All over progland, you can see the meme: McCain is running a campaign of deception; McCain lies. Even the formerly reliable Paul Krugman and Bob Somerby have dived into this meme-stream. Here's a very silly article from the New Republic which exemplifies the genre.
Here we have the distilled essence of the McCain campaign's ethos: Perception is reality. Facts don't matter... How could McCain--a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one--have descended to this ignominious low?The most giggle-inducing part of this piece -- by Jonathan Chait -- suggests that Barack Obama bears some slight tinge of the same sin:
Certainly, Barack Obama is not totally innocent. Last March, Obama said that McCain "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as one hundred years," when in fact McCain said that he would favor an indefinite peaceful military presence.A few other (relatively unimportant) unfair barbs are mentioned. The giggles give way to guffaws in this passage:
I love how conservative apologists forget how hard the media probed Obama's Rev. Wright associations, his meeting with Ayer, Father Phlager, and every other somewhat shady person he happened to be in the same room with for a few minutes while in Illinois.No mention here of TONY REZKO, ROD BLAGOJEVIC ( a cinch to be indicted), or any of the other crooks mentioned in Evelyn Pringle's pieces and in the Chicago news media. Pringle exhaustively proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Obama is guilty of the same sleaze that put Duke Cunningham in jail -- making sure that contributors got hefty chunks of taxpayer monies.
(I've made that point before, many times. None of the many Obots who visit this site have even tried to deny the statement that I have just now placed in boldface.)
Here's the really fun part...
These allegations are not new - they have been beaten TO DEATH during the Democratic primary, and have all been answered effectively to the mind of anyone not already against Barack. He's explained time and again about these facts - if Republicans weren't paying attention to the news during the Dem primary, thats not the medias fault. NYT, New Republic, DailyKos, all these and every news media left and right have spoken about these issues. Its been done, to death.(Emphasis added.) The Daily Kos? The Daily Freakin' Kos? The cesspool that gave us the darkened video smear and all those lies about Bristol Palin? Markos Moulitsas -- who instantly deletes any defense of Hillary Clinton -- never censored the post that explicitly called for her murder. Moulitsas, who said that Hillary was not even a Democrat any more, is largely responsible for the abominations cataloged here and here and here.
If Chait cites Kos as a source, he is one sick, sick pup. What's next? Will he vouch for the reliability of the Weekly World News?
As for the NYT and New Republic: They are both firmly biased in Obama's favor (especially the latter), and neither one has ever looked into the truth about Obama's relationship with Ayers.
"beaten TO DEATH"? Heh. Let's take a closer look at that claim. A simple test should suffice to reveal the truth:
Go to Google, type in "New Republic" "Ayers" "Annenberg" and "Obama." You'll find zero responsive results from TNR.
The New York Times did, in fact, publish some hint of the truth quite recently, although Ayers receives only a glancing reference. For the truth of the matter -- including some behind-the-scenes dish on the NYT article -- see here. Turns out that an email released under FOIA reveals the bias of NYT writer Sam Dillon.
Was the Ayers/Obama linkage "beaten to death" by the NYT and TNR? Hardly. For "beaten to death" read "covered up."
As for Pfleger: He may be just an offensive clown, but the Pfleger/Wright/Farrakhan axis (appropriate word, that) is troubling and insufficiently researched. Never forget that Farrakhan's ultimate goal is, in essence, the same as that of the Confederacy: Separation of states.
Palin's alleged links with Alaska's kooky seccessionists have been the source of endless moanings and maunderings from the prog left. But Sarah Palin was never part of the Alaska Independence Party. Meanwhile, Barack Obama remained -- for twenty years -- a congregant within a church that offered full support to Louis Farrakhan.
Splitting the union is the entire point of Farrakhan's existence. He has never given up on his crazed goal of being the sole ruler of a new black nation carved out of some unspecified portion of the existing United States. That goal has driven every single decision the man has made since the early 1960s.
You'd think that the least we could ask of our president is that he not endorse the Jefferson Davis position on the question of union vs. disunion.
Chait's list of McCain's alleged lies strikes me as a pack of silly, overblown allegations. For real lies, look to Barack Obama. Here's a sampler pack:
1. NAFTA. This one remains my favorite example. During the primary campaign in Ohio, Obama put out flyers that said that "Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA." The interior text offers this Obama quote: "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."However, in 2004, he said: “The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.” A few months ago, he once again explicitly endorsed NAFTA.
Obama lied. Just plain lied.
2. Hillary's NAFTA stance. This is a subsidiary of the original NAFTA lie. Another piece of Obama campaign literature claimed that
"Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was a "boon" to our economy."She never said that. Obama lied -- just plain lied.
3. The back channel. This is yet another subsidiary of the NAFTA lie.
During the primary, Obama's economic adviser Austan Goolsbee sent a back-channel assurance to the Canadians that the Senator's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just campaign fibbing.
Obama's online supporters -- especially the ones at the execrable Daily Kos (functioning, in essence, as an arm of the campaign) -- created a fake story which pretended that Hillary Clinton, not Obama, was responsible for the back channel. A Canadian investigation cleared Hillary and confirmed the Goolsbee story.
Team Obama issued a flat denial that when the back-channel story was first revealed. And Goolsbee even tried to pretend that he had nothing to do with the Obama campaign. The Canadian investigation proved these statements to be false.
Obama lied. Just plain lied.
4. FISA and telecom immunity. During the primaries, Obama announced his opposition to FISA. He even promised to filibuster any legislation that contained immunity for the telecoms. In July, he voted for just such a bill.
Obama lied. Just plain lied.
5. "I barely know Tony Rezko." Obama said these words in the South Carolina debate with Hillary Clinton. At the time, he didn't know that John Thomas, an FBI informant in Rezko's office, would spill the beans: Obama had met frequently with Rezko in his office; the two men were in almost daily communication. For a list of Obama's changing stories, see here.
Rezko has always been a huge Obama funder. The notorious Chicago slumlord offered Obama a job while the latter was still at Harvard; Obama eventually got work with a law firm whose primary client was Tony Rezko. (The head of that firm was himself involved with shady Chicago dealings.) Obama helped Rezko pick up those notorious slum properties, at massive taxpayer expense; he also helped Rezko and his cronies get their fingers in the Hospital Board money.
And then, of course, there's the small matter of Obama's house. Why would Tony help a man he "barely knew" to purchase a mansion?
In this recounting, I have merely unsettled the dust atop the veneer of the Rezko story. To reach a deeper level, read Pringle's work (based, in large part, on reports in Chicago newspapers). Of course, a committed Obot like Chait would rather slice off his own nipples than read Pringle's articles (which are right here).
But those willing to face the facts understand that Obama lied. Just plain lied.
13 comments:
It takes nerve to second-guess you, Joe, and I do not want to defend a corrupt neocon like Obama...
...but his connections with Rezko (which I totally believe) don't seem to add up to actually knowing Rezko.
This obviously may be splitting hairs, but I can imagine someone having the connections mentioned and still not knowing Rezko. The purchase of the house sounds the worst to me. But even there, would Obama have to know his benefactor?
(May God forgive me for playing advocate for the Bamantor.)
Who in the world would help somebody they don't know buy a house? That's not a stretch, that's the plot from an episode of "The Millionaire."
*Note to the young folks, look it up.
Re above question about Rezko. An FBI informant used in the federal probe in the "Board Game" investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald cited daily contact between Rezko and Obama. Most Chicago cognescetti agree it is Obama who is identified in the Rezko indictment as "a political candidate." Rezko's wife (not Rezko--as is usually stated) was the one who put down the $600,000 that allowed the Obamas to get a discount on their house. Her income in that year was close to $30,000.
Rezko is everywhere in Obama's life, his earliest contributer, his biggest contributer. Obama went to work for a man who eventually became Rezko's partner. Rezko took Obama on the walk through of the house he bought. . . On and on.
Real progressives (and yes I went there, separating real from false, fake, frauds) do not lie. However, opportunists who exploit weaknesses in the Democratic Party most certainly lie. The first lie being that they are in fact a progressive, liberal, and/or Democrat.
There was a weakness in the Democratic Party that was exploited by opportunists posing as progressives. A flank was not covered, and the enemy penetrated. Now, if only the foot soldiers can realise their unit is no longer their unit, the unit can be left to crumble, as it should.
MercuryNews.com:
"In her first trip to the Bay Area as the GOP's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin today charged that Americans don't know "the real Barack Obama," suggesting that the John McCain campaign will sharpen its attacks in the final month of the campaign on Obama's biography as well as his platform."
Obama never KNEW Rezko in the biblical sense i.e. he did not have sexual relations with Tony Rezko. Took money, sure. But he did not have sexual relations with that man. He did not know him as a man knows his wife.
and to answer your question why progressives lie-- and i have answered this one for you before Joe-- they lie because they are involved in politics in the USA. And no US politician has spoken the truth since January 17, 1961. And last time, I gave you an exhaustive list (including greatest hits like I am not a crook, Read My Lips, I didn't inhale....) Lies lies lies lies lies... O why do they lie? Because they are trying to make someone POTUS, and last time I looked, that means (Aside from the very few, like Joe Cannon, perhaps) they lie.
And just because both sides do it is no excuse. But both sides do it (look at Palin making fun of the left for their 'voted for it before I voted against it' while she did the same friggin thing with the bridge) its one finger pointing at "them" and three telling fingers pointing right back at "us." Same as it ever was.
"Obama had met frequently with Rezko in his office; the two men were in almost daily communication."
That sounds a lot like "knowing someone" to me.
The media are so firmly in the tank for Obama that they've turned into goldfish and forgotten the existence of anything outside their own water-filled, reality-distorting bubble.
They'll say and do anything to help get their Messiah elected. They'll hide negative information -- even from themselves, by refusing to read anything that might undeceive them. And, yes, they'll lie. They'd call McCain a kangaroo molester if they thought it would work. It's all in the service of a higher good, after all.
Obama's associations go to the heart of why his values are too alien to those of mainstream America to win a fair election. Properly presented to the voters, they have the power to derail him. But the McCain campaign is going to have to do it all on their own. The media have the resources to send investigators to Little Diomede Island to snark about whether Palin has ever literally seen Russia or not, but they won't put any into exploring the fact that the leading candidate for the most powerful office on Earth has criminal ties.
"The media...they've turned into goldfish and forgotten the existence of anything outside their own water-filled, reality-distorting bubble."
Well, you can always call 'em "embedded" then. See where I got that one from? Your (American) media has forgotten how to be a media... for a decade it was all OJ and Lady Di and LiLo and whatnots, mixed with ass kissing Scud Studs while you committed atrocities (and ignored them cause you were too busy Supporting Our Troops and listening to Tony Orlando and tying yellow ribbons on everything). There has been no reporting for ages-- one main reason while the wild west of blogistan showed up, warts and all... And its funny to complain about it now.
& Ooooh Criminal Ties!! Stop the presses! That's nothing like being the Founding Father of the Indian Casinos and having ties to some Jack(Abram)off, right? And it's not like anyone in the repugs ever sold any cocaine? or crack? Whine to me some more about 'his' criminal ties... and find me one who didn't have any (even the god of gods, Bill Clinton, mena or not, park on meter or not--- there's always Barry Seal). So go ahead and call Obama out on his ties. And ignore the rights once more....
Does any one WHY the media ia pimping itself for this guy? forget about doing their jobs and dignity and all that. They became shamelessly and obslete but the question is why? do we have to waite till he is POUTS to find out
Thanks to the commenters who helped remedy my ignorance on this subject.
In my opinion, all this obsessing about Rezko and Ayers is a losing strategy for the anti-Obama contingent. If the Rezko thing had teeth, we'd know it by now.
Also--the media may not actually be as pro-Obama as we thought.
A study by Media Matters found that the five major newspapers and the three evening network news broadcasts have frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko, but have rarely mentioned McCain's dealings with donors and have ignored his association with Gordon Liddy.
Great post and comments.
To the anonymous person who asked why the media are so in the tank for Obama Hill Buzz did an excellent poece a while back on that. So far it is the ebst explanation I have seen so far. Link below for anyone interested.
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/question-of-the-day-why-is-the-mainstream-media-so-in-the-tank-for-soetorobama-and-what-do-they-have-to-gain-from-it/
bert in Ohio
You must remember this....
Lots of these "progressives"
- especially lots of the "progressive bloggers" -
where neo-con Bush/Cheney
worshipers in 2000 and 2004!
Post a Comment