Obama a Marxist? Seriously? [Archive]

View Full Version : Obama a Marxist? Seriously?

Tsukasa Buddha

14th April 2008, 10:44 PM

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Linky. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/lieberman-its-a-good-question-to-ask-if-obama-is-a-marxist/)

*facepalm*

Seriously, I started a thread because I couldn't find any Marxists, and it turns out Obama is one this whole time?

And I like how having some positions "left" of "mainstream" America means you are a closet Marxist. Let's see, I support national healthcare, marijuana decriminalization, gay marriage... ****, I'm the reincarnation of Marx >< .

(Yes, I like doing "that")

Brainster

15th April 2008, 12:20 AM

The question stems from Bill Kristol's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in the NY Times today:

I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.

My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

While it sounds a tad absurd, there's more than just Obama's SF comments behind it. A childhood mentor (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/) of Obama's was a member of the CP-USA (Communist Party):

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

Barack's father was a socialist (http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html).

3. Obama [Barack's father] advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)

I am not of a conspiratorial bent, but you could see how somebody would put this stuff all together and claim that Barack's a stealth commie. I doubt that very strongly, and am more inclined to think that while he flirted with radicalism in college (as I did), he grew up eventually.

Damien Evans

15th April 2008, 07:52 AM

Damn your political commentators talk a lot of ****.

Upchurch

15th April 2008, 08:19 AM

Damn your political commentators talk a lot of ****.
We don't give them any reason to do otherwise.

boloboffin

15th April 2008, 09:00 AM

Karl Rove, having successfully called this "elitist" attack four days before it happened, is now pushing the Marxist meme (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351331,00.html) as well:

COLMES: Karl, do you think there's any truth to what Obama said? Do you think there are some people who might be bitter, angry, feel that life didn't give them a fair shake, who may cling on to whatever it is that they cling on to as a response? Is there any truth whatsoever to that?

ROVE: Alan, Alan, the point he was making was this is the dominant culture in rural America. It wasn't that there might be a person or two who feels this way. But this is how he characterized rural America.

My view of rural America is different. I find people in rural America are people of deep faith, they love the outdoors, many of them make a conscious decision to remain in rural America because of the quality of life and because they have ties to the land or they want their children to grow up in that kind of an environment.

I don't find a lot of people in rural America, I certainly don't find the dominant view to be I'm so bitter that I'm going to hold on to my gun or I'm going to — you know it was almost Marxisian, in this, that "they cling to their religion." I mean it's sort of like "it's the opiate of the masses" instead of this is something that fulfills their lives and gives them a great of...

Joe Lieberman's got a lot of nerve (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446), btw. Back in 2006, Obama endorsed him for the primary and for the win:

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.

What a tool that Lieberman is.

corplinx

15th April 2008, 11:11 AM

What a tool that Lieberman is.

Lieberman didn't say he is a marxist. He just didn't deny it.

The problem is, Obama seems to be your average western collectivist. So he's closer to Marx than to Friedman.

Lurker

15th April 2008, 11:43 AM

corplinx

15th April 2008, 03:07 PM

Lieb was asked a question by someone, he wasn't giving this out as a stump speech. If you read the text without a confirmation bias, he basically waffles the answer.

Its cool to flame Lieberman these days though so. ZOMG SELLOUT

Brainster

15th April 2008, 04:17 PM

MaGZ

21st April 2008, 06:53 PM

The question stems from Bill Kristol's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in the NY Times today:

While it sounds a tad absurd, there's more than just Obama's SF comments behind it. A childhood mentor (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/) of Obama's was a member of the CP-USA (Communist Party):

Barack's father was a socialist (http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html).

I am not of a conspiratorial bent, but you could see how somebody would put this stuff all together and claim that Barack's a stealth commie. I doubt that very strongly, and am more inclined to think that while he flirted with radicalism in college (as I did), he grew up eventually.

Obama’s communist mentor Davis had to have been a friend of the family, meaning his white grandparents. It would not surprise me the Dunhams were Communist Party members back in the 30's and 40's.

MaGZ

21st April 2008, 07:01 PM

Kaleokualoha

11th July 2008, 12:47 PM

Obama’s communist mentor Davis had to have been a friend of the family, meaning his white grandparents. It would not surprise me the Dunhams were Communist Party members back in the 30's and 40's.

What evidence do you have, other than AIM's disinformation campaign, that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor? "Dreams From My Father" does not say this. AIM is trying to smear Obama by guilt-through-association by exaggerating Davis's radical background and exaggerating Davis's influence over Obama.

For an analysis of AIM's redbaiting campaign, search the my.barackobama.com website for "redbaiting."

chipmunk stew

11th July 2008, 12:54 PM

His "childhood mentor"... That's priceless.

Suddenly

11th July 2008, 05:45 PM

Groucho or Karl?

Is there much of a difference?

Texas

11th July 2008, 09:44 PM

Tsukasa Buddha

11th July 2008, 11:06 PM

He was more than likely a "coffee house" Marxist in college.

Aren't we all :p ?

Gurdur

11th July 2008, 11:30 PM

.... probably more an opportunist than ideologue.

Aren't we all? :p

Texas

11th July 2008, 11:51 PM

Aren't we all? :p
Not me i don't have an ideological bone in my body. My candidate is Cynthia McKinney. Go green!

MaGZ

12th July 2008, 08:40 AM

The question stems from Bill Kristol's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in the NY Times today:

While it sounds a tad absurd, there's more than just Obama's SF comments behind it. A childhood mentor (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/) of Obama's was a member of the CP-USA (Communist Party):

Barack's father was a socialist (http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html).

I am not of a conspiratorial bent, but you could see how somebody would put this stuff all together and claim that Barack's a stealth commie. I doubt that very strongly, and am more inclined to think that while he flirted with radicalism in college (as I did), he grew up eventually.

Brainster, were you ever a card carrying member of SDS?

gdnp

12th July 2008, 08:53 AM

Obama’s communist mentor Davis had to have been a friend of the family, meaning his white grandparents. It would not surprise me the Dunhams were Communist Party members back in the 30's and 40's.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if certain members had been planted here by Karl Rove to supply disinformation about Obama. Of course, since I have no evidence to support it, I would never make such a charge.

MaGZ

12th July 2008, 11:02 AM

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if certain members had been planted here by Karl Rove to supply disinformation about Obama. Of course, since I have no evidence to support it, I would never make such a charge.

Frank Marshal Davis being a member of the Communist Party and a mentor to Barack Obama is not disinformation. Not one representative from the media has asked Obama about this. They do not want to derail his campaign. They would have never asked any questions about Rev. Wright if his antics were not posted on YouTube. If Obama gets elected, he can thank the media for not asking the important questions.

Gurdur

12th July 2008, 11:10 AM

Brainster, were you ever a card carrying member of SDS?

MaGZ joins HUAC!

gdnp

12th July 2008, 12:14 PM

corplinx

12th July 2008, 12:32 PM

gdnp

12th July 2008, 12:42 PM

What is wrong even if Obama does have marxist leanings? It occurs to me critics who talk mostly about Obama's marxist thoughts want people to associate Obama with Stalinism. The people who banish any thought of Obama having marxist thoughts seem to do so because they are afraid Obama will be associated with Stalinism or Maoist thought.

Let's face it: Marxism has performed pretty dismally everywhere it has been tried. Anyone who would like to try to set up a Marxist state would have a high burden of proof that their Marxist state would work better than all the others did. In the US, however, socialism carries almost the same stigma as Marxism, and thus many would like to continue continue our hugely expensive and not very effective system for fear of the socialized systems that the rest of the developed world uses.

Tsukasa Buddha

12th July 2008, 12:58 PM

Let's face it: Marxism has performed pretty dismally everywhere it has been tried. Anyone who would like to try to set up a Marxist state would have a high burden of proof that their Marxist state would work better than all the others did. In the US, however, socialism carries almost the same stigma as Marxism, and thus many would like to continue continue our hugely expensive and not very effective system for fear of the socialized systems that the rest of the developed world uses.

Heh, I'd say Liberal has the same stigma. If a major candidate was actually a socialist I think people's heads would explode :p .

corplinx

12th July 2008, 02:27 PM

Let's face it: Marxism has performed pretty dismally everywhere it has been tried. Anyone who would like to try to set up a Marxist state would have a high burden of proof that their Marxist state would work better than all the others did. In the US, however, socialism carries almost the same stigma as Marxism, and thus many would like to continue continue our hugely expensive and not very effective system for fear of the socialized systems that the rest of the developed world uses.

So Marxism is a pure entity whose concepts do not work unless the whole is accepted? There are no states today who have one or more policy's that seem marxist or inspired by Marxism?

gdnp

12th July 2008, 02:38 PM

So Marxism is a pure entity whose concepts do not work unless the whole is accepted? There are no states today who have one or more policy's that seem marxist or inspired by Marxism?

No, I guess marxism, like religion, has true believers who accept the whole premise, and others who pick and choose the parts they like and the parts they don't. Progressive taxation can be considered "from each according to his abilities", for example. What's your point?

abenja1

12th July 2008, 04:56 PM

Lieberman is a Jew first and a Democrat second. America fighting wars in the Middle East is good for Israel.

Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran.

And it's idiots like you that caused me to become pro-choice. You'll be making my Anti-Semitism Wall of Shame very shortly MAGZI.

Texas

12th July 2008, 05:58 PM

So Marxism is a pure entity whose concepts do not work unless the whole is accepted? There are no states today who have one or more policy's that seem marxist or inspired by Marxism? Well it is sort of a chicken or egg type of thing. The New Testament has elements of "Marxist/Communist thought" and Ben Franklin championed public education another Marxist/Communist goal. Heck the Constitution of the USSR was a plagiarized version the US Constitution. Even Mien Kampf had elements of Marxist/Communist thought. Marxism is just a subset of Communist ideology which is in turn a collection of concepts and philosophies practiced in one form or the other down through history.

geni

12th July 2008, 06:36 PM

So Marxism is a pure entity whose concepts do not work unless the whole is accepted? There are no states today who have one or more policy's that seem marxist or inspired by Marxism?

Cuba, Vietnam, Laos would all claim to be.

You can't really have elements of marxism because the core of marxism is fundimentaly hostile to capitalism as we know it. About the closest you could get would be a system of competeing workers' cooperatives.

Apart from anything else anything you might consider an element of marxism predates it.

Nationalised industries have existed for as long as kings found it useful to have a source of income other than taxation. Even sort of democratic athens had it's state owned silver mines.

Workers' cooperatives predate Marx attending university.

State managed economies surface in emergenices.

As for various forms of welfare it's no coincidence that in england the state didn't really try and do anything about poor untill after the disolution of the monasteries.

Random

12th July 2008, 06:51 PM

So Marxism is a pure entity whose concepts do not work unless the whole is accepted? There are no states today who have one or more policy's that seem marxist or inspired by Marxism?

Yeah. It's kind of like Libertarianism that way. :rolleyes:

Tony

12th July 2008, 06:55 PM

Anyone who thinks Obama is a Marxist is clearly ignorant of both. Others who should know better (like Rove, Kristol, Napalitano) are lying.

Tony

12th July 2008, 06:58 PM

The problem is, Obama seems to be your average western collectivist. So he's closer to Marx than to Friedman.

WTF is an "average western collectivist"?

Tsukasa Buddha

12th July 2008, 09:03 PM

WTF is an "average western collectivist"?

Liberal.

I, however, don't agree with the view that Liberalism (In the American sense) is just part of the continuum to Marxism. Marxism is the complete destruction of capitalism, Liberalism is just regulating capitalism to make the busts of the business cycle worse and make society "fairer". Liberals still believe in capitalism, they just think that it should be monitored. As opposed to conservatives who think that regulation leads to inefficiencies, etc.

And, of course, there are drastically differing types of Marxism as well. So I view Marxism as a separate continuum from Liberals and Conservatives.

And then you can toss in other Radicals and you end up with lots of different things.

Basically, I disagree with most continuum concepts of ideology, though I like taking the tests :p .

corplinx

12th July 2008, 09:11 PM

WTF is an "average western collectivist"?

You realize that post you replied to is older than the condom in McCain's wallet? This is a resurrected thread.

Kaleokualoha

13th July 2008, 02:29 AM

Frank Marshal Davis being a member of the Communist Party and a mentor to Barack Obama is not disinformation. Not one representative from the media has asked Obama about this. They do not want to derail his campaign. They would have never asked any questions about Rev. Wright if his antics were not posted on YouTube. If Obama gets elected, he can thank the media for not asking the important questions.

Master Poster MaGZ: What evidence can you provide, other than accusations, that Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA or Obama's mentor? Neither Davis not the CPUSA acknowledge that he was a member. Obama does not call him his mentor in "Dreams From My Father." That relationship was fabricated by conservative bloggers such as Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy In Media.

Please advise. Thanks!

pgwenthold

13th July 2008, 07:46 PM

And good for the media to not fall for this bait. Perhaps they DID learn something from the Swiftboat nonsense in the last election?

There is no reason to "ask Obama about it" because there is nothing to ask about. It's made up BS with nothing behind it.

MaGZ

15th July 2008, 12:39 PM

Master Poster MaGZ: What evidence can you provide, other than accusations, that Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA or Obama's mentor? Neither Davis not the CPUSA acknowledge that he was a member. Obama does not call him his mentor in "Dreams From My Father." That relationship was fabricated by conservative bloggers such as Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy In Media.

Please advise. Thanks!

You can read the article and follow the links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis

Brainster

15th July 2008, 02:58 PM

Brainster, were you ever a card carrying member of SDS?

No, I was way too young. Didn't even start college until 1973, well after the heyday of Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

BeAChooser

15th July 2008, 03:58 PM

He was more than likely a "coffee house" Marxist in college. But that is probably the extent of it. His mother was very far left but she appears to have had little influence on him. The Black Liberation Theology taught in his church is very wedded to Marxist philosophy but I am coming to the conclusion that Obama is probably more an opportunist than ideologue.

Regarding Obama and Marxism ...

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294880428846293

Obama's Marxist Axis Of Friends

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, May 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama wishes questions about his associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and other radicals would end. But maybe the reason they won't is that there's a pattern: Marxism. It's not hiding.

... snip ...

Some pundits dismiss Obama's ties with radicals as an opportunistic association with Chicago political machines to advance his career. But the depth and breadth of the contacts seem deeper.

Obama himself has promised to meet with the hemisphere's Marxist dictators who have systematically dismantled or are in the process of dismantling democracy all across our hemisphere.

This stinks, frankly. Why does someone who says he represents "change" have so many Jurassic Marxists in his camp calling the shots?

gdnp

15th July 2008, 04:12 PM

You can read the article and follow the links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis

You mean this quote?

Purported link between Davis and Barack Obama
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(June 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

In his autobiographical Dreams from My Father, U.S. Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's. "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley both grew up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then. As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[13]

Gerald Horne, a professor, writer, Communist Party historian and contributing editor of Political Affairs, stated that "Frank" was Davis, and further claimed he was a "decisive influence" on Obama.[14] Claims of "decisive influence", 'mentor" and "father figure" are not supported by any facts or in Obama's memoir.

This is certainly not a settled question. Especially the most relevant question--how Marxist is Obama's current ideology? Hard to imagine that he feels fully committed to the ideology of someone he describes as living in a "60's time warp".

MaGZ

15th July 2008, 05:39 PM

No, I was way too young. Didn't even start college until 1973, well after the heyday of Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

I’m a year older that you. Back then radicalism was staring to die down, but I remember those times well, even got hear William Kunstler speak on campus.

Moratorium, Kent State, cities burning, ah, those were the days. Maybe Obama can bring the good times back.

MaGZ

15th July 2008, 05:45 PM

You mean this quote?

Purported link between Davis and Barack Obama

This is certainly not a settled question. Especially the most relevant question--how Marxist is Obama's current ideology? Hard to imagine that he feels fully committed to the ideology of someone he describes as living in a "60's time warp".

Obama got his Marxism from his mother’s milk.

gdnp

15th July 2008, 07:24 PM

Obama got his Marxism from his mother’s milk.

She must have drunk fluoridated water.

MaGZ

15th July 2008, 07:56 PM

She must have drunk fluoridated water.

Your right, that was back in the early sixties when the commies were trying to contaminate our precious bodily fluids.

Kaleokualoha

15th July 2008, 09:34 PM

SezMe

15th July 2008, 10:37 PM

Regarding Obama and Marxism ...

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294880428846293
BAC failed to note that the emphasis in his quote from the IBD was his own addition. It was not included in the original.

Far worse, the whole article is a giant house of guilt-by-association cards. There is no there, there.

Worst of all, the article ends by stating that various characters cited are now "calling the shots" for Obama. What a steaming pile. Ya did some damage to your credibility and cause by citing that mess, BAC.

MaGZ

16th July 2008, 06:39 AM

MaGZ: The wikipedia article seems to refute, rather than support, your contention that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor. Do you have any other evidence to support your contention? (Other than Kincaid's redbaiting smears, that is.)

Thanks again!

Are you suggesting Obama and Davis did not know each other? Apparently, Obama’s grandfather was close to Davis. To my knowledge the source of the relationship between Obama and Davis is Obama’s book Dreams of My Father. I don’t have a copy, perhaps someone on this fourm does and can provide more details.

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 06:55 AM

You can read the article and follow the links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis
from the link:
Gerald Horne, a professor, writer, Communist Party historian and contributing editor of Political Affairs, stated that "Frank" was Davis, and further claimed he was a "decisive influence" on Obama. Claims of "decisive influence", 'mentor" and "father figure" are not supported by any facts or in Obama's memoir.
Selective reading much?

MaGZ

16th July 2008, 07:04 AM

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 07:14 AM

A comparison:

Say we have a Republican Senator from Mississippi who now running for President of the United States. Back in the 60's his father would take him and the family to a small church run by KKK minister. What would be the press’ reaction to revelation? Compare this example to how the press is treating Obama’ s relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.

Instead of a hypothetical, let's make a real comparison.

Pope Benedict, being a child in Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's, was a member of the Hitler Youth. The press did note it and, except for a few crazies and conspiracy nuts, it was largely and rightly deemed irrelevant to the man Joseph Ratzinger grew up to be.

Our environment may influence us as we grow up, but it does not dictate us.

gdnp

16th July 2008, 08:45 AM

A comparison:

Say we have a Republican Senator from Mississippi who now running for President of the United States. Back in the 60's his father would take him and the family to a small church run by KKK minister. What would be the press’ reaction to revelation? Compare this example to how the press is treating Obama’ s relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.

We are still awaiting confirmation that "frank" is Davis, and if he was that he really had a significant influence on Obama.

As to the question of the church with a KKK minister, I would think that as long as the Republican senator showed no KKK sympathies, it would be a non-issue. You wouldn't discount a conservative scholar just because he graduated from a "liberal" Ivy League college or took courses taught by marxist professors, would you? You'd evaluate him based on his own writings and opinions.

Kaleokualoha

16th July 2008, 08:54 AM

A comparison:

Say we have a Republican Senator from Mississippi who now running for President of the United States. Back in the 60's his father would take him and the family to a small church run by KKK minister. What would be the press’ reaction to revelation? Compare this example to how the press is treating Obama’ s relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.

Taking him to a church run by a KKK minister suggests weekly contact, far beyond the degree of contact suggested in Obama's book. The redbaiting disinformation campaign against Obama seeks to exaggerate their degree of contact, and therefore exaggerate Davis's influence over Obama.

Davis was not "Obama's Communist Mentor." The "mentor" relationship is a deliberate misrepresentation by the disinformation campaign created to exaggerate Obama's radical background. It has successfully permeated the blogosphere. It is sustained by unwitting accomplices, much like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Kaleokualoha

16th July 2008, 09:01 AM

We are still awaiting confirmation that "frank" is Davis, and if he was that he really had a significant influence on Obama.
.

There is no doubt that "Frank" is Frank Marshall Davis. My sister, Beth, confirmed it. She is the daughter of Frank Marshall Davis. I am Mark Kaleokualoha Davis, son of Frank Marshall Davis. You may read my analysis of the disinformation campaign on the my.barackobama.com blog under Kaleokualoha. (Sorry, but I cannot post the link here.)

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 09:21 AM

(Sorry, but I cannot post the link here.)
I can: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha

I assume you specifically mean this entry (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5nhJ)?

Kaleokualoha

16th July 2008, 09:32 AM

Thanks, Upchurch. I recommend all three posts on that blog.

Gurdur

16th July 2008, 09:46 AM

There is no doubt that "Frank" is Frank Marshall Davis. My sister, Beth, confirmed it. She is the daughter of Frank Marshall Davis. I am Mark Kaleokualoha Davis, son of Frank Marshall Davis. You may read my analysis of the disinformation campaign on the my.barackobama.com blog under Kaleokualoha. (Sorry, but I cannot post the link here.)

Many thanks for coming here and giving us your primary source POV, Kaleokualoha! And thanks to Upchurch too for finding the direct links and posting them here.

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 10:29 AM

Far worse, the whole article is a giant house of guilt-by-association cards. There is no there, there.

But there sure are a lot of interesting *associations*.

This Ayers character, for instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV_h-XwchkY

:D

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 10:49 AM

Here's another Obama association:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27547

Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, who has bundled at least $50,000 in contributions for the Obama campaign, has stated she seeks to “undermine” American soldiers, because, “If you don’t have soldiers, you won’t be at war.”

:D

Gurdur

16th July 2008, 11:02 AM

BAC is really getting desperate. McCain must be fumbling badly.

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 11:03 AM

Here's another Obama association:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27547
How does that constitute an association?

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 11:11 AM

How does that constitute an association?

Did he give the money back? :D

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 11:17 AM

Did he give the money back? :D

BeAChooser, do you understand the difference between a contribution and an association?

gdnp

16th July 2008, 11:28 AM

Here's another Obama association:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27547

:D

Shocking: an activist that wants to end the Iraq war supports a candidate who wants to end the Iraq war.

Perhaps you could give some more detail about how these people are actually associated with Obama.

The Ayers video claims they served together on some boards--presumably with many other people--and Ayers held a fundraiser/meet the candidate dinner at his house when Obama was starting out. Hard to make the allegation of "mentor" on such tenuous connections. I myself have served on more than a few boards, and often they are put together with people with different backgrounds, constituencies, and agendas. I would hate to be held responsible for the beliefs or actions of everyone who I had ever served on a board with.

Anything more substantial?

davefoc

16th July 2008, 11:39 AM

What in tarnation happened to Lieberman? He seemed teh regular Democrat before Iraq. But after Iraq, he does not seem content in just having a difference of opinion in regards to Iraq with the Dems, which I had no problem with. He now seems hell-bent on attacking Dems over everything else under the sun too! I am starting to dislike the man.

Lieberman is a Jew first and a Democrat second. America fighting wars in the Middle East is good for Israel.

Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran.

I think there is some truth to MaGZ's response. It seems to me to be reasonable if you are a religious believer that your first loyalty would be to your religion. In fact, almost every successful politician in the United States would be forced to declare that his first loyalty is to God and then he would need to explain how he would follow the law of the land and not put his religion above it.

I am sure that MaGZ is wrong in that being a Jew does not mean that you are part of some sort of monolithic Jewish Israeli hawk coalition. That is simply belied by the fact that most Jews are Democratic voters and although both US parties vote relentlessly to support Israel, the party for you if you are an Israeli hawk is the Republican Party and yet most Jews aren't Republicans.

But I think he is right about what is the primary driver for Lieberman. Lieberman is an Israeli hawk and he will support the people he sees as supporting the strongest military, economic and international support for Israel. Lieberman is like most other politicians in that he is willing to change positions and loyalties when he sees it in the best interest of the causes he sees as most important. In pursuit of his support for Israel Lieberman has protected the Bush administration from senate investigations, he has teamed up with the anti-semitical Hagee and now he supports McCain a man that otherwise would be at odds with many of Lieberman's previous positions.

I think there are people that participate in this forum that will vote for McCain for reasons similar to the ones that that drive Lieberman's support for McCain.

And as an aside Obama's support of Lieberman had a lot more to do with Obama doing what he saw was in his political interest than in any sort of noble effort to support the guy whose views and principals he admired the most. I don't see that Obama has any great ethical advantage over Lieberman on this one although as an Obama supporter I am far more willing to look past Obama's little foibles than Lieberman's.

MaGZ

16th July 2008, 11:41 AM

There is no doubt that "Frank" is Frank Marshall Davis. My sister, Beth, confirmed it. She is the daughter of Frank Marshall Davis. I am Mark Kaleokualoha Davis, son of Frank Marshall Davis. You may read my analysis of the disinformation campaign on the my.barackobama.com blog under Kaleokualoha. (Sorry, but I cannot post the link here.)

So your dad wasn’t a Stalinist but a Leninist, now I think I understand.
Feel free to provide us with any other details on the Obama /Davis relationship. If you think the historical record needs to be corrected then by all means correct it.

BTW welcome to the forum.

Gurdur

16th July 2008, 11:46 AM

Kaleokualoha, you should be aware of a couple of things:

MaGZ hates Jews and blacks, and sees Communist Jews under every bed.

BAC (BeAChooser) just hates Democrats, apparently regardless of skin colour, well, at least he's never shown any discrimination on that score, but he sees Communist Democrat traitors under every bed.

Do welcome to our little nest here.

Brainster

16th July 2008, 12:01 PM

Since the question has come up about what Obama says about "Frank" in Dreams from My Father, I did a little checking. My copy is an ebook, so the page numbers won't help.

Frank first appears when Obama is about 11. Barack talks about how his grandpa's black poker and bridge buddies would hardly ever talk to him:

There was one exception, a poet named Frank who lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki. He had enjoyed some modest notoriety once, was a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago-Gramps once showed me some of his work anthologized in a book of black poetry. But by the time I met Frank he must have been pushing eighty, with a big, dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conversation would turn to laments about women.

There's not much more about Frank in that section other than this:

The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn't fully understand.

Frank next pops up immediately after Obama's grandmother's famed "racist" incident with the aggressive panhandler at the bus stop, as Barack drives over to talk to him. He says that it had been about three years since he'd last seen Frank, so clearly this is a special visit in response to the story his grandmother had told him.

Frank opened his eyes. "What I'm trying to tell you is, your grandma's right to be scared. She's at least as right as Stanley is. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it."

Frank also tells some weird story that I suppose is intended to back up Barack's earlier comment about "a transaction I couldn't fully understand". Frank says that Obama's grandfather could come over to his house and drink whiskey and nod off in the chair, but that Frank wouldn't dare reciprocate:

"See, that's something I can never do in his house. Never. Doesn't matter how tired I get, I still have to watch myself. I have to be vigilant, for my own survival."

So it certainly appears that Obama valued Frank's counsel after a troubling incident involving race. It's clear from the two passages that Obama did look to Frank as something of a mentor on what it was like to be black. On the other hand, it had been three years since they'd last met, so like all teens he was paying far more attention to his peers than his elders.

Obama later discusses Frank's reaction to his going away to college. Frank basically says that he's going to college to get trained to abandon his people and become "a credit to his race". But when Obama asks whether he means that he shouldn't go to college:

Frank's shoulders slumped, and he fell back in his chair with a sigh. "No. I didn't say that. You've got to go. I'm just telling you to keep your eyes open. Stay awake."

Given that much of Dreams from My Father is filled with Obama's determination not to check his blackness at the door, it seems clear that this was advice that he took to heart, although (he admits) not initially as he was seduced by Los Angeles (where he started college).

My take? Obama clearly considered Frank to be a mentor; not about leftist politics but about race. He does state on several occasions that he found Frank to be a little stuck in the past, so like all of us he took the advice that he found applicable to his own situation and ignored that part that he found old-fashioned.

gdnp

16th July 2008, 01:11 PM

My take? Obama clearly considered Frank to be a mentor; not about leftist politics but about race. He does state on several occasions that he found Frank to be a little stuck in the past, so like all of us he took the advice that he found applicable to his own situation and ignored that part that he found old-fashioned.
I guess you and I must have a different definition of "mentor". I see a mentor as someone who guides you on a regular basis, helps with schoolwork, holds frequent discussions, advises you on what college to attend and what courses to take, etc. Not and old guy who was a friend of your fathers who you see once in 3 years. I don't see any evidence that Obama had that kind of ongoing relationship with Davis. Listening to poems and composing dirty limericks doesn't quite cut it.

Brainster

16th July 2008, 01:53 PM

I guess you and I must have a different definition of "mentor". I see a mentor as someone who guides you on a regular basis, helps with schoolwork, holds frequent discussions, advises you on what college to attend and what courses to take, etc. Not and old guy who was a friend of your fathers who you see once in 3 years. I don't see any evidence that Obama had that kind of ongoing relationship with Davis. Listening to poems and composing dirty limericks doesn't quite cut it.

Here's a little more context to the part of the book where Frank is introduced, where he spells out why he's introducing him:

Away from my mother, away from my grandparents, I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant.

My father's letters provided few clues. They would arrive sporadically, on a single blue page with gummed-down flaps that obscured any writing at the margins. He would report that everyone was fine, commend me on my progress in school, and insist that my mother, Maya, and I were all welcome to take our rightful place beside him whenever we so desired. From time to time he would include advice, usually in the form of aphorisms I didn't quite understand ("Like water finding its level, you will arrive at a career that suits you"). I would respond promptly on a wide-ruled page, and his letters would find their way into the closet, next to my mother's pictures of him.
Gramps had a number of black male friends, mostly poker and bridge partners, and before I got old enough not to care about hurting his feelings, I would let him drag me along to some of their games. They were old, neatly dressed men with hoarse voices and clothes that smelled of cigars, the kind of men for whom everything has its place and who figure they've seen enough not to have to waste a lot of time talking about it. Whenever they saw me they would give me a jovial slap on the back and ask how my mother was doing; but once it was time to play, they wouldn't say another word except to complain to their partner about a bid.

There was one exception, a poet named Frank (see quoted section in earlier post)....

It is very clear that in context, Obama looks at Frank as somebody who taught him how to be a black man in America.

gdnp

16th July 2008, 02:14 PM

It is very clear that in context, Obama looks at Frank as somebody who taught him how to be a black man in America.

This is a "mentorship" relationship?
He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conversation would turn to laments about women.
Where is the evidence of an ongoing relationship: All we get is a brief quote about the grandmother "racist" incident and a discussion about college that clearly suggests that Frank had not been intimately involved in Obama's decision.

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 02:46 PM

BeAChooser, do you understand the difference between a contribution and an association?

Would it be ok with you if Obama accepted money from al-Qaeda?

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 02:54 PM

Kaleokualoha, you should be aware of a couple of things:

BAC (BeAChooser) just hates Democrats

Not true. I don't "hate" them. In fact, as I've pointed out previously on this forum, quite a few of my friends are Democrats. But there is no denying that the leadership of the Democrat party is extremely corrupt and duplicitous. There is no denying that most of those who vote Democrat are woefully uninformed as to the extent of this corruption and duplicity. That's thanks to a media whose members mostly vote Democrat. I also think that Obama and Democrats are extremely naive where foreign policy and threats to the United States are concern. This naivety has been proven by history over and over. So Hate has nothing to do with it, Gurder. Hate is an irrational emotion. My dislike of the current Democrat party and its leaders is entirely rational. Based on facts. That none of you really seem able to dispute. :D

gdnp

16th July 2008, 03:01 PM

Not true. I don't "hate" them. In fact, as I've pointed out previously on this forum, quite a few of my friends are Democrats. But there is no denying that the leadership of the Democrat party is extremely corrupt and duplicitous.

I deny it
There is no denying that most of those who vote Democrat are woefully uninformed as to the extent of this corruption and duplicity.
They are uniformed because it is a figment of your imagination. That's thanks to a media whose members mostly vote Democrat.
Could be true. Maybe the members of the media are more intelligent than average. Well, except for the ones that work for Fox.
I also think that Obama and Democrats are extremely naive where foreign policy and threats to the United States are concern.
I can't deny that you believe it, but I deny that it is true.
This naivety has been proven by history over and over.
I deny it.
So Hate has nothing to do with it, Gurder. Hate is an irrational emotion. My dislike of the current Democrat party and its leaders is entirely rational. Based on facts. That none of you really seem able to dispute.
I, and others, have disputed it repeatedly :D

SezMe

16th July 2008, 03:04 PM

Would it be ok with you if Obama accepted money from al-Qaeda?
Evasion noted. Please answer Upchurch's question.

Brainster

16th July 2008, 03:21 PM

This is a "mentorship" relationship?

Where is the evidence of an ongoing relationship: All we get is a brief quote about the grandmother "racist" incident and a discussion about college that clearly suggests that Frank had not been intimately involved in Obama's decision.

Frank comes up again and again in the book:

It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew-Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq-fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through, recognizing them as my own-my father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!

Mentor, role model, call it what you will. I don't think it's a big deal, because as I have said several times there is no indication in the book that Obama was taking his political attitudes from Frank. But it is clear that they had an ongoing relationship, however off-again on-again. It is clear that Obama sought and valued his advice. It is abundantly clear in the book (it's the major theme) that the advice Frank gave him about not abandoning his people was one of the bedrock principles of Obama's adulthood, leading to his career as a community organizer.

But then, why am I arguing this point with somebody who obviously has not read the book?

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 03:25 PM

Shocking: an activist that wants to end the Iraq war supports a candidate who wants to end the Iraq war.

Shocking, a candidate who takes money from someone who admits wanting to "undermine" American soldiers and doesn't return it. :D

The Ayers video claims they served together on some boards--presumably with many other people--and Ayers held a fundraiser/meet the candidate dinner at his house when Obama was starting out. Hard to make the allegation of "mentor" on such tenuous connections.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_terrorist_connection.html

About Obama's Terrorist Acquaintance

... snip ...

Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol.

... snip ...

Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns. It's not as though Ayers and Dohrn have denied or repudiated their crimes. After emerging from years in hiding, they escaped federal prosecution because of government misconduct in gathering evidence, but they don't pretend they were innocent. In 2001, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

... snip ...

I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

... snip ...

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation. But Obama’s relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020358.php

When Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer decided to retire in 1995, she hand-picked local left-winger Barack Obama as her successor. In order to introduce Obama to influential liberals in the district, she held a function at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This was, really, the beginning of Obama's political career, and it linked him forever with Ayers and Dohrn, with whom, as his campaign has acknowledged, he continues to have a friendly relationship.

In last week's Pennsylvania debate, Barack Obama was finally asked about his friendship with, and the political support he has accepted from, Ayers and Dohrn. Obama replied that Ayers had done reprehensible things forty years ago, when Obama was eight years old, and scoffed at the idea that Ayers's ancient history could be relevant. That was disingenuous, of course, given Ayers's 2001 regrets.

It turns out that we don't have to go back as far as 2001 to find that Obama's friends are as unrepentant as ever. Just last year, Ayers and Dohrn attended a reunion--no kidding--of what must have been the tiny remnant of SDS members who still haven't figured out that they were wrong about everything. Listen to what Bill Ayers, who hosted Barack Obama's first fundraiser, has to say about the United States. Not when Obama was eight years old, but in 2007: (BAC - go listen to it, gdnp)

...snip ...

Barack Obama has declined to repudiate or distance himself from his neighbors, supporters and friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. There is a certain consistency of perspective among Obama's friends and mentors, which can be summed up in Jeremiah Wright's memorable phrase: "God damn America."

In fact, irony of ironies, how about I just repeat the words of Hillary Clinton during one of her debates with Obama:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection?page=2

... I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died."

:D

gdnp

16th July 2008, 03:46 PM

From your own citation:

there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

Obama served on the board of the Woods fund of Chicago (http://www.woodsfund.org/Document_1115223183439). Did Obama choose the members of the board? Why are you not protesting to the head of the Woods fund for choosing Ayers to be on their board, rather than Obama? Many foundations attempt to have a broad representation of viewpoints on their boards so as to appeal to as large a segment of the population as possible. Are you suggesting that the only appropriate action for Obama would be to resign if there is another member on the board with whom he disagrees? It sure will make it difficult to continue to serve on congressional committees.

There is a difference between having a "friendly relationship" and being "friends". There are many people with whom I have a "friendly relationship" with whose politics I disagree. There are many others whose politics I do not know and do not care to know. I do not have my acquaintances vetted before the FBI before I invite them to dinner.

SezMe

16th July 2008, 03:49 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
In that quote you forgot to add your own highlights to this phrase:

but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.
Being a skeptical crowd, we usually find evidence to be persuasive. "No evidence" can also be quite influential.

ETA: Damn that fast-fingered gdnp.

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But there is no denying that the leadership of the Democrat party is extremely corrupt and duplicitous.

I deny it

You would. :rolleyes:

Quote:
There is no denying that most of those who vote Democrat are woefully uninformed as to the extent of this corruption and duplicity.

They are uniformed because it is a figment of your imagination.

Ask most Democrats about Filegate, Chinagate, the Death of Ron Brown, the actual contents of the ISG report, the status of the war in Iraq right now, the accuracy of Obama's statements on the WOT and Iraq or drilling, and you'll merely hear a regurgitation of the misinformation that has been promoted by the mainstream media.

Quote:
That's thanks to a media whose members mostly vote Democrat.

Could be true.

It isn't "could be", it clearly "is", regardless of the definition of "is". Study after study has shown that almost all mainstream media votes Democrat and is biased liberal. For example:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues.

... snip ...

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976

And that was when the mainstream media was relatively unbiased!

Now continuing from the above link:

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.

And there are more surveys cited there if you don't believe those. How about this one:

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

Or this:

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.

Bottom line is that you'd have to have been living in a cave to still think the media isn't biased ... or perhaps you were just listening to the mainstream media deny it. :D

Maybe the members of the media are more intelligent than average. Well, except for the ones that work for Fox.

Yes, you go ahead and try to rationalize this away. That says more about you than you guess.

Quote:
I also think that Obama and Democrats are extremely naive where foreign policy and threats to the United States are concern.

I can't deny that you believe it, but I deny that it is true.

How about arguing against the case I made to prove it. I noticed you never showed up on any of those threads. :)

Quote:
This naivety has been proven by history over and over.

I deny it.

Right. You probably still think we should have just learned to live with the Soviet Union. And that Saddam was just misunderstood. For that matter, so is al-Qaeda, Iran and North Korea. If we all hold hands and sing kumbayaa ... you know, work on developing our empathy ... everything be ok. Right? :D

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Would it be ok with you if Obama accepted money from al-Qaeda?

Evasion noted. Please answer Upchurch's question.

I actually did answer it. And notice YOUR evasion. :D

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 04:09 PM

Obama served on the board of the Woods fund of Chicago (http://www.woodsfund.org/Document_1115223183439). Did Obama choose the members of the board?

Does that absolve him for accepting membership in a group that INVITES an unrepetent terrorist (murderer) into it's midst? Hmmmm?

Are you suggesting that the only appropriate action for Obama would be to resign if there is another member on the board with whom he disagrees?

Yes, perhaps that is what he should have done. Just like he should have resigned from Wright's church when it became evident what it represented.

It sure will make it difficult to continue to serve on congressional committees.

Can you identify any unrepentent terrorists and murderers on congressional committees? Hmmmm?

There is a difference between having a "friendly relationship" and being "friends".

Yes, we keep hearing that excuse from Obama.

There are many people with whom I have a "friendly relationship" with whose politics I disagree.

We aren't just talking about "political" differences. We are talking about an unrepentent terrorist who committed murder. Do you have friendly relationships with folks like that?

I do not have my acquaintances vetted before the FBI before I invite them to dinner.

Oh ... so now you are going to claim that Obama didn't know who Ayer was all these years? Sort of like his denial regarding the content of Reverend Wright's numerous sermons? :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 04:30 PM

Meet Ayers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g

Why is it that Obama will not disavow Ayers and his views? Is he trying to show empathy? :D

gdnp

16th July 2008, 05:27 PM

It isn't "could be", it clearly "is", regardless of the definition of "is". Study after study has shown that almost all mainstream media votes Democrat and is biased liberal. For example: (snip)

Let us do an experiment.

Let us say that we take a poll of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on evolution.

Of those responding, 95% favor evolution and 5% favor creationism. A ratio of 20 to 1.

I look at polls of the opinions of the US population like this one (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html) and determine that only 50% of the population believes in evolution.

I therefore conclude that scientists are biased.

Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

If so, is there any possible flaw to your argument, based on polls of the preferences of reporters, that the media is "biased liberal?"

gdnp

16th July 2008, 05:47 PM

Oh ... so now you are going to claim that Obama didn't know who Ayer was all these years?
Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time.

I have no idea if Obama knew who Ayers was in a general sense, new who he was in more detail, or didn't know at all. Nor do I care.

Do you have any evidence that Obama knew him more than on a casual basis or that they collaborated together on some sort of radical anti-American proposal? Your objection seems to be that Obama should have refused to spend time in the same room as the man. A standard that I refuse to hold him to.

Sort of like his denial regarding the content of Reverend Wright's numerous sermons? :rolleyes:

"numerous sermons?". I've heard excerpts from the "God damn America" sermon. Wright became minister at Trinity in 1972, 36 years ago. During that time he may have delivered up to 1800 sermons.

Let's say that he said objectionable things in 1% of them. Would that count as "numerous?" Well, not really. That would count as "a few" or "rare". But no matter.

Please give me a list of 17 other objectionable sermons that Rev. Wright made--one every other year--and I will admit that maybe Obama should have known that Wright was making objectionable comments.

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 08:01 PM

Let us do an experiment. ... snip ...
Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

Absolutely. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The studies I cited are not polls of the American people concerning the bias of media personalities. They are direct surveys of the media personalities themselves and the way they voted. Just as the studies examining bias in the media do it by looking at (for instance) the number of articles that appear on various issues. Unsubstantiated rumors of Bush using drugs. Hundreds of articles appear. Direct evidence suggesting Ron Brown may have been murdered. A handful at best. Get the picture?

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 08:16 PM

Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time

Not misinformation. Just an interpretation of information you don't like.

I have no idea if Obama knew who Ayers was in a general sense, new who he was in more detail, or didn't know at all. Nor do I care.

You don't care if Obama knew that Ayers was an admitted and unrepentant terrorist and murderer, and was still willing to be seen with him at various functions and even accept money from him for his campaign? :rolleyes:

Do you have any evidence that Obama knew him more than on a casual basis

He was invited to his home where Obama began his political rise. We know that much. Beyond that, neither Ayers or Obama will say anything. That in itself is also suspicous.

Your objection seems to be that Obama should have refused to spend time in the same room as the man.

If he knew he was an unrepentant terrorist and murder? Yes.

A standard that I refuse to hold him to.

Well, that says volumes.

Quote:
Sort of like his denial regarding the content of Reverend Wright's numerous sermons?

"numerous sermons?".

Yes, numerous sermons. Surely Obama didn't miss them all. :D

I've heard excerpts from the "God damn America" sermon.

Well you should read the whole thing to get the full impact.

Please give me a list of 17 other objectionable sermons that Rev. Wright made--one every other year--and I will admit that maybe Obama should have known that Wright was making objectionable comments.

And while you are reading that sermon, keep in mind that this is a man that Obama described as his mentor, trusted friend, counselor and teacher. Keep in mind that Obama said he would never repudiate Wright ... and then did just that. :D

SezMe

16th July 2008, 08:48 PM

It isn't "could be", it clearly "is", regardless of the definition of "is". Study after study has shown that almost all mainstream media votes Democrat and is biased liberal. For example:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
So, BAC wants to point us to evidence of liberal media bias. Does he cite a university research project? A well respected, recognized neutral source? A study containing methodology, numbers and analysis?

No. He sends us to Media Research....whose main page headline is, "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".

Riiiight. I'm certainly going to accept that source as being an unvarnished carrier of the unvarnished truth.

ETA:

Now I've looked at the text of the three quotes that BAC cites as being a part of "study after study" Here is what I find:

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks...
Asking your friends is a study? Really? Where the hell is that laughing dog?

Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire...
Hmmmm. Only those who returned the questionaire... Yep, any upper division high school student who has taken rudimentary statistics would be looking for the laughing dog.

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.
OMG. That is surely the most unbiased sampling process I can think of.

BAC, tell me, do you have "Confirmation Bias" tatooed on your forehead as an effort at full disclosure?

gdnp

16th July 2008, 09:08 PM

Absolutely. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The studies I cited are not polls of the American people concerning the bias of media personalities. They are direct surveys of the media personalities themselves and the way they voted.
So the scientists that are best trained to evaluate the evidence believe overwhelmingly that evolution is true, but this is not bias. In this case you will ignore the opinion of the American people.

Who is better able to evaluate the pros and cons of the political parties than the reporters who follow the politicians personally on a daily basis? These people know the policies, personalities, etc. better than anyone. But when they overwhelmingly support the democrats, and you call this bias. You will not accept the possibility that they support the Democrats because they have objectively examined the evidence and this is the logical choice.

Just as the studies examining bias in the media do it by looking at (for instance) the number of articles that appear on various issues. Unsubstantiated rumors of Bush using drugs. Hundreds of articles appear. Direct evidence suggesting Ron Brown may have been murdered. A handful at best.
No, you are mistaken. Evidence that Bush used drugs led to only a handful of articles despite Bush's refusal to deny them, whereas nutcase conspiracy theories that Ron Brown was murdered led to dozens of stories despite their absurdity.
Get the picture?
yep. Do you?

SezMe

16th July 2008, 09:08 PM

BeAChooser, do you understand the difference between a contribution and an association?

Would it be ok with you if Obama accepted money from al-Qaeda?

Evasion noted. Please answer Upchurch's question.

I actually did answer it.
You did? You must have used invisible pixel ink. Could you restate your answer.

I have this abject fear that BAC is just a made up person who is trolling for suckers and I'm buying it hook, line and sinker. Surely no real person has such a limited scope of view. Man, I'm gonna feel really stupid if that turns out the be the case.

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 09:10 PM

So, BAC wants to point us to evidence of liberal media bias. Does he cite a university research project? A well respected, recognized neutral source? A study containing methodology, numbers and analysis?

No.

You only prove you didn't actually read what I posted or go to the Media Research link and read that. My post cited specific studies from respected sources that contained methodology, numbers and analysis. The Media Research site cited even more and provided links to those specific studies ... studies done by professors at such respected institutions of learning as George Washington University, Smith College and the University of Connecticut, and by respected media outlets such as US News & World Report, the Los Angeles Times (one could hardly argue they are conservatively biased), the Chicago Tribune, and even the New York Times (also, clearly not a conservative source). I know this is difficult for you to accept, since you've had the blinders on so long, but most of the mainstream media is definitely biased toward democrats and democrat agendas. And Media Research isn't the only one who has notice that.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan
12/14/2005

... snip ...

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co?author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."

... snip ...

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

SezMe

16th July 2008, 09:12 PM

They are direct surveys of the media personalities themselves and the way they voted.
No, they are not "surveys". As shown in my previous post, they are little more than anecdotal, junk pieces of information that yield exactly zero information regarding media bias.

Gurdur

16th July 2008, 09:18 PM

Not true. I don't "hate" them. .... So Hate has nothing to do with it, Gurder. Hate is an irrational emotion. My dislike of the current Democrat party and its leaders is entirely rational.

Sure, sure, you're so funny, BAC. You claim to have a "rational dislike"? Would that be why you in your posts so often refer to Democrats as DemocRATs?

How very childish of you. No, your dislike is not rational in the slightest, nor are your claims not to hate believable in the slightest, when looking at your posting history.

BTW, best to lay off praising yourself so much. It's kinda pathetic, and makes you look even less worthy of being taken seriously.

SezMe

16th July 2008, 09:19 PM

You only prove you didn't actually read what I posted or go to the Media Research link and read that. My post cited specific studies from respected sources that contained methodology, numbers and analysis.
By one of my previous posts I not only gave evidence that I read what you posted, I quoted some parts to show that it was a load of crap.

But you are partly right. I did not wade through all the other stuff at Media Research because I do not trust it as a source of information on media bias. Why? Because they, themselves advertise the fact that they are not a reliable source. I provided evidence for that assertion upthread.

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 09:48 PM

Who is better able to evaluate the pros and cons of the political parties than the reporters who follow the politicians personally on a daily basis?

Ah, so this explains why they choose to publish hundreds of articles on ANY embarrassing Republican rumor but hardly mention *little* things like allegations by forensic pathologists (democrat ones at that) about mass murder peripheral to Chinagate or about credible (according to the FBI) rape allegations against a democrat President? Because they are smarter and more informed than the rest of us? If you could only listen to yourself. ROTFLOL!

These people know the policies, personalities, etc. better than anyone. But when they overwhelmingly support the democrats, and you call this bias.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the professors at the universities they come out of are overwhelmingly liberals and Democrats too. Call their university experience a filter that ensures they will be "left" minded. Ever think of that?

You will not accept the possibility that they support the Democrats because they have objectively examined the evidence and this is the logical choice.

Obviously, you don't ever listen to yourself.

No, you are mistaken. Evidence that Bush used drugs led to only a handful of articles despite Bush's refusal to deny them, whereas nutcase conspiracy theories that Ron Brown was murdered led to dozens of stories despite their absurdity.

I'm mistaken? :) I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention to the recent discussions on this forum. First, some examples of media coverage of the Bush drug use allegation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_35_15/ai_55927035

Reporters Dog Bush About Drugs but Let Clinton Slide on Broaddrick, Insight on the News, Sept 20, 1999 by Brent Baker

No one has claimed to have witnessed Texas Gov. George W. Bush using cocaine or any other illegal drug, but that didn't stop reporters during the last weeks from repeatedly pressing him for a definitive answer about his alleged history of drug abuse. That media interest in a rumor about possible criminal acts committed decades ago stands in stark contrast to the media's widespread refusal to pursue the charge by Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978.

The drug questions were fueled in late July by a weeklong profile of Bush in the Washington Post. Reporters Lois Romano and George Lardner insisted, "We need to ask the cocaine question. We think you believe that a politician should not let stories fester. So why won't you just deny that you've used cocaine?" ABC TV invited Romano to be a guest on the July 27 edition of Good Morning America to dismiss Bush's answer: "He's basically declared that his life began at 40 and that we're supposed to not ask about that other fellow before 40, and I don't know if he can hold to that position."

... snip ...

In contrast to an eyewitness accusing Clinton of committing a felony, there is no one accusing Bush of drug use; nonetheless, reporters keep demanding that he answer drug questions and then treat the very occurrence of the queries as justification for news stories. On Aug. 19, ABC anchor Charlie Gibson asserted "the question is dogging his otherwise smooth campaign." NBC anchor Brian Williams called it "the question that will not go away." (Bush's evolving answer during that week, in which he expanded his drug-free years from seven to 25, gave the networks a convenient story hook, but Clinton's evasive press-conference answer about Broaddrick -- "There's been a statement made by my attorney. He speaks for me, and I think he spoke quite clearly" -- did not motivate them to pursue her charge.)

Viewers of the Aug. 19 NBC Nightly News were treated to three minutes on the subject and ABC's World News Tonight gave it three-and-a-half minutes -- which is exactly three minutes and three-and-a-half minutes more time than the two shows devoted in February or early March to Broaddrick's charge. The CBS Evening News aired a piece for the second consecutive night on Thursday on the drug issue, thus giving twice as much attention to Bush and drugs as to Broaddrick. Thursday morning Good Morning America brought aboard former Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos to analyze the controversy and NBC's Today ran a pretaped interview with Bush during which the interviewer raised the drug question. Today returned Friday with a discussion about media coverage.

That picture doesn't quite fit your description.

As to there being dozens of stories on the Brown allegation, note that NONE of them came from the mainstream media. And only the Chicago Tribune published them. An example of media bias.

Quote:
Get the picture?

yep. Do you?

Yes I do.

You.

http://www.mgilbert.net/ostrich.jpg

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 09:51 PM

You did? You must have used invisible pixel ink. Could you restate your answer.

You mean you didn't understand what I said? Do I need to say it louder, more slowly and with words of no more than 5 letters ... like they do at Democrat Conventions? :)

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 09:53 PM

No, they are not "surveys". As shown in my previous post, they are little more than anecdotal, junk pieces of information that yield exactly zero information regarding media bias.

If you sez so. :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 10:01 PM

Would that be why you in your posts so often refer to Democrats as DemocRATs?

Hey, I'm just poking a little fun at them for getting so upset because they thought they saw a subliminal in a Republican ad. But then democRATS do tend to be humorless so I wouldn't expect you to detect the humor. :D

BeAChooser

16th July 2008, 10:27 PM

I did not wade through all the other stuff at Media Research because I do not trust it as a source of information on media bias.

http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical%20Review%20offprint.pdf

A SOCIAL-SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON MEDIA BIAS

ABSTRACT: The questions of whether the news media are biased, and if so, in
what direction, typically generate more heat than light. Here, we review some
of the most recent and meritorious empirical studies on media bias.This evi-
dence suggests that several prominent national news outlets have a distinct
slant to the left or right, and that exposure to these sources influences both
public opinion and voting behavior

... snip ...

Our findings, when considered along with other recent and relatively
high-quality studies of media content and media exposure, constitute
fairly convincing evidence that those who scoff at the notion of liberal
media bias are wrong. In judging the work-product of the mainstream
media, the answer is relatively clear: there is bias, and it is roughly as far
(or farther) to the left than Fox News “Special Report” is biased to the
right.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY4YWMxYjVmYzNhMjdjYmJjMWQ3NGIwN2ZhMWFiOGI=

Goldberg Variations
Notes and an announcement on media bias.

...snip ...

In fact, there are only two identifiable groups who do not think — rather, know — that the mainstream press leans liberal: working members of the mainstream press, and hardcore, Lenin-goateed, Mother Jones-reading left-wingers.

:D

Damien Evans

16th July 2008, 10:40 PM

Instead of a hypothetical, let's make a real comparison.

Pope Benedict, being a child in Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's, was a member of the Hitler Youth. The press did note it and, except for a few crazies and conspiracy nuts, it was largely and rightly deemed irrelevant to the man Joseph Ratzinger grew up to be.

Our environment may influence us as we grow up, but it does not dictate us.

Well put.

Random

17th July 2008, 05:12 AM

Ah, so this explains why they choose to publish hundreds of articles on ANY embarrassing Republican rumor but hardly mention *little* things like allegations by forensic pathologists (democrat ones at that) about mass murder peripheral to Chinagate or about credible (according to the FBI) rape allegations against a democrat President? Because they are smarter and more informed than the rest of us? If you could only listen to yourself. ROTFLOL!http://www.mgilbert.net/ostrich.jpg

The myth of liberal media bias holds up like a snowflake in a blast furnace when you look at the 2000 election coverage in the US. The media spent a year pounding away at Gore for anything they could think of and a bunch of stuff that was just made up.

“Invented the internet”, “earth tones”, the union label joke, the Love Canal quote, Love Story, etc. All of it garbage, and all of it was pushed relentlessly for over a year in order to make Gore look like a phony.

Meanwhile, Bush had the Harken energy story, the abortion story, the dodgy National Guard service, questionable land deals, etc. The result, nary a peep from the media. The closest thing we had to even remotely similar coverage was the cocaine allegations, and that got dropped when it became obvious that Bush wasn’t gonna fess up.

As for the Ron Brown allegations you seem to be pushing, give up. Seriously, give up. I have yet to hear even a coherent theory on that one besides ordinary plane crash, just a bunch of “suspicious” this and “mysterious” that. It’s been gone over here numerous times (although I’m not sure if the last round made it through the server upgrade) and the general quality of the CT theorists was about that of the 9/11 truthers.

chipmunk stew

17th July 2008, 10:33 AM

BeAChooser

17th July 2008, 10:47 AM

The myth of liberal media bias holds up like a snowflake in a blast furnace when you look at the 2000 election coverage in the US. The media spent a year pounding away at Gore for anything they could think of and a bunch of stuff that was just made up.

Oh you mean the bias that kept the media in 2000 from mentioning Gore's famous line about there being "No Controlling Authority" or the circumstances under which it was uttered? :D

Yes indeed, let's look at media coverage of that election.

ABC does a special on religion amongst the candidates and never mentions that the quote of Gore's they use to show his deep religiosity came in response to a question about an alleged rape by Bill Clinton (his ex-boss) of a woman named Broaddrick. Never mentioned that the rest of Gore's unplayed response had him effectively saying that it was ok if Clinton raped a women because he made up for it by being the "greatest President ever". You mean that media bias against Gore? :D

You mean the bias election night where the networks called states more quickly for Al Gore than for George W. Bush? Congress later held hearings on this and of course the networks claimed to have no intentional bias in their election night reporting. But a study of the calls made on election night (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/6/1/p41615_index.html ) did indeed indicate a bias in favor of Gore. Here's another study that concluded the same thing: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1325254419467q3/ .

Or do you mean this media bias?

http://newsbusters.org/node/7884

The incoming top editor of "Newsweek" magazine, Jon Meacham, cast aspersions on the legitimacy of President Bush ... snip ... . Meacham conjured up memories of the 2000 election, asserting that "Al Gore was elected by the American people, but not allowed to serve."

... snip ...

Meacham then proceeded to declare Al Gore the winner of the 2000 election:

"...you know there’s Al Gore, who by all accounts, you know he certainly won the popular vote and his whole life had been directed toward that. So he was elected by the American people but not allowed to serve because of various things."

:D

Or how about this analysis:

http://www.caglepost.com/column/Linda+Chavez/3028/Media+Bias+Cuts+Gore+a+lot+of+Slack.html

So, what images of Al Gore and George W. Bush do the media project? Gore is given high marks for being well-informed, detail-oriented, and a populist. On the negative side, he's generally regarded as stiff, aloof (especially from the press corps itself, since he denies reporters free access even during campaign events), and as someone who stretches the truth a bit. Bush, on the other hand, is better liked by reporters (probably because he lets them ask him questions on the campaign trail), and is generally regarded as a genial fellow. Reporters early on gave Bush high marks for being a "different kind of Republican," by which they meant he wasn't necessarily anti-black and anti-woman. But the media has also portrayed Bush as an intellectual lightweight and his policy proposals as short on substance and generally tilted toward the rich. Hey, based only on this snapshot, I might vote for Gore, too."

By the way, gdnp will like this part from the above link ...

The reporters who cover politics are generally not experts on policy. And few reporters, including those whose expertise stretches beyond politics, have even a modest understanding of how the U.S. economy works. So, when Al Gore promises to "create 10 million new high-tech, high-skill jobs," or "cut the pay gap between what men and women earn by 50 percent over the next decade," as he did recently, the media simply report it without questioning the basic premise. But if George W. Bush promises to cut taxes, reporters are all over the story, dissecting exactly how Bush is going to 'pay for' a tax cut -- a rather odd way to think about letting Americans keep more of the money they earn. The media swallow whole Gore's Master of the Universe explanation of his economic goals. But they treat with great skepticism Bush's proposals, which rely more on private sector solutions to social and economic problems -- like helping solve the Social Security crisis by allowing young workers today to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks to pay for their future retirement.

Or perhaps what random refers to is this bias from 2000 ... from Salon, no less:

http://www.suite101.com/external_link.cfm?elink=http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2000/09/18/miracle/index.html "

How biased is the nation's press corps? In the window since Labor Day, the period when presidential campaigns start to get deadly serious, the national media has literally inserted itself into the race. In a series of shabbily conceived stories, which have thrown George W. Bush's campaign temporarily off stride, the national media has acted as little more than a spin machine for the Democratic Party. And that's not even counting the Oprah-Conan-Letterman caucus.

In the past week, the media has reported Bush's "major league *******" remark about a New York Times reporter, labeled him a debate fumbler (he's afraid to show up, the articles have implied) and tried to brand him with a political scarlet letter by depicting him as a mean-spirited, hypocritical and negative campaigner for the now-infamous "rats" ad.

... snip ...

Lost amid the critical coverage of Bush was what would become a major political scandal if Gore didn't have his finger wrapped around the media. Imagine for a moment if four government prosecutors recommended, after reviewing the facts, that Bush be investigated for lying to government officials on more than one occasion when questioned about illegal campaign contributions. Then imagine that a memo had surfaced indicating a possible $100,000 campaign contribution as a quid pro quo for an executive veto of legislation affecting the donor. (Most would call it a bribe.) It would be a major story. Yet that's exactly the story that broke last week about the Clinton-Gore administration to big media ho-hum. In a less-biased media universe, this story would have buried all the others."

:D

“Invented the internet”, “earth tones”, the union label joke, the Love Canal quote, Love Story, etc. All of it garbage, and all of it was pushed relentlessly for over a year in order to make Gore look like a phony.

Maybe because he is a phony. Remember in his 1996 speech to the Democratic convention when he described his sister's death from lung cancer, and his vow to "pour his heart and soul" into taking on the tobacco industry. Then just four years after supposedly making that vow, when campaigning in tobacco industry states, Gore told the tobacco industry "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." and had no problems their campaign contributions.

Now it's true that Gore didn't mean he personally "invented the Internet" when he said he told Wolf Blitzer "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", and the GOP was very effective in ridiculing Gore over that. We're sorry. :D

But the story he told a crowd of union workers about his mother singing him to sleep at night using "Look for the Union Label" was a fraud. The song wasn't written until he was 27 years old. The next day, Gore aide Douglas Hattaway was asked about this. USA Today reported he said that "Gore had misstated the title of an older song, 'Don't Forget the Union Label.'" That was written in 1901. Now of course, Gore apologists (who are the same people for the most part as Hillary apologists) insist that Gore's comment was a joke. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Hillary's claim that the bullets were flying by her when she landed in Croatia was a joke too. :D

And maybe what we should be concerned about are the illegal campaign contributions to the DNC and it's candidates by major union organizations. In the 1996 campaign they tossed money hand and foot into the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, and Ron Carey's re-election campaign. William Hamilton, the Teamster's political director, was prosecuted and convicted for this. At Hamilton's trial, there was testimony that Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer, "figured in a second scheme to make $50,000 in illegal donations to Mr. Carey." Trumka pleaded the Fifth and the Democrats gave him a speaking role at their LA convention. Brian Ross, an ABC reporter, asked Trumka about his role in the Teamster money-laundering scandal and asked him the status of the investigation. "Oh, come on, man," Trumka said. "There isn't any, as far as I'm concerned." Ross reported that his sources said the investigation was still ongoing. "But to the surprise of federal investigators," he added, "he [Trumka] has continued to play an active role in steering union money and support to the Gore campaign." All this is documented here: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-how-the-media-help-gore/ .

As for the Love Story saga, that legend was started by Maureen Dowd ... who I needn't remind you is a big time democrat supporter. And you know the news media ... they love to gossip about ANYTHING connected to Hollywood. Surely you don't think she was in league with Bush at the time? :D

:D

Meanwhile, Bush had the Harken energy story, the abortion story, the dodgy National Guard service, questionable land deals, etc. The result, nary a peep from the media.

:jaw-dropp Where in the world were you?

Harken energy story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm

http://www.nypress.com/15/29/news&columns/beans.cfm

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071202.asp

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/bush.stock.sale/index.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue0712.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2087558/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6D61230F932A25754C0A9649C8B 63

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/politics/main516808.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/04/MN133497.DTL&type=printable

And that list was compiled from just the first five pages of over 23,000 pages of hits using google. Where do you get the silly notion that wasn't covered by the mainstream media?

The abortion story was started by none other than Larry Flynt. You know who he is, right? Now how much credibility do YOU give Flynt? Maybe his lack of credibility is why most of the mainstream media chose to ignore this slime. I say most because some sources ... like Amy Goodman's democracy now had no problem giving Flynt air time.

Here's an excerpt from an LAWeekly.com article in 2004 on this allegation:

The Texas Abortion Tango
The unproven scandal that could have sunk George W. Bush
by Howard Blume

... snip ...

Flynt got tantalizingly close to documenting such an episode, but never confirmed enough to justify a press conference. He would have loved to prove it. ... snip ... So what was Flynt to do on the eve of the 2000 presidential election? Lacking proof, Flynt instead dropped broad hints about the alleged abortion. He didn’t name names — other than Bush’s — because his lawyer told him he risked a libel suit from the woman in question. ... snip ... Flynt’s account finally gets told in the book Sex, Lies & Politics: The Naked Truth, scheduled to hit shelves late this month. Flynt avoids risk of libel by keeping the players anonymous and by avoiding flat-out claims. ... snip ... You get the sense that Flynt wanted the story out so desperately that his own remembering became a bit skewed. He did, however, ask his researchers to fact-check the details that actually appear in the book. And the allegation about the woman being paid off is not in there. ... snip ... Flynt hoped the national media would take the matter further, perhaps by launching their own probes, or even by just asking Bush a pointed question during a press conference. Flynt called Tim Russert of NBC News, which sent a reporter to Flynt’s office to look over his material. ... snip ... An NBC spokeswoman ... Barbara Levin ... (BAC - said) Flynt “contacted Mr. Russert, NBC News’ Washington Bureau Chief, and as is often the case, Russert simply passed the information on to a reporter to follow up. As you note, David Bloom did follow up and used his editorial judgment that the rumor was not solid enough to go with a story.” ... snip ... Then, on October 20, 2000, Flynt appeared on CNN’s Crossfire. The subject of the show concerned porn and the Internet, but Flynt took advantage of live TV to launch his spiel. Conservative host Robert Novak challenged Flynt as having “no proof.” “The hell we don’t have proof,” Flynt retorted. (Of course, Flynt didn’t have proof.) ... snip ... Flynt was shooting from the hip, without reviewing his own investigators’ files. The Weekly asked for documentation, but Flynt and his representative never provided it, though Flynt did discuss the matter at length in a late-April interview, after he reviewed his documentation.

The bottom line is that anyone can make unnamed and unsupported allegations. Even lowlifes like Larry Flynt. :D

Now you claim Bush's National Guard service wasn't covered by the media? Are you kidding? Mind you, most of what was written was either wrong, incomplete or a distorted hit piece but:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E3DD133BF93AA35754C0A9629C8B 63

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123463&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2095256/

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

That's from just the first 2 pages of TEN MILLION google hits! Your claim that there was "nary a peep from the media" is just plain partisan delusion on your part, Random.

The closest thing we had to even remotely similar coverage was the cocaine allegations, and that got dropped when it became obvious that Bush wasn’t gonna fess up.

ROTFLOL! Let's look at the coverage the media gave to Bush's ALLEGED cocaine use. How many articles did it get compared to the coverage given the Broaddrick rape allegation (which the FBI said was credible), cocaine use by Clinton (with multiple eyewitnesses), or the Ron Brown allegation (where named military forensic pathologists suggested possible foul play)?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dan.htm

O'Reilly then asked the CBS anchorman why his network carried seven reports on mere rumors that President Bush had once used cocaine, but when Arkansas businesswoman Juanita Broaddrick came forward to accuse Clinton of rape, it merited just two mentions on the "CBS Evening News."

And there are plenty more sources like that one as anyone who has followed my posts on the Broaddrick case knows.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/double-standard-on-bush-and-cocaine/

The media double standard has rarely been more obvious than it has been in the media reaction to George W. Bush’s handling of the question of whether or not he has ever used cocaine.

... snip ...

It is understandable that reporters are making this an issue, but it is disgraceful that they are doing so at the same time they refuse to apply the same standard to Bill Clinton. In the case of George Bush, no one has come forward to say they saw or heard that he snorted cocaine. The questions are inspired not by a rumor, but by suspicion.

In the case of Bill Clinton, there are at least three accusations that have been made public about his cocaine use, but these same reporters have shown no interest in demanding that Clinton tell us whether or not he used the drug. One accusation was made before a grand jury by Arkansan Sharlene Wilson. She testified that she saw Bill Clinton get so high on cocaine that he fell into a garbage can.

Clinton’s half-brother Roger, who spent time in jail after pleading guilty to cocaine distribution and conspiracy, is shown on a surveillance tape saying to a known cocaine dealer, “Got to get some for my brother. He’s got a nose like a Hoover,” referring to the vacuum cleaner. And Gennifer Flowers, whose claim that she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton is no longer disputed by anyone but Clinton himself, who admits to only one instance, recently said on the Fox News Channel that Clinton told her, (quote) “there were times he did so much cocaine at parties that his head would itch.”

The media have never insisted that Clinton respond to these charges, but on August 23, White House counsel’s office issued this blanket denial. “The president has never done cocaine. That applies to his entire life.” This is the same tactic that Clinton used to ward off media demands that he respond to Juanita Broaddrick’s very credible accusation that Clinton had raped her when he was attorney general of Arkansas. His lawyer issued a denial on behalf of the president, and that satisfied the media.

But in Bush’s case, Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked if Bush should be “compelled” to answer the cocaine question. Compelled to answer? By whom, pray tell. Sam Donaldson was the only reporter who dared ask about the rape charge at a Clinton press conference. ABC was the only network to report the question and the non answer. The newshounds pursuing Bush were not interested in that.

As for coverage of the Ron Brown allegation, I challenge you to link a single mainstream source other than the Chicago Tribune that reported the Ron Brown allegation details ... for example, the statements of the forensic pathologists and military photographer on the matter. Go ahead. It should be easy to do IF WHAT YOU CLAIM IS TRUE.

As for the Ron Brown allegations you seem to be pushing, give up. Seriously, give up. I have yet to hear even a coherent theory on that one besides ordinary plane crash, just a bunch of “suspicious” this and “mysterious” that.

Random, if you REALLY believe that, let's see you over at this link where I've laid out the case (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011 )and we'll discuss it. Bet you don't show up. ;)

Random

17th July 2008, 11:44 AM

:jaw-dropp Where in the world were you?

Harken energy story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm

http://www.nypress.com/15/29/news&columns/beans.cfm

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071202.asp

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/bush.stock.sale/index.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue0712.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2087558/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6D61230F932A25754C0A9649C8B 63

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/politics/main516808.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/04/MN133497.DTL&type=printable

And that list was compiled from just the first five pages of over 23,000 pages of hits using google. Where do you get the silly notion that wasn't covered by the mainstream media?
Looked at your links. Of the ten you listed, only two were from before the 2000 election, and one of those dated back to 1992, and was mostly concerned with Bush Senior. The only one even close was the first one you listed which was from July of 1999. Hardly wall to wall coverage in the days leading up to the November 2000 election.

The abortion story was started by none other than Larry Flynt. You know who he is, right? Now how much credibility do YOU give Flynt? Maybe his lack of credibility is why most of the mainstream media chose to ignore this slime. I say most because some sources ... like Amy Goodman's democracy now had no problem giving Flynt air time.

The Bush abortion rumors predate Flynt, Flynt simply came closet to getting it national attention. But I don't give the media that much hassle over dropping it. In the end, no story can really go forward without the testimony of the doctor, the girl, or Bush. The doctor won't testify since he will lose his medical license, the girl won't testify since she has made a relatively lucrative career of not telling people she had an abortion, and Bush won't tell anyone since he is George W Bush.

Now you claim Bush's National Guard service wasn't covered by the media? Are you kidding? Mind you, most of what was written was either wrong, incomplete or a distorted hit piece but:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E3DD133BF93AA35754C0A9629C8B 63

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123463&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2095256/

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

That's from just the first 2 pages of TEN MILLION google hits! Your claim that there was "nary a peep from the media" is just plain partisan delusion on your part, Random.
Again, check the dates of those stories. They are all from 2004, before discussion of W's military history got drowned out in minutia about 1960's typewriter fonts. Before the 2000 election, there was really nothing but one Boston Globe article, which was not picked up other major media outlets.

BeAChooser

17th July 2008, 12:28 PM

Looked at your links. Of the ten you listed, only two were from before the 2000 election, and one of those dated back to 1992, and was mostly concerned with Bush Senior. The only one even close was the first one you listed which was from July of 1999. Hardly wall to wall coverage in the days leading up to the November 2000 election.

Ok, so a bunch of those links were from 2004. That proves he didn't get a free pass in the last election. But it looks like I found one mainstream article leading up to the 2000 election on the matter ... and that was after examining only 5 pages of 23,000 pages of google links. Do you think I wouldn't find more? Would you like me to demonstrate I can find some more ... pre-2000 ... mainstream articles on Bush and Harken? That's easily done. All I have to do is put the key words "bush harken 1999" into google.

Guess what? I get 40,000 hits.

Here's the second hit in the list from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/ "How the Texas governor made his millions, Brooks Jackson/CNN, May 13, 1999"

Here's a 1999 in the Washington Post (no friend of Bush):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushside073099.htm "The Harken-Bahrain Deal: A Baseless Suspicion"

Here's a second Washington Post article from 1999:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22316372.html "A Baseless Suspicion; But Harken-Bahrain Deal Raised Eyebrows"

All of that on the first page of 40,000 pages of hits.

Here are some more I found in the first few pages that mention Harken and Bush:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE6DD163FF93BA35756C0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=4 "George Bush the Son Finds That Oil and Blood Do Mix" from 1999.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,991286-7,00.html "How George Got His Groove" from 1999.

So who do you think you are kidding, Random, claiming that Bush's links to Harken weren't covered in the mainstream media before 2000?

The doctor won't testify since he will lose his medical license

Or perhaps there was no doctor.

the girl won't testify since she has made a relatively lucrative career of not telling people she had an abortion

Or perhaps there was no girl.

and Bush won't tell anyone since he is George W Bush.

Or perhaps the accusation had no merit.

Again, check the dates of those stories. They are all from 2004, before discussion of W's military history got drowned out in minutia about 1960's typewriter fonts.

You mean drowned out by the LIES of Dan Rather and CBS.

Before the 2000 election, there was really nothing but one Boston Globe article, which was not picked up other major media outlets.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Again, from a google search with the search criteria "bush national guard service 1999" that yields 1,570,000 hits:

FIRST ITEM LISTED:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/04/bush.02/ "Bush says he's 'proud' of Vietnam-era National Guard service, GOP contender disputes report of favorable treatment, July 4, 1999, AMHERST, New Hampshire (AllPolitics, July 4) -- GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush defended his military service record Sunday, after a report in the Los Angeles Times said he may gotten "highly favorable treatment" to win a place as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War era."

So you are clearly wrong in claiming there was nothing but one Boston Globe article. Obviously, both the LA Times and CNN covered it. Bet I could find many others. But I don't need to at this point, do I. :D

gdnp

17th July 2008, 01:02 PM

Let's swithch the bolding:

The reporters who cover politics are generally not experts on policy. And few reporters, including those whose expertise stretches beyond politics, have even a modest understanding of how the U.S. economy works. So, when Al Gore promises to "create 10 million new high-tech, high-skill jobs," or "cut the pay gap between what men and women earn by 50 percent over the next decade," as he did recently, the media simply report it without questioning the basic premise. But if George W. Bush promises to cut taxes, reporters are all over the story, dissecting exactly how Bush is going to 'pay for' a tax cut -- a rather odd way to think about letting Americans keep more of the money they earn. The media swallow whole Gore's Master of the Universe explanation of his economic goals. But they treat with great skepticism Bush's proposals, which rely more on private sector solutions to social and economic problems -- like helping solve the Social Security crisis by allowing young workers today to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks to pay for their future retirement.

This is your idea of an objective analysis that shows the press is biased? :rolleyes:

And then you will complain I did not spend the rest of the afternoon checking the rest of your references :D