the nyc times has finally done it...
even the times couldn't fawn eternally on obama without taking a swipe or two.
pandering steevo? or is he a really an ivy league religion-hater as has been previously suspected..? was his religious expression politically expedient and other's religion something for bitter bigots to cling to?
hard to say...
63 comments:
Google author of the op-ed (not a NYT article), William Kristol. Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fixed, I mean, Fox News Channel.
Kristol also served as chief of staff to Dan Quayle.
He has been described as arguably the most consistently mean-spirited and wrong-headed pundit of our time. (I thought that title belonged to Bellow O'Reilly.)
Not exactly trusted to deliver a "fair and balanced" view on Obama.
i agree with allan. i saw kristol on fox news sunday yesterday (we were stuck in branson and there was nothing else to watch) and i was deeply disturbed by his obvious bias, dislike, and disdain for obama.
read here please.
paul.
i'm going to be technical.
there is no such thing as "nyc" times.
and while the new york times printed something by kristol, i hope you were kidding in your support of his clearly biased views. he's been a columnist at nytimes all of less than 4 months. so in both your attempt to slander the nytimes (agreeably more liberal than say, FAUX news), you not only showed your lack of clarity, but your inability to grasp the topic.
however, in your continuous attempt to draw stevey, allan, and me into upping your blog comment count, you have been very successful.
albeit, disingenuous, considering you have yet to refute the statement: paul frandsen will vote for barack obama in 2008.
allan.
well spoken, again.
what you said on a previous post, is again, applicable. it is unfair to take one or two sentences of somebody and try to input meaning and substance where there is none.
barack is clearly NOT a liberal, god-is-dead, opium for the masses, anti-believer and to try to make that point from a misspoken moment is silly and counterproductive.
now, i'm off to read stevey's links. although i despise the tactic of linking instead of just stating your own case instead of relying on others to speak for you...
peter: please excuse my link.
Paul, in the above link you will see more of what you are trying to promote on your web-log: unfair mischaracterization based on a few sentences, taken out of context, and aimed at caricaturing a complex individual. republicans (and hillary) know that if they can caricature barack as an elitist, then that is the kiss of death in a national campaign. so here comes peter wehner, the former deputy assistant to the president (!) with his surface-only investigation into the subject (makes you wonder about his time in the white house), trying to make barack a cultural liberal. again, he uses another word, liberal, as a curse word and also as a moniker that supposedly makes us all understand that barack is one of those, and that all liberals are the same: elitists and arrogant.
paul, please don't fall into that trap. please examine the issue fully. please try and understand obama as a complex individual with imperfections and abilities. anyway, we know you will end up voting for him anyway.
stevie: i like that in your first article the writer says that obama stepped away from his talking points and tried to speak intelligently and from the heart on the subject.
this is what comes out? his exact words, "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"
don't side-step this you three. peter's classic move is to side-step the actual issue and then accuse me of the same.
this is his moment from the heart? this is how he views those who disagree with his point of view? their views are not authentic and they clinging to them as reactionaries because their lives are bad.
there's little way out of this candid and poorly spoken, heartfelt remark.
yes, come to think of it, mr kristol used to get to me when he would spew anti-romney stuff. i'm just suprised the ny times would allow it in their op-ed section. you'd think they were trying to disguise their true colors. or perhaps the paper's editorial board has just had enough of obama's free-pass.
peter: i'm looking foward to see you contort yourself to explain away obama's actual words...
paul: can you explain to us the context of mr. obama's words?
paul:
if you can answer the following questions in the negative, then i will continue in the future to bite your bait on this weblog. ready go.
1) have you ever had a bad or "frustrating" day/week/month and opened the book of mormon, the bible, or said a prayer?
2) are you going to vote for obama in nov '08?
please respond. it will determine the amount of credence i give to your subsequent posts/comments on this and any other weblogs...
secondly.
free-pass? why are you continuing to have the conversations of yesterday? that news line is dead. a long time ago too. barack has most definitely been vetted over and again. and if its not as much as clinton, its b/c michelle obama doesn't have shady ties that can be revealed over and over by examining tax returns.
it's no wonder you claim to not support the candidate of the future. you would rather sit on old arguments and lost battles. (like mitt or your "free pass" silliness). forward thinking, paul, is thinking you can believe in...
I don't turn to my religion to explain anything. People who have found real comfort in religion do not cling to it as a way to explain our frustrations. It is more real than that.
Obama's words are demeaning to me. I understand that he was attempting to explain the frustrations and feelings of the common people, but his obvious lack of understanding on that very point speak out against him. For some of us immigration and trade are actually sources of frustration, not just whipping-boys that we use to make ourselves heard in society.
Most of us are just trying to provide well for our children and give them every possible advantage. I am grateful that my parents tried to do the same.
His same words could be repeated by a republican candidate, saying that the democratic populace cling to abortion, gay rights, environmentalism and bleeding-heart big-government programs when they feel bitter about being an overlooked minority, and use them as a way to explain their frustrations.
Would Allan or Petey or Stephen defend these words given any context? But what if the republican were trying to reach out and show his understanding of the democrats issues and feelings?
matt: my argument is not in defense of obama's words. my argument is asking paul (and you) to look at obamas' words in context.
also, i'm asking you and paul to try and see obama as a complex individual, rather than labeling him based on one sentence over the course of an entire campaign.
matt:
you analogy doesn't work.
in both cases you have people talking down to the democratic electorate.
nobody in PA is talking to or about republicans. so you crossing parties argument doesn't hold up. sorry.
petey: matt has a point. obama picked politically correct whipping-boys to trot out in front of liberal san-fransisco donors.
what if an activist flying to pennsylvania to campaign for mccain asked him how to reach a hard-to-reach group for republicans--gays. mccain rubbed his chin and stepped away from his talking points and said, "gays become frustrated with current flight delays and airline bankruptcies (sp?) and cling to domestic partnership rights and gay marriage legislation to explain their frustrations."
astute john. you can be sure no one would be calling mcain a complex individual who is hard to get to know.
stevie: please stop using the huffington post for anything but a parody. many of their posts mirror 'the onion' in the ridicularity when compared to reality. o'reilly and fox are shining beacons of news in comparison...
stevie: i appreciate that you don't defend his words. it's big of you. it makes your assertions here more genuine.
petey: for #1: ask your closest gay friend, "have you ever had a really frustrating day and turned to work on a draft for civil union legislation?"
petey: mccain looks better and better by the day. he has already found real solutions for realyproblems. i dislike his temperment, but i've always felt like he does the politically difficult thing when it is the right thing. the great thing about him is he has a large body of legislation that passed the house and senate doing the right thing for ordinary people. this is not the stuff of audacious words and hopeful speeches. the rubber has already hit the road for mccain. i'm not saying i've decided for whom i will vote. but so far, his brand of moderation in all things but the war are brands i could live with...embrace even.
stevie: i believe i have already allowed for the context of obama's words. he chose to speak off the cuff about what challenges rural pennsylvanians face. he got it wrong to a degree. he's allowed mistakes. however, his wording was certainly wrongheaded and offensive. sure, you're allowed to slip up a say offensive things if you stop to realize why what you said was offensive. interestingly though, obama clung to his statement for days--even rewording it to the same effect...as if he wasn't sure what the big deal was.
ahhh, good to talk the ny(c) hipsters...
paul: false analogies don't hold weight with the nyc hipsters. also, did you hear mccain's talk on the economy today? he really just makes no sense at all.
attacking the huffington post does not at all respond to the arguments presented therein. if you remember paul, it was the huffington post (!) that broke the story about what was said by Barack in San Francisco. So, by your logic, we should not be having this debate at all, since it is all based upon the reporting by the Huffington Post. whatever paul. get real.
paul.
as always, you're right.
let me now declare. i will vote for mccain. i will forego obama and everything he stands for and is trying to accomplish. it was foolishness on my part.
i just hope when my life is done, i am judged not by my life's works (aspirations and actions both included together), but rather by one or two sentences, contorted like a rorschach test to fit whatever description the describer needs it to fit.
Well... that was pretty melodramatic, Petey.
Stephen,
I did look at his words in context and they still did not make sense to me. They really didn't. Maybe it was just how he chose to tailor his words for the crowd at S.F., but it still left me feeling that he is not looking at the world from a point of view I agree with. This is based on a number of things he has said. I am not so terribly malinformed.
No doubt he is complex. No doubt he would bring change. I want change, I'm just not sure which direction he is going to head. He has given America nothing more than words, promises, and a very liberal voting history. What will he do if in office? Who can tell?
peter dear: ironically, i continue to judge mccain by his life's work (did you read my comment?) and obama has little but words to show for his time as a legislator. how else are we to judge him...
stevie: the drudge report has broken some pretty big stories. the national enquirer has broken even bigger stories. big deal. get real. pwn.
paul.
blogging rule #21:
you're not allowed to call your own pwnage.
do you really believe that someone must have federal government experience (federally passed legislation) to be qualified to be president?
by that measure romney would NEVER qualify.
since we both know you don't believe that.
let's talk about true experience.
one reason i like barack is the same reason that i supported mitt. he is not *of* washington.
have you ever exercised your first amendment right to lobby your congress representatives? i have.
in my experience, its almost comical to see the bubble of self-importance that surrounds the Hill. living in a world where people will do anything to get 15 mins in your presence or even with your aide, creates an environment where senators and representatives lose sight of reality.
yes, barack has only been in washington 4 years. so the number pieces of legislation authored by him is small. but gimme a break. its rare that any legislation get through. especially, since he's been on the campaign trail for a quarter of the entire time he's been in a federally elected position.
so let's talk real-life experience. again, i liked that mitt had served in business, non-profit, and state government. in the same vein, i like that barack has a similar background.
can you even imagine the paycheck a Harvard Law degree could bring? yet, it is well known, the barack passed up more lucrative job offers for low-paying jobs that would allow him to also work as a community-organizer. did he take a vow of poverty? no. did he pass on personal wealth and use his influence to help to neediest demographic in his locale? yes.
he has continued to show this attitude by refusing to takes lobbied or PAC money. continually, since he left harvard, he has a life pattern of passing up the easy money in an effort to stay true to the grass roots. i believe this life experience is valid and valuable. and WAY more potent that some off the cuff comment, no matter how incorrect or defensible/straightforward, you may read it.
if you look at his experience in the IL state government, he has a strong reputation for being not only friendly, but friends with many of the opposition party. he was only there in elected office for a few terms as well. but all in all, from graduation to present, he has a history of true, not trite, bridge building. and given the vitriolic rhetoric of the right (and the left) he's going to need *all* of that experience. yes. [for the record, i recognize, mccain is also well known for that sort of aisle reaching, which is consolation if his the 44th pres) in all honesty, i won't be completely distraught is mccain wins, but i think barack is a much, much better option.
matt:
melodramatic? i'm glad the irony didn't escape you.
i was not any more extreme than the idiots in the echo chamber who think obama would ever act in a way that he has vehemently denounce, rejected, and deplored concerning the rev. wrights atrocious comments. nor was i any more dramatic and outlandish as the aforementioned idiots to think that barack has some hidden agenda regarding religion, guns, immigration, &c, that has accidentally been revealed and now we all are in on the heist of the "real" barack. please gimme a break. voting for barack is not picky a random prize out of a hat. we know what we are getting the echo argument against this are simply shallow and not founded.
to say we don't know what we're going to get with barack, is silly. if you want to know what he is going to be like after elected, look what he done prior to his election:
a life is helping the less fortunate, bridge building, and an otherwise great life of citizenship.
all positive things for a president.
my apologies for a lengthy comment.
oh really paul? please tell us the stories the enquirer has broken. it's amazing how closed you are to actual discussion, and how open you are to just pure argument and ignorance of the actual issues.
(sorry, i posted that before i read peter's comment) wow. peter. long comment. and nicely put. although i would likely have to disagree with your observations about mccain. but on the whole, you put it well.
and paul, i believed petey rightly pwned you with his point about mitt vs. romney's legislation experience. i believe you'll retort by saying we know what mitt will do because we've seen him as an executive of a state. but, we also have seen what barack has done as a community organizer, prof, etc. just because he didn't do it in public eye doesn't make it any less valid than what mitt did in ma.
oh, and i don't think faun means what you think it means....
Please forgive me for interjecting mid-discussion, but this is my take on the statement:
Whether the author is biased or not has no bearing at all on the fact that Obama said what he said. The context of where he said it and to whom he said makes it even more interesting.
Arguing whether or not Paul is biased, whether Mitt's experience is different, or about correct pwning etiquette shouldn't take away the fact that Obama's statement should be alarming to anyone who values the First and Second Amendments.
Johnny...
Welcome to California! Thanks for commenting to let us know you were here. You are more brave than I as you interjected into this "discussion..."
Hope you all are enjoying residency. Just found out you know Cannon and Emily Marriott. Small world...
But as long as I'm here... each of our beloved candidates has something to nit-pick and despise. Let's just be sure not to do the same to each other... okay?? That's all I have to say to all you strong personalities!
Peace and love, peace and love.
pwn. pwn
johnny.
your point about when and where are valid and deserve attention. however, the when and where although important, do not invalidate his life's works and aspirations. period.
and your reference to the 1st and 2nd amendment, while important in a general discussion of rights has no bearing in this conversation, in the sense that obama has said nothing nor has ever done anything to suggest he would violate those rights.
just b/c he unwisely said bitter people turn to that and this to explain their frustrations, by no one's twisting, mangling interpretation can you imply that he would act against the rights stating in the 1st and 2nd amendment.
paul.
i'm glad you gave stevey and each our own pwn. if you had written it two more times, johnny and your wife each could have had one as well.
johnny.
sorry if that was abrupt.
hi. i'm peter. paul's cousin. i thought you were johnny, paul's little brother. anyway, nice to meet you.
welcome (unofficially, since i'm not the moderator) to the foray.
I guess I missed something... what on earth is pwning?
libby: don't ask us, ask google.
libby:
a hint:
pwn rhymes with own.
Where can I find a list of blogging rules and regulations so that I can prevent Petey from dismissing all of my arguments offhand?
matt:
if you read closely, i only enforce blogging rules on paul.
i dismiss your arguments offhand from your faulty reasoning and ill-constructed arguments... ;)
peter: your long comment was quite possibly you most substantive and instructive comment ever.
i will respond after i get some sleep.
Obama said,
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
What did he mean?
Matt,
I also thought his thoughts on abortion and teenage pregnancies were alarming. He would want his daughter to get an abortion to prevent her from being PUNISHED with a child? What a terrible thing to say. Why not give the child up for adoption?
was that last comment from jonny, mel, or aaron?
matt: are you asking that seriously or are you trying to set some kind of trap. the transcript of what he said makes his meaning clear enough: teach kids about contraceptives, abstinence, etc. so they won't have to suffer the consequences of an unintended pregnancy. we can't pretend we, even as a church (or at least a church culture) feel that an unwanted teen pregnancy is a consequence (even a punishment) for premarital sex.
jonny, mel, or aaron (whoever made the comment): barack was not talking at all about abortion. He was talking about education, specifically abstinence education.
matt (again): when we throw around quotes out of context, it gives us a very shallow view of candidates. this kind of invective should be left to the vitriol professionals: the likes of hannity and papa bear.
matt:
once again, you've proved the very point stevey and i have been making for much of this thread. cut and paste "gotcha" quotes do not frame the debate in reasonable terms.
this is not to say that obama or any other politician doesn't make boneheaded statements *in* context. it is just an overall disgust with these silly "quotes" that have little relevance to the general debate.
stevey:
sometimes your parentheticals make me dizzy.
stephen and peter: stop talking yourselves out a of what obama truly is by spinning it all as context. the contortions you have made on this thread are the definition of spin. when did this blog become the spin zone?
sure stevie, he wasn't just talking about abortion, but don't think he wasn't pandering to his abortion rights supporters who are tickled to hear his statement.
we agree, however, that having a kid should not be viewed as a punishment for pre-marital sex. i think this is a prevalent feeling in many LDS circles and i think it is insidious, a double standard, misogynistic and leads to life-crippling choices by LDS parents in relation to their kids...
obama is a tried and true liberal. please don't paint him any other way. of course he is avidly pro-abortion, pro-tax, pro-after school programs till 7 pm etc. etc. etc.
i feel like i'm being sold snake oil. sure, he is a nice guy and talks well. most def. he has taken jobs that have furthered his political career and let him into the halls of power. he has stood staunchly in the far left of the party at each turn in his career. he has yet to build consensus with true conservatives.
amazing to hear you blow off mccain's life-time of actual accomplishments in a very cut-throat washington environment as the same-old corrupt washington politician.
the spin in making me dizzy on this thread...
Undesired pregnancy as a consequence of your actions is pretty distant from the language Obama used.
I don't think he was supporting abortion with this statement, but he did state that he didn't want his daughters to suffer the consequences of a mistake made in spite of educational and moral instruction...
"I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
He does not state any kind of position on abortion here. He only speaks about his desires. They do not align with mine in this case. Not even close.
How will his desires play out in his policies? Who can tell? I know a lot of great citizens who hold views opposed to mine. They don't get a pass from me because they are "complex individuals", and do a lot of "bridge building" and "isle reaching". I want proof that they are going to do what I want. I want my vote not to just be cast, but to control.
Peter,
According to you, all I do on this blog is prove your points for you. As such, I would expect something different from you than words such as idiotic, silly, flawed, disgust, etc....
How about a, "Thank you"?
interestingly, i asked an old-school attending of mine at 4 am this morning what he thinks of the current race. he loves politics and likes to say he's been on the front lines of every race for the last 50 years.
he thinks it's not inconceivable that obama could lose all 50 states to mccain.
his thing, right now, is the problems with obama's time in illinois. obama was consensus building. but perhaps he was building with a group of people and with agendas that will pan out to be deal breakers for americans.
say what you will about the real-clear-politics blog, but its bias it no greater than stevie's huffington post.
i give you a few links that point out another side to the rosy picture painted in stephen's references at huffington. this isn't to say i'm on board with all the arguments, but there is damning stuff. not damning in a gotcha sort of way, but following the money and finding the influences behind obama's early rise.
there's a complex pattern here stevie...how to spin it?
nice avatar matty:)
petey says, "he has continued to show this attitude by refusing to takes lobbied or PAC money. continually, since he left harvard, he has a life pattern of passing up the easy money in an effort to stay true to the grass roots."
are his grass roots the large chunk taken off the price of his home by tony rezko? or the $6,000 the woods foundation gave to rev. wright in his name? the answers are not straightfoward...
and this love-fest to explain it all away is silly in its attempt to say that obama's flopping on issues is something that everyone does, but it's more apparent in him because of his current success.
i don't remember the media being so kind to romney as to gloss over his flipped views because he is so new to politics...
interesting how peter likes to bash the use of articles when making arguments.
how do we, and the public, know anything without articles? why are newspaper editorial boards so powerful? they are shaping the way americans think. addressing articles true points and falacies is a hallmark of the free press and democracy. a powerful tool in the hands of intelligent media consumers...
paul: here.
paul.
i am going to be completely honest when i say, i'm really sick of these conversations. i get sucked in b/c i'm very competitive and love a good debate.
but we have been essentially saying the same things indifferent forms for the last couple months.
you can comb the internet and find articles, some good, some poor and find every piece of dirt written, make connections (some real, some ridiculous) and mold them to reinforce your opinions. or even let them shape your opinions if your open-minded enough and the article is good enough.
but these news outlets need ratings and a story. so they will find and more often *make* a story for readership/listeners/&c.
so at the end of the day, sorting through all the distractors, i ask myself:
-do i want 4 more years of bush-like economic policy?
--do i want 4 more years of bush-ish foreign policy?
--do i want 4 more years of bush-like methodology in irag and regarding iran?
--do i want 4 more years of income separation and legislation that favors the few at the top?
i have to answer no to all these questions.
this distractors are just that, anything to distract, make a story and take us away from the true policy debate that is actually relevant.
barack has a lot of great things about him. many of which i have spelled out in this very thread to include beside opposition stances on the above questions. but i really don't want to spell them each out. not b/c i can't or am afraid of you attacking the argument. i just burned out.
i know that is simplistic. but i'm sick of spelling out every single political thought and reasoning. so take it as it is.
here's one more comment to up your comment count. feel free to lambast this bow out. you can even claim victory. i mean, it is your blog.
matt.
thank you.
...for making winning an argument with you so easy.
No that is more like it, Petey. You are very welcome.
paul: i think peter and I both agree that you are playing politics in a strange way. you are obviously posting ridiculous things to try and get your comment count up. we disagree with your tactics. we disagree with your links to the likes of limbaughs, etc. if you want to know what barack meant with his bitter remarks, please watch what he said in the debate last night. we will no longer defend him to you, because you are not open to really finding out who barack is; rather, you are more interested in playing politics and worrying about whether barack wears a flag on his lapel (!).
you have fallen into the trap set by pundits (whose goal is to get ratings) and politicians (whose goal is to get votes). we will no longer participate. like barack said last night, we believe the american people (and you in particular) are smarter than to be tricked by the tricks of the pundits and politicians.
so, keep up the tactics of the far-right attack machine. quote obama out of context. call explanation spin. attack complexity. accuse him of relationships that are 'mysterious.' hint that he is liberal (and imply that liberalism is evil). cite studies that are flawed. whatever. we're done here. when you are ready to have a serious discussion, then perhaps we'll return.
i just finished listening to air-talk (so-cal's big npr segment that runs every morning.) the show is pretty moderate to liberal in its bent. the moderator and a significant number of callers (most democrat) said that the focus last night in the debate on these very issues (barack's comments about bitter religionists and his ties to rev. wright) are important to large swathes of society. people react viscerally to these types of statements and issues. it shapes their view of the man.
pretty amazing that so much of the debate last night focused on these very issues i have raised here. this is not fringe limbaugh (whom i have never quoted) stuff. these issues are the stuff of which character is made. obama is a not a stupid man and his continued support of certain institutions and congregations in chicago speak volumes more about him than his pretty words on the campaign trail.
you can pretend to take the high road when your candidate finally gets a fair shake by the media and comes out smelling more like compost than roses...go sulk in a corner and pretend the issues will go away or that they never existed...
and why stop anyway when this is so much fun to talk about..?
and peter: mccain is no bush.
control....control....i will not let you drag me back into your ridiculousness.
okay, maybe i'll post a few links once in a while. but i'm not going to respond to you trying to discount these as 'crazy liberal media.' here. this is all i have to say.
Stephen's article, speaking of Rev. Wright...
"...his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly "friendly,"...
Obscure? "Allegedly" friendly? Didn't Obama call him his mentor? Ha ha ha. Great, accurate article Stevie.
This is just a bunch of hand-waving. The same stuff you and Petey do. Always emphasizing the pro-Obama talking points and trying to dismiss anything else offhand as silly and ridiculous, using the same tactics as the Limbaughs of the right you so despise.
Despite what you say, Obama's words are important. They aren't "off the cuff" mistakes. He is intelligent, and he has been pandering.
Oh, and pretty slick tactic, prefacing your crazy liberal media link with a claim that you won't respond to claims that it is crazy liberal media.
i'm just glad you came back stevie. i was missing you already.
very true matt. there is a very pro-obama double-standard afoot in nyc...
Aaaawwwweeee... the NYC Hipsters are getting along so well now. Glad your clique has stopped your arguments about externships and the likes...
(...by the way, 'externships' doesn't pass the spelling check test... FYI.)
'W' is still on my suburban.
amy: now the externship is mos def a discussion i can get in on.
Post a Comment