Barry just can’t get it right. Well, it’s not Barry himself, he doesn’t have an original thought in his head, but his handlers have gone off the deep end and are about to go under, dragging Barry with them. They’ll resurface, Barry won’t. He’ll join Algore, Skerry and Silky Pony at the bottom of the pool. BDS was driving them at the start, PDS has driven them over the edge.
Wondering No More [Jonah Goldberg]
Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its “get tough” makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn’t use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:
“Our economy wouldn’t survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats,” [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. “It’s extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail.”
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “extraordinary.” The reason he doesn’t send email is that he can’t use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan – Ted Williams is his hero – but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
In a similar vein I guess it’s an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Patterson doesn’t know how to drive a car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it’s like to navigate New York’s highways.
Mark Steyn has a question.
Re: Wondering no more [Mark Steyn]
Jonah, why didn’t the Obama guys and the AP figure that out? It’s extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief knows how to send an e-mail …but not how to do a five-minute Google search.
Michelle Malkin has more on the Gaffe Twins
Pirate’s Cove has more on McCain’s email use
!UPDATE! NewsBusters has a lot more.
It appears that McCain was actually “an internet pioneer”.
Filed under: Democrats, Liberal BS, Liberals, McCain, Obama, Video | Tagged: Jonah Goldberg, Liberal BS, Liberals, Mark Steyn, McCain, Obama, Video |
Bob's Bites 
[…] Bob’s Bites asks how low Obama can go. I say world class limbo […]
Ya, I agree with you. Being ‘tuff, in Obama’s mind, is nothing more than being a school-yard bully.
I hope that Obama keeps on taking Olbermann’s advise and tries to be angry and use the word “enough!” alot, with plenty of exclamation points.
The contrast of Obama’s anger, hostility, and confusion to McCain and Palin’s optimism and love for our country with be all the more visibly apparent.
I saw that “enough” piece, and I agree with you too. I hope he takes obie’s and crissy’s advice from here on out. Should be a cakewalk if he does.
I think it’s really low to attack your opponent like this. Obama should focus more on the lies he’s so keen on telling, rather than telling us that McCain can’t use a computer (and what does using a computer have to do with running the country?? Nothing!)
As an Obama supporter (! How dare I!) I agree that this wasn’t the best idea for an advertisement. Aside from the keyboard issue, I know plenty of seniors who don’t know how to use computers or e-mail.
As a side note, though, if one has enough money there does exist software that will record speech onto e-mail. Which means that John McCain could send e-mail without using a keyboard.
But a question for McCain supporters, why is this commercial unacceptable, but others by the McCain campaign falsifying/deliberately misinterpreting Obama’s campaign stances or speeches are all right to be given to the public?
I realize that the two might not be necessarily on the same level depending on your viewpoint (though I think lying to the American public is just as inflammatory as the commercial discussed), but all the same, I would have hoped that both campaigns–who both claim that negative politics ought not be used–might be able to move beyond politics as usual in convincing the American people of their suitability for our highest office.
But then again, once one candidate takes a swipe, unfortunately the other must respond.
elizzhello. Good point. and did you know that Bill Clinton sent only two emails in his entire 8yrs? One was a test, and the other was to John Glen when he went into space as the oldest man in space. And he needed help with that one too.
K@.
McCain has his wife answer his emails. As for why one ad is acceptable and another isn’t, I have a question for you. Why can’t we even call BHO by his middle name without being called racist and Islamophobic? Hussein is his middle name. Whenever we begin to mention his ties with Rev. Wright, we are told he never heard a word he said in 20 years of sitting in his church. His wife is off limits, his kids are off limits, his friends for the last 20 years are off limits. So why is it that every bit of Sarah Palin’s life is okay to be held up to the media? Double standards?
But I do agree with you on the point of one swipe deserves another. We really miss the point of what these candidates have to offer. I want more discussion and debates, and less negative ads.
Oh BTW K@, You’re welcome here anytime. (even if you support Obama) And as for the hope that both parties would agree to no negative ads…..that’s not going to happen. It’s been talked to death for the last 20 years that I can remember, and it hasn’t changed a thing.
I’m disgusted with both campaigns right now, with each calling the other “liar.” Like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. Except one of these “men” is going to be the next president of the United States. I’m so disgusted, and so depressed.
I too am an Obama supporter, but to be honest the democrats really needed to put out some sort of fight. Though I wish they would defend rather than use negatives. I agree with just about everything K@ stated. I find it strange that McCain supporters are getting so bent out of shape over this one ad, when his campaign has done nothing but falsify and deliberately misinterpret Obama. It’s a bit ridiculous. I personally wish it would literally be all about “politics” I really hate that both parties sink low to throw out negative campaigns instead of just talking about the topics at hand.
However, Kerry didn’t defend himself in the last election and tried to “play it nice” and look where that got him. The democratic party as a whole need to step it up if they want to win.
Robert —
This is a little tardy, but I thought I’d respond to your questions.
1. I don’t see a problem using Barack’s middle name–I just think that, more often than not, it’s used in a derogatory fashion. I.E., when I see it used, in almost every case, it’s accompanying questions of Barack’s patriotism, his faith, or his truthfulness. (Not saying he’s a paragon of virtue here, he’s fallable just like the rest of us.) Such use seems to imply that it’s used in a negative way–therefore racially or religiously charged. Whether or not it’s actually used that way is up to the writer to try and make clear.
Most other (famous) politicians aren’t referred to by their middle name, with the exception of GHWB, mostly to differentiate him from his son. If a middle name is mentioned, it’s usually just shortened to the initial. So mentioning it does have some measure of significance.
2. I don’t know too much about the Reverened Wright “scandal.” As someone who is not very religious, I didn’t see the importance of the report to how Obama creates his viewpoints. ::shrug::
Not knowing very much, I have to wonder how much of Reverend Wright’s sermons–the ones that came before the media storm–really preached hate. My guess is they mostly spoke about normal church-y goodness, about happenings in the community and supporting one another, and maybe every once-in-awhile a bitter coment that could probably be racist.
Again, I have no real idea.
3. First, Barack Obama said UNEQUIVICALLY that there should NOT be media scrutiny on Palin’s children. He said [paraphrasing, but it’s pretty close] “Family and children are off limits.”
Second, it’s important to differentiate between the media and Barack Obama and his campaign. Although I will admit that several stations show a liberal bias (so does Fox show a conservative one), they report on things that sell to the public–i.e., things they think the public will watch so they can get their advertising dollars. Barack Obama has no real control over that.
Third, the media should examine Palin, specifically her policy decisions, decisions made outside of policy related to government (the scandal over the state trooper, how she used government money)–and personal decisions related to how strongly she was vetted.
Though McCain is in fine shape now, he is the oldest ever candidate for President. As President, he would be entering a world full of turmoil and, just like every President before him, is the face of America abroad and within the country. Presidents are vulnerable to attack (though God forbid anything happen), and as such it’s important for the media to examine the VP candidate.
In a similar question–why was it OK for the media to so thoroughly examine President Clinton’s adultery? I understand if they wanted to discern whether he had lied under oath, but was it justifiable for the media to examine his private (albeit sordid) life in detail?
K@ Good to see you again!
1. Many people are a little suspicious of people with the name of Hussein. I know it’s not PC to say it, but, I’m not quite ready to have a president with a questionable background, questionable friends and associations, questionable experience and questions about his ties to the Muslim faith. 9-11-01 wasn’t that long ago.
And have you forgotten, we call GWB by his middle initial? Remember W?
2. No, there is no huggy/kissy in his church. It’s mostly like this. Is Obama Lying?
3. First, yes he did say that, I only wish they would listen.
Second, it may not be Obama’s fault that a thrill runs up the media’s leg when he talks, but the fact is the media bias toward the left makes Fox look to be leaning right. Look at how “The View” treated Obama vs. McCain. You can’t call that fair. If you haven’t seen it, I will probably post something soon on that. (just got home)
Third, they’re vetting her now, and I suspect she will do just fine.
McCain is in fine shape. Who had to take the vacation to Hawaii? I think the smoking might have got to him. And on that note, I think Sarah is more qualified to be president than Obama, so that is a mote point.
While Mr. Clinton got blowjobs in the White House on our dime, the twin towers were attacked for the first time, the USS cole was attacked, and I believe the Kobart Towers were bombed under his watch. His response? Bomb an aspirin factory. They should have examined a whole bunch more than his sex life. Maybe if he was paying attention, 9-11-01 would have never happened.
Thanks for having me. I posted another comment on a separate conservative blog and, though I thought I was being pretty rational, the administrator deleted it. Either I sounded a lot more incendiary than I thought, or he/she just didn’t apprecate a “Moronic supporter” of Obama voicing her opinion. (This is what a separate accepted comment had labelled poor folks like me.)
So I appreciate you humoring me, though I doubt I’m changing any opinions here. 🙂 I just like to have the discussion.
1. I think Obama’s background shows the power of America. He grew up from a poor family, got loans to go to college, was President of Harvard Law Review, became a senator, and is now the first black candidate for President.
If that’s not the American dream, I’m not sure what is.
Yes, he’s had Muslim ties. So have millions of Americans. Of *Americans.* Islam is no more an extremist religion than Christianity–there are extremists whichever religion one follows. The point is that they’re *extreme,* representing a small portion of actual believers. Even if Obama did get inculcated with fundamental Muslim beliefs as a child, I believe in his patriotism. His oratories are soaring to me because they are sincere. It’s my interpretation, I realize that, but I trust Obama in that way.
And on a sidenote, everyone uses the word “fundamental” like its a bad thing. I know plenty of fundamentalist Christians. I don’t think they’re bad people. I may completely disagree with their religious viewpoints (according to them, I am so going to hell, which just depresses me), but fundamental or not, it’s America. They have a right to their beliefs.
Questionable friends: Unfortunate fact of life, we can’t always control who our friends become. Obama has severed ties with plenty of people who became “questionable,” and kept ties with those who still share his beliefs in America.
Now, it’s common sense to me that one goes to friends for advice. But, perhaps its just my individualist upbringing, but I think that ultimately decisions are made on ones own, and not exclusively on the advice of others. If Obama (and McCain–I’m not the biggest fan of some of his advisers..) has questionable friends, his policies still represent what I believe will move America in the right direction. I believe he has the strength of conviction to do what he, too, believes is right for America, and not just follow peer pressure.
Questionable experience: I’m assuming this means little experience, but if you mean it a different way, let me know.
Yes, he does not have 26 years in the Senate. No, he has never served in an executive capacity.
(Per the latter, neither has McCain. Depressing as it is for us silly liberals, Palin has more executive experience than the two candidates. As much as many deride that experience, it’s a true statement. Regardless of the worthiness of her experience–I vacillate on that– her viewpoints are so polar opposite mine, I wouldn’t care if she’d been governor of California or New York for twenty years, I could never be convinced to vote for her over Obama. If McCain ran against a 20-year-governor Palin, I’d vote for McCain. Charging for *rape kits*… ::shake head:: )
Moving back to the subject at hand, Obama’s soaring oratory does count for something: he will make an excellent, charismatic leader.
Two, he has clearly enunciated his planned policies (with the exception of the current financial crisis… not sure how I feel about that). From what I know of the world, and I admit I’m pretty fallable, they seem very workable, sensical, and more than adequate to address American problems.
Three, sometimes a bit of newness, and therefore excitement, belief in the possibilities of the system that our founders created, is just what is needed to create change.
Four, JFK didn’t have much experience either–and he brought us through the Cuban Missile Crisis without any deaths when the joint chiefs were urging attack. (Admittedly, this was after the disastrous Bay of Pigs attempt…). It shows that fantastic diplomacy and leadership does not necessarily require decades of experience.
I remember 9-11. I remember what amazing things it brought to our country–unity, hope, caring, and love. I also remember what negatives it brought–suspicion, fear, and invasions of my freedoms. It’s a can of worms, that one, and it all depends on your viewpoint, I guess.
And finally, I did mention that if a politician is referred to by a middle name, its usually shortened to the first letter.
…not that it really matters.
—
Woo, I’m writing an essay!
—
2. Strange enough, I’ve heard very similar statements from my college professors. I listened to them, examined them and, for the most part, discarded them. I went to the most conservative Jesuit college in the country, by the by.
As, again, someone who’s not that religious, I think it’s possible for Obama to not be that aware of Rev Wright’s inflammatory views–possible, though unlikely if these clips were recorded before Obama entered the Presidential race. I say this mostly because my deep-Christian (though not religious) mother was married and had her children baptised by a the same Presbyterian Preacher. But other than that, we never went to Church.
Pretty sure Obama went to Church, though. If he didn’t, man would he be a hard sell in America…
I have no real excuse for this one because, as I said, I just haven’t followed it enough. If Obama heard the racist/anti-American message, perhaps he, like me, disregarded it. Or perhaps Wright is not so inflammatory on Sundays.
Regardless, I do not believe, in any way, that such a message is reflected in his policies, in his statements to the press, to his party, even in his gaffes. See above about my views on his patriotism. You’re probably gonna disagree with me, but that’s fine.
3. Hey, a thrill runs up my leg when Obama talks. 😉
I don’t really want to get into the debate about liberal media and not..so…liberal fox, so I’ll just let that one lie. For now. Maybe on another post. When I’m not writing a friggin’ doctoral thesis here. 🙂
“The View” is a poor example, given as its run by clearly opinionated women, only one of whom is conservative. Of course such women are going to pounce on McCain and fawn over Obama.
It’s like saying “Look at how Bill O’Reilly treated Obama! And how he treated McCain!”
Though I will readily admit that interviews of Obama get ridiculous. Like, a lot. They don’t often ask the hard questions–but they do ask them. Ultimately, though, I maintain that the media will do what will get them the largest amount of viewership. If they believe that’s fawning over Obama, then that’s probably what they’re going to do.
—
FINALLY…
Clinton.
Clinton’s reaction to the USS Cole was not nearly what it should have been, however, I remain firm that the reason it was NOT was *because* of the Lewinsky scandal. Some politicians stated that Clinton’s military response to the USS Cole bombing was an attempt to move media attention away from the scandal and that he was *overreacting.* No, I’m not kidding.
His hands were tied and he could not respond the way he wished. All of his actions were predicated under the Lewinsky scandal. For the rest of his Presidency, he did not have the same force in the legislature as he had before. This prevented him from being as effective as one might hope and acting on terrorism intelligence.
Yes, Clinton dropped the ball. Badly. Yes, he should have acted more decisively regardless of Legislature approval or disapproval.
But NO, the media AND congress should not have examined his adultery further than how it affected his ability to govern the country. By making it such a circus, it effectively sedated that ability at a critical time in American history.
I’m one of the few Liberals who doesn’t like Clinton as a person. (Hell, plenty of his policies made me want to start sobbing.) I think he’s smarmy–like a used car salesman. His voice grates on my ears. But I respect his privacy just like I respect any other’s. And I respect the changes he’s tried to make to the world since leaving office.
…
My fingers hurt. 😉
I don’t figure I’ll change many minds either. I post things that let me vent a little. I’m not sure yet if it reduces stress or enhances it a bit. 😕 Anyway, I see you have really thought out your views and I respect that. Still don’t agree, but respect it.
Stop by any time.
Oh, and I’m not surprised about your fingers. 😆