For GOP only

[mr_genius]

It seems Obama has been telling stories about how his uncle was an American troop whom went into Auschwitz and liberated it. Uh, the Soviets liberated Auschwitz and it appears Obama didn't even have an uncle in the armed services.

 

oh Barack, you so crazy

[BearSox]

It seems Obama has been telling stories about how his uncle was an American troop whom went into Auschwitz and liberated it. Uh, the Soviets liberated Auschwitz and it appears Obama didn't even have an uncle in the armed services.

 

oh Barack, you so crazy

Man, you're a racist!

 

(sorry if that isn't green, I'm color blind so I was pretty much picking a color at random)

[Balta1701]

It seems Obama has been telling stories about how his uncle was an American troop whom went into Auschwitz and liberated it. Uh, the Soviets liberated Auschwitz and it appears Obama didn't even have an uncle in the armed services.

 

oh Barack, you so crazy

I know it's the GOP only thread, but FWIW, it turns out it was Buchenwald and his Great Uncle, both of which have been confirmed. He messed up 2 details. Figured you guys might not see the details in the "Hillary" thread if I didn't mention it here.

[mr_genius]

I know it's the GOP only thread, but FWIW, it turns out it was Buchenwald and his Great Uncle, both of which have been confirmed. He messed up 2 details. Figured you guys might not see the details in the "Hillary" thread if I didn't mention it here.

 

oh i'm sure they can find some distant relative he's never met (or probably heard of) that could be considered the main character of his story.

[southsider2k5]

I know it's the GOP only thread, but FWIW, it turns out it was Buchenwald and his Great Uncle, both of which have been confirmed. He messed up 2 details. Figured you guys might not see the details in the "Hillary" thread if I didn't mention it here.

 

Aushwitz just plays better to the crowds because most people have never heard of the other camp. That makes sense now why he would mention that camp. It feels a lot more intentional to me now. I wonder if his uncle had to duck sniper fire while he was at it?

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212109234...emEditorialPage

 

The Obama Gaffe Machine

By JOHN FUND

May 30, 2008

 

For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.

 

As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him "a one-man gaffe machine."

 

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka – even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

 

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

 

When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of "potatoe."

 

Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

 

Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive – such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn't prove he read the full questionnaire.

 

Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

 

Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss, among other issues, Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

 

In a debate last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. He called President Bush's refusal to meet with them "ridiculous" and a "disgrace."

 

Heavily criticized, Mr. Obama dug in rather than backtrack. He's claimed, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.

 

Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years.

 

Reporters may now give Mr. Obama's many gaffes more notice. But don't count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas.

 

Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

 

It's clear some gaffes are considered more newsworthy than others. But it would behoove the media to check their premises when deciding just how much attention to pay to them. The best guideline might be: Show some restraint and judgment, but report them all.

 

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

[lostfan]

When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of "potatoe."

Yikes, it sounds like he just made that part up so he could fit this paragraph in the story better.

 

Otherwise good article.

Edited May 30, 2008 by lostfan

[southsideirish71]

You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should by. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.

 

But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt

 

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story

 

I love it when Millionaires tell kids who need to pay off 40k in loans about how money shouldnt be something you run after. If this guy gets in, he will ruin the economy like Carter did in the late 70s. He will tax what he considers those who make too much and it will bury our economy. No matter how you slice it, its socialism.

[BearSox]

I love it when Millionaires tell kids who need to pay off 40k in loans about how money shouldnt be something you run after. If this guy gets in, he will ruin the economy like Carter did in the late 70s. He will tax what he considers those who make too much and it will bury our economy. No matter how you slice it, its socialism.

Also, I guess in that little speech he made, he completely butchered the name Wesleyan college.

[southsider2k5]

I love it when Millionaires tell kids who need to pay off 40k in loans about how money shouldnt be something you run after. If this guy gets in, he will ruin the economy like Carter did in the late 70s. He will tax what he considers those who make too much and it will bury our economy. No matter how you slice it, its socialism.

 

Reminds me of guys who owe their political careers to oil money, who then go on to curse the petrochemical industries.

[mr_genius]

Seems Obama's buddy, Ahmadinejad, is promising another Holocaust (again).

 

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,"

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

Edited June 2, 2008 by mr_genius

[BigSqwert]

Seems Obama's buddy, Ahmadinejad, is promising another Holocaust (again).

His buddy? Come on now.

Edited June 3, 2008 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

Seems Obama's buddy, Ahmadinejad, is promising another Holocaust (again).

 

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,"

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

 

He's been saying it for years, except he gets the benefit of the doubt for some reason (well he didn't EXACTLY say to destroy Israel...)

[lostfan]

He's been saying it for years, except he gets the benefit of the doubt for some reason (well he didn't EXACTLY say to destroy Israel...)

He only gets the benefit of the doubt because it hasn't happened and it won't. Talk is cheap, he knows better. The consequences would be ugly, I'm talking World War III. So rather than outright try to "destroy" Israel they try to be slick about it and do things like support Hezbollah (talking out of both sides of their mouth, they always say "you have no proof that we support terrorists" as if there was going to be any).

[Balta1701]

He only gets the benefit of the doubt because it hasn't happened and it won't. Talk is cheap, he knows better. The consequences would be ugly, I'm talking World War III. So rather than outright try to "destroy" Israel they try to be slick about it and do things like support Hezbollah (talking out of both sides of their mouth, they always say "you have no proof that we support terrorists" as if there was going to be any).

Why do people constantly insist on saying that small regional wars against countries that have what, 1/100th of our defense spending would qualify as world wars? World War 1 and World War 2 litrally involved the entire globe. If a country wasn't directly attacked, it was probably either sending troops or money along. The only way that would be "World war III" is if you were planning on attacking China or Russia while you were at it.

[southsider2k5]

Why do people constantly insist on saying that small regional wars against countries that have what, 1/100th of our defense spending would qualify as world wars? World War 1 and World War 2 litrally involved the entire globe. If a country wasn't directly attacked, it was probably either sending troops or money along. The only way that would be "World war III" is if you were planning on attacking China or Russia while you were at it.

 

Mostly because it isn't hard to imagine a scenario where that stuff happens. Russia has supported Iran militarily and other means for a long time. China really really needs their oil. Throw in some other countries jumping in for this reason and that... There is your WWIII.

[lostfan]

Why do people constantly insist on saying that small regional wars against countries that have what, 1/100th of our defense spending would qualify as world wars? World War 1 and World War 2 litrally involved the entire globe. If a country wasn't directly attacked, it was probably either sending troops or money along. The only way that would be "World war III" is if you were planning on attacking China or Russia while you were at it.

It wouldn't be limited to Iran and Israel.

[EvilMonkey]

Why do people constantly insist on saying that small regional wars against countries that have what, 1/100th of our defense spending would qualify as world wars? World War 1 and World War 2 litrally involved the entire globe. If a country wasn't directly attacked, it was probably either sending troops or money along. The only way that would be "World war III" is if you were planning on attacking China or Russia while you were at it.

I also have to say that I believe it wouldn't stay limited to those two countries. The US is generally committed to helping Israel, and there are others who are tied in with Iran like Russia and China. Not sure if they still do, but I thought that Iran owed a lot of money to Russia as well, so they would have a vested interest in their survival.

[Balta1701]

I also have to say that I believe it wouldn't stay limited to those two countries. The US is generally committed to helping Israel, and there are others who are tied in with Iran like Russia and China. Not sure if they still do, but I thought that Iran owed a lot of money to Russia as well, so they would have a vested interest in their survival.

I have an awful lot of difficulty believing that Russia or China would be willing to go to war with the U.S. over what are frankly some fairly small financial investments in Iran (small when compared to things like, the business China or Russia does with the West)

[lostfan]

I have an awful lot of difficulty believing that Russia or China would be willing to go to war with the U.S. over what are frankly some fairly small financial investments in Iran (small when compared to things like, the business China or Russia does with the West)

I don't mean that it's going to literally be World War III (in the sense of the first two). I mean that doing that would be a spark to a much bigger eventual conflict, bigger than what it would be on the surface at first, that probably reshapes the world order.

 

Hence, neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad wants that.

Edited June 3, 2008 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

I have an awful lot of difficulty believing that Russia or China would be willing to go to war with the U.S. over what are frankly some fairly small financial investments in Iran (small when compared to things like, the business China or Russia does with the West)

 

It would have been hard to imagine a world war fought over an archduke's assassination too, but it happened. For me the energy that Iran holds is key to China's futures. Its not hard to see them getting involved if the US went in and cut off China's supplies. Especially if the US cut off food exports to or imports from China trying to influence China's role there. It would really force their hand.

[lostfan]

It would have been hard to imagine a world war fought over an archduke's assassination too, but it happened. For me the energy that Iran holds is key to China's futures. Its not hard to see them getting involved if the US went in and cut off China's supplies. Especially if the US cut off food exports to or imports from China trying to influence China's role there. It would really force their hand.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

 

Russia's more or less self-sufficient but China needs those external resources, without them they're screwed.

Edited June 3, 2008 by lostfan

[mr_genius]

James Clyburn (D-SC) is claiming racist Clinton supporters have been harassing him. The Dems "I am always the victim" attitude is really funny when you see all the Hilllary supporters screaming "Sexism!" up against the Obama supporters claiming "Racism!"

 

Also nice to see Hillary supporters claiming Obama stole the 2008 primary just like GW Bush stole the 2000 election

[whitesoxfan101]

The Dems "I am always the victim" attitude is really funny when you see all the Hilllary supporters screaming "Sexism!" up against the Obama supporters claiming "Racism!"

 

Quoted for truth, it's been simply hilarious to watch in that regard.

[EvilMonkey]

Dead voters voting. I wonder who they voted for? No potential for fraud there.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/de...ling-officials/