The egotistical messiah has been found out:
A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: “These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They’re the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won’t accept that they are losing and they won’t listen.”
After leading throughout the year, Mr Obama now trails Mr McCain by two to three points in national polls.
Party leaders and commentators say that the Democrat candidate spent too much of the summer enjoying his own popularity and not enough defining his positions on the economy – the number one issue for voters – or reaching out to those blue collar workers whose votes he needs if he is to beat Mr McCain.
Others concede that his trip to Europe was a distraction that enhanced his celebrity status rather than his electability on Main Street, USA.
A distraction? His whole candidacy has been a distraction. It’s been nothing but a cult of personality where the candidate is so in love with himself he actually starts to believe the cult fanatics that tell him he can walk on water.
And people wonder why he is thought of as a joke…
Meanwhile Newt with some wise words:
I think no one on the right should underestimate the level of threat [Palin] poses to the elite media, and therefore, the level of frenzy you’re going to get.
How right was Newt? The NYT’s broadsides Palin in todays article:
Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
But Jennifer Rubin tore the paper a new ahole:
In just the first few paragraphs you have testimony that she was “effective and accessible.” So where are we going here? Well, despite the testimony that she was ”accessible,” others find her “secretive” and inclined to put a premium on “loyalty.” The evidence? The Governor’s office declined a request for emails that would have cost over $400,000. Proof positive. Oh, and the records sought (about Polar Bears and such) were in fact obtained.
Then there is the ” she blurs personal and public behavior” charge. The evidence? A phone call from Todd Palin to a state legislator about the latter’s chief of staff, which Palin denies was mentioned. Pretty thin gruel.
Next we have her tenure as mayor, where again all heck breaks loose because — are ya sitting down? — she brought in her own team. No! Unheard of. Jeeez. Next she’ll be firing the town museum director. Oh no– it’s true! Palin says (”Oh yeah, she says,” you can hear the Times reporters hrrumphing) she was cutting the budget.
This is pathetic, really. Is there something illegal here? Is there something nefarious? What is the point?
The next offense: while she was mayor city employees were told not to talk to the press. The horror! Might there have been a procedure, a public affairs or press person for that? We don’t know and the Times doesn’t tell us.
~~~Then on page four of this eye-popping account, we learn as Governor she had the temerity to have ”surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.” No! She hired people she knew? And people she trusted because she had just run against a hostile machine of her own party? The Lieutenant Governor offers up that they were “competent, qualified, top-notch people,” but are you going to believe him? And then the kicker: it seemed to, well, work out pretty well.
To her supporters — and with an 80 percent approval rating, she has plenty — Ms. Palin has lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption. She gained the passage of a bill that tightens the rules covering lobbyists. And she rewrote the tax code to capture a greater share of oil and gas sale proceeds.
“Does anybody doubt that she’s a tough negotiator?” said State Representative Carl Gatto, Republican of Palmer.
The nerve — hiring trusted people and running a competent, popular administration. So we veer back to “secrecy” –dastardly tales of using a private email account and reliance on a circle of close advisors. Once again, the sheer banality of it all is both numbing and humorous
I would call this Times piece a frenzy…..Newt right was again.
See author page
Hey Obambi! do you personally know anyone on your staff, or did you hire complete strangers? Jeremiah Wright was on your staff, now he’s under the bus, along with so many others. Just look in the mirror if you want to see a corrupt politician.
WHAT HUSSEIN O’BUNKO REALLY “STANDS” FOR
Change for him, dollars in the bank. Change for us, hopeless poverty.
I caught these three articles yesterday that made me roar… putting them in a row, Curt. You might find them interesting fodder to add to your thoughts above.
The first one is the Obama camp, accusing McCain of running the sleaziest campaign in modern history.
Ya know, I guess they figure they can get away with that… but only if you can’t tie the media, the leftist bloggers and his personal envoy of lawyers, researchers etal in Wasilla to the BS they’re putting out on Palin… But one has to wonder… just how disassociated are the campaign officials from the grassroots “media” spreading these lies?
Now, insert your post reference above to the Obama campaigns “arrogance” in ignoring the Dem bigwig advice. Arrogant. Hummm…. arrogant. Now where have I heard that before?? LOL
Now, from your same referenced article, those low poll numbers just may be worse than they anticipate because of the “Bradley effect”.
In their continued arrogance, the BHO camp still poo poos this notion, banking on the new energized youth and black vote.
Now… the creme de la creme. Obama “has a plan”…. Gawd… thought we were done with all that stuff when Kerry got booted out the door four years ago. But here’s that “I have a plan” bit coming again.
Uh, just like Kerry, no word to the DNC insiders what “that plan” is….
Just goes to show, there is very little that is new or “changed” about politics.
Belittling Palin?
September 11, 2008
Updated: September 12, 2008
A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being “disrespectful” of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.
Summary
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin:
The ad says “they said she was doing ‘what she was told.’ ” But the Obama adviser who’s being quoted didn’t accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama’s legislative record and added, “maybe that’s what she was told.”
It says “they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as ‘good looking,’ ” But “they” didn’t lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn’t say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama’s running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the “obvious” difference between Palin and himself is “she’s good looking.”
The ad says Obama was “disrespectful” when he accused Palin of “lying” about her record. But the truth is Palin’s claim to have “said no” to the “bridge to nowhere” is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.
Analysis
The new McCain-Palin ad “Disrespectful” begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama’s celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception. It takes quotes from news organizations and uses them out of context in an effort to portray Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, as unfairly attacking Sarah Palin and making sexist remarks. We’ve long been a critic of candidates (Obama included) usurping the credibility of independent news organizations and peddling false quotes, and this ad is particularly egregious. We found it airing in Denver on Sept. 10, as recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a unit of TNS Media Intelligence.
Hey, Good-Lookin’
McCain-Palin Ad: “Disrespectful”
Narrator: He was the world’s biggest celebrity, but his star is fading. So they lashed out at Sarah Palin. Dismissed her as good looking. That backfired. So they said she was doing what she was told. Then desperately called Sarah Palin a liar. How disrespectful. And how Governor Sarah Palin proves them wrong every day.The ad says Obama and Biden “lashed out at Sarah Palin. Dismissed her as ‘good looking.’ ”
That’s misleading. The reference is to a report of Biden joking that one of the differences between Palin and him is that “she’s good looking.” But the report cited in the ad doesn’t characterize Biden’s remarks as dismissive. Instead, ABC News’ Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe describe a moment when Biden “ham[s] it up” for the crowd, with one woman telling Biden that he’s “gorgeous.” The Democratic candidate then says he’d like to end “on a serious note.”
Here’s the quote in context:
ABC News, Aug. 31, 2008: “From our perspective the whole deal is how does the government help you get back up without getting in the way?” Biden asked. “There’s a gigantic – gigantic – difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. And that is that – ”
The crowd laughed.
“Well there’s obvious differences,” Biden said, beginning to ham it up. “She’s good looking,” he said, laughing. “You know there’s obvious differences. But there’s a whole lot — ”
A woman shouted: “you’re gorgeous!” to Biden.
“Where’s that person?” Biden asked. “Who said that? Who said that? Would you say that again for my wife?”
“You’re gorgeous!” the woman yelled.
“Oh, I tell you what, would you make sure Jill hears that?” Biden joked. “You know what I mean? I just want to make sure she hears that. I haven’t heard that in a long, long, long time. And hanging out with this lean, young-looking guy is making me feel pretty old, you know what I mean?”
Biden continued his riff. “I thought I was in pretty good shape til I hung out with this guy, you know what I mean?”
“Joe’s looking good,” said Obama.
“Yeah, I’m looking good alright, I tell you what,” Biden said. “But look, folks, let me end with, on a serious note here. On a serious note — I was a pretty good football player, man,” he said to Obama “We oughta talk a little bit after this. Okay? –But look, on a very serious note …”
He then continued with his very serious note.
Our ears don’t hear Biden’s “good looking” comment as dismissive. To the contrary, it’s clearly a self-deprecating remark made in joking about himself and his looks. And by the way, the ad shows a picture of Obama next to the “good looking” quote, but it was Biden, not Obama, who said that.
Marching Orders?
The ad continues to imply sexism by claiming that “they said she was doing ‘what she was told.’ ” Presumably “they” are the Democrats. But no one said anything close to that. Rather, the McCain ad took a fragment of an actual statement by an Obama adviser and carefully added language to alter the meaning.
The ad cites a Sept. 4 report from Ben Smith’s blog at Politico.com in which he interviewed Obama adviser David Axelrod about Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention.
The full quote reads:
Axelrod, quoted by Politico, Sept. 4: “She tried to attack Obama by saying he had no significant legislative accomplishments — maybe that’s what she was told — but she should talk to Sen. Lugar, talk to Sen. Coburn, talk to people across the aisle in Illinois where he passed dozens of major laws to expand health care reform welfare, reduce taxes on working families.”
Axelrod’s statement, as reported, was about information that Palin was given: “maybe that’s what she was told.” The McCain-Palin campaign manipulated the phrase to make it sound as though he was alleging that Palin took orders: “doing what she was told.”
The rest of the interview actually included some praise from Axelrod for Palin. For instance, he said she is a “skilled politician.”
And, again, the quote used in the ad wasn’t said by Obama, either – though his photo appears next to it.
Speaking of Dismissive
The ad wraps up by saying Obama and Biden “desperately called Sarah Palin a liar.” And it adds, “How disrespectful.”
The reference is to an ad the Obama-Biden campaign released in which it criticizes Palin for saying she was against the infamous Bridge to Nowhere when she had previously been for it. (We called into question Palin’s comments on the bridge last week.) The Obama ad says, “Politicians lying about their records. You don’t call that maverick, you call it more of the same.” It then quotes an item from the liberal magazine The New Republic, which called the claim that Palin stopped the pork-barrel bridge project “a naked lie.”
As we’re fond of saying, we can’t read minds. So we can’t determine whether the McCain campaign means to say that calling a woman a liar is disrespectful – or whether it’s just disrespectful to say that of Palin. But in either case, “disrespectful”? Wait a minute. Isn’t this politics?
Ron,
The copyrighted source material that you posted without attribution comes from FactCheck.org correct?
Would that be Annenberg’s FactCheck.org?
Would that be the Annenberg of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?
Would that be the same Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Obama worked on with Bill Ayers?
Would that be the Weather Underground Bill Ayers that bombed the Pentagon?
The same unrepentant Bill Ayers who said that they “didn’t do enough?”
Is it that Annenberg?
Just fact checking.
Aye Chihuahua
Very nicely done!!
Have you seen “Fact Checking FactCheck.org on Palin’s Speech ?
And those Bozo’s have the nerve to accuse Palin or McCain of lying?!
Ron, stop embarrassing yourself and go get a brain. Until then I recommend being quiet.
Aye Chihuahua,
Do you mean the Annenberg Foundation founded by by the very conservative publisher Walter Annenberg? The guy who was an Ambassador for Nixon? The guy who first introduced conservative godhead Ronald Reagan to the uber conservative Margaret Thatcher?
That Annenberg Foundation?
The fact is, that “factcheck-dot-org” is often right, except when it counts.
more examples…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40007
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib200
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/the-annenberg-f.html
And, in general, if you want to know the facts about “factcheck.org”, please go here
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/08/factchecking_th.php
where you wil find references that will be highly useful in determining the reliability (zero, on important matters) of the liars at the annenberg(pravda).
Fit fit,
That’s funny.
Are you really trying to convince the readers here that just because the money originally came from a conservative donor that the organization itself will continue to be conservative?
Next you’ll be using that logic to convince someone that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is conservative just because her money is.
Aye,
You’re trying to imply the people who work on the FactCheck website are the same who worked on the Annenberg Challenge.
Uh, Fit, stop lecturing Aye Chihuahua on giving his weak, though otherwise very logical, and impressively presented argument.
Instead, focus on the material I gave which CLEARLY shows that “factcheck” is a tool of the Left, especially when it comes to running interference for the Leftist Socialist Dems.
I don’t know the politics of Annenberg himself, but it doesn’t matter what he may have wanted the Annenberg Ctr., to be; what matters is what it is now, and that is a Leftist institution dedicated to spreading Socialism. How it got that way is immaterial. What we need to deal with is the reality of what it is, and that is a 5th column element that endangers America, and by ectension, the World.
Why can’t Hillarity’s supporters be this honest when it comes to her?
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/?s=annenberg
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-ayers-and-the-annenberg-challenge-cover-up/
So, let’s not waste time criticizing a general criticizm, which can ONLY be faulted for it’s generality, NOT it’s veracity. Sometimes an overview of the problem is the best way to begin, and A. C. did a masterful job of generalizing it. Now stop your yapping, and deal with the fact that the Annenberg Ctr., in general, and factcheck in particular, are in the tank for O’Bunko.
yonason,
“Clearly shows”? Your links appear to be part of some tinfoilhat.org webring. Maybe I need to be wearing one of the hats in order for it to make sense.
It’s obvious you don’t know anything about Walter Annenberg, it’s been left out of the discussion cause it doesn’t further the irrational meme.
“Your links appear to be part of some tinfoilhat.org webring.” — Fit
Only to a blind, pea-brained monkey could they possibly appear that way.
General rule for idiots – “If you can’t debunk it, it’s probably true, so try to slander it and hope no one checks.”
Someone want to tell me why the heck Annenberg and the Factcheck.org review of a McCain ad has entered this thread? Afterall, neither have anything to do with the subject of this post.
I kept reading the posts in front of Ron’s cut/paste comment. It’s like a bolt out of the blue in context.
Fact is, the press and leftist blogs have been personally vendetta’ing… er, vetting… Palin since her name was first announced. And only a fraction of that has to do with her record as an elected official. Even on that, the media and left blogs started with scandal and lies, and continue with mistruths and out of context timeline misinformation.
So I don’t give a rat’s butt what Annenberg says about McCain or Obama’s campaign advertising. They are both dealing in soundbites… the nature of Politics.
Obama may try to distance himself from his merry gullible guppie followers, and say it is they who are running the sleaziest campaign in history and not him.
But wait… isn’t he the master of the Internet, right after Al Gore? Isn’t he the one who created cyber hit squads to do hit and runs on websites for talking point clean ups? Isn’t it he who is king of the grassroots campaign? And it is the grassroots campaign that is the slime, dealing in lies sans research.
Typical Chicago politics… have someone else do the dirty work for you, and keep your name out of it. But somehow, the $160 mil he and Ayers spent on a failed educational experiment, and on campaigns for the
LSD(uh… make that LSC… typo or freudian slip?? They had to be on drugs to think it’d work…) friendly candidates speak volumes on two realms.First, he can spend spend spend, and still show nothing for education reform.. or likely anything else.
Second, if his campaign is not involved behind the scenes, feeding scandal/lies talking points to the leftist bloggers, then he just isn’t such a tech/new info age guru afterall.