Monday, October 13, 2008
The "whitey tape" sources -- follow-up
Here is a bit of follow-up to our story below on the putative "whitey tape" -- the supposed campaign-killer video, supposedly in GOP hands, which supposedly captures Michelle Obama using racist language.
Don Tufts is a personal friend of Larry Johnson, the blogger who first published the report in No Quarter. In two places, here and here, Tufts has delivered the same message:
My preceding post produced an interesting comment from dakinikat, who, as you no doubt know, runs this blog.
Remember: One of these individuals has seen the tape directly. Supposedly. If Brooks is the primary source, then his may have been the eyeballs granted that privilege.
Is the tape real? Don't ask me! I go back and forth on that question.
Here's an interesting question: If the tape is real, and if it is unveiled after the final debate -- perhaps after Obama is goaded into making an on-camera statement denying its existence -- would that be enough to toss the election to McCain? I'm beginning to doubt it! Obama is the Man Who Can Do No Wrong. Even if Obi were to urinate on the next Official Rally Fainter, the media would go into Twilight Zone mode: "That was a good thing you done, Barack -- a real good thing."
Don Tufts is a personal friend of Larry Johnson, the blogger who first published the report in No Quarter. In two places, here and here, Tufts has delivered the same message:
2 days ago i had told him how much my small business here in phx [Phoenix] was suffering since the crash started and i asked him if the tape was real.here is what larry replied to me [michael brooks from media matters was the primary source and sy hersh was the confirmation with a additional confirmation from a unamed cia buddy.i have tried to get this out without directly breaking a trust...My small part in all of this should now be clear. (See post below. I was given the go-ahead to publish as long as I did not endanger the friendship; hence, the cryptic approach.) Actually, I was originally told that Johnson said that he learned of the matter directly from David Brock, the head of Media Matters. I've written to Brock but have received no response. I suspect that Brock learned from Brooks. To the best of my knowledge, Media Matters has never addressed the "whitey" claims.
My preceding post produced an interesting comment from dakinikat, who, as you no doubt know, runs this blog.
how about this?Seems to me that Larry Johnson, anxious at the prospect of being the sole recipient of an egg facial, may now want people to know who gave him the information. Still, he has yet to write about these names in his blog.
michael brooks from media matters is the primary source and sy hersh is the confirmation
that work for you?
Remember: One of these individuals has seen the tape directly. Supposedly. If Brooks is the primary source, then his may have been the eyeballs granted that privilege.
Is the tape real? Don't ask me! I go back and forth on that question.
Here's an interesting question: If the tape is real, and if it is unveiled after the final debate -- perhaps after Obama is goaded into making an on-camera statement denying its existence -- would that be enough to toss the election to McCain? I'm beginning to doubt it! Obama is the Man Who Can Do No Wrong. Even if Obi were to urinate on the next Official Rally Fainter, the media would go into Twilight Zone mode: "That was a good thing you done, Barack -- a real good thing."
I disagree. I do think it would be a game changer with the voters that will decide this election.
The Media, will glaze over and go into denial and blame McCain for racism. The hard left will hate McCain for the sky being blue.
If this could be released without endorsement of the McCain camp, I think that the right and the swing voters won't hold him responsible but I do think that swing voters would be appauled by such a tape and move away from Obama.
It needs to be released by a PAC organization willing to run it in an ad or via the blogosphere with the help of a news channel.
I would like to see it released the morning of the debate. Make Obama off game and give McCain reason to bring it up. I just want to see him squirm for the 90 minutes of the debate knowing that this has been released and the public is in the know :)
I don't know the politics of Sy Hersh, Brock or Brooks. What is the chance they would be willing to release it if it exists???
I thought the rumor was that Guilliani and the GOP had the tape.
The Media, will glaze over and go into denial and blame McCain for racism. The hard left will hate McCain for the sky being blue.
If this could be released without endorsement of the McCain camp, I think that the right and the swing voters won't hold him responsible but I do think that swing voters would be appauled by such a tape and move away from Obama.
It needs to be released by a PAC organization willing to run it in an ad or via the blogosphere with the help of a news channel.
I would like to see it released the morning of the debate. Make Obama off game and give McCain reason to bring it up. I just want to see him squirm for the 90 minutes of the debate knowing that this has been released and the public is in the know :)
I don't know the politics of Sy Hersh, Brock or Brooks. What is the chance they would be willing to release it if it exists???
I thought the rumor was that Guilliani and the GOP had the tape.
Ugh, I don't know Joseph. I think you might be right that Obama seems to have everything roll off on him at the moment. The media is willing to cover up anything for him in their efforts to see him win. However, I still think a tape of this sort would help McCain in an election I believe will still be very close. Most of America will not want to have a first lady who uses the word whitey along with other possibly derogatory terms. It will simply be embarrassing for the Obama family and it will give the Repubs and opening to discuss Rev. Wright again. All we can conclude for now is that a whitey tape will not help Obama toward the end of the election with undecided voters.
I confess—and with the caveat that I don't think the tape exists—that I suspect even if it did exist, the public wouldn't really care. I would have to see the alleged tape to decide for sure whether I care, but...as it's described, I don't so much. Not because I love Obama or his spouse, I have as many criticisms of them as the next disenchanted Democrat, but because I just don't think that's the worst thing anyone has ever allegedly said about (racist) white society. I would have to see the tape to decide for sure, but I don't think I will see it. Because this whole thing has always sounded fake, fake, fake to me.
Huh? there is no Michael Brooks at Media Matters--if there is they keep it a secret.
There are several Michael Brooks journalists, so who do you mean?
There are several Michael Brooks journalists, so who do you mean?
Jen, I'm thinking that the public will care for one big reason: they are sick to death of all the race-baiting the Obama campaign has done. For many, such a tape would be the final straw.
OK, I wondered about the credibility of the names and if they were liberal or conservative.
David Brock - definitly liberal, not sure on credibility but I highly doubt if he is in possession of this tape that he would release it. It seems like he would more likely burn it.
Sy Hersh - I am not sure on his loyalty or if he would release this tape. I get the impression that he is only in it for the headline and attention. Therefore, he might. I did notice that there is a Brandon Hersh that works for Media Matters. I wonder if they are related? I did not find a Brooks at Media Matters but there is a David Brooks that is a journalist. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago, hmmmmmm Ayers works there, Michelle O worked there, I am not convinced he would turn on Obama. He has in the past been a conservative but more recent breaks with conservatism leaves one to wonder.
IF the tape does exist, I am not hopeful it will see the light of day if these guys are controlling it.
What do you think Joseph??? You know these guys, IF it exists, what do you think will happen?
David Brock - definitly liberal, not sure on credibility but I highly doubt if he is in possession of this tape that he would release it. It seems like he would more likely burn it.
Sy Hersh - I am not sure on his loyalty or if he would release this tape. I get the impression that he is only in it for the headline and attention. Therefore, he might. I did notice that there is a Brandon Hersh that works for Media Matters. I wonder if they are related? I did not find a Brooks at Media Matters but there is a David Brooks that is a journalist. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago, hmmmmmm Ayers works there, Michelle O worked there, I am not convinced he would turn on Obama. He has in the past been a conservative but more recent breaks with conservatism leaves one to wonder.
IF the tape does exist, I am not hopeful it will see the light of day if these guys are controlling it.
What do you think Joseph??? You know these guys, IF it exists, what do you think will happen?
Jen, I'm thinking that the public will care for one big reason: they are sick to death of all the race-baiting the Obama campaign has done. For many, such a tape would be the final straw.
# posted by CognitiveDissonance : 11:27 AM
________________
I believe that you are correct. I remember when the Macaca tape came out during the Virginia 2006 Senate campaign between Allen and Webb. I didn't think it would be that big of a deal really. But, there are people out there who will not want to be publically associated with that kind of filth no matter what they may privately believe.
# posted by CognitiveDissonance : 11:27 AM
________________
I believe that you are correct. I remember when the Macaca tape came out during the Virginia 2006 Senate campaign between Allen and Webb. I didn't think it would be that big of a deal really. But, there are people out there who will not want to be publically associated with that kind of filth no matter what they may privately believe.
If it's the tape I know of, it's an audition for the part of Tania - Patty Hurst's SLA name - that Michelle tried out for. She didn't get the part, and hardly anyone has seen it because it's Beta format.
Dimitri
Dimitri
Obots: Forget the Bradley Effect and Focus on Basic Math
Since team Obama is measuring drapes for the Oval Office and tingles are running up and down the political pundits and news anchors legs, let’s let a skunk into their garden party, shall we. The race for the White House is over on November 4th. And, contrary to the main stream media proclamations, the battle ground races are up for grabs. Let’s really look at the polls:
Every poll has a margin of error. During the primary, KO took every opportunity to remind viewers Obama was closer to Hillary when he was behind and further ahead when he was leading. Now, with three weeks to go in the elections, the media has dusted off the Kil Hil playbook; John McCain can’t catch Obama, he “erratic”, he thinks he is entitled to the presidency, he’s racist. However, the impartial media is making one gigantic cricket sound on the subject of polling sampling error.
Rasmussen Reports latest data:
North Carolina: 48% Obama, 48 McCain, +/- 3
Ohio: 94% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 3
Missouri: 50% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 3
Nevada: 51% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 4
Virginia: 50% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 3
Colorado: 51% Obama, 45% McCain, +/- 3
Florida: 51% Obama, 46% McCain, +/- 3
New Mexico: 49% Obama, 44% McCain, +/- 4
Statistically, John McCain could win every state listed above if the election was held today. This possibility excludes the undecided voter for each contest. Over the next 21 days just a positive change in trend for McCain could be enough to send Barack back to the Senate.
Do the math; Obama could lose enough states to fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to hand Michelle’s new drapes.
The counterrevolution will not be televised. It’s viral.
Since team Obama is measuring drapes for the Oval Office and tingles are running up and down the political pundits and news anchors legs, let’s let a skunk into their garden party, shall we. The race for the White House is over on November 4th. And, contrary to the main stream media proclamations, the battle ground races are up for grabs. Let’s really look at the polls:
Every poll has a margin of error. During the primary, KO took every opportunity to remind viewers Obama was closer to Hillary when he was behind and further ahead when he was leading. Now, with three weeks to go in the elections, the media has dusted off the Kil Hil playbook; John McCain can’t catch Obama, he “erratic”, he thinks he is entitled to the presidency, he’s racist. However, the impartial media is making one gigantic cricket sound on the subject of polling sampling error.
Rasmussen Reports latest data:
North Carolina: 48% Obama, 48 McCain, +/- 3
Ohio: 94% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 3
Missouri: 50% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 3
Nevada: 51% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 4
Virginia: 50% Obama, 47% McCain, +/- 3
Colorado: 51% Obama, 45% McCain, +/- 3
Florida: 51% Obama, 46% McCain, +/- 3
New Mexico: 49% Obama, 44% McCain, +/- 4
Statistically, John McCain could win every state listed above if the election was held today. This possibility excludes the undecided voter for each contest. Over the next 21 days just a positive change in trend for McCain could be enough to send Barack back to the Senate.
Do the math; Obama could lose enough states to fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to hand Michelle’s new drapes.
The counterrevolution will not be televised. It’s viral.
Not Hurst, that don't look right, it should be Hurst, like the newspaper chain, like the San Simeon guy. I'm from over at Matewan, and I cayenne touch tie up, so I use a Dick Tyson pro graham.
Dimitri
Dimitri
There is a Michael Brooks that donated $1000 to Hillary in Maryland, but I suspect he is the science journalist.
So- which Michael Brooks are you talking about?
The one in Toledo?
So- which Michael Brooks are you talking about?
The one in Toledo?
To piggy back on the previous comment about the polls I find this post very interesting.
Bill Dupray over at the Patriot Room had this post on a couple of polls. These look to be more accurate as I do not believe they are over sampling Democrats and/or blacks.
"Poll: It’s a 2 Point Race
Nothing yet at the official IBD site on this but they have it at The Corner.
The highly accurate IBD/TIPP poll has started today with its daily tracking of likely voters. Just off the press: Obama 45; McCain 43; and 13 percent unsure. The poll of 825 likely voters has an error margin of +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Also, McCain has a 48-41 lead among investors with 10 percent not sure. All this is good news for McCain.
That’s the closest of any poll at RCP since the third week in September.
IBD’s poll just after the GOP Convention had Obama up by 5.
Not to cherry pick, but Zogby has Obama by 4 and Rasmussen has him by 5, down from 8 a week ago.
Three historically accurate polls peg it at a 2-5 point race. This ain’t over by a longshot."
It will be an interesting three weeks.
Bill Dupray over at the Patriot Room had this post on a couple of polls. These look to be more accurate as I do not believe they are over sampling Democrats and/or blacks.
"Poll: It’s a 2 Point Race
Nothing yet at the official IBD site on this but they have it at The Corner.
The highly accurate IBD/TIPP poll has started today with its daily tracking of likely voters. Just off the press: Obama 45; McCain 43; and 13 percent unsure. The poll of 825 likely voters has an error margin of +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Also, McCain has a 48-41 lead among investors with 10 percent not sure. All this is good news for McCain.
That’s the closest of any poll at RCP since the third week in September.
IBD’s poll just after the GOP Convention had Obama up by 5.
Not to cherry pick, but Zogby has Obama by 4 and Rasmussen has him by 5, down from 8 a week ago.
Three historically accurate polls peg it at a 2-5 point race. This ain’t over by a longshot."
It will be an interesting three weeks.
I read a lot articles on your blog and I'm confused. I'm canadian, so I might be missing some subtle nuance that would help me understand how your elections work and the PUMA logic. Are these elections a referendum on the question : "Is Obama a pure and perfect saint without a flaw (including all the people he met or associated with) ?"
Then if we can by miracle answer "yes", than we can vote for "that one". Otherwise, if we can find any negative thing about him that makes him less perfect than a saint, then we must vote for Palin / McCain because Hillary was a better candidate ? Is that right ? or is there something I'm missing here in your logic that consider that PUMAs who will vote Republican this years are the real Democrats compared to all these phony Democrats who will vote for Obama ?
please help me, my head hurts.
Then if we can by miracle answer "yes", than we can vote for "that one". Otherwise, if we can find any negative thing about him that makes him less perfect than a saint, then we must vote for Palin / McCain because Hillary was a better candidate ? Is that right ? or is there something I'm missing here in your logic that consider that PUMAs who will vote Republican this years are the real Democrats compared to all these phony Democrats who will vote for Obama ?
please help me, my head hurts.
The poor white people who would be truly offended by such a tape are already not voting for Obama.
And your post is very confusing, you talk of Michael Brooks and David Brock (like in : I suspect that Brock learned from Brooks.)
a search for Michael Brooks and Media matter bring your blog as 3rd result but nothing about a Michael Brooks working there.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=michael+brooks+media+matter
And your post is very confusing, you talk of Michael Brooks and David Brock (like in : I suspect that Brock learned from Brooks.)
a search for Michael Brooks and Media matter bring your blog as 3rd result but nothing about a Michael Brooks working there.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=michael+brooks+media+matter
Confused--
Look at it like voting NDP because one's mad about the sponsorship "scandal" knowing full well that more than punishing the Liberals and Dion, it's going to punish all Canadians, but still doing it because it feels good at the moment. There's no way Layton will ever win, nor join a coalition government, so you're basically taking votes away from the Liberal party in spite, and giving us 2 to 4 more years of Harpo and his Stooges....
same kind of deal here. But with much greater spite and lots of hurt feelings because he did more than just not be saint, his followers called anyone who wasn't for him 'racist' (not that there aren't at least a good 10% of Muricans who happen to be racist), he used tactics that the Repugnicants usually use, and he let his followers use sexism in the primaries (as opposed to McCaine's "How do we beat this bitch?" smirk). And what's worse is that while people could prove they aren't racists or sexist, and still cast a protest vote; by voting green and voting for a black woman-- they would rather vote for McBush and some disgusting shrew of a Church Lady who thinks it's ok for her pastor to talk about the righteousness of terrorist attacks in Israel, and how rape victims ought to deliver the babies anyway, cause you know, life is sacred.
So yes, your head might spin, it is a messed up logic. Hopefully in today's vote, you will do what most sane Canadians will do, and vote strategically so we can have a Liberal/Green coalition and let Dion and May show the US how its done. www.voteforenvironment.ca
That, and do our best to insulate ourselves from the crumbling empire next door...
Look at it like voting NDP because one's mad about the sponsorship "scandal" knowing full well that more than punishing the Liberals and Dion, it's going to punish all Canadians, but still doing it because it feels good at the moment. There's no way Layton will ever win, nor join a coalition government, so you're basically taking votes away from the Liberal party in spite, and giving us 2 to 4 more years of Harpo and his Stooges....
same kind of deal here. But with much greater spite and lots of hurt feelings because he did more than just not be saint, his followers called anyone who wasn't for him 'racist' (not that there aren't at least a good 10% of Muricans who happen to be racist), he used tactics that the Repugnicants usually use, and he let his followers use sexism in the primaries (as opposed to McCaine's "How do we beat this bitch?" smirk). And what's worse is that while people could prove they aren't racists or sexist, and still cast a protest vote; by voting green and voting for a black woman-- they would rather vote for McBush and some disgusting shrew of a Church Lady who thinks it's ok for her pastor to talk about the righteousness of terrorist attacks in Israel, and how rape victims ought to deliver the babies anyway, cause you know, life is sacred.
So yes, your head might spin, it is a messed up logic. Hopefully in today's vote, you will do what most sane Canadians will do, and vote strategically so we can have a Liberal/Green coalition and let Dion and May show the US how its done. www.voteforenvironment.ca
That, and do our best to insulate ourselves from the crumbling empire next door...
lee,
Tell me where you get that figure that 10 percent of Americans are racist. Is it from a reliable source, maybe pullednumbersoutofyourass.com?
Seems to be where you are getting all your information about PUMA voters, including the Obamacamp canard about "hurt feelings" and "spite." Why don't you offer us a pat on the head and a pretty new dress while you're at it? (And by the way, a large number of PUMAs are men.)
You write as if you're Canadian, so perhaps that explains why you are so abysmally uninformed about what has actually been happening since the primaries started, and what the source of the anti-Obama vote among Democrats is all about.
I would never presume to post condescending lectures about Canadian politics -- or quantum physics-- because to do so would only reveal my woeful lack of knowledge and open me up to ridicule from those who do know the subject. I respectfully suggest you take a long look into the deep well of your own ignorance before again exposing yourself to such humiliation.
But your concern is gratefully noted.
Tell me where you get that figure that 10 percent of Americans are racist. Is it from a reliable source, maybe pullednumbersoutofyourass.com?
Seems to be where you are getting all your information about PUMA voters, including the Obamacamp canard about "hurt feelings" and "spite." Why don't you offer us a pat on the head and a pretty new dress while you're at it? (And by the way, a large number of PUMAs are men.)
You write as if you're Canadian, so perhaps that explains why you are so abysmally uninformed about what has actually been happening since the primaries started, and what the source of the anti-Obama vote among Democrats is all about.
I would never presume to post condescending lectures about Canadian politics -- or quantum physics-- because to do so would only reveal my woeful lack of knowledge and open me up to ridicule from those who do know the subject. I respectfully suggest you take a long look into the deep well of your own ignorance before again exposing yourself to such humiliation.
But your concern is gratefully noted.
I find myself wondering what the GOP is up to. They're clearly pulling their punches, unless, of course, you believe that Kerry's military record was a juicier target than Obama's past associates, lack of accomplishment and business practices.
I find myself wondering if they have strategy in place to take the election from him at the last minute, or whether they simply want him to be president and intend to hobble him with all this shit - like he wouldn't do there bidding anyway.
Weird campaign.
I find myself wondering if they have strategy in place to take the election from him at the last minute, or whether they simply want him to be president and intend to hobble him with all this shit - like he wouldn't do there bidding anyway.
Weird campaign.
The "smears" leveled by McCain against Obama are so mild, it's laughable the news media are so outraged over McCain. Read various newspapers all over the country; they are unanimous in their outrage over McCain's tactics. They never said one stinking word about GOP tactics in 2000, 2004, or during the Clinton years, and certainly they said nothing about the Obama campaign's filthy tactics during the primaries and the general election.
It's possible the GOP has something in the arsenal they are going to use at the last minute, but I think there may be a concerted strategy to throw the election to Obama, and then, when he screws up, which he will, they will return to power.
That's why I have been praying for a GOP win. A Democratic win with this particular Democrat is the worst thing that could happen to the party.
If McCain loses, not such a sure thing, there will be NO doubt in my mind at all the GOP has decided to throw the election. They simply don't give up power easily or willingly.
It's possible the GOP has something in the arsenal they are going to use at the last minute, but I think there may be a concerted strategy to throw the election to Obama, and then, when he screws up, which he will, they will return to power.
That's why I have been praying for a GOP win. A Democratic win with this particular Democrat is the worst thing that could happen to the party.
If McCain loses, not such a sure thing, there will be NO doubt in my mind at all the GOP has decided to throw the election. They simply don't give up power easily or willingly.
lee:
Polls have proven that the Democrats are far more racist in this election cycle.
You are no longer welcome on this blog. And don't pretend that I owe you a damn thing.
Polls have proven that the Democrats are far more racist in this election cycle.
You are no longer welcome on this blog. And don't pretend that I owe you a damn thing.
Lee,
I would say that 10% figure is remarkably optimistic. As evidenced by the number of "hard-working...white" Americans who are salivating at the prospect of seeing Obama on tape smoking crack with Marion Barry, high-fiving with O.J. and talking to Farrakhan about how best they can conspire to persecute the white devils.
I would say that 10% figure is remarkably optimistic. As evidenced by the number of "hard-working...white" Americans who are salivating at the prospect of seeing Obama on tape smoking crack with Marion Barry, high-fiving with O.J. and talking to Farrakhan about how best they can conspire to persecute the white devils.
"Polls have proven that the Democrats are far more racist in this election cycle."
Ok, what polls are you talking about ??? is a link too much to ask ?
Ok, what polls are you talking about ??? is a link too much to ask ?
lee,
Has it ever occurred to you (I wont insult your intelligence, despite the temptation, like you are doing above) that people may not vote for a candidate for other reasons outside of his race/ethnicity? For example: lack of demonstrated leadership from Obama in any of his previous positions or lack of significant achievements in any of his previous positions that can serve as an example what he can achieve for this country and indeed the world? The guy has tons of co-sponsorships just like every other legislator and that hardly qualifies him for the presidency. Since you accuse those who dont want to vote for Obama as racists, can we accuse you of being a cultist who only wants to support Obama because he is the first african american candidate for presidency without expecting any real achievements or asking Obama what he has changed in the past in IL? I think its fair game if you are going to accuse everyone who doesnt want to vote Obama, as a bitter stupid bigot. How about the 95% african americans who only want to vote for Obama? are they racists too? I am not holding my breath waiting for your answers.
Has it ever occurred to you (I wont insult your intelligence, despite the temptation, like you are doing above) that people may not vote for a candidate for other reasons outside of his race/ethnicity? For example: lack of demonstrated leadership from Obama in any of his previous positions or lack of significant achievements in any of his previous positions that can serve as an example what he can achieve for this country and indeed the world? The guy has tons of co-sponsorships just like every other legislator and that hardly qualifies him for the presidency. Since you accuse those who dont want to vote for Obama as racists, can we accuse you of being a cultist who only wants to support Obama because he is the first african american candidate for presidency without expecting any real achievements or asking Obama what he has changed in the past in IL? I think its fair game if you are going to accuse everyone who doesnt want to vote Obama, as a bitter stupid bigot. How about the 95% african americans who only want to vote for Obama? are they racists too? I am not holding my breath waiting for your answers.
Shiv-- it's good that you're not going to hold your breath--- seeing how he was banned. But did you actually read what he was saying? Not to insult your intelligence but nowhere does he say that that's what he believes.. and if you had been around here before you'd know that he is a) Canadian and b) has been saying for ages to cast a protest vote for McKinney and Clemente, not even close to being "a cultist who only wants to support Obama because he is the first african american candidate for presidency" There's more than one way to be an ex-democrat.
Post a Comment
<< Home
