The truth? What's that?
I spoke recently about Gov. Sarah Palin's lie about Sen. Barack Obama "palling around with terrorists," but the Republicans sure don't have the market cornered on untruths and twisted facts. I got a mailing at the house the other day from Planned Parenthood exhorting me to vote for Obama and other "women's rights" candidates. The flier talks a lot about "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights." It mentions the threat Sen. John McCain and Palin would pose to Roe v. Wade, and it claims that McCain has "earned a zero rating from Planned Parenthood Action Fund because he has cast 125 votes against women's health." But not once does the mailing use the word "abortion," even though that's what this clearly is all about. Planned Parenthood should just come out and say that it favors women's access to abortion. And that bit about McCain voting against "women's health"? C'mon. He opposes abortion. Everybody knows that. And, yes, he would nominate people to the Supreme Court who would be inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. But nobody believes that McCain is opposed to the overall health of our country's women. That's just ridiculous.
Labels: Politics
posted by Brant at
2:09 PM
36 Comments:
Last time I checked, Republican presidents have put some of the courts most liberal judges on the court. Seems to me, only the Dems are for litmus tests and such.
By the way, how the hell would McCain get somebody appointed to court who would dump Roe with the Dems holding both houses?
Seems to me that it would go the other way. They'll rubber stamp whatever leftist jurist Obama would nominate.
Obama's statements in the recently released 2001 radio interview are very telling about what kind of jurists he would nominate. Check it out on Youtube. Funny how this kind of stuff doesn't come out until a week before the election. The mainstream media has failed dreadfully in doing its job in this election. This guy has been running for president for nearly two years - some would say longer. And yet he may be the most unvetted candidate in history. The man hasn't fielded questions from the media in more than a month.
As for Obama/Ayers, Ayers would fit my definition of a terrorist, Brant. And the two are more friendly than Obama would suggest. You don't serve on boards with someone and hold fundraisers at their home if you're not friendly with them. But hey, you're going to believe what you're going to believe.
And you'll believe what you'll believe. That's the beauty of America. We can all form our own opinions and express them. I would note, however, that Obama is not the only candidate who has insulated himself from the traveling press. Both he and McCain have as little contact as possible with the traveling media, choosing instead to conduct selected interviews with outlets of their choice. It's all about minimizing the possibility of "unscripted" comments. The idea that Obama is unvetted, however, is a bit off the mark. I think that by now, everybody who has payed even a little bit of attention knows pretty much all there is to know about the guy after two years on the campaign trail. As for the judges, it does look as if the Democrats will add to their congressional majorities, possibly securing a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. And, yes, that would make it almost impossible for McCain to appoint an ultraconservative to the court and make it easy for Obama to appoint whomever he wants. In the past, Republican presidents did not intend to appoint the more liberal judges. They were stunned, and often angered, by the direction those judges took once they were on the court. But hey, buddy, at least give me props for criticizing Planned Parenthood.
Dale, based on your logic should we assume that everyone on the O-R sports staff is guilty of the same indiscretions as your former Sports Editor? I mean, you guys worked together, right? Maybe you had a beer after work, went to a Christmas party hosted by one of your colleagues, or some high school graduation party. Perhaps you had common friends. Of course, most people don't make that assumption because it's absolutely ludicrous. It just wouldn't be fair to judge you or any of the other writers on you staff for the bad decisions of a former colleague.
It is pretty much impossible for any presidential candidate to go unvetted anymore, if it was ever possible. The lives of public figures are being archived online. You can research their voting history, watch video of speeches they delivered, search newspaper archives for editorials they've written, and search databases for public information about them. You can't hide from your past if you put yourself into the public eye. Joe the Plumber can attest to that. I find it hard to believe that there is anything about Obama we don't already know, and anything that comes out about either candidate this late in the game is more than likely based on nonsense. Fortunately for McCain, this nonsense sticks to Obama more than it does to him. I guess we'll find out just how much it sticks next Tuesday.
That's a ridiculous comparison, so and so. You choose to serve on boards, knowing who the other board members are. You choose to hold a fundraiser to kick off your campaign at somebody's house. Brant had as much interaction with my former boss - as did many people in the newsroom - as the sports department did. You didn't attempt to insult them with a ridiculous comparison. But I have my reasons for thinking why you didn't do that …
See, Brant and I can have disagreements about things and he wouldn't make a personal comment like that, nor would I about him.
And I do give you credit for calling out Planned Parenthood, Brant.
There's a whole school of thought that says if you want to make changes, you may have to work with some unsavory characters to get things started. If you sit on a board where 8 of 10 members are making lampshades from human skin, maybe you'd be better off resigning and finding a new tack. But to give up because of the former activities of one of the members you may have only fleeting contact with is to just plain give up.
As for the abortion issue, well, both sides are equally nuts. They see no way to compromise in a country that was built and is run on compromise. If you believe God gave us freewill, what is the use of trying to make laws that subjugate freewill? You don't think God can handle what to do with women who willingly choose to have an abortion? If that's true, then we should outlaw any potentially harmful activity, such as smoking, overeating and drinking alcohol. We should have learned through the failure of Prohibition that you can't legislate morality. But we continue to try to do just that in trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade.
Somewhere along the line, large groups of people have forgotten that in a democracy, you don't get your own way all of the time. If we'd changed the Constitution every time a special interest group got uppity over what was moral, we'd have about 49,000 amendments.
I agree with Dale... Obama has been palling around with terrorists, just like Sarah Palin has suggested. Doesn't that bother any of you liberal, cover your eyes, and hope it aint so? Are you kidding me? What is the big appeal of a lying black man that says he's going to help you? Did any of you ever consider what damage that would do to this country's security, if Obama were elected? There would be terrorists coming in droves off of 747's into the country, all dressed with their turbines and white robes. The guy is totally no good for this country. Why are so many of you so enamored with Obama's forked tongue. Listen to talk radio, FM104.7 and hear the truth. It will shock you. This country needs change, I agree, but not at the expense Obama is preaching. I just don't think any of you who like Obama have a clue to this man is? This country is going to deminished down to a socialist society if this African savior, muslim, pied piper, Robama Hood is elected. Please don't let this guy pull wool over your eyes too. Brant, you are way to intelligent for that. McCain is not perfect, but at least he's honest, and has fought for this country in the past, and will do so again if elected. There won't be any terrorist sheiks coming here in 747's if he's elected.
Oh, and Planned Parenthood are nothing but legal cold hearted murderers.
Congratulations, you win the prize for stupidest post of the week. And don't think your racist undertones went unnoticed.
Look Dale, this isn't anything personal. I re-read my earlier post and realize that I mis-spoke in the first paragraph. I should have phrased it differently and am sorry for offending you. If you like I'll send you an email to let you know who I am. I don't want you to mistake me for someone else.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't judge someone on their past colleagues or former fellow board members regardless of how close or loose the connection is. You can serve on a board with someone and have nothing in common with them except for a common belief in the mission of that particular organization. You can go to a fund raiser someone is throwing for you, and ignore the fact that you find the person throwing the fundraiser to be an absolute piece of garbage. That doesn't change the fact that you need what support that person can offer you, and obviously Ayers had something to offer. Why can't we take Obama for his word on this and move on? If we were to hold everyone to the same standard Obama is being held to in this election, no one would be beyond judgement for their past associations. At some point in time we've willingly or unwillingly associated with someone who engaged in some sort of criminal or morally reprehensible act.
I would pay to see a terrorist dressed in a "turbine," because that would grind him up into little pieces of what my son jokingly calls "hufu" -- human meat. My son, the cannibal. I'm guilty by association.
I find it very depressing that the same kind of mindset that said JFK "would install the pope in the White House" if elected is still being rolled out against Obama, outfitted for the 21st century. Look -- if you don't want to vote for the guy because he's black, have the cojones to say it. Don't tell me you'd vote for a "qualified black" because the chances are that, unless Christ comes back and turns out to be black, a black will never qualify in your eyes. (I'd also pay to see the squirming on Judgment Day if Christ IS black.) Show your true colors: Call Obama an uppity nigra, but don't call him a socialist or a terrorist.
Sure, McCain served his country, but so did the war protestors who had the guts to stand up and say that Vietnam was a travesty. But let's say I'm wrong -- give the old white dude a chance. Maybe if McCain is elected, we can have him patrol our airspace in his fighter jet and shoot down the terrorists.
McCain the hero: Being shot down doesn't make you a hero. Being in the military doesn't qualify him to lead the country any more than Bush's NOT being in the military disqualified him from -- and I use the term loosely -- "leading" the country. If we'd looked more closely at Bush's record in 2000 and seen how he actually compiled his wealth through landgrabs and shady deals, maybe we'd have been spared the agony of that presidential election.
And in case you've forgotten, having tough guy Bush in the White House on 9/10/01 didn't stop them turbine-wearing terrorists from flying 747s into buildings on 9/11.
The Ayers thing in itself is not a deal-breaker for me. But when added to his dealings with Rezko and Wright and his share-the-wealth socialist statements, it is.
And I would have no problem with any president based on skin color, gender or religious beliefs. I'm a fiscal conservative and proud of it.
I can take better care of my family than the government can. I don't want a socialist nanny state.
And that's where we're heading if Obama wins with Pelosi and Reid rubber stamping everything.
Our system works best when there are checks and balances in place against one-party rule.
It may not always be pretty. Both parties play politics way too much.
PS: Now maybe we can get back to the original point of Brant's topic - though I guess you did open things up for this school of thought.
Hey, no problem with the direction of the post. We can go whatever way you all like. People (for the most part) are expressing their views very well.
There is no truth, only lies. I have not seen one politician yet, be it town, city, state or other tell the damn truth and they never will. They tell you what you want to hear in order to get elected or re-elected. Get over it people. You have to take what they say with a grain of salt and determine as best you can, what is feasible and doable and what isn't. Back to the subject at hand, I am sure Obama feels the same way McCain feels about abortion, neither one likes it, or neither one would have children. But Obama just has a "set" and knows that he has no right, just like no one in government has a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her life and her body. I am not for abortion as birth control, because I know a lot of dumb asses who have used it for just that. I am for abortion when it comes to rape, incest or the health of the mother, the baby or both. Unfortunately there is no way to police whether someone is getting an abortion because she is a tired tramp who didn't use protection or if she falls under one of the categories I mentioned. What we need to worry about when electing the next president is who is going to try to turn around the mess we are in now. Who is going to try to get the international community back on our side instead of against us. Who is going to try to revamp the criminal justice system so there is equal punishment for the crime committed. There are plenty of things I am more concerned about when it comes to our next president, whomever it may be and unfortunately abortion is not one of them. Look at the bigger picture people and choose the right battle to be fought this time. We are broke, hungry, jobless, homeless and plain outright down on our luck, nationwide. THINK! Don't be sheep, THINK! Do your research of each political party, THINK. The election is next Tuesday, not much time to go. THINK before you VOTE.
I would disagree with the statement that we are broke, homeless, hungry etc. This is the most prosperous country in the world. The majority of our "poor" consume more food in one day than truly poor people in many countries do in a week. Many of our "poor" have two or three television sets in their homes.
I worked in a grocery store while going to college - I paid my own way, what a concept - and saw the masses come in on welfare check day. They ate better than my family did. And I saw them trying to buy things like flower boquets with their food stamps and then get ticked off when they couldn't.
I grew up I guess what would be considered "poor" for much of my childhood by the U.S. standards. But we didn't ask for handouts. My parents went out and worked hard to better themselves and make a better life for their kids.
We didn't sit around waiting for a government handout.
Here's a nice report on Obama and his ties from the Boston Globe - you know, that righty rag in the Republican bastion of Massachussetts.
But hey, I must listen to talk radio, right? Couldn't be right about this.
From the Globe: "Did you see that amazing video obtained by the Los Angeles Times of Sen. Barack Obama toasting a prominent former PLO member at an Arab American Action Network meeting in 2003? The video in which Obama gives Yasser Arafat’s frontman a warm embrace, as Bill Ayers look on?
You haven’t seen it? Me, neither. The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it.
And so an incriminating video of Obama literally “palling around” with PLO supporters becomes one more nail in the coffin of “objective journalism.”
Alas, the obit for objective reporting has been buried - along with the stories about Obama’s 2001 support for court-imposed “redistribution of wealth” and Joe Biden’s latest gaffe."
… Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.
“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said.
Malone is disturbed by the “shameless support” journalists have been giving the Obama campaign. Where’s the hardball coverage for Obama they give McCain? Instead, journalists are “actively serving as attack dogs for the [Obama/Biden] ticket.”
“That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault,” Malone points out. He blames the media, whose job it is to give Obama a thorough vetting “and has systematically refused to do so.”
This is hardly news to regular readers of the Boston Globe-Democrat, or viewers of MS-We-Hate-Bush. But when the Associated Press starts adding Kool-Aid at the water cooler, we readers are in real trouble.
Jay Newton-Small, a longtime AP reporter, points out in a column in the Washington Post that her old employer has begun practicing “accountability journalism,” which is a media euphemism for “picking the good guys and the bad guys.”
Dale, it's easy to copy and paste from the Internet, but let's get our facts straight. What you posted was not a news story, but a column by right-wing radio host and writer Michael Graham, who once commented on a Hillary and Bill Clinton campaign ad based on the "Sopranos" finale by saying he wished the ad would have ended with someone coming up and shooting them to death. Nice. Also, his piece was not even in the "lefty" Boston Globe. It was in the Boston Herald, a conservative tabloid. Now that we have that straightened out, I'll add what I copied and pasted from the Web site of a group called Jews4Barack:
You may have had a chance to see a video in which Sean Hannity of Fox News tries to paint Senator Barack Obama as anti-Israel on the grounds that he knows Prof. Rashid Khalidi, currently the Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University.
Here are a few things that Hannity hides from us in this video:
Hannity does not tell us that the “Arab organization” that Khalidi founded is the Arab American Action Network, which was established to provide economic and social support to Arab immigrants in Chicago. He does not want us to know that the organization works with the Illinois Department of Human Services and its case managers to provide interpretation services specifically intended for Arab-Americans in Chicago who receive public benefits.
Hannity does not tell us that the Woods Fund for which Obama was a director provided funding to the Arab American Action Network in order for it to help the struggling Arab immigrant community in Chicago, and that the Arab American Action Network is one of hundreds of organizations which the Woods Fund supports. The organizations supported are as diverse as the Chicago community, and they include the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, an organization that is “dedicated to combating poverty, racism, and anti-Semitism.”
As I said, it's easy to go to the Internet, particularly to wingnut sites on both sides of the political spectrum, and find something to make a case or assassinate the character of someone. And it's easy to find stuff that maybe isn't even true or, at best, a twisted half-truth.
Globe, Herald. OK. You got me on that one.
But the fact remains, I'd love to see the video but the LA Times isn't releasing it. Why?
By the way, here's a snippet from the story an LA Times reporter did on said dinner:
"In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia."
The story also talks about some very anti-Israel comments made at the dinner - of course - not by Obama, but by others.
But again, it's just another guy in Obama's neighborhood. Oh wait, he does admit to knowing Khaldi better than Ayers. Another guy who had fundraiser parties for him.
I can't tell you much about the video, because I haven't been able to find anything about it beyond the column you cited. I will say that Yasser Arafat eventually became a peacemaker, visited the White House and won the Nobel Peace Prize. Khalidi is an advocate for Palestinian rights. There's no crime in that. I don't see a problem with Obama's relationship with Khalidi. You do. We'll just have to disagree on this one. I would hope that our next president, no matter who it is, would adopt a more evenhanded approach to the Middle East, taking neither the Palestinian nor Israeli side, but working toward a fair resolution of the problems there.
Brant
I don't know if I have a problem with Khaldi or not. I'd like to see the video. I read the LA Times story about what went on there and I can tell you, if I were Jewish, I'd have a serious problem with it.
But again, we don't know because the Times is sitting on the video.
As far as working toward peace in the Middle East, I don't think it's possible. There never has been peace there, probably never will be.
Great light shed on an increasingly troubling subject guys...So, has Obama been palling around with terrorists…damn straight. And, to help the less fortunate terrorists in Chicago…yeah right. BS.
Now, lets move on to Obama wanting to "spread the wealth around."
Are we willing to be taxed more in order for those who don't work to buy a forth television set? Or, to pay for all the gun shot wounds and stabbings in the projects?
This guy hates white people, as Reverend Wright he taught him, and is going to tax us, and tax us more to pay for all the additional welfare programs.
Whether he’s black or white doesn’t matter. What matters is what candidate is right for this country.
Taxing big companies more will force them to move their operations to other countries, causing more jobs loses here in the United States.
Get your gun now, while it’s still legal.
Of course, big companies have never before moved their operations overseas to cut wage costs and avoid taxes. And, yes, the nationwide gun roundup will begin in late January. Get a grip, buddy.
You can call it redistributing wealth so it sounds all scary and Socialist, or you can call it a progressive tax structure, which is what John McCain prefers to call it and strongly advocates. Either way it's the same thing. The biggest mistake Obama made is saying that we need to spread the weatlh around. That doesn't necessarily translate into a government handout for people sitting on their asses all day. It means that the majority of people in this country are going to be able to keep more of the money they work hard to earn. I don't know, maybe I'm not too smart, but when I look at a chart comparing the two tax plans, it appears as though the middle class will get to keep more of their money under Obama than under McCain. McCain's plan also gives that top 5% everyone seems so worried about a tax break that is equal to or greater than what the average person makes in a year. Under Obama's plan they will pay as much as they paid during the Clinton administration and for the majority of the Regan years. I don't recall the county being Socialist at the time. Of course, I was busy working and going to college so I may have missed the state owned farms and factories. These are all facts. You can look them up to see for yourself. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with policy. At the very least you have a respectable reason for not supporting a candidate. You can continue to believe the nonsense and keep talking about palling around with terrorists and hating jews and white people, and losing your right to own a weapon. This is America, and as an American you have every right to choose to be uninformed.
If I know George W. Bush, am I anti-intelligence?
The good thing is that that 5 percent the left keeps talking about seems to be growing and now includes anybody making $150,000 or more - at least according to Sen. Biden. Any bets on the "rich" being anyone who makes $75,000 or more by the time these clowns are done?
$75,000? Make it $40,000, I want to be rich too.
Oh wait, if I'm rich I become the sharer of the wealth instead of the sharee. So I don't want to be rich?
Oh, the confusion!
Where's Huey Long when you need him?
I have been out of the media loop for the past 48 hours... what's all this about 150k?
-ellipses
I believe Biden misspoke and said under Obama's plan, no one who made less than $150,000 would see a tax increase, rather than $250,000. Hence, a simple mistake is not somehow a revelation of the TRUE Obama tax plan. I think it was first posted on wingnuts-are-us.com.
Ah... well... I have been hearing this a lot lately... Especially with what biden said about Obama being tested... Some are calling it a screw up... I find it to be perfectly reasonable...
Is there anyone on the left bashing McCain for saying "My fellow prisoners" or "Obama has been saying some stuff about western PA and I couldn't agree with him more... I mean, I couldn't disagree with you... I mean... uh..." (aside from the daily show, of course)
The point is... you know his tax plan... biden could come out and say "if you make more than 30 bucks a month, we are going to take it all!" and it doesn't really mean anything at this point...
Hey, what time does the Barack Obama show come on tonight on every channel? :-)
I believe it's 8 p.m., on all the "major" nets except ABC.
Actually, it was in the AP story that ran in today's Observer-Reporter.
The AP a wing-nut organization now?
Oh wait, maybe it is.
I might add that Obama said last week that if you're making $200,000 or less, you won't see your taxes increase.
So the number keeps changing. Whatever the people want to hear, right?
There's a big difference between that AP story and the tone of the column in the Herald.
I still say Obama's the Anti-Christ.
If you have a job, you're going to be taxed more under his administration regardless of your net income.
I think I'll quit my job and become a muslim. Hail to the chief. Thanks Big "O".
Last night's infomercial...wow! I must say He (capitalized for obvious reasons) is an awesome speaker. I heard what I wanted to hear. I damn near cried. Everyone's way of life is dramatically going to change. Hold onto your wallets.
I have heard both the 250k and 200k thing a few times and it seems to be part and parcel of a somewhat longer sentence... if you make 250k or less, your taxes don't increase... the tax cuts start from 200k down, so depending on where that income comes from, you could see a tax cut at 200k or at some point less than that... Am I wrong on this?
PS, my "security word" for blogger for this comment is "gringu"... close, but not quite :-)
Our beautiful soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is the best future leader for this nation, not Senator Barak Obama. Our beautiful soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is also would be better at leading our nation in the future after a McCain Presidency than Senator Barak Obama would be in leading our nation in the future starting in January 2009. There are great reasons our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin would be a better future leader than Senator Barak Obama. The greatest reason for our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin's is ideology. Our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is conservative in that she is pro life, marriage, guns, low taxes, low government spending, small government, unintrosive government, traditional and judeo Christian values, Bible reading and prayer in our public schools, and military spending.She is also pro free and private enterprize. Senator Barak Obama is a liberal who is anti every thing that I have described that our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is pro about or for. A second reason that our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is superior is because of experience. As a governor she has two years of executive administrative governing experience that Senator Barak Obama does not have. A final reason that our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is superior is because of political accomplishments. When our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin came to office she accomplished 3 major things which are as follows: she showed great leadership in the 3 following areas: government reform, the state budget and the economy, and wise use of natural resources. She reformed government by standing up to the big oil companies by breaking up the monopoly on power and resources. She insisted on competition and basic fairness which ended the control that the oil companies had on the state, and thereby returning control of the state back to the people. She also stood up to the special interest and lobbyist, and produced major ethics reform. She lead well in the state budget by generating a surplus which came about by vetoing a half billion dollars of wasteful spending, ending the abuses of earmark spending by congress, and by getting rid of the private jet, the chef, and the chuffer. Economically under her leadership she brought about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. She also suspended the state fuel tax, and when oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, she sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska . On natural resources she has shown great leadership by beginning a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. When the last section of the pipeline is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. Senator Barak Obama has done nothing, so please vote John McCain for President and give to our beautiful soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin the opportunity that she deserves leading the nation into the future after a John McCain presidency. When our soon to be Vice President does lead the nation as President after a John McCain presidency,she will be the greatest President that we have ever had. Finally she is smarter than Senator Barak Obama
Thank You
John Warren
Shorter letter option
That's the shorter option? Thanks for the form letter, numbskull. It's already all over the Internet. I'm telling people that for your benefit. If someone recognizes your screen name, you wouldn't want them thinking you wrote that drivel. If, by chance, you did write it, I'm hoping the 7 in johntheman7 is your age. Otherwise, you should sue every school you attended. The letter is borderline gibberish. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but if you really believe Sarah Palin is smarter than Barack Obama, you should seek professional help ... really soon.
LOL! click his name to see his list of blogs :-) That's funny right there!
Brant sometimes you are so funny. I think Johntheman7 has a crush on Sarah Palin and that is why he thinks she's Superwoman. What a great Halloween prank that was. Thanks Johntheman7. HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home