The NY Times reports on the lies and deceit of the Obama ad campaign:
ROANOKE, Va. — Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, “I just have a different philosophy, I’m going to respond with the truth,” adding, “I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain.”
Yet as Mr. McCain’s misleading advertisements became fodder on shows like “The View” and “Saturday Night Live,” Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain’s more questionable spots.
The Times provides a helpful debunking of bum ads but can't quite dirty their hands with this one:
A much criticized Spanish-language television advertisement wrongly links the views of Mr. McCain, who was a champion of the sweeping immigration overhaul pushed by Mr. Bush, to those of Rush Limbaugh, a harsh critic of the approach, and, frequently, of Mr. McCain.
The advertisement implies Mr. Limbaugh is one of Mr. McCain’s “Republican friends,” and quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling Mexicans “stupid and unqualified.” Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of context and that he was mocking the views of others.
"Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of contex"? Do the Times reporters have their own opinion? Are they willing to provide the context, or quote someone else? They had previously cited FactCheck - why not do so again? Fact Check reported the context of the "stupid and unqualified" quote and said this:
We'll leave it to readers to judge how humorous that might or might not be. But those words do fall short of calling all Mexicans "stupid and unskilled" as the ad says. Limbaugh says his point "which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta [sic] were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers."
And on the other Limbaugh quote, Fact Check said this:
The Obama-Biden ad misleads by suggesting that Limbaugh was hectoring Spanish-speakers to "shut up or get out" of the U.S.
I'll guess that a strong defense of El Rushbo would have been too painful.
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: I am also intrigued by this DNC ad encouraging blacks to register:
The increased advertising push has been accompanied by a campaign by the Democratic National Committee featuring an emotional advertisement shown on African-American-oriented programs meant to encourage blacks to register to vote. It opens with violent images from the civil rights era of black marchers being attacked with power hoses and the words, “Thousands died so you could vote,” the advertisement states. The advertisement was not publicly announced by the party.
"Thousands died"? Then thousands, less 41, have gone unrecognized by this memorial to those who were killed as part of the civil rights movement.
Of course, if you want to throw in the Civil War then "thousands" is an underestimate. But the imagery is from the civil rights era.
Obama sucks. And it is more obvious every day.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 08:44 AM
The NYT sucks. And it is more obvious every day.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 08:45 AM
They're probably counting lynch victims over eighty or so years, 1890s through 1970s. That adds up to somewhere in the low two thousands, IIRC.
Posted by: Mitch H. | September 26, 2008 at 08:51 AM
If Obama goes down, does the NY Times go with him?
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2008 at 09:03 AM
Obama was there at yesterday's meeting at the White House, wasn't he ? .. or does it matter which seat Mr. Obama is sitting in in order to activate the "magic" ?
Clearly after yesterday's meeting at the White House which Democrats to a man called a "waste of time," Obama needs a better reason to be President.Posted by: Neo | September 26, 2008 at 09:03 AM
They're [DNC] probably counting lynch victims over eighty or so years, 1890s through 1970s.
If so, they've got plenty of chutzpah, since the Democrats were the primary instigators of the practice from its beginnings:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 26, 2008 at 09:33 AM
I was thinking the same thing, Neo. Seems like that should have been his moment in the sun.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 26, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Read the write up on Katie Couric dropping Gov. from Palin's title.
My, these people are petty.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 26, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Seems like that should have been his moment in the sun.
Socialists and Vampires. Neither one likes their machinations to see the light of day.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 26, 2008 at 09:39 AM
Did those thousands die before or after Selma made it possible for Obama's parents to marry?
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Speaking of Obama lies... Did Obama actually say something to the effect of: 'This did not happen on our [the Dems]watch. We did not block regulation that would have prevented this.'
If so, that is an opening wide enough to drive a super carrier through.
Posted by: Ranger | September 26, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Yes, and this post from Capt. Ed yesterday seems like a pretty good summary of "how we got here." (Nothing new. A 1999 LA Times article praising the gov't for all the things that ultimately led to the problem.)
Posted by: Extraneus | September 26, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Gosh, I mean 'gee willikers', you say politicians lie? Well, drop a clod in my churn. Did y'all fall off the turnip truck
just a week ago?
And a black man who says he's gonna be truthful and upright during his campaign, is somehow worse than a rich, elitist white man who does the same by claiming the moral high ground, then rolling in the mud with the rest?
Classical double-standard racism.
Maybe the LEADERSHIP McCain exhibited
by abandoning his principles early in his campaign and the apparent success of that strategy shown in the Polls, required a
leveling of the playing field by Obama.
And the racism profusely drips from:
"Thousands died"? Then thousands, less 41, have gone unrecognized by this memorial to those who were killed as part of the civil rights movement.
Of course, if you want to throw in the Civil War then "thousands" is an underestimate. But the imagery is from the civil rights era."
Uh, lynchings were very common in the 20th Century. It could be tens of thousands who died at the hands of 'vigilantes' seeking their own brand of justice. Not that you'd care, Whitey.
Posted by: Party Pooper | September 26, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Will the Times report Obama's connections to ACORN? While chairman of The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) Obama gave money to ACORN that was supposed to be spent on improving education for Chicago's Public School system, mostly minority, disadvantaged children.
$25,000 went to ACORN in 1996. Check # 1263 issued 11-6-96 per CAC's Program Report To Annenberg, dated December 31, 1996. (Page 40)
LUN
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 09:52 AM
I still like the quote from Obama that McCain shouldn't suspend his campaign and he should be able to multi task.
Not noting the irony he said that from the undisclosed bunker in S Florida where he was single tasking on debate prep.
Posted by: SlimGuy | September 26, 2008 at 09:56 AM
Gosh, I mean 'gee willikers', you say politicians lie?
Er, no . . . the "man bites dog" moment is that the Times reported it.
The "dog bites man" part is: trolls can't read. (Thanks for epitomizing that for us.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 26, 2008 at 09:57 AM
I'm with Neo. Obama cites his ability to lead people onto common ground as his premier qualification to be President. I don't think it is appropriate for Obama to hold this 'magical' ability in abeyance until after he is elected.
As his premier foreign policy experience, Obama cites living in Indonesia during his preteen years. Apparently, that's when he formulated his ideas to speak directly to dictators without preconditions and to unilaterally abrogate treaties as ways to improve our standing in the world.
Posted by: MikeS | September 26, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Did NYT report this McCain lie?
On "The Situation Room," Wolf Blitzer directed the discussion to analysis of John McCain's decision to "suspend" his presidential campaign. Toobin, far more in touch with reality than most of his CNN colleagues, bravely set the record straight: "[C]an I just quarrel with the premise of this? Who says he suspended his campaign? He didn't suspend his campaign. He's been campaigning all day. He gave a speech in New York. He's giving interviews all night. He's raising money. His surrogates are attacking Barack Obama. I think this is posturing of being apolitical. And, frankly, I think we're being kind of gullible in falling for it. He didn't stop his campaign. He's campaigning."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Posted by: Wounded Messenger | September 26, 2008 at 10:01 AM
TM: not so strange .. it's Friday and I heard there is something brewing in DC to keep everyone distracted.
Besides, the NYT, for tax reasons, has to provide cover for itself (CYA) against those partisan charges by Team McCain.
Next, you should expect to see McCain show up in the Times crossword puzzle.
Posted by: Neo | September 26, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Digging around under my desk trying to figure out who move my durn ObamaBot 9 iron.
Posted by: SlimGuy | September 26, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Wasn't the reporter screwing Libby from NYT?
Posted by: JHastings | September 26, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Why would anyone care? Typical of Obama supporters. The entire world is focusing on the financial markets and the Messiah is whining in the corner. You are so out of your league, Wounded.
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Code Pink after meeting with ImADamnNutJob for an encore declares victory in Bezerkly and withdraws to a place over the horizon.
lun
Posted by: SlimGuy | September 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Gosh, I mean 'gee willikers', you say politicians lie?
Until today, the NYT had not admitted that The One lies. It is gratifying to learn that his supporters already knew it.
Posted by: MikeS | September 26, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq kicked this whole thing off months ago, IIRC.
Posted by: stace | September 26, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Uh, lynchings were very common in the 20th Century.
Uh, it was still Democrat's tying the knot and wearing the sheets in the 20th century, numbnuts.
Posted by: Barney Frank | September 26, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Uh, it was still Democrat's tying the knot and wearing the sheets in the 20th century, numbnuts.
That's exactly what a Byrd told me.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Tell you what I think. When Iran nukes Israel, the Russian tanks roll back into Europe, and the Hugo Chavez Latin American people's army is greeted at the border by an open armed Barak Obama and a million ACORN thugs--the New York Times will remain the Nation's paper of record.
Posted by: Verner | September 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM
"Uh, it was still Democrat's tying the knot and wearing the sheets in the 20th century, numbnuts."
Phewwwaaaaaaaaaaattttt......
Phewwwaaaaaaaaaaattttt......
Ding, ding, ding, ding
Attention!!!!!
Bullshit Alert.....Bullshit Alert
Posted by: Wounded Messenger | September 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Thanks for that alert wm. Next time, post it at the beggining of your comment, please.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Seeing stories out there this morning that Russia is getting ready for some kind of nuclear cooperation with Hugo.
Posted by: SlimGuy | September 26, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Obama releases comments calling McCain intervention a political stunt.
Body armor and stun guns not included
lun
Posted by: SlimGuy | September 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
'Read the write up on Katie Couric dropping Gov. from Palin's title'
i saw two clips on Morning Joe this morning. the 'you didn't have a passport till last year so you're not intellectually inquisitive' question set me off. i smelled another hit job and stopped there.
i'm sure in katie's world a passport is de rigeur.
i have never had a passport. i'll bet if i played katie in Trivial Pursuit my intellectual inquisitiveness would stomp her in every category other than Sports & Leisure. i'm sure that bubblehead knows who dates who and who played the lead in Pretty Woman.
don't get me wrong, i'd love to go tour europe. i'm something of a history buff and would while away my time checking out places like austerlitz or blenheim. the only thing i'd seek katie's input on would be best places to shop or eat.
i just plunked down $7500 on a new furnace and heat pump (seer 17! what a deal i got!) and am plunking down another $5200 next week on braces so my 12 year old won't be forced to wear a smile similar to her dad's. those are important out here in flyover country so i won't be going to europe anytime soon. i doubt the $12700 would even buy katie's evening gown the next time she's in Milan shopping.
geez... they must despise us rubes.
Posted by: bubarooni | September 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
All she'd have had to say is "No, I've been pretty busy with the kids and career, and we really aren't that rich anyway."
And on the foreign policy thing, with the Russian and Canadian neighbors, she could have just said "It's true that I don't have any significant foreign policy experience. I'm studying up on it now, but John McCain is the master at it. So far, he's looked to me for advice on energy independence, government reform, etc."
Keep it simple and honest, Sarah.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
"Keep it simple and honest, Sarah."
she can handle 'simple'.
Posted by: excited to be alive | September 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
bubarooni
I'm a rube and proud of it. God, country, family, financial responsibility, and volunteerism are the flyover, lame issues that rock my world.
They can despise us all they want. Their "cancer ad" made it clear they have no use for me. As I watched it, I couldn't help but wonder what they think of Ted Kennedy. Robert Novak has already been told where to get off.
Why are dems so concerned about health care coverage when they despise those who have a disease? Or is there a pecking order...some illnesses are good and others bad?
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
"some illnesses are good and others bad?"
Republicanism......bad.
Posted by: excited to be alive | September 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Why are dems so concerned about health care coverage when they despise those who have a disease?
Geez bad, you should be writing campaign ads. That is one powerful statement.
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Jane, as soon as I saw that ad I thought of all the people and their families I've met in oncologist's offices, chemo facilities, etc. Many are fighting to keep their jobs, others are being marginalized by co-workers. That ad validated their sense of being considered "damaged goods." I'd bet the ad changed some votes, but not for Obama.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Any group that Obama has not called bitter and clinging his proxies have attacked in some way or another.
Now could someone explain to me why that fool still has poll number above congressional approval levels, besides the overloading of dems some polls are doing?
Posted by: SlimGuy | September 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM
geez... they must despise us rubes.
I don't know that they must, but they certainly
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 26, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Former Kleagle of the Klu Klux Klan,Senator Robert Byrd,Democrat was so excited at supporting Barrack Hussein Obama,that he nearly shook his hand.
Posted by: PeterUK | September 26, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Yes Peter, but I have it on good authority he planned to use a great deal of hand sanitizer afterwards.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Well, bubarooni--how smart is that of KatieA? Who does she thinks still watches network news--Carl Lagerfeld?
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2008 at 03:42 PM
bravely set the record straight: "[C]an I just quarrel with the premise of this? Who says he suspended his campaign? He didn't suspend his campaign. He's been campaigning all day. He gave a speech in New York.
So brave!
Perhaps McCain overstated the case that he was going to 'suspend' his campaign, but is that really the most substantive thing to come out of yesterday?
Obama wanted to "multi task" by doing debate prep in Florida. Not at home in Chicago with his family. Not in DC where he could keep an eye on his day job.
It should be a big hint to you that his idea of looking Presidential is to sit back and wait for someone to call and tell him what they decided.
Posted by: MayBee | September 26, 2008 at 03:49 PM
bad,
There is a rumour that the robes are being modified and latex gloves attached. Sanitary reasons because of the Kleagle's advanced age.
Posted by: PeterUK | September 26, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Wounded Messenger:
"Toobin, far more in touch with reality than most of his CNN colleagues..."
Sorry, but I was laughing too hard at that one to get through the rest of your post. Toobin is, like, the definition of a Hail Mary pass.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 26, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Slim:
"Obama releases comments calling McCain intervention a political stunt."
Hope it comes up at the debate, so I can hear McCain pointing out that both Harry Reid and Sect'y Paulsen begged him to come help sort things out in Washington. Obama apparently didn't know enough to show up till the Prez told him to get his butt back to DC.
Glad to see you, BTW!
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 26, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Sanitary reasons because of the Kleagle's advanced age.
A full body condom, ala Leslie Nielson, would be an attractive, yet sanitary, option.
Posted by: bad | September 26, 2008 at 05:30 PM
JMH "Harry Reid and Sect'y Paulsen begged him to come help sort things out in Washington."
I'm doubting Paulsen's motives. Isn't he a dem? From the stuff I've been reading (and Rush's interpretation) the meeting was a setup from the get-go.
Posted by: SunnyDay | September 26, 2008 at 05:31 PM
SunnyDay:
There's so much spinning on all fronts at the moment, I'm not really sure I believe anybody's version. If Paulsen believes that speed is the critical factor here, I can see him trying to do whatever it takes to git 'r done. If Republicans are balking, I'm not surprised to see him trying to work the Dem majority as hard as he can. I could certainly be wrong, but I'm not really seeing the partisan percentage for him to screw up the bill he's going to have to implement.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 26, 2008 at 05:45 PM