The Times runs an op-ed panning the Kennedy-Kruschev meeting to which Obama glowingly refers as one of his inspirations for wanting to meet with the leaders of Iran. Jack Kelly had made the same point a couple of weeks back.
And Joe Klein continues his passion for Presidential fiction on the campaign trail, but this time writing under his own name:
Which raises the question: Who are the bad guys rooting for in 2008? John McCain would have you believe the answer is clear. Barack Obama wants to meet with the leaders of enemy states, especially Iran, "which would increase their prestige," McCain says, and convey the impression of American weakness. To punctuate the point, McCain persistently barks that Obama wants to meet with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a flagrant anti-Semite but a relatively powerless figurehead. Obama did say during a debate last summer that he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. "He shorthanded the answer," Senator Joe Biden recently said. Ever since, Obama has been creatively fuzzy when asked directly if he would meet with Ahmadinejad — and he has begun to point out that the real leaders of Iran are the clerics led by the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who controls Iran's foreign policy and its nuclear program. Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations. In his previous, straight-talking incarnation, McCain would have allowed Obama the modifications to his shorthand answer and debated the issue on the merits. Not this year.
Robert Novak debunked the "creatively fuzzy" line:
After asserting that "I've done some research" and "also checked with the Obama campaign," Klein said that Obama "never mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders."
In fact, Obama has repeatedly been questioned specifically about Ahmadinejad. At a news conference in New York last September, Obama was asked whether he would still meet with Ahmadinejad. He replied: "Yeah . . . I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious. . . . But we should never fear to negotiate." On NBC's "Meet the Press" in November, he defended "a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad."
If Joe Klein is still having trouble with his research, more assistance is available at Politifact of the St. Petersburg Times:
But has Obama said specifically that he’d meet with Ahmadinejad?
We could find no public statements where Obama neatly says “I will meet with Ahmadinejad.” But we believe there are some instances where that was the substance of Obama’s words.
One example came in a press conference in New York City on Sept. 24, 2007 [also cited by Novak].
Question: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad …Would you still meet with him today?”
“Nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama responded. “I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with – that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”
The McCain campaign provided snippets of news accounts of that press conference that left little doubt how the press interpreted Obama’s comments at the time. Check out these headlines: “Obama Stood His Ground Monday On His Controversial Remarks Earlier This Year That He Would Meet With Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (from CNN); and “Obama: I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad” (from CBS News).
... In those contexts, Obama clearly counts Ahmadinejad among those with whom he would meet. We rate McCain’s statement True.
Klein also describes Ahmadinejad as "a relatively powerless figurehead". Really? I hope he alerted the Obama team, which last fall described Ahmadinejad as a dictator. And the Brits could have used this news, since it was Ahmadinejad who led the way and led the release when fifteen British sailors were captured by Iran last spring.
Rather than following Klein's lead and just making stuff up, the AP tries to explain Obama by taking a different tack, arguing that he has just been making stuff up:
THE OLD SPIN:
In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition and during his first year in office.
"I would," Obama said.
Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions should be set.
"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."
Challenged by Clinton in multiple debates, Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations" and would not rush to see certain leaders right away.
The precise difference between preconditions and preparations has not been spelled out. What's clear is that low-level talks would precede any summit, as happens now.
Clinton called him naive. She said she would not risk the prestige of the presidency by negotiating directly with countries such as Iran until they had agreed to change their ways.
Obama called that a case of old Washington thinking.
The new thinking, however, appears not to have been thought all the way through.
Look, Obama is making this up as he goes along. That is not a great practice for a Presidential candidate, and would be a terrible idea for a sitting President. Imagine if Obama had said at a Presidential press conference, rather than a candidate's debate, that he would meet with the leader of Iran without pre-conditions within one year, and then started waffling about the distinction between preparations and pre-conditions and tried to hand-pick the Iranian leader with whom he would meet. It would be comical and embarrassing, like his current performance.
I repeat, he's holding out for his perceived equal, the imam in the well.
=======
Posted by: kim | May 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM
McCain's had tens of years to come up with answers, Obama, almost ten weeks.
======================
Posted by: kim | May 22, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Sprinkle some sand on the floor as I tap dance (to "Lets Call the Whole Thing Off"):
You say pre-conditions,
I say preparations.........
You say pre-emptive,
I say preventive....
Posted by: clarice | May 22, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You say Iraq, I say Iran,
Let's call the whole thing East.
================
Posted by: kim | May 22, 2008 at 10:35 AM
This is going to leave a mark.
And the Speaker is blaming the White House for this screw up. LOL
Posted by: Neo | May 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Perhaps we missed the memo declaring Obama the 12th imam.
Posted by: Neo | May 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Maybe that's why he wants to talk to Ahmadi-Nejad, Neo, to clue him in. Not something you'd really trust to underlings, you know.
==================
Posted by: kim | May 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I mean he's capable of believing himself the messiah of America, why not the world? Si, se puede. To Infinity, and Beyond.
=======================
Posted by: kim | May 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
The Presidency is NOT on-the-job-training!! Does Kerry - FLIP FLOPPING sound familiar?
Posted by: Anne | May 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Secretary Rice pointed out today that the diplomatic approach to Iran is a collaborative effort agreed upon by several countries, including China and Russia. The countries involved in this multilateral approach agreed that it was the best way to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.
The more Obama defends his diplomatic initiative to have unilateral, President to 'Leader', without pre-conditions, meetings with hostile countries, the scarier he gets!
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Secretary Rice pointed out today that the diplomatic approach to Iran is a collaborative effort agreed upon by several countries, including China and Russia. The countries involved in this multilateral approach agreed that it was the best way to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.
The more Obama defends his diplomatic initiative to have unilateral, President to 'Leader', without pre-conditions, meetings with hostile countries, the scarier he gets!
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM
This is a very good issue to hit O with and he's responded in the worst possible way-- digging himself further and further into the merde.
And it's the best time, too,after he's collected all those delegates, and the Dems for all practical purposes are absolutely stuck with this lightweight poseur.
Posted by: clarice | May 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM
This has gone far beyond just misspeaking during a debate. Obama has had a lot of time to think about this. Presumably he has met with his campaign and foreign policy advisors on this subject, and they had a vote (Obama's vote representing 99%).
It is a great example of Obama's judgment. Without consulting with our allies, he made a radical proposal that will affect relations with all our allies as well as our adversaries. It is widely disagreed with, but Obama sticking with it.
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Yep. He doesn't have a clue on national defense, and the more he talks about it, the more apparent that is. Prediction: if the election revolves around that issue, his shaky claim to a "judgment" advantage isn't going to hold up.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1211419518316200.xml&coll=7>This is good, too.
Posted by: MayBee | May 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM
MayBee,
He's a complete echo of Deval Patrick. No specifics, and people swoon.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM
If you're a Dem and even the NY Times isn't swallowing your BS, you're in trouble.
Mark Steyn also does a number on him:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM
He's a complete echo of Deval Patrick. No specifics, and people swoon.
You called it back before I was ready to believe it.
He is making it up as he goes along, and people DEFEND him. People AGREE with him.
Tens of thousands cheer for him.
I can only hope that someone like Biden would be Sec of State in the Obama administration. He can be a jerk, but he has some backbone and some sense.
Posted by: MayBee | May 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM
No question that Obama will try to change the subject soon, to "the worst economy in 40 years."
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Obama the Imam in the well? Who isn't it okay for people to talk to? Enemy?
Posted by: nkj | May 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Maybe he can dig something out of the Clinton playbook and get everyone's attention focused on something else for a while. He could ramp up a "Peak Oil-PANIC!!!" campaign using the devious astroturfing tacts that made Axelrod famous.
Stunning that BHO has tied himself in knots regarding this and some take it as BHO "winning" the argument. How long has this been going on-almost 2 weeks-and I still can't figure out what he's saying.
Posted by: RichatUF | May 22, 2008 at 12:51 PM
That's because he's not saying a damn thing, Rich.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 12:52 PM
His continued digging-in on this particular issue is a very troubling characteristic of this guy, among many, many others.
It's astonishing how deeply the media have dived into the tank for him. Try to imagine if any Republican had referred to the "57 states." How about "Iran is no threat to us," and "I've always said Iran was a grave threat," 48 hours apart?
This is genuine amateur hour. Scary.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Karl Rove piles on:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 22, 2008 at 12:55 PM
That's because he's not saying a damn thing, Rich.
Imagine his poor Farsi translator.
Posted by: MayBee | May 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM
"Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations""
I promise the American people that we will study real hard, pulling many all-nighters, before meeting with the various dictators and tyrants of the world. We will ace our future global tests just like Kennedy/Krushchev and Chamberlain/Hitler did.
Posted by: dking70 | May 22, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Jane-
Indeed. I was thinking it might also be a conscious mental evasion. He feels that radical progressive policies are the prescription (a "Come Home America" foreign policy); however, if he were to state them clearly, he knows he would lose, so he is stuck with word games (and he is very bad at them).
Posted by: RichatUF | May 22, 2008 at 01:21 PM
that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”
Ya know, I'm sick of this meme, too.
Failed diplomacy.
Saddam gone.
Failed diplomacy.
Khaddafi's nukes gone.
Failed diplomacy.
AQ Kahn out of business.
Failed diplomacy.
Major uranium smuggling ring in Africa busted.
Failed diplomacy.
Russians putting conditions on Uranium shipments to Iran.
Failed diplomacy my ass. None of that would have happened without the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 22, 2008 at 01:39 PM
And I predict that should his "negotiations" fail, he would claim it was not HIS fault. It was the fault of his staff!!
Posted by: bio mom | May 22, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Indeed. I was thinking it might also be a conscious mental evasion. He feels that radical progressive policies are the prescription (a "Come Home America" foreign policy); however, if he were to state them clearly, he knows he would lose, so he is stuck with word games (and he is very bad at them).
Ding ding ding!
Posted by: MayBee | May 22, 2008 at 01:41 PM
I strongly recommend going to Powerline and reading McCain's rather lengthy statement about Obama's screwball "negotiating" stance. It's maybe the best thing I have seen come out of the McCain camp since the campaign began. He's got Obama very much on the defensive here, and I hope he keeps it up.
And I strongly recommend that Jane go to tinfoilonmyhead.com. It is time to acknowledge the ineredicable stain of spygate. Shame! Shame! Specter for President!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Whooops
Forgot.
Failed diplomacy.
No more terrorrist attacks on American soil, or on American interests over seas.
Failed diplomacy.
Rolling up most of the leadership of Al Quaeda.
Failed diplomacy.
Actively working with a govt that at one time supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Failed diplomacy.
Using the Northern Alliance to oust the Taliban with less than 10,000 U.S. troops.
The man gets no credit. If he were a Dimocrap the list of accomplishments would be a mile long.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 22, 2008 at 01:42 PM
It's maybe the best thing I have seen come out of the McCain camp since the campaign began.
That advisor dude leaving was probably not a bad thing.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 22, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Indeed. I was thinking it might also be a conscious mental evasion.
I think it's a tactic. Deval Patrick, another of Axelrod's mentee's did the exact same thing for the entire campaign. He refused to get specific about anything - except that we needed "hope and change" and he won in a landslide.
DOT,
I browsed. How ridiculous does it get?
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 01:49 PM
I strongly recommend going to Powerline and reading McCain's rather lengthy statement about Obama's screwball "negotiating" stance.
I know I'm an idiot, but I couldn't find it.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Jane, on closer inspection I discover that it was posted yesterday. You have to scroll down quite a way to find "The Salvos Continue."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 01:56 PM
You do understand, Jane, that the Sunday Night Football game on October 12th is Pats at Bolts. Stand by...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Every time BO makes a kookie college maxist suggestion on McCain should jump on him. Also, anything that BO says is a "distraction" or "off limits" is prime fodder.
BO's campaign theme is "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Posted by: Sweetie | May 22, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Presumably he has met with his campaign and foreign policy advisors on this subject, and they had a vote (Obama's vote representing 99%).
____________________________
Obama's policy advisors meeting
May 21st 1300 hours
David Axelrod: Ok let's get this meeting Started..
O: this joint keeps going out..
Staffer: here try my lighter sir..
Ax: Look we've got to do some damage control about meeting with Iran..
O: you're right.. get the kook on the Sat phone..
AX: no no you can't do that!
O: why the hell not? hey! my scotch glass is empty..
staffer: here you go sir..
O: (under his breathe)..bitch
AX: forget it..what about our stance on poverty?
O: I'm against it..
AX: our stance..
O: mmm no..poverty in general.
Staffer: groans and holds head in hands
O: let's go back to my roots..as a community organizer in Chicago..
AX: uh..Chicago is already organized..if you know what i mean.
O: you throwing my friends in my face? (Voice rising )
AX: umm.no sir..i just meant..
O: Could somebody please keep this joint lit? jesus christ!!
Staffer: sir let me help you..
O: Scotch and no water? scotch and no water?
what the hell is going on here?
AX: Calm down Barack..
O: Barry..call me Barry
Staffer: I think your wife is on line 2..
O: What is it bitch? don't you know i'm in an important meeting
HRC: Ummm. It's Hillary, ahh Barry?
O: It's Barack you dumb bitch...
HRC: I was wondering if you had room on the ticket you sexist pig..
O: Hold on..could somebody please keep the joint lit..for gawds sake!
You want on my ticket? did michelle put you up to this? why you want on my tik?
HRC: together we could lead america oh chosen one..
O: I'll bet Bill wants a copy of the booze cabinet key doesn't he? 109 million and you won't buy your own beer?
what's up with that? ( yelling ) Where the hell is the water for my scotch?
Staffer: Sorry sir..here you go..
O: You're fired cracker bitch!
HRC: What did you say? I'm taking this to the floor..a floor fight!
O: I wasn't talking to you bitch..
HRC: I have never been so insulted!
O: Even when your man pumped on monica? Maybe we can get together later..you know what i mean?
Click..
Laughter in the room
AX: You told her sir..
O: yea.. I've been wanted to nick that bitch..
OK now..we got all the important stuff covered?
Great! AX.. roll another one would ja.. I got an old tape of Soul Train i want to watch..
Staffer: Sir.. I think it's Michelle..
O: SH*T! Woman..tell her i'm BUSY..
The rest of the meeting notes were blacked out..along with the advisors..
Posted by: Hoosierhoops | May 22, 2008 at 02:13 PM
You do understand, Jane, that the Sunday Night Football game on October 12th is Pats at Bolts. Stand by...
After the debacle of last winter, I may have to go back to being a fair weather fan (particularly if there is now a team called the "Bolts". I am so out of the loop.)
But you are right about one thing - the McCain response to Obama was great.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 02:24 PM
What's up at the NYT? First they print an actual news story about the progress being made in Iraq, then they run an fact based op-ed.
Its almost as if they're trying to be a newspaper.
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Sorry, Jane--I know what a rabid Sox fan you are (me too), and wrongly assumed you felt the same about the Pats. The "Bolts" are the S.D. Chargers, so nicknamed because of the lightning bolts on their helmets.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Ahhhh - I see.
DOT, I'm truly a fair weather fan. I got interested in the PAts about 5 games into their winning streak last year. And they broke my heart. But I'll get excited for the "Bolts" game. Just don't invite Spector.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 03:51 PM
diplomatic initiative to have unilateral, President to 'Leader', without pre-conditions, meetings with hostile countries
Could this be called ..
pre-emptive diplomacy
Posted by: Neo | May 22, 2008 at 04:15 PM
"Look, Obama is making this up as he goes along."
If you've read Joe Klein over time, it's impossible to believe he's not knowingly colluding in the rehabilitation of Obama's credibility-busting errors and false starts.
Then you've remarks like the one Maybee pointed out in the Jack Tapper interview, where Obama's flagrantly false version of history goes utterly unchallenged:
One day, we're journalists 'splainin' the news, the next day we're just journeymen reporting what the candidate says.Topping off this profoundly depressing week in media obscurantism, we've got coverage of the Karsenty decision. We wouldn't want to frontpage one of the biggest international, history changing, media scandals evah, when we're in the middle of a full court press for shield laws, now would we?
Obama makes stuff up because he can. What enrages me most about politics today, though, and what degrades debate beyond all hope of redemption is not confined to his campaign. Politicians freely lie about their opponents' positions, and the only institution with the wherewithal and the public presence to challenge them effectively -- and whose privileges derive from their putative willingness to do so --- defaults. This isn't just depressing, it's dangerous.
Chickens and eggs are plentiful here, but the polarization of the Fourth Estate is more disturbing than the ostensible polarization of the populace. The Weekly Standard, for example, can offer up a corrective, but it will be loudly, and widely, dismissed out of hand as right wing propaganda. Unfortunately, such charges are not always unwarranted; killing the messenger is not exclusive to the left. While the New York Times has never been as free of bias as one might have liked, its downhill trajectory is, in truth, a tragedy. The old adage about being entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts has become a debatable proposition, and we are in desperate need of recognizably reliable sources.
Battling cynicism is always the toughest fight in almost any sphere, and I've begun to feel like I'm losing the internal part of that battle lately. Cynicism is ultimately an embrace of helplessness in the face of what are presumed to be insurmountable odds, and there's nothing more debilitating. In a truly perverse irony, Obama's campaign is built on the comforting illusion of idealism, like a mirage in a desert. Making the world a better place means confronting hard choices, and daunting challenges; Obama tells a nation of thirsty people that all you have to do is believe. He makes idealism sound as easy as cynicism, but it's not.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 22, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Could this be called .. pre-emptive diplomacy
Seems to meet all the pre-quirements.
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 04:48 PM
JMH, I wish you'd submit that to AT ([email protected]) Tell the editor I sent you.
It's a wonderful blog item.
Posted by: clarice | May 22, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Come home foreign policy? Look at his legislation. home is his cult and he's right and your wrong. He's committed hislife to his cult and got paid. He wants more and that is why he's losing. His deal was for a Congressman in Chicago where he's 'understood.'
We can't afford a cult nut in the White House and Obama is classic case #1. Maybe running with the dems got him freed, but it's difficult to re program and it's dems because they believe in the cult commune system. Lucifer works that way. I passed on the dem vote shit.
Posted by: nlk | May 22, 2008 at 05:20 PM
"The one area we saw progress, North Korea..."
In 1973 my best buddy was in law school at the U. of Michigan. The law school forum had as its guest speaker one day none other than Jane Fonda. When she had finished whatever she had to say and agreed to take questions, one student said "Miss Fonda, you have told us that we should re-think our aversion to communisim, and consider some of its successes. What communist nation would you point to as a successful one?"
Without an instant's hesitation, Miss Fonda responded "North Korea."
Plus ca change...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Another student said--I swear I'm not making this up, and I promise to God that I'm not endorsing it--"Would you lift up your sweater and show us your tits?"
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 06:00 PM
There is every reason to expect Obama to have an understanding of the Kennedy-Kruschev meetings at least in agreement with the Times op-ed contributors Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins.
Obama reportedly wrote his senior thesis on Soviet Nuclear Disarmament. Which I would assume included the disarmament talks in Vienna in 1961 between Kennedy and Kruschev.
So, Obama's demonstrated ignorance regarding the Kennedy-Kruschev talks is puzzling. Either Barack never knew about the failure of those meetings, (which calls into question his academic standing and his secret college transcripts) or he knew at one time but later forgot, (which would give one pause regarding his mental acumen) or he knew and remembers the information correctly yet misreported it in his remarks on the subject (which would hint that he is just a snake oil selling flim flam man out to bamboozle and hoodwink voters).
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 06:18 PM
DOT, that reminds me of a screening of “Deep Throat” at law school where one enlightened fellow, while viewing the important scene, jumped up and said, “But, can she cook?”
Posted by: MarkO | May 22, 2008 at 06:25 PM
MikeS:
The aforementioned senior thesis was undoubtedly graded by a dyed in the wool lib. Said thesis was accepted and ObaMahdi somehow graduated. Thus you can be sure that the facts of Kennedy-Kruschev, 1961 did not:
a. denigrate the all-wise and all-knowing vision of liberal icon JFK
b. challenge the liberal dogma of disarmament and negotiated peace.
Posted by: Soylent Red | May 22, 2008 at 06:28 PM
rather:
"the facts presented WRT Kennedy-Kruschev..."
I blame Clarice.
Posted by: Soylent Red | May 22, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Why not let Pres. Obama go meet with Ahmadinejad? I don't see what the big deal is.
Posted by: gonk | May 22, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Gonk,
Well it could have something to do with 3 multi-lateral resolutions out of the UN Security counsel that say no one will negotiate with him until he gets rid of his nuclear program - assuming the UN is your kind of organization.
It could have something to do with the fact that the offer alone shows Obama knows nothing about negotiation or foreign policy.
It could be that Ahmadinejad will mop the floor with him, and make him a laughing stock, much like he did at Columbia.
For a start....
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Obama was an International Relations major and then a law student. Based on that I would expect him to have a much better understanding of diplomacy than of macro economics.
God help us!
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 08:20 PM
"Obama was an International Relations major and then a law student."
Actually, based on that I wouldn't expect him to have an understanding of jack shit.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 08:23 PM
Jane, follow Gonk's link.
Gonk, that first poster was great.
Posted by: bgates | May 22, 2008 at 08:28 PM
Ditto DOT
Posted by: Gmax | May 22, 2008 at 08:35 PM
So McCain denounces Hagee and cuts his ties to Hitler. Good for him. Who knows how this 'hunter' would punish American Jews for failing to leave this country for Israel. But Parsley is still out there and getting attention in the Middle East media. I can already see the cartoon depictions of McCain and Parsley taking target practice on Qurans titled 'Preconditions' with a caption like, "We will confiscate their guns and God, and force their women to dress like Barbi."
Of course, this would complicate the security planning of state visits by President McCain to Muslim countries, because who would really want to trust Islamic security guards. This is probably already compromising the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That a McCain presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and may score him a few extra votes. But of all the well-meaning desires to speak for full-blooded Americans, the hope that McCain offers a decisive improvement in conducting foreign relations with the world’s Muslims is simply not realistic.
What sayest thou Senator McCain? "Folks, there'll be more wars."
Posted by: ParseThis | May 22, 2008 at 08:45 PM
By the way, I'll keep showing up on every thread in which you criticize Obama (or any other Democrat) and fill it up with the latest Townhouse talking points.
I may not be able to completely derail the discussion away from Obama's idiocy, but at the very least I get to make use of high-traffic blogs like this one to spread a lot of slander and innuendo about the Republicans and McCain.
Thanks for the attention, and the platform!
Posted by: ParseThis | May 22, 2008 at 08:55 PM
Pharce This,
Not sure what you've been smokin' Bud, but it's no good for you.
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 08:56 PM
Oh dear, now I'm scared. Pharce wants to disrupt us. He's invoking Hitler. How scary.
I guess there are no "high traffic blogs" for moonbats.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 09:12 PM
spread a lot of slander and innuendo about the Republicans and McCain.
Thanks for the heads up. We'll all be sure to bring large shovels the next time you post.
Posted by: SteveMG | May 22, 2008 at 09:20 PM
I guess I should have hit preview before posting, that last comment should read:
By the way, I'll stop showing up on every thread in which you criticize Obama (or any other Democrat), filling it up with your own talking points, when mimicking you isn't as much fun.
I may not be able to completely derail the discussion away from idiocy, but at the very least I get to make use of high-traffic blogs like this one to practice a lot of slander and innuendo used by the Republicans and McCain.
Thanks for the attention, and the fodder!
Posted by: ParseThis | May 22, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Thanks for the attention, and the fodder!
You set them up and we'll knock them down.
It'll be good practice for our discussions with adults in the real world.
Posted by: SteveMG | May 22, 2008 at 09:43 PM
Thank you Parse for announcing to us that you are a Farce! As if we hadn't figured that out already.
You go, girl -- do whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: centralcal | May 22, 2008 at 09:43 PM
ParseThis:
"By the way, I'll stop showing up on every thread in which you criticize Obama (or any other Democrat), filling it up with your own talking points, when mimicking you isn't as much fun."
No wonder your previous posts made more sense than the usual trolls!
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 22, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Is this fellow Parse quite sane? I am moved to doubt...
How horribly will the once-promising candidacy of B. Obama erode in the coming six months? It could be something of epic proportions, and in the future might compete with Al Gore and global warming as a source of agreed-upon, "consensus" ridicule. It will be great fun to watch all of it. Think how unhappy these poor stupes are going to be!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 09:59 PM
I think Obama is about to pivot to the economy. Worst economy in 40 years, rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. Windfall profits tax, punishment for capital gains tax, tax for eating to much, tax for using too much energy, tax for raising our children to be little doubters, etc.
Posted by: MikeS | May 22, 2008 at 10:17 PM
To explain how there could possibly still be Obama Fans
"Comment by heroyalwhyness at Michelle Malkin, following a Obama's 'gaffe' post:
"email funny"
A teacher in Elmira , New York , who is an Obama supporter, asked her 4th grade class,'How many of you are Obama fans?' Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands, except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different?
Little Johnny said, 'Because I'm not an Obama fan.'
The teacher asked, 'Why aren't you an Obama fan?'
Johnny said, 'Because I'm a Republican.' The teacher asked him why he's a Republican.
Little Johnny answered, 'Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican.'
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, 'If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?'
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, 'That would make me an Obama fan.'
Posted by: Pagar | May 22, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Isn't it amazing that nearly all Oporkmafiles are just like pharce? Same level of intelligence, same inability to deal with issues, same malicious intent. It's downright predictable.
Posted by: Jane | May 22, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Isn't it amazing that nearly all Oporkmafiles are just like pharce? Same level of intelligence, same inability to deal with issues, same malicious intent. It's downright predictable.
Thanks for the fodder!
Posted by: ParseThis | May 22, 2008 at 10:47 PM
"rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer"
Take a look at Obama's income tax returns and compare them to Yours
Take a look at who is giving him money and compare it what he says about lobbyists and Wall Street
I would recommend Obama not try to stress how the rich are getting richer, when one ofthe primary examples on who is getting richer is the Obama family.
Posted by: Pagar | May 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Warren Buffett: "I don't think McCain is going to change his views to be in accord with mine. I admire him a lot. I think he's an absolutely first-class human being, and if the Republicans are going to elect somebody I hope it's John McCain. But he has too many ideas that are different than I do, particular in terms of what I would call social justice."
Commie!
Posted by: ParseThis | May 22, 2008 at 11:37 PM
test
Posted by: RichatUF | May 22, 2008 at 11:38 PM
ParseThis-
Yawn. Social Justice...so what is this "Billionaires for Obama" hour?
I thought that the Democrats were supposed to be for the "little guy"-nice to know that you are actually for exploitation by the rich.
Posted by: RichatUF | May 22, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Isn't it amazing that nearly all Oporkmafiles are just like pharce? Same level of intelligence, same inability to deal with issues, same malicious intent. It's downright predictable.
Jane:
well that did bear repeating...
Other than that..my experience with the obama crowd is the script is so the same..the same talking points..the mindless repeating of the line..
I don't know about you but i like my politics complex and interesting..
I stopped repeating the talking points with the nuns a long time ago.
It's like the invasion of the Borgs. :)
It's like you can't discuss anything that will really matter,, It's like when its saturday morning and these really really religious groups of people show up wanting to talk about God.. you know that no matter what you say.. they won't change thier mind
( and you could talk for hours..)
So why try?
So what i do is make fun of the obama trolls or better yet Obama.. I just feel better when i do..
Did you watch American Idol last night? It was great..Dvid and David got 97 million votes!
I heard Hillary was watching and called David Cook and offered him the VP slot..for 50 million of his votes.
Posted by: HoosierHoops | May 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I think it might be who we can't meet with; Cause we just don't understand.......Obama understands. Kenya was pretty interesting, but S.Africa legislation is even more interesting. So, it has to be Rice, one of her State Department people or Africom or one of his people. We're supposed to understand that's okay. We're not supposed to mention money and careers. We're supposed to ignore the legislation. We're supposed to not notice what is being done to us. Obama can't figured everyone's figured his cult and he never really got out and can't go in the White House, neither can Hillary because she believes in the cults like most dems do. Free lunch at the commune.
Don't worry there are lots of class one millennial stars in the universe, not just me; although I have looked into the portal of time and found no evidence of any on earth.
Causality cultists.
Posted by: answer&reply | May 22, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Jane:
I think ParseThis is really just looking for an excuse to escape the intellectual wasteland on the left. Can you imagine spending your time mimicking the talking points at an Obama fan site?
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 22, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Buffett's notions of social justice became much more finely honed after he had himself a couple billion. Kind of Kennedy-like, or maybe Jay Rockefeller-esque. Or let us consider the ultimate humanitarian, off-shore mutlti-billionaire, inheritance-tax-immune George Soros.
The cavalcade of altruists should put us all to shame--we're just so damn greedy!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 22, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Clarice: "I wish you'd submit that to AT"
Thanks -- I'll see if I can massage it into a stand alone item, although just this afternoon, I swore to myself that I'd start spending less time on politics! The piece I really want to write is a response to Yuval Levin's reform agenda
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Too bad I can't pump tens of millions into political causes to help my business and be called a "philanthropist". At least Carnegie had libraries and hospitals built.
Posted by: RichatUF | May 23, 2008 at 12:16 AM
I just have one thing to say this morning:
TGIF.
Posted by: Jane | May 23, 2008 at 08:10 AM
Good Morning Jane et.al
No it's TGIFF
Thank god it's fast friday..
Today out at the Speedway it's fast friday..
Fast Car's, Cold Beers, great food and a free stone temple pilot concert.
What more could you ask for?
Posted by: HoosierHoops | May 23, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Have fun HH
Posted by: Jane | May 23, 2008 at 08:57 AM
New Vets for Freedom Ad. Makes Obama look as foolish and petty as he is. Click on my name for link
Posted by: laura | May 23, 2008 at 09:01 AM
"The countries involved in this multilateral approach agreed that it was the best way to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions."
Which is a euphemism for France Russia and China to stop selling arms to Iran.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 23, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I don't understand why Democrats don't call him on the NoKo carp. That was either remarkably ignorant, or evil. Oh, nevermind, now I see why he hasn't been called on it.
====================
Posted by: kim | May 23, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Another student said--I swear I'm not making this up, and I promise to God that I'm not endorsing it--"Would you lift up your sweater and show us your tits?"
But I am.
I'd much rather look at Jane Fonda's tits than listen to her political opinions.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 23, 2008 at 12:48 PM
So would I, Charlie.
Posted by: MayBee | May 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Where do you think Bush will save this beauty ..
Woof.
Posted by: Neo | May 23, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Parse This is obviously Michelle Obama.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 23, 2008 at 01:44 PM
"I'd much rather look at Jane Fonda's tits than listen to her political opinions."
Probably both sagging by now,but you can't get a brazier for the brain.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 23, 2008 at 01:55 PM
you can't get a brazier for the brain
Maybe the silicon implant I'm developing would help.
Posted by: boris | May 23, 2008 at 01:57 PM
Hey Charlie,
I'm assuming you escaped the storm? Are you okay?
Posted by: Jane | May 23, 2008 at 02:03 PM
"...Peter warmed his hands over the brassiere in the courtyard..."
One year at the reading of the passion on Good Friday, they came to the part where Simon Peter is in the high priest's courtyard and denies Jesus 3 times and the cock crows. The lector read it asPosted by: cathyf | May 23, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Yes ,they were hot stuff in those days.I realised it was brassiere after I typed it.You would be surprised how many men have never typed brassiere before.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 23, 2008 at 05:40 PM
HEH--I heart PUK.
Posted by: clarice | May 23, 2008 at 05:51 PM