Wednesday, 29 October 2008
|0916 - Obama the hypocrite|
No, it's not just me saying that. Former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey wrote in today's New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."
I'm truly astounded that CNN would editorialize against Obama on the issue of campaign finance. I guess they think he's got the election so wrapped up that they can get away with a mild rebuke so they don't look like they're totally in the tank.
current mood: disgusted
So, let's see... if a news source doesn't write negative stories about Obama, they're in the tank. If they write un-sensationalized negatives about Obama, they're still in the tank, but being sneaky.
So the only way to win is to write sensationalist tripe?
They're in the tank for Obama because of all of the effort they put into trying to tear down John McCain and Sarah Palin, and the effort they don't put into tryng to tear down Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Not to quibble over semantics, but has it occurred to you that...and this is just a maybe...there is more wrong with the McCain/Palin camp than the Obama/Biden camp?
I mean, the woman can't name two national papers or two supreme court cases; they report it. Biden plagiarized during law school *40* years ago; they don't report it. That's not in the tank, that's selectivity.
Do I think the liberal media skews toward promoting Obama? Certainly. Am I rational and recognize that just because a guy I once supported is losing doesn't mean everyone is out to get him? Definitely.
How come the national media isn't all over Biden's recent gaffe - or is it a Freudian slip? - that they'll cut taxces for people making $150K, not the $250K figure Obama's been promising all along?
How about the fact that Obama's web site for donations doesn't implement the most basic of frud checks on credit card donations, thus letting people donate without underoing even the most basic of checks to make sure they can legally donate?
Those are just two of the negative stories about Obama the MSM aren't telling. Cmon, how hard can this be?
Umm, the first is ridiculous. The media should sensationalize him misspeaking? Seriously? Does that seem rational? Should they document stutters too? False sentence starts? Count "umm"s? Mis-stating a number while speaking isn't exactly the same as "news", and you should recognize that.
The second I know nothing about and am not in a position to research it right now.
The first: If it's a misspeech, how come the campaign isn't disavowing it as such? Instead, they're cdancing all around it. If it's not a misspeech, it's a significant change in their position, and one that will bring the burden of Obama's confiscatory taxation to lots more people and small businesses.
The second: You know nothing about it because the MSM isn't telling the story. Lots of folks are donating to Obama's campaign using fake names like Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and John Galt and lots of other obviously fake names and addresses. There's a new web site
devoted exclusively to telling the story. It puts the Chinese financing of Bill Clinton's campaign to shame.
Umm, their campaign spokesperson DID disavow it... as such:
No family making less than $250,000 will see their tax increases one cent, and if your family makes less than $200,000 - as 95 percent of workers and their families do - you'll get a tax cut.
What is unclear there?
I don't watch almost any "MSM", so I wouldn't hear about it from there at all... I simply haven't had time, this week, to catch up on ANY news. When my schedule breaks, I will certainly get up to speed.
What's "family"? Married filing jointly is the usual application of that term in taxation...so what's he number for a single filer? Further, that $200K number is remarkably fluid. Finally, they did indeed dance around the number for a while; I guess they finally decided what the story was this week.
I'm hearing "Oh, they did answer it? Still not good enough. They didn't issue a textbook defining every word they used, and they took a whole 24 hours to release a for-real response. And they responded with the same thing that they have said for months, but I didn't like it then and I don't like it now"
Basically, sounds like we're back to the "can't win with you unless they're republicans"...familiar ground, no?
I may not be up on what is covered in the press. Have the media jumped on Biden's saying "jobs" is a three-letter word, or saying that when the Great Depression started, President Franklin Roosevelt got on TV to talk to the citizenry? Or Obama's saying that he saw fallen heroes in the audience at a Memorial Day event?
Were a Republican to say such things, we'd never hear the end of it.
Ahh, the "if it were on the other foot" argument. Of course, any time examples are shown to the contrary, those examples are always disregarded for one reason or another (see other threads in this conversation for alternate examples). Nah, I think I'll not rise to the bait this time. You are clearly not "pro" anybody but "anti" somebody, and that isn't a stance one can have a discussion with.
"a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings."
Ah... Sounds like the very spitting image of John McCain throughout this whole campaign, to me...
|Date:|| - 0000|| |
The show was in San Francisco, though the inspiration was me at ROFLcon (that's a ROFLcon commemorative lunchbox). I didn't know that picture was in it until after it'd happened.