candidate makes more gaffs, there are more negative things to report about that candidate. That it is not bias." with two words:

Joe Biden.

J.

Exactly JT, Cockroach is on... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Exactly JT, Cockroach is one of those lefties that live in an alternate universe. ww

Cockroach, I can r... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
Cockroach, I can refute your argument that "When a candidate makes more gaffs, there are more negative things to report about that candidate. That it is not bias." with two words:

Joe Biden


Jay Tea, Bidens gaff's were well reported. However, they did not carry as much weight with the voters. To explain why I will use a Nascar analogy.

By the time Palin had given three interview, Bidden had made 300 interviews.

Suppose a Nascar driver is involved in 3 major wrecks in his/her first 3 races. The fans would consider him/her to be a bad driver and a danger to everyone else.

A second Nascar driver is involved in 3 major wrecks out of 300 races. Not a bad track record.

Jay Tea,To take th... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

Jay Tea,

To take the Nascar analogy one step further. If sports news criticized the driver who had only been in 3 races more than the driver who had been in 300 races; would that be media bias?

Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it... (Below threshold)

Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it's GAFFES, people. G-A-F-F-E-S. OK, I'll humbly climb down from my soapbox now, and add that the cartoon is spot on and hilarious.

"The fundamentals of the... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"The fundamentals of the economy are strong."

That's only a gaff if you spin it leftward as the press tends to do. I can argue that the "fundamentals" are strong. The things the Democrats are doing to screw up our economy (energy embargos, Marxist employment barriers, forcing banks to make bad loans, high taxes, ect.) are not and should not be the fundamentals of any economy. It sad and a little scary that Obama, the press, and the rest of you leftists believe things like that are economic fundamentals.

cockroach, You defen... (Below threshold)
Chip:

cockroach,
You defended Obama during the election, he won, you got what you wanted, and you're still defending him, why? Why would you possibly care what we think? If you thought the last eight years were fun to dump on our president why can't we view the next few with equal enthusiasm?

Around Mccain's ankles have... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Around Mccain's ankles have had all the bipartisan baggage he has accumulated over the years as weights.
He also should have sign WHy has the MSM deserted me?

Is it just me, or does the ... (Below threshold)

Is it just me, or does the woman speaking look a little like Mary Mapes?

cockroach, You de... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
cockroach, You defended Obama during the election, he won, you got what you wanted, and you're still defending him, why? Why would you possibly care what we think? If you thought the last eight years were fun to dump on our president why can't we view the next few with equal enthusiasm?

Defending Obama from unjust accusations is a form of patriotism.

I don't dump on presidents for fun, that would be un-patriotic and un-American.

I dump on presidents when they make mistakes over and over again and do not acknowledge their mistakes and continue to repeat them.

Sorry cockroach you are abs... (Below threshold)
chip:

Sorry cockroach you are absolutely wrong, I have the patriotic right to debate and disagree or make fun of the president if so choose as you did and had the right to for the past few years so screw you and your sanctimonious attitude.

"Defending Obama from un... (Below threshold)

"Defending Obama from unjust accusations is a form of patriotism. I don't dump on presidents for fun, that would be un-patriotic and un-American."

So, are you saying the cartoon is unpatriotic?

Tom,If the cartoon... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

Tom,

If the cartoonist sincerely believes it then he is not being un-patriotic.

When someone (right wing shock jocks) looks at every piece of news and tries to twist (spin) it against a president then they are being un-patriotic.

I see Cockroach so it's onl... (Below threshold)
chip:

I see Cockroach so it's only RIGHT WING shock jocks that are unpatriotic. Got it, so in your fantasy world you(left wing)happen to be the only true patriots?

Cockroach,Therefor... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Cockroach,

Therefore, by your own 'logic', dailykos/mydd/atrios/etc/etc, have been completely 'un-patriotic' for the last 8 freaking years.

That is some fine cognitive dissonance you have there. Weapons grade it is.

Thx Steve!!Great c... (Below threshold)

Thx Steve!!

Great cartoon...I'll share it around (and over at BeJohngalt too).

It DOES capture the essence of what happened...and yes, it IS the past now.

The critical question for our Republic is whether it also represents the FUTURE?!?

We NEED a free and UN-BIASED Press...we currently don't have one. The people of this nation are more and more relying on blogs like this one, and TalkRadio, to move information around...and to connect eye-witnesses who can refute the "MSM". Hence the urgency that the Dems are putting on shutting these avenues down!

Tom,It's what's in... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

Tom,

It's what's inside your head and your heart that determines if one is un-patriotic or not. This can be dificult to determine so I am very cautious in actually accusing someone of being un-patriotic.

However, if someone is knocking a president because its fun to do or gives them higher ratings on the radio, then I consider that un-patriotic.

I eagerly await the politic... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I eagerly await the political caricatures of Obama. After 8 years of cartoons of a monkey-like Chimpy McHalliburton Bush, surely the rookie gaffe-machine with satellite dish ears will engender some simian cartoons, right?

And they won't be called racist if they portray him as a monkey, right? Riiight.

"When someone (right win... (Below threshold)

"When someone (right wing shock jocks) looks at every piece of news and tries to twist (spin) it against a president then they are being un-patriotic."

That cuts both ways, Cockroach. Left wing shock jocks (talking heads) are guilty of the very same thing. The cartoon isn't a commentary on that, however, it's a commentary on how the MSM carried mostly positive news and buried harmful stories about The One, and at the same time carried much more negative news about John McCain. That's been documented, by the way, it's not just an opinion. The Messiah had a lot of baggage that flew under the radar because of it.

I notice you were the first to comment, and you seem to either misunderstand the message of the cartoon or you're intentionally spinning it. Be careful, Cockroach. I might think you're trying to spin the message. I wouldn't want to think you're trying to be unpatriotic.

BHO defined true patriotism... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

BHO defined true patriotism as the right to dissent.
So if the right or left wing dissents and makes money of it them i guess it show true love and devotion to country.

Cockroach:I didn't... (Below threshold)

Cockroach:

I didn't see your comment at #24 prior to my comment at #26. I agree, it's very difficult to determine whether someone is trying to be unpatriotic or not. This goes for radio personalities and for any of the talking heads out there, as far as I'm concerned.

Cockroach,The... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
Cockroach,

Therefore, by your own 'logic', dailykos/mydd/atrios/etc/etc, have been completely 'un-patriotic' for the last 8 freaking years.

That is some fine cognitive dissonance you have there. Weapons grade it is.

I don't read dailkos. Most of the people making comments on the dailykos are un-informed and there remarks are trivial. I cringe and feel embarassed when reading the dailykos.

I would imagine there are some un-patriotic people on that site, but as I said, I am cautious in accusing people of being un-patriotic.

Never read mydd or atrios.

Cockroach, if you cannot re... (Below threshold)

Cockroach, if you cannot recognize FAWNING coverage of a candidate or event, then today's Press is PERFECT FOR YOU!

Listen to LOCAL radio sportscast of your local pro or college sports team sometime. They are PAID to "cheerlead" for the home team. Yes, they still report the actual score...but they do all they can to pump up the home crowd, 'cause they want 'em back! When you listen to a NATIONAL broadcast they are NOT supposed to do that.

Our NATIONAL Press, by what it chose to cover and NOT cover...and by the manner in which it covered things...did America a massive disservice.

How & what will they "report" now?

justrand, accordin... (Below threshold)
chip:

justrand,

according to Chris Matthews, it's now his job as a journalist to ensure the success of this presidency.

LOL now THAT'S funny

The media tries to dictate ... (Below threshold)

The media tries to dictate what IS and IS NOT news, by devoting huge emphasis to one thing, while ignoring or minimally covering something else.

Ordinarilly the LOSING ticket in a Presidential race quickly drops off the "radar screen". This year, the VICE-Presidential candidate on the LOSING ticket is being HOUNDED! The A/P has already run numerous stories and "analysis", alternately dooming and damning her. Front page ABOVE THE FOLD articles about the BOTTOM-HALF of the LOSING ticket...and all decrying her "shortcomings", or dismissing her from future contention.

Why?

If, as the MSM is attempting to portray, she is "Old News"...why keep an intense focus on her? Pretty easy to answer that one.

Cockroach,You're f... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Cockroach,

You're fighting a losing battle. Every argument you make about someone's patriotism because of his attacks on Obama has been refuted by the left during Bush's administration. We are only turning those arguments around, which is fair play. Same for claiming Obama lied when it's just a mistake. Same for calling Obama derogatory names like "Obama bin lying". Same for publishing damaging information about Obama's administration even when supplied by some anonymous (or made up) source. Those are just some the tactics the left has used to damage Bush in a time of war and the nation be damned (as Wright would say).

We're not fools. We won't be the first to introduce such despicable tactics into American politics, but neither will we just roll over when they have been used against us. Same for making it too easy for people to cheat by voting more than once. We are trying to make sure every legal voter gets to vote once, but if the left doesn't want to do that, then we'll do an even better job of stuffing the ballot box then the left. That's just the way it is, so get used to it.

chip, it'd be kinda funny i... (Below threshold)

chip, it'd be kinda funny if they DID make Chris Mathews the "Press Secretary". He'd be giving a Press conference and his leg would start tingling, and the more he sang the praises of "The One" the more it would start to twitch.

Ultimately it'd look just like when you scratch the belly of a hounddog, and their back leg starts going nuts!! :)

BHO defined true p... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
BHO defined true patriotism as the right to dissent. So if the right or left wing dissents and makes money of it them i guess it show true love and devotion to country.

If someone on the left or right makes large sums of money by expressing their dissent, I start becoming skeptical of what they say. The problem I have is that the more critical and shocking they become the more their ratings and book sales go up.

Mac Lorry,All poli... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:

Mac Lorry,

All politicans lie. Palin defined the McCain/Palin ticket for grossly telling lies by continueing to state "she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it". Usually when politican is called out on a lie they cease telling the lie. Palin just kept shouting it louder and louder.

Ordinarilly the LO... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
Ordinarilly the LOSING ticket in a Presidential race quickly drops off the "radar screen". This year, the VICE-Presidential candidate on the LOSING ticket is being HOUNDED! The A/P has already run numerous stories and "analysis", alternately dooming and damning her. Front page ABOVE THE FOLD articles about the BOTTOM-HALF of the LOSING ticket...and all decrying her "shortcomings", or dismissing her from future contention.

It was FOX News that brought this to everyone's attention. Are you saying FOX news is biased to the left?

Cockroach...Dude!...FoxNews... (Below threshold)

Cockroach...Dude!...FoxNews threw it out there, but it was NOT the first negative story...and wouldn't matter if it was.

Within hours of the loss, and BEFORE FoxNews put that story out, the entire MSM was trying to pin the loss on her.

the A/P did one of their "splendid" hit-pieces they label "Analysis" and wondered aloud if she had been a "Liability". This is their little trick that allows them to claim they never SAID such a thing...they just wondered if OTHERS were saying it!

They've used that trick a lot lately! Heck, they, and the NY Times used it IMMEDAITELY in regards Palin. They "wondered" whether her Down's Syndrome child was really hers?!? They "wondered" whether she belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party. etc...

Fact is, cockroach, I recognize nonsense in both directions...you only see one side of it. That makes you a perfect pawn for the media!

cockroachLook, Oba... (Below threshold)
Larry:

cockroach

Look, Obama won. He won because of the economy and he won because traditional media was in the tank for him. He won because the current President is unpopular. He won because he had a great organization. He won because of money.

He won because of a charismatic message. But that didn't get him the margin of victory. In fact, his message had the effect of solidifying his base. Kerry owned the same base but he didn't get that base to exert the same effort it did for Obama.

Obama won because of the relentless message drilled into swing voters. Swing voters bought the financial crisis and the message and voted in enough numbers to put Obama in the White House.

What we have is a win but we don't have a mandate except in the minds of those who cannot do the numbers. Sixty percent would have been a mandate. But tell that to the ones who didn't have as much power as they wanted during the past eight years.

In point of fact, much of the current financial crisis can be laid at the feet of more than a few of those same power hungry, Liberal Democratic Elites in Congress. But they are not the only ones to blame.

The Republicans (hopefully) leaned a lesson from the debacle of the past few years. The lesson is that lazie faire capitalizm needs a certain level of oversight or it gets out of control. It is either that or just let it go and absorb the roller coaster dynamics. If truth be known, probably 90% of the bail out will turn out to be a slush fund and not really needed to keep out of a depression.

Like most all elections, there were many forces behind the win. Please don't attempt to defend or deny one of those elements. It isn't needed and it is not factual. Traditional media was in the tank for Obama and that is factual. The reason that traditional media was and is in the tank has many elements as well.

And traditional media being in the tank may or may not have made the difference; nobody knows, yet.

A/P headline up right now:<... (Below threshold)

A/P headline up right now:
"'Mutts like me' remark shows Obama at ease discussing race"

you know, it just might.

but the A/P headline DECLARES it to be so. At this point a savvy lawyer would leap to their feet and shout:
"OBJECTION!!, your Honor...assumes facts not in evidence!!"

and the objection would, btw, be sustained!

The A/P, et al, routinely use their headlines to "assume facts not in evidence". Yesterday's headline declaring those purchasing guns in advance of the inevitable assault on the 2nd Amendment to be "gun enthusiasts" was just one more simple example. Examples abound!

justrandAnd now we... (Below threshold)
Larry:

justrand

And now we get to unintended consequences.

By continuing to hound Palin, does this erase her influence on an appreciable percentage of voters or does this help her to solidify it?

What this does expose is that traditional media believes they can sell newspapers and help TV ratings by continuing to focus on Palin. Fox is being a bit of disingenuous by fueling the fire. They are also telling the story of media bias, which helps them with ratings.

The end game is simple; Palin gets her chance to tell her own story on Greta's program this coming Monday. This will be her "Checkers" moment. By falling in the trap of keeping the focus on Palin, traditional media may just be sitting on their own bomb while lighting a fire to keep warm.

"My point is that Obama mad... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"My point is that Obama made few gaffs, all of which were minor in compared to McCain's gaffs."

Cockroach, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you missed the actual point of the cartoon.

Now that the election is ov... (Below threshold)

Now that the election is over is there any chance the media could finally vett Barack Obama?

The Intellectual Redneck: "... (Below threshold)

The Intellectual Redneck: "Now that the election is over is there any chance the media could finally vett Barack Obama?"

No...and don't ask again! :)

Seriously, they would be GLAD to...but the very EXISTENCE of Sarah Palin threatens not just America, not just Earth...but the entire SOLAR SYSTEM!

Once that threat has been neutralized they will turn their attention to vetting the new President (unless, of course, Britney Spears gets married again....)

Hilarious!And the ... (Below threshold)
coldwarkid:

Hilarious!

And the fact that it should've been an easy year for the liberal illuminati to take back D.C. - and that McCain made it close - makes his debt of gratitude to the mainstream media all the deeper.

I hope they all get "volunteer of the year" awards.

Cockroach, <blockquot... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Cockroach,

All politicans lie. Palin defined the McCain/Palin ticket for grossly telling lies by continueing to state "she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it". Usually when politican is called out on a lie they cease telling the lie. Palin just kept shouting it louder and louder.

You mean like Obama saying he had not heard Wright's racist anti-American comments in the 22 years he was a member of Wright's church -- that kind of a lie? Or how about the one where Obama says he didn't know Bill Ayers well -- that kind of a lie?

Some people I know who favo... (Below threshold)
mag:

Some people I know who favored the democrats said the coverage was extremely bias and wrong.
How could obama have lost with just about all the media behind him. I hope the media gets screwed big time. Al fair-minded perople wanted was for both men/parties to be treated the same.

Cockroach...perfect name for some people's mentality.

america didnt appreciate mc... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

america didnt appreciate mccains bewilderingly dishonest campaign, and by extension, neither did the press

so dont bother putting that "lipstick on a pig" folks

=]

Currently on televsion's Ho... (Below threshold)
BHOismyGod:

Currently on televsion's Home Shopping Channel, they are selling B. Hussein commemerative coins, with His Royal Majesty's likeness sharing the coin with George Washington.

Like I said the other day, he will become the greatest president, the greatest American in history. Martin L. King and Barry Hussein will be the two greatest Americans - taught to every American schoolchild.

"Martin L. King and Barry H... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Martin L. King and Barry Hussein will be the two greatest Americans - taught to every American schoolchild."

Only if the teacher is indoctrinated.

Mac, difference is, we can ... (Below threshold)
Parthenon:

Mac, difference is, we can prove the Palin Bridge to Nowhere lie.

As soon as you pony up some credible proof about the scary Ayers/Wright/Obama axis, I promise I'll give it a little more credence.

I wrote the #9 comment and ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I wrote the #9 comment and then Cockroach goes ahead a proves it for me. Thanks. ww

Parthenon,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Parthenon,

As soon as you pony up some credible proof about the scary Ayers/Wright/Obama axis, I promise I'll give it a little more credence.

You mean like the proof that Bush knew Saddam didn't have any WMD, but said he did just to justify removing Saddam from power? There was a time when that would have been characterized as a mistake, but the left changed the definition of making such a mistake to lying. Sorry, but Obama must now be judged by the same standard. Obama should have known what kind of man Wright was and what he was saying. By the left's definition Obama lied when he said he had not heard Wright's racist anti-American comments. Same for Obama's association with Bill Ayers. Thus, he is known as Obama bin lying.

mac lorry, since you bring ... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

mac lorry, since you bring it up, bu$h in fact had plenty of evidence that saddam didnt have any weapons stockpiles, and furthermore knew that the hearsay accounts to the contrary were dubious at best

thats why cheney ran the office of special plans, producing intelligence that bypassed the entire intel analyst community and got injected at the top of the food chain. its never supposed to work like that. every indication points to fraud

but if you want to call it a big OOPS, then you are admitting to their grand incompetence. i guess its better than copping to treasonous war crimes

peabodyDo what?</p... (Below threshold)
Larry:

peabody

Do what?

mac lorry, since you bring it up, bu$h in fact had plenty of evidence that saddam didnt have any weapons stockpiles, and furthermore knew that the hearsay accounts to the contrary were dubious at best


Are you expressing an opinion or giving a statement of fact? If fact, please let me know your sources.

since you bring it... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
since you bring it up, bu$h in fact had plenty of evidence that saddam didnt have any weapons stockpiles, and furthermore knew that the hearsay accounts to the contrary were dubious at best

Apart from your statement being revisionist BS, it's now irrelevant. The only thing that survives is the left's standards Obama will now be judged by. By those standards Obama lied about knowing what kind of man Wright was. Having been a member of Wright's church for 22 years and claiming Wright as a mentor, Obama had plenty of evidence that Wright was both racist and anti-American.

"but if you want to call it... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"but if you want to call it a big OOPS, then you are admitting to their grand incompetence. i guess its better than copping to treasonous war crimes"


Actually, it's Hu$$ein's turn, now, except without the dollar sign. The big OOPS is going to look more like this. War crimes? You have no idea.

larry - my sources are the ... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

larry - my sources are the same as bu$hs. we have chalabi working closely with cheneys office of special plans supplying intel that didnt pass the intel communitys sniff tests, and contrary accounts provided by saddams own brother in law who defected and was later executed by saddam upon returning

mac lorry - of course bu$ies want to "move on" from all that, and speaking of irrelevant, whatever wright was preaching wont change the bu$h admin criminality, im curious how we should know that wright was such a hater for that past 20 yrs.. ive seen the recent footage from after he attained the national spotlight and got kookier by the minute, but nothing from before that. if you have a ref please share

You mean like the ... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
You mean like the proof that Bush knew Saddam didn't have any WMD, but said he did just to justify removing Saddam from power? There was a time when that would have been characterized as a mistake, but the left changed the definition of making such a mistake to lying.

What about the fact that Saddam had nothing to with 9-11 but Bush/Cheney constantly implied they did.

Or that Bush said "we found weapons of mass destruction". His claim was they found tubes that supposedly were to be used as centrifuge for enriching uranium.

The problem was, prior to Bush making that statement (lie) the media had already reported that the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories determined they were not of the proper dimensions for a centrifuge. Still Bush's stragetegy was to continue to repeat the lie often enough that some (ignorant) people will believe it.

the information age has cau... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

the information age has caught up with US politics. bu$hs lies and distortions are on record, and as opposed to the vietnam war, it wont take 20 years for the fog to lift

i also wonder what bu$hies think of the fact that the nation, the media, and the world rallied around bu$h 41. why was everything so different for bu$h 43? did the whole world suddenly decide it "hates freedom"??

=]

An accurate cartoon except ... (Below threshold)
914:

An accurate cartoon except Husseins ears are too small

Or that Bush said ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Or that Bush said "we found weapons of mass destruction". His claim was they found tubes that supposedly were to be used as centrifuge for enriching uranium.

Do you have a link to where Bush said "we found weapons of mass destruction", because I don't recall him ever saying that. They did find plans, equipment and people who had worked on Sadism's nuclear program from before the first gulf war. They also found a few shells that contained nerve gas. Bush never used any of that to claim "we found weapons of mass destruction", so I would be surprised if he had given such an emphatic statement over aluminum tubes, that even if they were for a centrifuge, wouldn't constitute WMD, but a program to produce WMD.

It's like the myth that Bush said "Mission Accomplished" in his speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier Lincoln when in fact his speech said just the opposite in reference to Iraq. Still the left's strategy was to continue to repeat the lie often enough that some (ignorant) people believed it. In doing so they created another standard Obama will be judged by. It's legitimate to imply Obama endorses the message of whatever is written on some sign in the background.

the information ag... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
the information age has caught up with US politics. bu$hs lies and distortions are on record, and as opposed to the vietnam war, it wont take 20 years for the fog to lift

Those subjects have been discussed at great length on these pages over the last four years and no commenter has ever been able to sustain their assertion that Bush lied in the traditional definition of what a lie is. Only when the definition was changed to make a mistake into a lie has Bush lied. That's all behind us now, but the new standard remains and it's the standard Obama will be judged by.

i also wonder what bu$hies think of the fact that the nation, the media, and the world rallied around bu$h 41. why was everything so different for bu$h 43? did the whole world suddenly decide it "hates freedom"

Saddam engaged in open and obvious aggression and posed a threat to the free world's oil supply. Also, once the ground war started it was over in just 100 hours. It seemed like a sports event rather than a war. Unfortunately, by taking the easy path during the first gulf war, the stage was set for the second.

With 9/11 we found ourselves in a new war without having resolved the issue of Saddam. I believe Bush and his advisors realized the resolve of the UN to continue the sanctions against Iraq were weakening and that Saddam and his sadistic sons would soon be free to rearm. We know now that Saddam had been successful in bribing corrupt UN, French and Russian officials. I believe Bush correctly judged that leaving Saddam in power with billions in oil dollars and a vendetta against the US would be extremely dangerous. That because of Saddam's vendetta and his willingness to fund Palestinian terrorists, it could be expected that he would fund the 9/11 terrorists and secretly give them sanitary. Regardless of Saddam having WMD or not, the threat of leaving Saddam in power was sufficient to justify the invasion. If Bush lied (old definition) about Saddam having WMD then so did Bill Clinton and most of the key democrats in Congress.

The reason Bush lost so much public support was because of the protracted nature of the Iraq war. We saw that same thing in the vietnam war and even the beginnings of it in WWII. The American public has no stomach for a prolonged conflict, and I think that lesson has finally been learned. Should Obama propose a new military adventure, like going into Pakistan or Eastern Europe, the anti-war left will find they have a new ally, the conservative base who still support Bush.

peabodySorry, this... (Below threshold)
Larry:

peabody

Sorry, this is too vague to pass my sniff test.

larry - my sources are the same as bu$hs. we have chalabi working closely with cheneys office of special plans supplying intel that didnt pass the intel communitys sniff tests, and contrary accounts provided by saddams own brother in law who defected and was later executed by saddam upon returning

You probably believe your own convoluted reasoning. I don't. What I did to figure if Saddam had WMD or not was to use the training I got in the military and my own critical thinking process.

1. Saddam was known to have used WMD (gas) in the past.

2. He was buying components. Nuclear was thought to be too expensive for him, so the focus was on gas.

3. Saddam was playing a shell game at his facilities that could be clearly observed on satellites. He was hiding something or pretending to be hiding something.

peabody, this isn't political with me. I can find several good reasons to take out Saddam in our national interest. Please note that I did not quote intelligence sources in my analysis.

Saddam was trying to make out like he had WMD and he had used gas in the past. So I would have believed he had it even without Intel sources. In fact, I did believe it. I also thought he had the starter stuff for bio as well. That last one turned out to be true if my memory is correct.

In my opinion, you are trying to make something political out of WMD yes or not in Iraq instead of looking at the evidence with a neutral view.

MacThe re... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Mac

The reason Bush lost so much public support was because of the protracted nature of the Iraq war. We saw that same thing in the vietnam war and even the beginnings of it in WWII. The American public has no stomach for a prolonged conflict, and I think that lesson has finally been learned.

True. And traditional media is part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Mr. McCain certainly had hi... (Below threshold)

Mr. McCain certainly had his share of obvious media supporters, including many at FOX News and among the wide majority of talk radio hosts including Rush Limbaugh and numerous others. Some at CNN and elsewhere that might have given Mr. Obama more favorable news coverage probably were swept up in the same wave of positive sentiment shared with the big majority in the public that also propelled Obama to his big win over McCain, garnering about 8 million more votes than McCain, and winning an electoral vote landslide over McCain as well. With such a lopsided contest, McCain just was unable to garner the same excitement as Obama, even though CNN made good efforts to cover every major McCain or Palin appearance with special reports or highlights.

McCain's larger problem was that he just wasn't as good of a candidate as Obama by any means, and his campaign was very troubled without clear messages, and too many distractions with controversies over some problems with Sarah Palin. By comparison even Joe Biden's gaffes seemed less newsworthy than all of these larger problems with the McCain Campaign which also had the major problems of George Bush and the economy as well to battle with. For the McCain Campaign, it was the perfect storm of problems, compared to the far easier path of the Obama Campaign.

It just wasn't John McCain's year in 2008. Maybe if he had been the GOP nominee in 2000 like he tried but failed, then maybe his fortunes would have been much better.

PaulWell, you were... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Paul

Well, you were mostly right. I have posted elsewhere why Obama won so I won't say anything here.

I will just comment that the AP style book shows a dozen ways of slanting a message. And they were all used by traditional media in Obama's favor. It was primarily the Editors plus a few high profile "Journalists."

And you are correct, conservatives do have their own set of talking heads. Yet all the conservative resources still do not match that of ABC, CBS, NBC nightly news. while it might have been more relentless this time, Bush 43 was also nailed by traditional media. It is what it is and while we can gripe about it, it isn't gonna change.

The reason for the success of conservative talk radio is the thirst some folks have for hearing their point of view echoed back to them. And they don't get that in traditional media with the exception of some parts of FOX.

There are half again as many conservatives as there are Liberals. So Liberal radio is going to have problems with audience for two reasons, not as many true believers and the true believers can get their fix elsewhere in a shorter format.

bu$h didnt lose support for... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

bu$h didnt lose support for the protracted nature of the war. even though you will not take my word for it, let me say that i and innumerable US and intl compatriots would be behind the whole damn thing if only it was rooted in practical facts. we arent because the case for war was manufactured. we've all heard the case as laid out by you here and by bu$h himself. if it made ANY sense then there would be NO PROBLEM. but saddam simply wasnt gunning for us. it must hurt to even consider that bu$h had you on the leash of doctored intel but the case doesnt hold up

Do you have a link... (Below threshold)
Cockroach:
Do you have a link to where Bush said "we found weapons of mass destruction", because I don't recall him ever saying that.

Mac Lorry,

Do check back, I'll try to have it for you this evening. From memory this is what i recall and the order in which it happened:

1. I read an article in Time or Newseek that talked about tubes that were initially reported to be used for bulding a centrifuge for enriching uranium. The article stated that upon examination by Department of Energy it was determined that the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium but instead for conventional missles.


2. Several days later cable news played a clip of Bush saying, "We found weapons of mass destructions." Cable news said something like stay tuned for more details and went to a comercial. When they played the full clip Bush did say that weapons of mass destruction were found. And he refered to the tubes that the DOE determined were for traditional missiles not a centrifuge. However, Bush stated they were for enriching uranium. Note that even if they were for enriching uranium, finding tubes is not the same as finding weapons of mass destruction. But Bush kept refering to the tubes as weapons of mass destruction.

As I said check back this evening and I'll try to have a transcript or video. It will take a while to find and I have to work this morning.

if it made ANY sen... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
if it made ANY sense then there would be NO PROBLEM. but saddam simply wasnt gunning for us.

Now that's funny Pea. You and all opponents of the Iraq war have to take the position that Saddam was a forgiving, if not benign dictator, but that flies in the face of every fact known about him. We know Saddam was incredibly vindictive from what he did to members of his own party once he gained power. We know Saddam was a military aggressor and a mass murderer of civilians. We know he was the special kind of SOB who could order the use of chemical weapons against his own people. We know Saddam embraced the vendetta mentality even beheading his son in-law after feigning forgiveness.

History will equate those who opposed removing Saddam from power to the same class of fools who failed to oppose Hitler when he could have been easily defeated.

Cockroach,Your mem... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Cockroach,

Your memory of events seem reasonable to the point of Bush making such an emphatic statement in the context of these tubes. The reason I doubt Bush made such a statement is that he was very careful to not make such statements even when a number of chemical weapon shells had in fact been found in Iraq. Bush could have latched onto that as it technically made the prewar statement that Saddam had WMD correct, but Bush didn't do so.

Unfortunately, this intelligence failure will prevent Obama from dealing with Iran as there's a chance they are telling the truth. The world simply won't trust American intelligence and sanction the use of military force against Iran. Obama will have to either go it alone, Bush like, or let Iran continue developing their nuclear weapons and missiles. Once developed, Iran can hold the west hostage to it's demands like in a 007 plot. Of course Iran would be burned to the ground if it used any of those weapons, but would the west call their bluff at the risk of losing several major cities in Europe? Bush worked out this scenario and wanted to counter it by deploying the missile shied in eastern Europe, but Putin will have none of it.

Bush is battered and tired and more than happy to pass on the Precedence to a member of the party that so opposed him. He knows in the eyes of history future events and an unbiased appraisal of the facts will vindicate him and condemn his opponents.

peabodyit... (Below threshold)
Larry:

peabody

it must hurt to even consider that bu$h had you on the leash of doctored intel but the case doesnt hold up

I think I pointed out that what Bush said had nothing to do with my own analysis of Saddam and his intentions and capabilities. I drew my own conclusions based on what raw data I could get my hands on and critical thinking.

Did you even READ what I posted? In your thirst to place every blame you can on the doorstep of Bush, you ignore the history of the times. Why must you ALWAYS spin everything in hind sight and project superhuman powers on the President? Bush, with a bi-partisan Congress, went to war. He believed he had good reason.

So did I at the time and now. I don't have to make up "Facts" to support how I believed then and now.

pea, if you want to talk about mistakes Bush made, I can help you with that one. For example, Bush should have taken pages from history and done a bunch of different things with the military he failed to consider until it was almost too late.

I can even give you the historical record if you want to be informed instead of emotional.

peabody, really, it would do you a world of good to get your facts from some place other than Liberal spin sites. You can start with "The BAckside of American History" by Ed Wallace - google it, the book is free. Ed details the historical time when the west tried to control Iraq, the methods used and the results. He also talks about Iran. Good read and not doctored to empty suit a political agenda.

cockroachForget nu... (Below threshold)
Larry:

cockroach

Forget nuclear. Forget delivery systems. Think biological weapons. Those are so horrific that a vial could contaminate the water supply of millions and kill those same millions, dead. And Saddam had some. The precursors fit in a household refrigerator.

Do your own homework. Rather than believe me, which Liberal you would never do, google Saddam biological weapons and start the PSI Tech report. If you get the facts instead of Salon spin, you might regain some credibility when you spew your hatred of Bush.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy