Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Questions you'd like to ask Obama: (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11   
Author Topic: Questions you'd like to ask Obama:
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I will make a bet with you, if Bush is found guilty of any crime you can shoot me, but if he is not I can shoot you...deal? "

America and Westerndom in general abandoned trial by ordeal centuries ago.

We do that jury thing now. Feeds lawyers but starves torturers. It's a tradeoff I can accept.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, Fly, they are all fair questions for both candidates, bar the ones about about ACORN and Donation Records.

Fair questions for McCain on those issues would be -

"Do you believe the Republican Party has been responsible in using privately gathered consumer data to challenge Voters Registrations, and what would you say to a legitimate voter who has been purged from the rolls or denied an opportunity to vote as a result? Do you believe this is a role Political Parties should be playing, or would you prefer that verification of Registration Data be left to Government?"

And on the other -

"Senator McCain, having made the choice to use Public Financing, do you think it's ethical to use the loophole that allows the Republican National Commitee to pay for 49% of your advertising costs with soft money?"

I miss Russert so damn much.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"While he HAS a position, right on his internet web site, he has not been asked questions publically on it because he will have to give an answer which will alienate unions or Hispanics. Noone has asked him questions on this in either debate and just because the economy is melting down, doesn't mean it has gone away as an issue."

Barack's political positions, as reported/vetted by the largest grassroots database in human history


But, of course, idjut questions in tepid debates or absurd reality TV shows like Meet the Press are more nuanced.

(Hint: there's a reason Obama's campaign is considered a grassroots revolution with heavy reliance on new tech like the Internet; it's called 'change'. Times have changed; Obama has both acknowledged, utilized, and abetted that change. Once upon a time, while I was still alive, even, good looks and charisma mattered much less in big campains than they do now. TV changed all that with the Kennedy/Nixon debates. Radio changed it before that. The Founding Fathers created grassroots consensus using that radical new tech: pamphleteering via the printing press.)

"What is your position on abortion? Again, not asked once. "

Perhaps because it's been stated repeatedly, and is a matter of numerous public record.

"On a similar note, ACORN has been in the news recently and in elections past, with bogus registrations, voter drives etc. As you have associations with such community efforts in the past, would you call on them to open their registration to an audit to ensure fair and clean elections?"

A decent and competent reporter would be embarrassed to ask this, knowing it's a complete red herring.

Matt Lauer probably would, though.

"Mr. Obama, enough with the evasions. At this late date, with an election less then 3 weeks away, who would you name to your cabinet? Or are you waiting to make such a momentous decision at the last minute?"

Traditionally, cabinet picks are done between election and inauguration. But he hasn't been completely silent on this with the mainstream major media:

Obama speculates on Cabinet picks

"December 20, 2007 8:29 AM

ABC's Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he'd consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He's a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members - Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names.

“It’s premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean, I’m pretty confident. but I’m not all that confident. We still got a long way to go,” Obama said.

But then the GOP names started to flow.

Sen. Dick Lugar: “He’s a Republicans who I worked with on issues of arms control, wonderful guy. He is somebody I think embodies the tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible, that is not ideological, that is based on the idea that we have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world,” Obama said about his Senate colleague.

Sen. Chuck Hagel: “A Vietnam vet, similar approach and somebody I respect in a similar fashion,” Obama added.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “What (he’s) doing on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don't agree with him on, but he's taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven't seen that kind of leadership in Washington," Obama said of the California governor.

One Republican that likely Obama won’t consider? Mitt Romney.

In answering a question on immigration, Obama said it would be impossible to lock all the illegal immigrants up, even if he wanted to.

“We'd clear out some of the prisons to make room for somebody who's a housekeeper at Mitt Romney's house,” he joked. “(He’s) an example of somebody who, 'Oh, we gotta be real tough. But my lawn, you know, is important.' "

And there's our token immigration comment.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The absurdity of Obama as an unvetted candidate after perhaps the longest presidential race in our history, with Obama running against powerful contenders from the gitgo, is laughably absurd.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Mr. Obama, enough with the evasions. At this late date, with an election less then 3 weeks away, who would you name to your cabinet? Or are you waiting to make such a momentous decision at the last minute?"

How is the attitude of this question justified? Is it somehow established precedent that one does this in US politics? (Hint: no. Shadow Cabinets are big in the UK. I challenge you to name the last candidate who named more than one cabinet post at most prior to election day.

As for the others - I'm enjoying Oz's thorough fisking of you. That's gotta hurt, even with a k instead of a t. [Wink]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"On a similar note, ACORN has been in the news recently and in elections past, with bogus registrations, voter drives etc. As you have associations with such community efforts in the past, would you call on them to open their registration to an audit to ensure fair and clean elections?"

A decent and competent reporter would be embarrassed to ask this, knowing it's a complete red herring.

But, perhaps the question could be asked of McCain, since it is little known that he sought their support in 2006.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hagel : Sec Def

Lugar : State

Hagel is retiring this year. His seat is open and he's not running for it.

His wife already endorsed Obama, and I expect he will endorse next week.

[ October 14, 2008, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I skipped over some of this thread, but the only question off the top of my head for Obama would be to ask him:

1. What the hell were you thinking when you voted for a FISA bill that included retroactive immunity for the telecomms?

Some of the other things I haven't liked that he has said I think were statements made out of political calculation, and part of me hopes he doesn't actually mean them, mostly I mean that in reference to his statement on the SCOTUS decision to overturn the DC handgun ban, which I think was an awful position. Actually with that in mind, I think I'd ask him point blank:

2. As a constitutional law expert, what is your take on the second amendment and where gun rights end and begin with respect to the federal and state governments' power to restrict access?

I'd probably have one or two dozen questions for McCain, half of which would be policy oriented, and the other half probably more character oriented. I'm voting for Obama, and while I have some reservations about decisions he has made and votes he has cast, I still think he's a net positive.

As for the FISA matter (and for anyone who has concerns about the Patriot Act) I humbly suggest that the links found in the post below contain a novel way of looking at the regulations which have been imposed by the government for our safety.

The Road To Serfdom
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=012295;p=0&r=nfx

Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Hagel : Sec Def

Lugar : State

Hagel is retiring this year. His seat is open and he's not running for it.

His wife already endorsed Obama, and I expect he will endorse next week.

Do you know what Hagel's position on Iraq has been???

[Eek!]

If you don't know, I'll tell you what it's been in one word:

TERRIBLE!!!

[Frown]

Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Define "TERRIBLE!!!"
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hagel's a monster. He didn't think we would be greeted with flowers, he didn't think the war would pay for itself, and he never thought it would be over in at most six months.

Of course, he served in Vietnam as an *enlisted* man. What does he know?

[ October 14, 2008, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 3319

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Posted by ruo:
As for the FISA matter (and for anyone who has concerns about the Patriot Act) I humbly suggest that the links found in the post below contain a novel way of looking at the regulations which have been imposed by the government for our safety.

My concern over the FISA bill had less to do with the format of the courts, which I think was a major improvement in this bill over how it was set up in the last go around.

My concern was with the retroactive immunity given to the telecommunications industry for turning over vast sums of data to the government without the proper authorization. And now we'll never know exactly what the hell happened because there'll never be an investigation with them having immunity will there? The only company to deny the government was Qwest, and they were punished for it. That should have been looked into too. Instead, when Democrats asked to know what it was exactly that they were providing immunity for, Bush said "no" and enough of them still voted for it so that it passed.

Chris Dodd became my personal hero during that debacle with impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate decrying this bill and the immunity measure, and when push came to shove, he still voted against it. Good for him. Obama voted for it, shame on him. I don't give a damn about whatever political wrangling he might have been trying to achieve by voting to renew the FISA measures; that damned immunity measure should have been a non-starter. If he'll vote down troop funding for time tables, he should damn well have voted down FISA for immunity.

Posts: 729 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Chris Dodd became my personal hero during that debacle with impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate decrying this bill and the immunity measure, and when push came to shove, he still voted against it. Good for him."

Dodd bought hisself a seat in heaven with that episode. Too bad he has bank feces on his nipples from how deep his head is shoved in their asses [Smile]

I have a theory about this: I think Obama voted for immunity because he imagines there might come a time when a sane, law and constitution-respecting president may nonetheless have to ask a given company for such extraordinary cooperation, and doesn't want them to have a valid reason of personal safety to say no.

He can prove this by laboring while in the White House to build a case against the GOV'T side of this crime.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Question to Obama:

You have said words matter, and that your qualification to be president is based more on your judgement than experience. Given this, what do you believe is shown of your judgement, in associating with Ayers? You have said that you judged him reformed, etc. yet he has said quite publicly years ago with no change in stance since, that he does not regret his terrorist actions and setting bombs, and wishes he had done more.

Here, I don't accept his previous responses of "all that happened years ago, he's a mainstream member, reformed, didn't know about it" sort of answer, especially as we keep finding out more about further and closer associations. I'm more interested though in if Obama can or will admit that he is wrong, and thus address such mistakes as he may make if he becomes president and correct them, rather than avoiding and spinning the issue.

If you'd rather choose a different topic, I would present the Supreme Court Heller case, where prior to the decision, he has said that he judged the DC handgun ban to be Constitutional, and supported it. Then after, he said he supported the Supreme Court decision as if he'd supported their final decision all along, with no reference to his prior position, being mistaken or changing his mind on the matter. This with his supposedly greater knowledge on the matter as a professor of the Constitution, where the very wording of the 2nd amendment and the rest of the constitution is examined carefully.

Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I figured it was just one of them deals where he had to fold. Lotta **** on the floor in Washington.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenny, this right here is a ****storm! Get out of here before it gets in your eyes!

Otherwise get ready to eat up, or as my semi-sort of girlfriend would say, "nom nom nom nom"

[ October 14, 2008, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What? Sorry, I can't hardly see ****. What did you write?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me show you what **** I was saying, through interpretive dance and song!
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"especially as we keep finding out more about further and closer associations."

Please elaborate, as ALL investigative reporting done on the matter clearly states the opposite? This is what kills me, this phenomenon, whereby people convince themselves not only of isolated datums, but of a whole process that never happened in reality.

No offense, Ben. Not attacking you specifically, but the fact that you believe the above sentence kills me.

What does it matter when he knew that this was the same Bill Ayers of Weather Underground infamy? By the time they first met, AYERS WAS BEING APPOINTED TO PROJECTS BY RIGHT-LEANING FOUNDATIONS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH RONALD FREAKING REAGAN!

How on earth do you make a case that Obama should not have shared a charity board with such a man? Not accept his invitation to host a fundraiser for state-level office? The State of Illinois does not send soldiers to war, so I think they're safe from the wrath and infernal designs of the dread Weathermen...

How on earth is this an issue given McCain's contacts with Gordon Liddy (Which even I didn't know about until Haggis mentioned it?) Does Obama say he's "proud" to be associated with Ayers? Did Ayers, AFTER going through the system, still continue in any way to incite to violence, as Liddy is famous for doing? Did he, say, use the picture of a sitting president for target practice and brag about it?

Enough already, seriously. Obama is a liberal. The most liberal politician, in many core aspects tho not all, no matter how you reckon, to run for a major party since Jimmy. He knows a lot of people you consider beyond the pale. But if a fundraiser for State Senator 12 years ago, a $200 donation and sitting together on a charity board that did nothing but good, with someone who at that time had been nothing short of a model rehabilitated anti-social radical for 15 years, is a disqualifier or even an issue - I don't know what to tell you.

If everyone who ever sat on a board with Ayers is dq'ed, you can shut down all the Democratic party in Chicago and some of the Republican side too. If that's your standard, we have some associations we consider disqualifying too. Heck of a way to insure an influx of new blood to the system, but we may have a serious experience vacuum, know what I'm sayin'?

Get over yourselves about this. You think I know exactly what to expect from this guy once he's in? I don't. I have bad scenarios along with the good. But for me, his upside dwarfs the reservations the way I haven't felt about a candidate in my lifetime.

If you feel McCain's upside/downside ratio is better, vote for him, but enough with Ayers. Please. Rezko is a far less savory association, if you wanna harp, even tho there's no dirt there either.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you'd rather choose a different topic, I would present the Supreme Court Heller case, where prior to the decision, he has said that he judged the DC handgun ban to be Constitutional, and supported it. Then after, he said he supported the Supreme Court decision as if he'd supported their final decision all along, with no reference to his prior position, being mistaken or changing his mind on the matter. This with his supposedly greater knowledge on the matter as a professor of the Constitution, where the very wording of the 2nd amendment and the rest of the constitution is examined carefully. "

Can you source the flip (as opposed to the later flop)? It is eminently possible you are correct, and if so this is a fine, fine question.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
The absurdity of Obama as an unvetted candidate after perhaps the longest presidential race in our history, with Obama running against powerful contenders from the gitgo, is laughably absurd.

A long primary season is no guarantee of candor from a candidate.

Tough competitors, like Hilary Clinton, began holding Obama's feet to the fire during the Primary race. However, internal dissention within her own campaign and the calculated political effect of taking on a Black candidate in such a way, whether valid or not, prevented her from bringing up all of the mysteries suggesting Obama's unsuitability for office to light. These are the issues now being addressed by the McCain campaign.

But, the main factors which insure or prevent a thorough vetting of candidates are the media and the citizenry.

I don't know that we have ever had happen what has happened in this election.

It is remarkable.

The media usually acts as an objective "third person" to bring a kind of "fire" to an election by which candidates from both sides of the fence would not only be illuminated well enough so we could see exactly who they are and what they might try to hide from us, but also so that the heat from that fire might sweat from them the truth.

The people from all points of view support the function of the media because in it's impartial and objective way all candidates are subjected to the same intrusions on their privacy, the same kinds of scrutiny. The result is that the American people would know everything of relevance about our candidates and based on this knowledge we would make somewhat informed but essentially safe electoral choices. Because this process has almost unerringly worked well for so many years and been responsible for the election of so many thousands of elected officials, we have come to take for granted that a candidate who has reached the final stages of a Presidential election would most certainly have been vetted along the way.

But this vetting process, the procedure we rely upon to make sure unknown quantities are not elected to positions of responsibility, was turned off by the people.

We turned off the vetting process.

And we did it because of this candidate. This Black candidate.

There are some who right now might balk at the mere mention of his race and will think this a racist rant. But it is not. It is a discussion of how his race, in addition to other factors may or may not have played a role in what has transpired so far.

Some say his progress so far is due to his race. Some say it is in spite of his race.

Whether it was due to White Guilt...
Or because he was the first to be thought close enough to the ideal/fantasy we harbored and nurtured of a color blind society...

Whether it was the culmination of a Hippie/MLK/John Lennonesque ideal...
Or because it was the personification of the proverbial Magic Negro archetype...

Whether it was due to the candidate's own appealing combination of appearance, oratorical skills and intellectual intelligence...
Or because of tactics of manipulation and subterfuge involving people and organizations to tamper with the internet and apply artifice to the starting blocks of his candidacy...

Whether it was the result of radical leftist "Alinsky" agitating tactics he learned as an instructor and he's employed in his campaign...
Or because supporting him was becoming and now is the fashion of those with certain ideals, we conspired together to work together against our own best interests.

We were so willing to gain whatever it was he suggested his election would be the answer to, that we signed on for a penny and have stayed committed for a pound. Though few had any idea they were signing on for, and many of us are working hard to help Obama avoid having to come clean because they would also have to admit to themselves they had been duped. We/they/you are in too deep to back out now.

And where was the media to save us from this breakdown in society?

Like flies trying to keep pace with a moving picnic, sometimes they were on the table. Sometimes they were on the garbage. Sometimes they were on us. But always they were flitting on and around us whether ahead, behind, above, below or beside us.

And while that has always been true it has not always been so rewarding a prospect for them.

Now, the media has come to worship a new deity. No longer is journalistic integrity the highest aspiration as before. Now it is all about ratings and revenues.

As long ago as the 1970's the electronic news media was not expected to generate a profit. That meant they had no higher calling, no greater sense of duty than to practice and maintain their journalistic integrity. Objectivity. To enlighten, inform, and entertain, impartially. To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

In the early 1970's, at the height of the anti-Viet Nam War, Hippie, John Lennon "Imagine," counter-culture movement era, the Watergate scandal brought down the Nixon Administration and the heroes of the story were two crusading investigative reporters for the Washington Post who doggedly pursued the truth until it was no longer able to remain hidden.

Over time the news media came to be seen as a popular career path and the most viable mechanism for activists to pursue their personal goals of self actualization, their need to make a decent living and their dream of transforming the World into one that the murdered (martyred?) rock icon and one time peace advocate, John Lennon, would be proud of.

quote:
Imagine

John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religon too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
In a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one


Few of the people around at the time this song was first released realized it had the makings of a "philosophical school of thought" but that is exactly what it has become. And few, if any, of it's disciples have ever stopped to consider the
unfeasibility and ill-advisability of the dream or the ramifications of its pursuit. Therefore, today, millions upon millions of Americans, young and old, rich and poor, educated and not so much, of every race and color believe - without ever having thought about it - that geographical boundaries for countries, religion, personal wealth and capitalism are bad things. And from the same song/school of thought, these same people believe that living in peace with all the world is as simple as the dreamers all dreaming together and wanting it.

And I sincerely believe all of these suppositions are false, faulty and dangerous.

Yet, these are the ideals that fuel liberal delusions and to a large degree serve as operative notions of Obama supporters.

And the idealistic, young, socially conscious, counter culture influenced activists who became journalists and then rose to positions as editors and publishers and who set the editorial agenda of their journalist entities hired those in their own image and things went along without much notice by the average American.

Then advocacy journalism became the vogue.

Reporters and news organizations began, noticeably, taking sides instead of adopting an objective, impartiality.

Then a tsunami hit the electronic news media. Network TV news departments suffered a shake up by being expected to generate ratings and revenue just as the entertainment divisions had always been.

And with the intersection of advocacy journalism and ratings driven electronic network TV news, the whole equation changed in America. No longer would news be delivered on the basis of importance to our daily lives or our city, state, national or the world in general, news now had to reflect what was popular.

The rule of thumb adage made popular in local TV news rooms to determine how to choose which story would air first, second and so on in an evening newscast was, "if it bleeds, it leads." This meant that any death or injury would top the newscast because it is human nature to want to know more about these stories. (It is why drivers slow down and gawk at the scene of a traffic accident. Or why some people like NASCAR races or NHL games. They hope to see an accident or a fight.)

And with that, handsome men and beautiful, sexy women were hired to become news readers and human interest stories became more prevalent. News magazines came into being. They were more entertaining than news shows and
more newsy than sitcoms and dramas. And the stars of these shows were the reporters/journalists/personalities who represented the every day guy. Reporters like Geraldo Rivera, Bill Kurtis and Bill O'Reilly moved effortlessly from being crusading journalists to being media celebrities.

And with their success the industry experienced a quick self appraisal and then moved full speed ahead in search of wealth and riches by devotedly studying and slavishly following the whims, interests and predilections of the American people.

The news media could no longer be counted on to reliably represent a higher truth or greater good. It was increasingly just a 'yes' man. A glad handing wannabe. The servant one moment and the master the next and the reflection of us. All so it can make a buck and to justify it's existence doing the news also. But doing it now in a way that advocates for one side in the story. And in a way that appeals to the senses and point of view of the demographic with the greatest amount of disposable income. And, finally, in a way that reflects the core sensibility of the activists turned journalists from the 1970's.

We have the news media populated, to a large degree, by and with people who hold the flawed Imaginings of a drug influenced pseudo-prophet to be Gospel while they go in search of their own personal wealth and success by slavishly appealing to our lowest common denominator and presenting news that is biased towards those who'd make them richer.

So, when a candidate like Barack Obama came along it was a perfect storm for the media.

Their counter cultural instincts tingled.

Their Civil Rights instincts tingled.

Their anti-Bush, anti-traditional GOP instincts tingled.

Their John Lennon pro-peace, anti-possessions and anti-political boundaries instincts tingled.

Their advocacy journalistic instincts tingled.

Their show business instincts tingled.

The media wanted so much to believe this man wanted exactly what they did that they experienced a premature adoration. They wanted this man so badly and they wanted so much to help realize all of their fantasies and self-delusions that they were rendered journalistically impotent.

The way some men see a beautiful woman and can't help but act foolishly and impulsively or the way a woman can become putty in the presence of a handsome, powerful, charismatic man, the media became Obama's 'bitch.'

They gave him only 80 mph fast balls. No high, hard, heat.

They asked none of the questions that would shine any light into the most important aspects of Obama's past activities, achievements and associations.

And so, despite the length of the campaign or his tough adversaries along the way, Barack Obama has made it through the process without ever having to feel the heat of the media. And the responsibility for that rests in our laps.

He is not well vetted and if he goes on the become President we will not know who he really is.

We can only HOPE he does not harbor a hidden agenda.

But if he did that would be all we could do.

Hope.

Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KRAUTHAMMER:

quote:
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902328.html
Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, I love John Lennon. Just watched "Help!". That is one weird movie.

Ruo, did you know that if you say the same thing over and over and over again that eventually it becomes true and everybody agrees with you?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Man, I love John Lennon. Just watched "Help!". That is one weird movie.

Ruo, did you know that if you say the same thing over and over and over again that eventually it becomes true and everybody agrees with you?

KE

Is that an Alinsky tactic?

[Razz]

Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We were so willing to gain whatever it was he suggested his election would be the answer to, that we signed on for a penny and have stayed committed for a pound.
Ruo, would you do me the favor of not using "we" when you are insulting other people with whom you do not agree by pretending to explicate their thought processes?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, we've actually gotten to a point where a conservative does not trust the judgment of everyday hard-working Americans, is blaming America for getting us into this position, and is acting like an elitist by suggesting they know what's best for us.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
ruo,

not sure I agree with the liberals=creative, conservatives=reliable/logical, but I appreciate hearing that there is some balance within your world view.

Then, I believe we have common ground to explore.

[Smile]

Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ruo
Member
Member # 5305

 - posted      Profile for ruo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
We were so willing to gain whatever it was he suggested his election would be the answer to, that we signed on for a penny and have stayed committed for a pound.
Ruo, would you do me the favor of not using "we" when you are insulting other people with whom you do not agree by pretending to explicate their thought processes?
Whereas you seem interested in perpetuating the sense of separation between us, I am speaking as an American and referring to the actions of my fellow Americans.

(One classic symptom of Liberalitis is that Libs try to control the expressions of others as you have attempted to do here.)

[Wink]

Posts: 340 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really, I thought for sure that was a hallmark of Conservatism, that other people's behaviors could be judged by them. Ruo, you are a clever tongued little troll, but a troll nonetheless. I continue to remind you that you haven't answered any of my questions, but instead throw them back at me like a good little troll. If you really were transparent you would ask and answer questions about McCain with the same ferocity that you pursue answers about Obama. You are transparent, but not in the way you pretend.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two motive speculations for the price of one!

Wait, three!!

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
O this brave new world, where one no longer must drink beer in a bar to listen to the guy on the corner stool expound breathlessly and tirelessly his idee fixe.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ruo:
Whereas you seem interested in perpetuating the sense of separation between us, I am speaking as an American and referring to the actions of my fellow Americans.

I guess comparing Obama supporters to Hitler supporters was something you said in the spirit of American togetherness.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whereas you seem interested in perpetuating the sense of separation between us, I am speaking as an American and referring to the actions of my fellow Americans.
My fellow Americans, those of us who are not me all suck. We are truly the lowest form of miserable life, those of us who are not writing this post. We as a people are, in a nutshell, with perhaps a couple exceptions, miserable failures who smell bad.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My fellow Americans, those of us who are not me all suck. We are truly the lowest form of miserable life, those of us who are not writing this post. We as a people are, in a nutshell, with perhaps a couple exceptions, miserable failures who smell bad."

But it is not our fault because we are all merely figments of her imagination, and there are places in there -- essentially that which is not outside her imagination -- where the sun don't ever shine.

We are merely her solipcysts.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And despite evil liberal attempts to disunite us (regardless that these attempts are also merely dark festering figments), they will nor, for we are
HYDRA!!!

And you're not. [Wink] [Razz]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken, you're going to hate to hear this: Madame Hydra was killed by the Skrulls in recent continuity.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
web page

quote:
Per Politico, the late Tim Russert was one of several journalists who signed a June 6 letter to the Obama campaign complaining about stingy access to the candidate, about having been “misled” by aides who flew the press corps to Chicago without Obama, and threatening to withhold payment for that flight. (And this letter pre-dated the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut — the pool reporter trying to cover last night’s Obama fundraiser at Ethel Kennedy’s house — being stuck inside Kennedy’s pool house.)

Today the New York Times mentions in passing this letter (of which it is apparently not a signatory) in its piece, “Obama’s Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access.” More from the Times:

Strategists for Mr. Obama, the country’s first black nominee, have made it clear that they believe they need to take extra steps to control his image and protect against attack. But such efforts at times appear to conflict with the candidate’s stated desire to be unusually transparent and open, and they have already occasionally put him at loggerheads with news organizations pushing for greater access to him now that he is the presumptive nominee.

Hmm, I'm not stonewalling the press, I'm 'controlling my image'.

Oh look, not a new phenomena.

Feb 2008

quote:
On a Saturday afternoon flight from Boise to Minneapolis, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois entered the press section of his plane and struck up a brief conversation with a handful of reporters, including The Washington Post's Dan Balz and The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny.

Initially, the chat was fairly banal -- thoughts on the Super Bowl, mostly -- but then the talk became more substantive, with a question raised about the senator's prospects for Super Tuesday, according to multiple reporters present.

When Obama noticed that the red lights of the journalists' recorders were on, including Zeleny's, he said that the conversation was off the record.

But Zeleny told Obama that he couldn't take the conversation off the record, just as more reporters crept out into the aisle to find out what was being said. After answering just a few questions, Obama returned to the front of the plane.

And The New Republic

Tightwads of Truth

quote:
Last year, when Hillary Clinton campaigned as a front-runner, Obama provided access to the press corps and won over the media. One night, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he met reporters for off-the-record drinks. He cooperated for magazine profiles and appeared on the cover of GQ. And Clinton's relationship with the press wasn't half as easy. "The difference is the Clinton people were hostile for no reason," a reporter who has covered both Democrats tells me.


But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."


In June, there was something of a revolt after Obama ditched the press corps on his campaign plane for a secret meeting with Clinton at Senator Dianne Feinstein's house in Washington, leaving the reporters trapped on the flight to Chicago. The D.C. bureau chiefs of half a dozen news organizations, including the late Tim Russert, sent an angry letter to Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe and threatened not to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the flight. "The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one," they wrote. "We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth." After the incident, the press corps decided that one pool reporter would keep Obama in sight at all times. "It's a body watch," one reporter jokes.


Meanwhile, there have been widespread complaints over the shortage of spots to accompany Obama on his tour of the Middle East and Europe. A few days before the tour departed, Time magazine was told it couldn't send a photographer along, and, on July 22, NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell complained on-air that the only images the press had received of Obama meeting with the troops was released by the U.S. military. (To be fair, congressional delegations to Iraq are kept secret for security purposes). And there's been widespread grumbling that the campaign revoked New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza's spot on the trip as retribution for the magazine's recent satirical cover. These may or may not be legitimate complaints--the evidence is mixed--but the press is hardly inclined to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt.


Or my personal favorite:

quote:
Tuesday, March 4th 2008, 1:51 AM

SAN ANTONIO, Tex. - An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

The Clinton campaign has long complained that Obama gets soft treatment from the press corps. But Monday's exchange was no pillow fight.

The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official - reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama's criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show.

Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," he said. His camp still disputes the memo's account of the discussion.

The questioning then turned to Obama's links to ex-fund-raiser Tony Rezko, who went on trial in Chicago Monday on corruption charges. A reporter asserted Obama hadn't fully answered journalists' questions on Rezko.

Obama insisted he had - during a past news conference with Chicago media. But another persisted that questions remain unanswered, such as ones about fund-raisers Rezko held for him.

Obama replied, "These requests, I think, can just go on forever. ..." He said the "pertinent" information had been provided.

When Obama declared the press conference over, one reporter yelled that he was dodging questions just minutes after claiming he wasn't.

Oh look. It STILL isn't better

quote:

Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences.

Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.

If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.

The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he's just said. It's made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.


And an informative anecdote:

pajamas media

quote:
A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things. And reader Eric Schubert: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rand Simberg isn't so sure: "Where was the backlash against this about Bill Clinton in 1992? They just seem to continue to get away with it." Well, yes and no. Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening. I think they're willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things this way. No point saving your credibility for the future when you don't have a future, I guess . . . .


kenmeer says that all Obama's policies are online. Great. So to find out anything, one needs to do one's own digging instead of it displayed when folks are actually payiing attention, instead of displayed in the primaries, which is essentially preaching to the choir. The Democratic Choir approves. The masses are still in the dark because Obama does not want to cover them and rock the boat, and the Press doesn't want him to lose, even though he is as transparent as lead. He's the right general shape and he isn't a Republican, so it's good enough for them. And not a vet in sight.

Since I ran long, a bit of dessert.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, Obama stiff-armed the press alright.

That doesn't mean his data ain;t out there.

It means he was taking control of the game in a new way. Like I said earlier, media tech is changing and Obama, candidate of a party led in great part by the Democratic National Committee headed by Howard Dean, who was the first candidate to really rock the house via the internet (even though Al Gore invented it [Wink] ).

When Obama says change, he means it's already happened and will continue, and he intends to ride that furling crest a long way.

Sorry if the game is changing, old sport. This should hardly surprise people who met at a forum identified by an author who pretty much pioneered the idea of online electric fora.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O"

My suspicion is that this is classic internet jive. Editorial political censorship is not nearly so great as is often claimed, or so a fellow I grew up with who's been w/ Providence Journal (Rhode island) for maybe 20 years.

However, journalism budgets have been in decline for some time, because profit margins have steadily dwindled for a decade, and so they will tend to dig for the more salable dirt.

Acorn, Ayers, even Fredd Mae/Mac, don't hold a fraction of water as decent journalistic stories as do investigations into Sarah P right now.

Obama being kind of dark and all, if they could pull a real gotcha on Obama, they probably would.

But it would have to be REAL. There's nothing in the ACORN and Ayers stories, and Freddie Mae/Mac is more about critters like Pelosi and Frank.

As for Obama turning and voting FOR telecom immunity: anyone who halfway follows politics knows this, because the newspapers covered it.

That said, there ARE papers with obvious biases, and the big ones ARE eating the smaller ones up, and for some time, the smaller ones were doing better investigative journalism than the big ones.

We all know the NYTimes is a shadow of its former self. The Wa Post. LA Times. Chicago Tribune.

So, it may well be anymore that what you posted is accurate representation. TImes have changed, standards have eroded and, I add, folks have been hollering biased liberal media for so long that journalists, acknowledgedly tending to be liberal more often than not, may well have decided there was little reward in trying to be fair and balanced (a phrase itself become a mockery of the concept it represents), and that they might as well be hing for a sheep as a lamb.

One thing I love about the internet is that while source attribution can be sketchy, bias at a given site is easy to see. I think I prefer honest bias if it continues to be accompanied by such breathtaking abundance of data.

Of course, eventually the organs that still provide the bulk of quality reporting (paper journalists) will have to get paid for all the data the internet takes from them and promulgates as it will, or else a bunch of us will have to learn to be journalists and find funding for hands on verifiable reportage.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well. The NAFTA story:

Obama/NAFTA/Canada

quote:
The denials were sweeping when Senator Barack Obama’s campaign mobilized last week to refute a report that a senior official had given back-channel reassurances to Canada soft-pedaling Mr. Obama’s tough talk on Nafta.

While campaigning in Ohio, Mr. Obama has harshly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Ohioans blame for an exodus of jobs. He agreed last week at a debate with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States should consider leaving the pact if it could not be renegotiated.

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Campaign officials said the memorandum inaccurately described Professor Goolsbee’s comments, as well as Mr. Obama’s position.

“At no point did anyone in our campaign convey to anyone that there had been any backing away from Obama’s position on Nafta,” a campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said Monday.

Mr. De Mora did not respond to requests for an interview, nor did Professor Goolsbee, who campaign officials said was unavailable for comment.

Nevertheless, the controversy, which drew fierce attacks from Mrs. Clinton and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, put Mr. Obama’s campaign on the defensive at a crucial moment. He and Mrs. Clinton are locked in a tight battle for the Ohio primary on Tuesday.

The memorandum exposed Mr. Obama to accusations of hypocrisy on a touchstone issue, although Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have engaged in posturing on Nafta as they scrapped for votes in Ohio. The two have used language that has been much more hostile in tone on free trade than the nuanced positions that they had staked out in the past.

The memorandum raises questions about the transparency and the ability of the campaign to address problems before they grow.

The controversy began last week when CTV, a Canadian television network, reported that an Obama official had called the Canadian ambassador in Washington to play down the significance of Mr. Obama’s criticism of Nafta.

The campaign and the Canadian Embassy issued denials that were, it appears, technically accurate. But they were incomplete because they did not address Mr. Goolsbee’s meeting with Canadian officials.

When WKYC-TV in Ohio asked Mr. Obama about the CTV report, he said: “I don’t have to clarify it. The Canadian Embassy already clarified it by saying the story was not true. And our office has said the story was not. And so I think it’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” When pressed, he said, “It did not happen.”

ABC News then reported that the Nafta conversation involved the Canadian consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, not the ambassador. ABC News identified Professor Goolsbee as the official who met the Canadians.

Mr. Burton issued another strong denial, although he declined to respond to a question about Professor Goolsbee’s discussions with Canadian officials.

The spokesman focused instead on the CTV report and attacks from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign based on it.

“Again, this story is not true,” Mr. Burton said. “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.”

When the memorandum emerged, it confirmed the meeting and that Nafta was discussed.

According to The A.P., the note reads, “On Nafta Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favor of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.”

On Monday, Mr. Burton stood by his earlier statements, adding that the policy articulated in the memorandum does not contradict anything that Mr. Obama has said on Nafta in the campaign.

Mr. Obama reiterated that point at a news conference in San Antonio, saying he favors free trade but wants to renegotiate existing agreements to include safeguards for the environment and labor rights.


But in Ohio, his tone has been harsher. In the debate in Cleveland, he agreed with Mrs. Clinton that he would leave Nafta unless it was renegotiated in terms more favorable to American workers. Mrs. Clinton, who has also found herself on the defensive about positive comments she has made about Nafta, has stoked the controversy.

When asked about his past denials, Mr. Obama said he had responded with what he knew.

“That was the information I had at the time,” he said.

He added that the Canadians had reached out to Professor Goolsbee and that he met them as a “courtesy.”

“At some point,” he added, “they started talking about trade and Nafta, and the Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail.” Campaign officials said Professor Goolsbee went to the consulate as a professor, not as an adviser to Mr. Obama and that other campaign officials did not know about the meeting when it was held.

In a statement, the Canadian Embassy in Washington suggested that the consulate had sought out Professor Goolsbee specifically because of his ties to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

“The Canadian Embassy and our consulates general,” the statement said, “regularly contact those involved in all of the presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials.

“There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about Nafta.”

Jeez louise. The part in emphases is the money quote. The actual memo. What do it say? Aw, it says that Professor Goolsbee said the same things about NAFTA that Obama said on the campaign trail, but the memo didn't say it in the stark soundbites that make campaigns run but instead, it being a quiet and frank gentlemanly discussion of a diplomatic nature, it said in a matchingly appropriate manner.

Fly, a diet of nits that small is gonna starve your political system.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1