By Bonney Kapp
April 5th, 2008 3:04 PM
Fox News’ Embeds Blog
April 5th, 2008 3:04 PM
Fox News’ Embeds Blog
Yesterday evening, Senator Barack Obama dropped by a fundraiser for North Dakota Democrats. The campaign arranged with the state party to allow a print pool reporter to accompany the senator, but no cameras were allowed, which has been typical at fundraisers (usually the events are not equipped to handle cameras, which require lights, a sound system, and risers).
The New York Times reporter who went to the fundraiser sent out his “pool report” following the event, which included the following paragraph: “Radio talk show star Ed Schultz warmed up the crowd, attacking Sen. John McCain as ‘a warmonger,’ before Obama arrived in the room. Obama thanked Schultz, saying he was he ‘voice of progressive radio.’” The print pooler later said Schultz was talking as he was ushered into the event, and there is no audio recording of Schultz’s remarks.
The McCain campaign picked up on the story and quickly asked Senator Obama to condemn Schultz, but while Obama mentioned McCain at his rally in Missoula, Montana, this morning, he remained mum on Schultz. “[McCain] is basically running for a third Bush term. He wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years. He wants to perpetuate the same tax breaks for the wealthy that he himself called irresponsible when George Bush first passed them,” Obama told the crowd.
The New York Times reporter who went to the fundraiser sent out his “pool report” following the event, which included the following paragraph: “Radio talk show star Ed Schultz warmed up the crowd, attacking Sen. John McCain as ‘a warmonger,’ before Obama arrived in the room. Obama thanked Schultz, saying he was he ‘voice of progressive radio.’” The print pooler later said Schultz was talking as he was ushered into the event, and there is no audio recording of Schultz’s remarks.
The McCain campaign picked up on the story and quickly asked Senator Obama to condemn Schultz, but while Obama mentioned McCain at his rally in Missoula, Montana, this morning, he remained mum on Schultz. “[McCain] is basically running for a third Bush term. He wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years. He wants to perpetuate the same tax breaks for the wealthy that he himself called irresponsible when George Bush first passed them,” Obama told the crowd.
Both the McCain campaign and the RNC took note of Obama’s silence. RNC spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson said, “Once again today, Barack Obama ditched his ‘new brand of politics’ and resorted to launching misleading and disproven attacks against John McCain. Instead of showing leadership and renouncing the slanderous remarks made by his surrogates or his national party chairman, Obama continues to try and deceive the American people with dishonest attacks.”
After numerous inquiries from Obama’s traveling press, the Obama campaign eventually responded with a comment.
“John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such.
He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been
authorized and never been waged,” traveling press secretary Jen Psaki said in a
written statement.
“[McCain] is basically running for a third Bush term. He wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years. He wants to perpetuate the same tax breaks for the wealthy that he himself called irresponsible when George Bush first passed them,” Obama told the crowd.
The campaign also pointed out that Obama did not hear the comment and stressed that Schultz is not an Obama surrogate.
What the Blogosphere Is saying:
Listed below is what many in the blogosphere have already said about Sen. Obama’s dishonest smear …
Redstate’s California Yankee:
Obama continues to falsely state that McCain "wants" another 100 years of war in Iraq. Even though at least two non partisan entities have found that Obama is grossly misrepresenting what Senator McCain actually said.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center's nonpartisan FactCheck.org "says Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq is a "serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood."
In the Columbia Journalism Review, Zachary Roth writes the "Press needs to call Obama on distortion of McCain’s statement:"
[…]
Obama promised better than the "distortion to the point of rank falsehood" and "seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them," -- the deceptive practices of the old politics as usual. Obama's continued deviance, distortion and lies fail to match his rhetoric. It is long since time the main stream media overcome their admitted Obamania and call Obama on his prevarications.
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." This lie needs to be stopped, now.
And two updates to California Yankee’s post:
The Washington Post's FactChecker agrees -- Obama's false claims do not pass The Pinocchio Test
Today on MSNBC's "Hardball," Barack Obama continued his prevarications:
John McCain got upset today apparently because I had repeated exactly what he said, which is that we might be there [Iraq] for 100 years if he had his way.
That is not "exactly" what McCain said as you can see in the original post.
Redstate’s haystack:
This "100 year war" tug of war foolishness between Obama and McCain has gone far enough. Barack Obama is lying staight-faced to his followers, and he knows it.
Redstate’s Dan McLaughlin:
[T]he broader problem is simply that their [Democratic] candidates don't have any sort of defensible vision for how regional security and America's place in the world would be improved by a headlong retreat now.
The serious, adult solution to this is to try to lay out a vision of how America's willingness to accept defeat in Iraq would not be like the dolorous consequences of defeat in Vietnam, or other great-power defeats in history. The easy solution is just to lie about McCain's position. Guess which one they chose, especially the Obama campaign, which is committed to pretending that you can plan for the future based on everything since 2002 never happening, rather than dealing with the world as it now is?
[…]
Obama seems to understand that he has gone far out on a limb, as when pressed he started babbling instead about having troops around just to do embassy security. But when the press isn't there to question him, don't bank on him dropping the "100 years of war in Iraq" line. It's just too tempting.
Townhall’s Matt Lewis:
News flash: Humphrey Bogart never said, "play it again, Sam," Captain Kirk never uttered, "Beam me up, Scotty" -- and John McCain never promised a hundred year war!... The danger, of course, is that everybody thinks Bogie and Kirk said those now famous lines. And if we're not careful, the public may also mistakenly believe McCain said he wanted a hundred year war. As Churchill may, or may not have said:"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."Of course, this lie isn't just spreading itself. The fact that Barack Obama and Howard Dean continue to intentionally mischaracterize John McCain's statements -- and mislead the public -- obviously creates a level of difficulty that may other misquoted victims haven't had to confront (the obvious exception is Al Gore -- the man who "invented" the internet). This type of negative politics might be expected of Howard Dean, but Barack Obama claims to offer a new type of politics. Yet he's playing the same old partisan games of mischaracterization.
Townhall’s Matt Lewis, again:
Writing at the Columbia Journalism Review, Zachary Roth hits the nail on the head ...
Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s “100 years” notion.
But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.
(Emphasis mine)
HotAir’s Ed Morrissey:
Video: Obama distorts McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” comment again
Shocking. Not that he’d distort it; that’s politics. What’s shocking is the fact that the reporter presses him on it and clarifies what McCain meant (which Obama already knows, natch), backing him into the very stupid assertion that Maverick wants a Germany/Japan-type occupation of Iraq that’s somehow going to cost us $150 billion a year for decades and decades and decades. “It’s seldom that you see such a dirty lie,” said Krauthammer of this subject not long ago. Prepare yourselves to see it again and again and again.
HotAir’s Ed Morrissey:
Redstate’s California Yankee:
Obama continues to falsely state that McCain "wants" another 100 years of war in Iraq. Even though at least two non partisan entities have found that Obama is grossly misrepresenting what Senator McCain actually said.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center's nonpartisan FactCheck.org "says Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq is a "serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood."
In the Columbia Journalism Review, Zachary Roth writes the "Press needs to call Obama on distortion of McCain’s statement:"
[…]
Obama promised better than the "distortion to the point of rank falsehood" and "seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them," -- the deceptive practices of the old politics as usual. Obama's continued deviance, distortion and lies fail to match his rhetoric. It is long since time the main stream media overcome their admitted Obamania and call Obama on his prevarications.
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." This lie needs to be stopped, now.
And two updates to California Yankee’s post:
The Washington Post's FactChecker agrees -- Obama's false claims do not pass The Pinocchio Test
Today on MSNBC's "Hardball," Barack Obama continued his prevarications:
John McCain got upset today apparently because I had repeated exactly what he said, which is that we might be there [Iraq] for 100 years if he had his way.
That is not "exactly" what McCain said as you can see in the original post.
Redstate’s haystack:
This "100 year war" tug of war foolishness between Obama and McCain has gone far enough. Barack Obama is lying staight-faced to his followers, and he knows it.
Redstate’s Dan McLaughlin:
[T]he broader problem is simply that their [Democratic] candidates don't have any sort of defensible vision for how regional security and America's place in the world would be improved by a headlong retreat now.
The serious, adult solution to this is to try to lay out a vision of how America's willingness to accept defeat in Iraq would not be like the dolorous consequences of defeat in Vietnam, or other great-power defeats in history. The easy solution is just to lie about McCain's position. Guess which one they chose, especially the Obama campaign, which is committed to pretending that you can plan for the future based on everything since 2002 never happening, rather than dealing with the world as it now is?
[…]
Obama seems to understand that he has gone far out on a limb, as when pressed he started babbling instead about having troops around just to do embassy security. But when the press isn't there to question him, don't bank on him dropping the "100 years of war in Iraq" line. It's just too tempting.
Townhall’s Matt Lewis:
News flash: Humphrey Bogart never said, "play it again, Sam," Captain Kirk never uttered, "Beam me up, Scotty" -- and John McCain never promised a hundred year war!... The danger, of course, is that everybody thinks Bogie and Kirk said those now famous lines. And if we're not careful, the public may also mistakenly believe McCain said he wanted a hundred year war. As Churchill may, or may not have said:"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."Of course, this lie isn't just spreading itself. The fact that Barack Obama and Howard Dean continue to intentionally mischaracterize John McCain's statements -- and mislead the public -- obviously creates a level of difficulty that may other misquoted victims haven't had to confront (the obvious exception is Al Gore -- the man who "invented" the internet). This type of negative politics might be expected of Howard Dean, but Barack Obama claims to offer a new type of politics. Yet he's playing the same old partisan games of mischaracterization.
Townhall’s Matt Lewis, again:
Writing at the Columbia Journalism Review, Zachary Roth hits the nail on the head ...
Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s “100 years” notion.
But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.
(Emphasis mine)
HotAir’s Ed Morrissey:
Video: Obama distorts McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” comment again
Shocking. Not that he’d distort it; that’s politics. What’s shocking is the fact that the reporter presses him on it and clarifies what McCain meant (which Obama already knows, natch), backing him into the very stupid assertion that Maverick wants a Germany/Japan-type occupation of Iraq that’s somehow going to cost us $150 billion a year for decades and decades and decades. “It’s seldom that you see such a dirty lie,” said Krauthammer of this subject not long ago. Prepare yourselves to see it again and again and again.
HotAir’s Ed Morrissey:
What’s the difference between the Washington Post and the Boston Globe? The WaPo can take a hint. After the CJR wondered why the national media wouldn’t call out Barack Obama for his serial distortions on John McCain’s 100-years-in-Iraq comments, the Globe tried to help Obama rationalize it.
Michael Dobbs scolded Obama in today’s Fact Checker:
Democrats seized on McCain’s remarks. At one time or another, both Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have said that the presumptive Republican nominee is willing to fight a 100-year war in Iraq. When challenged about this claim on Monday, Obama referred journalists to the YouTube version of the Derry Townhall meeting. But the YouTube clip does not back up his case.
Whether the war in Iraq is actually winnable is a separate question. But there is a difference between fighting a war and occupying a country. World War II lasted for nearly six years (3 1/2 years in the case of the U.S.), but there is still a significant U.S. troop presence in Germany.
Dobbs thinks the Democrats have a better case on challenging McCain’s stand that the war in Iraq can be won at all. He thinks they made a bad choice in opting for distortion, but they don’t have much in the way of alternatives. No one who wants to win national office in America will run on the “We Can’t Win — Surrender Now” platform. The Democrats know that; they wouldn’t insist on a surrender even after winning a national election.
Cheap distortion is all they have left. Some in the media, like Brian Mooney, want to assist in the distortion. Others remain silent — but perhaps Dobbs will provoke more honest reporting in the future.
8. National Review’s Jim Geraghty:
The McCain camp is a bit irked with this Boston Globe article, for it's "he said, she said" take on whether Obama is mischaracterizing McCain's "100 years" comment.
The Columbia Journalism Review — not exactly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy — says that there isn't much to debate, that Obama is clearly taking McCain's remark out of context.
The full quote, at the time:
Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
In light of that, it seems pretty clear that yes, Democrats are trying to put words in McCain's mouth. On the other hand, are we really surprised?
GLENN REYNOLDS: Is calling McCain a warmonger the way to spread hope and unity? Note the contrast with how McCain reacted when his introducer savaged Obama a few weeks ago. Obama, however, doesn't seem able to stand up to the haters on his own team. More at Hot Air, including an explicit comparison between McCain's behavior and Obama's. It seems especially unfair -- as well as unhinged -- to be calling McCain a warmonger when Obama's people are, sotto voce pushing similar plans for a long-term presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment