How the right will "swift boat" Obama

[banyon]

The Swiftboating Begins - The Right Smears Obama

The minute Senator Barack Obama had traction, the right starting emphasizing his middle name. "Barack Hussein Obama", they sneered. They never talked about him without saying all three names as if the fact his parents gave him the middle name "Hussein" automatically disqualified him to run for President. The smear was both so dumb and transparent, it was laughable.

Then other right-wing bigots like Debbie Schlussel took the attack even further:

[W]hile Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?

Is that even the man we'd want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn't turn down)?

NO WAY, JOSE . . . Or, is that, HUSSEIN?

Then Reverend Sun Myung Moon's INSIGHT magazine spread the false rumor that Obama secretly attended an Islamic "madrassa" school as a six-year old. Apparently these false rumors prove that "Barack Hussein Obama" really is a closeted radical Muslim and unfit for office.

Per INSIGHT, Hillary Clinton's campaign was behind this damaging revelation. Just when you thought the statute of limitations was up on the right bleating, "It's Clinton's fault!", they bring it back with a twist -- "It's Clinton's fault. Hillary Clinton's fault."

The INSIGHT article cited no evidence or proof that this attack actually came from Clinton. Apparently, INSIGHT wants to divide and conquer the Democrats. They want Obama to think the Clintons are smearing him and cause dissent in the Democratic Party. They get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to smear Obama AND blame the dirty tricks on Clinton. So far, we aren't falling for it.

As Media Matters points out, Melanie Morgan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox's John Gibson also ran with the false rumors:

Morgan read from the article, then asserted that Clinton "is going to try to derail the train before it gets out of the station," adding: "And we know that Hillary Clinton has used private eyes to spy on the private lives of many of her political opponents as well as the girlfriends of her husband over the years." [...]
On his program, Limbaugh read the story and claimed: "This is Hillary's team doing this. This is not a bunch of Republicans saying this. They wouldn't dare; they don't have the guts." [...]

Gibson addressed the InsightMag.com article as his "Big Story" at the beginning of the show and again in his "My Word" segment at the end of the program. After claiming that Clinton "has reportedly outed Obama's madrassa past," Gibson told Republican strategist Terry Holt: "Now, we have heard about dirty politics before. Republicans aren't involved in this one." [...]

Holt responded: "This was either a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine -- we know that they are capable of doing this. But I also thought, you know, it wasn't directly linked to Hillary Clinton." Holt then speculated that Obama himself could have been behind the story, saying that "if you took a page out of the Clinton book and you are really shrewd and you were Barack Obama, you might want to put this out yourself so that you could deal with it early in the political campaign and get it over with." But Holt also noted that "a madrassa, before it was politicized and really taken over by the fundamentalists primarily from Saudi Arabia, it was nothing more than a parochial school, and Barack Obama was in school 40 years ago."


[Read more about Gibson's hate in my The War On Oprah ]. According to Fox, Obama is an undercover Muslim brother. Think Progress summarizes Friday's Fox and Friends:

Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy pointed out that madrassas are "financed by Saudis" and "teach this Wahhabism which pretty much hates us," then declared, "The big question is: was that on the curriculum back then?" Later, a caller to the show questioned whether Obama's schooling means that "maybe he doesn't consider terrorists the enemy." Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade responded, "Well, we'll see about that."

The fact that Obama attended both a Catholic and a Muslim school in Indonesia is hardly a secret since Obama wrote about it in his best seller Audacity of Hope. The fact that he was SIX at the time makes this smear a total joke. Plus, Obama is Christian. He frequently talks about his Christianity and has been a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ since the eighties.

So while bashing Hillary for her alleged dirty tricks, the right wing attack machine gets to use those same those false rumors to smear Obama AND then they get to distance themselves from the trash talking and mudslinging by pointing the finger squarely at Hillary. Now that Clinton has announced her committee, I bet they'll be trotting this tactic out with increasing frequency.

It didn't take long for the Republican spin machine to play the race card and the blame game. Obviously they can't use the "N Word" against Obama, so they start with the "M Word" and blame Hillary in the process. Just wait, it won't take them long to accuse Obama of "using the race card" and then crediting Clinton with the attack. I don't know what the context will be, but trust me it is coming.

The reality is that these smears are transparent and make them look desperate. Is this the best they can do? The good news is it shows that they are taking Obama's candidacy very seriously. Fasten your seat belts Obama, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/the-swiftboating-begins-_b_39196.html

[banyon]

How did I not know his middle name was "Hussein"?

Wow that's terribly unfortunate.

[Chief Faithful]

I prefer the drunken Ted Kennedy's nic name for Obama, ... "Osama Obama".

[Chief Henry]

I prefer the drunken Ted Kennedy's nic name for Obama, ... "Osama Obama".



ROFL

[Radar Chief]

The Huffington Post? :LOL: Didn’t take long for the democrat “spin / slander” machine to blame republicans of spin / slander. ROFL

[stevieray]

Billary is a conservative now?

[banyon]

The Huffington Post? :LOL: Didn’t take long for the democrat “spin / slander” machine to blame republicans of spin / slander. ROFL

I recognize it's from the HuffPo, but I thought it was sufficiently polemical to merit a thread. Hey, why not straight from the source.

oh and.

[Chief Faithful] Notice Arianna Huffington hates Republicans and Democrats equally as a professed Libertarian.[/Chief Faithful] :D

[NewPhin]

Wow. I should write for the Huff Post, I guess, since I made this same supposition like three days ago.

[pikesome]

Wow. I should write for the Huff Post, I guess, since I made this same supposition like three days ago.

If you can think for yourself they don't need your kind.

[memyselfI]

One just needs to see one of our own on the board to know what RWNJs will be doing to SB Obama.

[Radar Chief]

I recognize it's from the HuffPo, but I thought it was sufficiently polemical to merit a thread. Hey, why not straight from the source.

oh and.

[Chief Faithful] Notice Arianna Huffington hates Republicans and Democrats equally as a professed Libertarian.[/Chief Faithful] :D

I’m sorry, I guess I didn’t realize I’d worded my post in such a way as to lead you to the impression I didn’t think it was topic worthy. :shrug: You can start whatever topics you feel worthy, it is a (mostly) free country.
I was more laugh’n at how the pot was so indignant as to call the kettle “black”. That kinda stuff is funny to me, but I guess I’m just sick that way. ;)

[Cochise]

So while bashing Hillary for her alleged dirty tricks, the right wing attack machine gets to use those same those false rumors to smear Obama AND then they get to distance themselves from the trash talking and mudslinging by pointing the finger squarely at Hillary. Now that Clinton has announced her committee, I bet they'll be trotting this tactic out with increasing frequency.

What's ironic about this? The Huffy Post knows that Hillary's campaign is going to do EXACTLY this, and is already trying to pave over it and blame it on the right. She will go negative, and try to blame it on the VRWC. I don't think there's any doubt that will be her strategy.

Hillary has the worst negative numbers of anyone in the race. She has often had the highest "negative opinion" numbers of anybody in Washington. She's running against the person with (I would bet) the highest postitves. I think the only way she wins this is by going ultra-negative.

You can't really blame her, I mean, negative works. And people have an entrenched opinion about her since she's been in the public eye so long. She can't rehab her image as the megalomaniacal ice queen who's been planning for her coronation for 15 years in just one year.

The only way she can win is to drag Obama down as close to her level as she can, and hope that base ideologue voters hold their nose while voting for her.

[patteeu]

Where is the proof that this came from Republicans as the author asserts instead of Hillary's camp as was reported by Insight?

Is Insight unreliable because it's published by Reverend Sun Myung Moon? If this is the case, shouldn't we have the same concerns about the New York Times and it's publisher?

[noa]

Obama is a closet Muslim and he is pulling one of the all time great tricks on America. As soon as he is president, he's having all non-Muslims rounded up in detention centers for re-programming with help from his minions in the liberal media.

[chagrin]

"No way Hussein" LMAO

I agree, it is unfortunate for him, because regardless of the "buzz" he isn't going to win this thing

[KC-TBB]

By saying 'swift boat' you imply it was some underhanded thing to do...telling the facts so people really know a candidate is underhanded...liberals don't seem to mind it when virtually every nightly news media SLAMS any conservative they come across.

[patteeu]

Obama is a closet Muslim and he is pulling one of the all time great tricks on America. As soon as he is president, he's having all non-Muslims rounded up in detention centers for re-programming with help from his minions in the liberal media.

I suspect that Obama is non-religious, but it's just a guess.

[Cochise]

I suspect that Obama is non-religious, but it's just a guess.

I'll be he's at least as religious as professing-baptist Bill Clinton was ;)

[patteeu]

I'll be he's at least as religious as professing-baptist Bill Clinton was ;)

Yep. I'd imagine that he's at least THAT religious. :)

[noa]

Where is the proof that this came from Republicans instead of Hillary's camp as was reported by Insight?

Is Insight unreliable because it's published by Reverend Sun Myung Moon? If this is the case, shouldn't we have the same concerns about the New York Times and it's publisher?

Has Arthur Sulzberger claimed to be the Messiah? Has he served time in prison for breaking our laws? Is he the head of a religious movement that has been forced to pay money back to elderly people whose life savings it swindled?
I'm sure you're not a big fan of Sulzburger, but IMO, its not really fair to compare him to Sun Myung Moon.

[banyon]

"No way Hussein" LMAO

I agree, it is unfortunate for him, because regardless of the "buzz" he isn't going to win this thing

I just can't believe that the Dems would be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary. It's obvious even to them that she is just unelectable.

Maybe a dark horse will take the Dem nomination too (that's where my $ is in the Repub race).

[StcChief]

I prefer the drunken Ted Kennedy's nic name for Obama, ... "Osama Obama".

I like it...ROFL

sHillary/Osama Obama in 08

[Cochise]

Yep. I'd imagine that he's at least THAT religious. :)

Nah, for real, it's going to be funny in here in the near future... poor lil' Barak will be getting beat up by the mean ol' conservatives who are racists and are donning their tinfoil ninja suits to secretly attack him. Meanwhile, Hillary whistles over in the corner with her best "Who, me?" look.

The new left media will be cranking out the Huffington Porridge at top speed, and I'm sure it'll be wolfed down by fanboys like gumbo at Mardi Gras...

[chagrin]

I just can't believe that the Dems would be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary. It's obvious even to them that she is just unelectable.

Maybe a dark horse will take the Dem nomination too (that's where my $ is in the Repub race).

Tell ya what, I don't know who, but I am convinced that none of the expected folks on wither side will win either, in other words, I agree

[patteeu]

Has Arthur Sulzberger claimed to be the Messiah? Has he served time in prison for breaking our laws? Is he the head of a religious movement that has been forced to pay money back to elderly people whose life savings it swindled?
I'm sure you're not a big fan of Sulzburger, but IMO, its not really fair to compare him to Sun Myung Moon.

My admittedly unstated point is that stories in Moon's publications are subjected to the editorial process just like the New York Times. If we agree that Moon can influence the editorial process for his publications, we should also be able to agree that Sulzburger can have a similar influence. If the objectivity of Moon's publications are suspect, then why not the New York Times? It's not like Moon wrote this article or did the reporting here.

[mlyonsd]

LOL why would one worry about the RWNJ's when you first have to make it past the Clinton war machine?

[noa]

My admittedly unstated point is that stories in Moon's publications are subjected to the editorial process just like the New York Times. If we agree that Moon can influence the editorial process for his publications, we should also be able to agree that Sulzburger can have a similar influence. If the objectivity of Moon's publications are suspect, then why not the New York Times? It's not like Moon wrote this article or did the reporting here.

Absolutely. They both have their opinions and agendas. I think we could all agree that their publications lean in different directions. I just wanted to point out that Moon has a much shadier background than Sulzburger (who simply inherited his job), so we could avoid implication by association.

[banyon]

My admittedly unstated point is that stories in Moon's publications are subjected to the editorial process just like the New York Times. If we agree that Moon can influence the editorial process for his publications, we should also be able to agree that Sulzburger can have a similar influence. If the objectivity of Moon's publications are suspect, then why not the New York Times? It's not like Moon wrote this article or did the reporting here.

That's silly. Would the Jim Jones "Jonestown Newsletter" be objective because it had an editor?

[Pitt Gorilla]

I recall some conservative types on here saying that Obama is a Muslim. So, I guess something like this wouldn't surprise me.

[Laz]

I just can't believe that the Dems would be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary. It's obvious even to them that she is just unelectable.

Maybe a dark horse will take the Dem nomination too (that's where my $ is in the Repub race).

i think they should throw Hillary out there as a decoy to draw the righties "swift boat" fire.

make her the favorite ... but then nominate someone else.


cause lets face it the republicans are great at trashing people, might as well give them a punching bag.

[patteeu]

That's silly. Would the Jim Jones "Jonestown Newsletter" be objective because it had an editor?

No, but then neither is Insight, the Washington Times, or the New York Times.

[patteeu]

Absolutely. They both have their opinions and agendas. I think we could all agree that their publications lean in different directions. I just wanted to point out that Moon has a much shadier background than Sulzburger (who simply inherited his job), so we could avoid implication by association.

On that point, I agree.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I'm trying to figure out the significance of a middle name. Good Lord, I hope some dictator by name of "Edward" doesn't emerge for the sake of my son...

[Taco John]

I think that the right will try to "Swift Boat" him, and fail miserably. It's my personal opinion that people are hungry for a higher-minded political landscape, where issues are discussed, rather than the latest lies and smear. Of course, there are always going to be those folks who watch the Hannity's of the world. But I don't think that's where the electorate is moving.

[pikesome]

cause lets face it politicians are great at trashing people, might as well give them a punching bag.

Fixed that for you. I'm not sure you can convince me either party is worse than the other, they both sling shit and hope something sticks. I guess it just depends on whether on who you would like to believe.

[pikesome]

I think that the right will try to "Swift Boat" him, and fail miserably. It's my personal opinion that people are hungry for a higher-minded political landscape, where issues are discussed, rather than the latest lies and smear. Of course, there are always going to be those folks who watch the Hannity's of the world. But I don't think that's where the electorate is moving.

I'll agree with this but we aren't likely to get it from either party. I find it somewhat funny that only one party can "swift boat" someone. Politicians have been doing it since Cicero accused a rival of bleaching his teeth, with urine if not before.

[banyon]

I'm trying to figure out the significance of a middle name. Good Lord, I hope some dictator by name of "Edward" doesn't emerge for the sake of my son...

Have you seen the movie Braveheart? :)

[Sully]

Another thing I heard on Fox News, while I was at a hotel recently that had no other "news" stations, was that "Dems are gonna freak out because Obama smokes!!!!!"

[Radar Chief]

I think that the right will try to "Swift Boat" him, and fail miserably. It's my personal opinion that people are hungry for a higher-minded political landscape, where issues are discussed, rather than the latest lies and smear. Of course, there are always going to be those folks who watch the Hannity's of the world. But I don't think that's where the electorate is moving.

You’re apparently more optimistic than I am, ‘cause I see the majority of voters more wrapped up in 30 second sound bite rhetoric where a catchy phrase like, oh I don’t know, “Swift Boat’n someone”, entails all one needs to know ‘bout a subject/party.
Maybe that’s just me. :shrug:

[Chief Faithful]

How the right will 'swift boat' Obama? :BS:

Right now the swift boating of Obama is coming from Hillary. All it means to 'swift boat' someone is to attack a candidates character of which the left is proven just as skilled and capable. If your problem is with the tactic itself then you need to point your fake indignation at both sides of the political isle.

[StcChief]

I think he will swift boat himself with the help of other Dems.....
His record/background experience etc will be brought out.

the new different face won't enough.

[Nightwish]

Right now the swift boating of Obama is coming from Hillary. All it means to 'swift boat' someone is to attack a candidates character of which the left is proven just as skilled and capable.Merely attacking a candidate's character is not "swift boating." Swift-boating is using independent organizations to attack a candidate by spamming the airwaves and internet to sow spurious allegations against a candidate in such a way that the allegations, often (but not always) fabricated, cannot be easily or speedily disproven, and in such a way that the candidates who reap the benefit of the tactics can step back and say, "I had nothing to do with it, they aren't affiliated with us." Attacking a candidate's character is typical of campaigns, but swift-boating is a relatively new and insidious technique.

That said, I'm not really sure who is doing the swift-boating at this point. Clearly Obama is the target of it, but both the Clinton campaign and the Republicans have a strong interest in taking him down, so it really could be either one.

[Cochise]

Merely attacking a candidate's character is not "swift boating." Swift-boating is using independent organizations to attack a candidate by spamming the airwaves and internet to sow spurious allegations against a candidate in such a way that the allegations, often (but not always) fabricated, cannot be easily or speedily disproven, and in such a way that the candidates who reap the benefit of the tactics can step back and say, "I had nothing to do with it, they aren't affiliated with us." Attacking a candidate's character is typical of campaigns, but swift-boating is a relatively new and insidious technique.

Attacking by proxy is new? Interest groups running ads is new? Maybe this is how politics work in the neighborhood of make-believe... In the real world. this is nothing new at all. Google: Willie Horton.

[Nightwish]

Attacking by proxy is new? Interest groups running ads is new? Maybe this is how politics work in the neighborhood of make-believe... In the real world. this is nothing new at all. Google: Willie Horton.
No, those techniques aren't new. They also aren't "swift-boating."

The key elements of swift-boating are:

1. spurious and often false allegations based on emotions, opinions and subjective recollections, which are very difficult to prove or disprove (which works in the favor of the swift-boating party, since generally only the targeted party is called upon to disprove the allegations, whereas the accusing party is not pressured to prove the allegations).

2. the party making the allegations bolsters their perceived credibility by making often false claims about their own history in relation to the target, claims which are very difficult to disprove (for instance, the several members of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, for the whom the technique is named, who diseminated negative recollections of their experiences with John Kerry, but who in fact were only later discovered [too late] to have never served in the units they claimed to have served in or to have met John Kerry).

3. the allegations are diseminated rapidly and on a wide-scale, using spamming and viral marketing techniques.

[Logical]

Where is the proof that this came from Republicans as the author asserts instead of Hillary's camp as was reported by Insight?

Is Insight unreliable because it's published by Reverend Sun Myung Moon? If this is the case, shouldn't we have the same concerns about the New York Times and it's publisher?

I don't know who it came from first but a certain poster on this BB has been doing it far longer than it has been a media sensation.

[SBK]

Is Soros group a swift boating type organization?

[Brock]

Hillary will indeed be pulling out all the stops to discredit Obama. He isn't even a threat to republicans at this point.

[Stinger]

No, those techniques aren't new. They also aren't "swift-boating."

The key elements of swift-boating are:

1. spurious and often false allegations based on emotions, opinions and subjective recollections, which are very difficult to prove or disprove (which works in the favor of the swift-boating party, since generally only the targeted party is called upon to disprove the allegations, whereas the accusing party is not pressured to prove the allegations).

2. the party making the allegations bolsters their perceived credibility by making often false claims about their own history in relation to the target, claims which are very difficult to disprove (for instance, the several members of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, for the whom the technique is named, who diseminated negative recollections of their experiences with John Kerry, but who in fact were only later discovered [too late] to have never served in the units they claimed to have served in or to have met John Kerry).

3. the allegations are diseminated rapidly and on a wide-scale, using spamming and viral marketing techniques.

i.e. moveon.org ?

[Nightwish]

i.e. moveon.org ?
Dunno, never visited it or read it. Do they make stuff up, ala the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth?

[SLQ]

I think the overall problem here isn't with the conservatives. They don't need to do anything unless O'bama is the nominee for President.

That is something that will actually never have to be put on the table. Hillary has already started the investigations and digging up all of the dirt on him.

A lot of the people here don't seem to know that any dirt in the near term won't have anything to do with the republicans/conservatives.

[Taco John]

Hillary will indeed be pulling out all the stops to discredit Obama. He isn't even a threat to republicans at this point.


Heh. The Republicans are a threat to themselves. That's one lost party right now.

[Nightwish]

A lot of the people here don't seem to know that any dirt in the near term won't have anything to do with the republicans/conservatives.That's a very naive assumption. The Democrats have some pretty strong contenders this time around, and the Republican pickings are pretty slim, except for Rudi and George Allen (but if they're dumb enough to try to run Jeb "I pardoned a terrorist" Bush, by all means, let 'em try!). One thing you can count on, they won't be sitting on their laurels on the sidelines to avoid the mudslinging. That's not their style.

[SLQ]

That's a very naive assumption. The Democrats have some pretty strong contenders this time around, and the Republican pickings are pretty slim, except for Rudi and George Allen (but if they're dumb enough to try to run Jeb "I pardoned a terrorist" Bush, by all means, let 'em try!). One thing you can count on, they won't be sitting on their laurels on the sidelines to avoid the mudslinging. That's not their style.

So you are saying that even though nothing has been done by the republicans you are still blaming them for that act?

That is a very presumptive and pre-emptive type comment. Your presumptions may not be wrong, but then again until something is said or done you are falsely accusing the whole party.

It is pretty funny that the democrats are starting the mudslinging and the blame is already being levied against the republicans.

Naive? jeez, figure out what is happening before you start blaming people for actions not yet in evidence.

[Nightwish]

So you are saying that even though nothing has been done by the republicans you are still blaming them for that act?I'm not blaming anybody for the act. The Republicans are blaming the Dems for it, without providing any evidence, and one Libertarian is blaming the Republicans for manufacturing the claim that this came from the Clinton camp. Unless somebody produces something that shows conclusively that the Clinton camp originated this story, or that exxonerates the Clinton camp of originating this story (and thus placing it at the feet of the Republicans), then we don't know who to believe. That is a very presumptive and pre-emptive type comment. Your presumptions may not be wrong, but then again until something is said or done you are falsely accusing the whole party.Before there can be a "false accusation," doesn't there first have to be an accusation? Have you seen one from me in this thread?It is pretty funny that the democrats are starting the mudslinging and the blame is already being levied against the republicans.Actually, what is funny is that the mudslinging is already beginning, and both sides are accusing the other of starting it, neither is providing much evidence, yet you appear to have already fallen firmly in lockstep with the Republicans.Naive? jeez, figure out what is happening before you start blaming people for actions not yet in evidence.That's what I'm asking you to do. It appears that you're not wishing to. It's not hard at all to believe that the Clinton camp started this story. It's also not hard at all to believe that the Republicans started it and are trying to lay false blame on the Clintons. The only claim I've really seen in this thread that is terribly hard to believe is the claim you made that the Republicans aren't going to get involved in the mudslinging early on. A person would have to be pretty wet behind the ears, politically, to believe that.

[SLQ]

I'm not blaming anybody for the act. The Republicans are blaming the Dems for it, without providing any evidence, and one Libertarian is blaming the Republicans for manufacturing the claim that this came from the Clinton camp. Unless somebody produces something that shows conclusively that the Clinton camp originated this story, or that exxonerates the Clinton camp of originating this story (and thus placing it at the feet of the Republicans), then we don't know who to believe. Before there can be a "false accusation," doesn't there first have to be an accusation? Have you seen one from me in this thread?Actually, what is funny is that the mudslinging is already beginning, and both sides are accusing the other of starting it, neither is providing much evidence, yet you appear to have already fallen firmly in lockstep with the Republicans.That's what I'm asking you to do. It appears that you're not wishing to. It's not hard at all to believe that the Clinton camp started this story. It's also not hard at all to believe that the Republicans started it and are trying to lay false blame on the Clintons. The only claim I've really seen in this thread that is terribly hard to believe is the claim you made that the Republicans aren't going to get involved in the mudslinging early on. A person would have to be pretty wet behind the ears, politically, to believe that.

One thing you can count on, they won't be sitting on their laurels on the sidelines to avoid the mudslinging.

[Nightwish]

ROFL

That's not an accusation that they are behind this, it's an observation that they aren't going to sit aside and stay out of the mud. The comment was not in response to accusations made by anyone wrt who started the Obama story, it was a response to your rather nonspecific claim that the Republicans won't get involved in the mudslinging early on. You should read up on the difference between accusations and observations.

The Republicans started this whole thing! That would be an accusation (the past tense verbage, indicating that a wrong has already been done, should be a clue).

You can bet the Republicans won't sit idly by and avoid mudslinging, that's not their style. That is an observation (the lack of past tense verbage, indicating that wrongdoing hasn't occurred but may well be expected, should be a clue).

[Logical]

Can anyone offer proof that Hillary was the first to break the story on his middle name?

[Nightwish]

Can anyone offer proof that Hillary was the first to break the story on his middle name?Actually I'm kind of confused about what exactly it is the Republicans are claiming the Clinton camp was the first to expose? His middle name, which has never been a secret? Or the fact that he attended a madrassa as a child, which became public knowledge when Obama himself wrote about it in his autobiography? Doesn't seem to me that there's much there for the Clintons or anybody else to have "exposed," which makes the claim from Limbaugh et al. appear that much more dubious, as why would the Clintons go to the trouble of exposing what was already public knowledge, and why are the RWNJ pundits the only ones who seem to be making an issue of it thus far?

[SLQ]

ROFL



The Republicans started this whole thing! That would be an accusation (the past tense verbage, indicating that a wrong has already been done, should be a clue).

You can bet the Republicans won't sit idly by and avoid mudslinging, that's not their style. That is an observation (the lack of past tense verbage, indicating that wrongdoing hasn't occurred but may well be expected, should be a clue).

I find that there is a large difference between your observations and those of others as well as the accusations of others compared to yours.

Your opinion is always out of phase with anyone in opposition to yours. My observations are looked on as acusations and my accusations are looked on as observations.

Arguing with you is a lost cause, you are arguing for the sake of argument and mostly baseless.

[stevieray]

I find that there is a large difference between your observations and those of others as well as the accusations of others compared to yours.

Your opinion is always out of phase with anyone in opposition to yours. My observations are looked on as acusations and my accusations are looked on as observations.

Arguing with you is a lost cause, you are arguing for the sake of argument and mostly baseless.

spot on.

[Bowser]

The same dumbass from New Mexico that's wanting to impeach Bush should go ahead and get Obama tried for treason for having the gall to have that middle name.

[Bowser]

Where's that patriot bunnytrdr? I bet he saluted the flag and shed a tear after reading this. :)

[Nightwish]

I find that there is a large difference between your observations and those of others as well as the accusations of others compared to yours.
If you can't comprehend the difference, that's on you.

Your opinion is always out of phase with anyone in opposition to yours.
Well ... uh ... yeah. Opinions that are in opposition are going to be "out of phase" with each other. That's the nature of opposite opinions. Are you just learning this?

My observations are looked on as acusations and my accusations are looked on as observations.
Nice try. It wouldn't have been an accusation from anyone, you, me, patteeu or otherwise. You can't "accuse" of the likelihood of present or future events. You can only "observe" likelihoods.

Arguing with you is a lost cause, you are arguing for the sake of argument and mostly baseless.
I find that most of you righties are arguing a lost cause, so it should come as no surprise that you have to resort to petulance when you find that you can't convince your opponent to accept your position.

[go bowe]

If you can't comprehend the difference, that's on you.


Well ... uh ... yeah. Opinions that are in opposition are going to be "out of phase" with each other. That's the nature of opposite opinions. Are you just learning this?


Nice try. It wouldn't have been an accusation from anyone, you, me, patteeu or otherwise. You can't "accuse" of the likelihood of present or future events. You can only "observe" likelihoods.


I find that most of you righties are arguing a lost cause, so it should come as no surprise that you have to resort to petulance when you find that you can't convince your opponent to accept your position.position?

i'm fond of doggie style, if you must know...

[Calcountry]

How did I not know his middle name was "Hussein"?

Wow that's terribly unfortunate.Please. It's not as if Dan Rather Biased, didn't formally announce Dan Quayle to the world as J Danforth Quayle now?

Quit whining like the pissy little babies that you are, grow up, and get ready for conservative campaign with bare knuckles, just like you gutter rats showed us.

[banyon]

Please. It's not as if Dan Rather Biased, didn't formally announce Dan Quayle to the world as J Danforth Quayle now?

Quit whining like the pissy little babies that you are, grow up, and get ready for conservative campaign with bare knuckles, just like you gutter rats showed us.

Please what? I just said it was unfortunate, not unfair.

[Taco John]

Ugh. Reading SLQ vs. Nightwish debates makes me want to stab myself in the eyes...

[SLQ]

If you can't comprehend the difference, that's on you.


Well ... uh ... yeah. Opinions that are in opposition are going to be "out of phase" with each other. That's the nature of opposite opinions. Are you just learning this?


Nice try. It wouldn't have been an accusation from anyone, you, me, patteeu or otherwise. You can't "accuse" of the likelihood of present or future events. You can only "observe" likelihoods.


I find that most of you righties are arguing a lost cause, so it should come as no surprise that you have to resort to petulance when you find that you can't convince your opponent to accept your position.

The only real difference between the conservatives you spend so much time attacking and the liberals is that most of us don't feel the need to make an ass of ourselves attacking others.

You seem to feel that you have the only real opinion on any board you post on. It's a shame, I'm sure that someone will finally convince you that they don't care about all of the trouble you go to to belittle others.

Try giving convincing self thought out arguments and staying from the party line. It won't work, but you should try it.

[SLQ]

Ugh. Reading SLQ vs. Nightwish debates makes me want to stab myself in the eyes...

Actually I don't think it's arguing, I see it as giving him something to do, it seems as if he just doesn't have anything better to do. keeping him busy is a pleasure.

[stevieray]

The only real difference between the conservatives you spend so much time attacking and the liberals is that most of us don't feel the need to make an ass of ourselves attacking others.

You seem to feel that you have the only real opinion on any board you post on. It's a shame, I'm sure that someone will finally convince you that they don't care about all of the trouble you go to to belittle others.

Try giving convincing self thought out arguments and staying from the party line. It won't work, but you should try it.

I take it you've been lurking for awhile...

[Taco John]

Actually I don't think it's arguing, I see it as giving him something to do, it seems as if he just doesn't have anything better to do. keeping him busy is a pleasure.



I see it as you both sounding like a couple of bitchy morons...

[SLQ]

I see it as you both sounding like a couple of bitchy morons...

Coming from the original bitch moron that doesn't mean much.

[Nightwish]

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Tom has returned to us.

[banyon]

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Tom has returned to us.

That was my thought about a week ago too.

[Cochise]

That was my thought about a week ago too.

It's exceedingly rare for someone new to come into D.C.. When someone does, it's usually the latest ComTash iteration.

He's got a stable of usernames that he registers far in advance of using them, so the 'just registered' factor doesn't arouse suspicion. He posts in the main forum because he knows the rules of the board (well, as they apply to most of us) but he can never stay out of DC.

When you look at those things and also writing styles, political viewpoints, the arrogant, dismissive attitude, someone with 100 posts obviously having a grudge against old posters already, etc. etc., it's never hard to spot. Might as well just be wearing the glasses & moustache disguise.

[banyon]

It's exceedingly rare for someone new to come into D.C.. When someone does, it's usually the latest ComTash iteration.

He's got a stable of usernames that he registers far in advance of using them, so the 'just registered' factor doesn't arouse suspicion. He posts in the main forum because he knows the rules of the board (well, as they apply to most of us) but he can never stay out of DC.

When you look at those things and also writing styles, political viewpoints, the arrogant, dismissive attitude, someone with 100 posts obviously having a grudge against old posters already, etc. etc., it's never hard to spot. Might as well just be wearing the glasses & moustache disguise.

I agree, but he sounded vaguely more literate this time around. Maybe the Barron's vocab-builder or something? Actually, I'm still not 100% on this username.

[Cochise]

I agree, but he sounded vaguely more literate this time around. Maybe the Barron's vocab-builder or something? Actually, I'm still not 100% on this username.

He's not illiterate, it's his ahole attitude that stands out, except when someone talks about religion, where he revers to "most lovingly pious guy on earth" act.

[Cochise]

Oh, and also I forgot that if he's spotted or his presence is suspected, he disappears from that thread. Eventually we move through stages from denial to feigned ignorance to acceptance to defiance, to re-banning

[banyon]

Oh, and also I forgot that if he's spotted or his presence is suspected, he disappears from that thread. Eventually we move through stages from denial to feigned ignorance to acceptance to defiance, to re-banning

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/vb_bullet.gif vBulletin Message


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cochise again.

[Calcountry]

Obama is a closet Muslim and he is pulling one of the all time great tricks on America. As soon as he is president, he's having all non-Muslims rounded up in detention centers for re-programming with help from his minions in the liberal media.Praise God Almighty for the Second ammendment.

"Fill your hands you sonofabitch", John Wayne.

[NewPhin]

Joe puts it in historical context. Of course, he reports his assumptions as fact, but the article still has some interesting historical tidbits.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/01/26/obama/print.html
Ghosts of dirty tricks past
The right-wing smear campaign against Barack Obama, with its telltale twist of linking Hillary Clinton to the attack, is classic Watergate.

By Joe Conason

Jan. 26, 2007 | As the 2008 presidential campaign began last week, there was something inauspicious and even spooky in the political atmosphere, with strange echoes of ugly deeds committed more than 35 years ago.

On Tuesday, Watergate felon E. Howard Hunt passed on into history at the age of 88. But even while he lay dying in Miami, not far from the late President Nixon's Florida retreat, Hunt's spiritual heirs were orchestrating a classic Watergate-style dirty trick against both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not coincidentally, the perpetrators included certain veterans of the old Nixon gang, whose baneful influence on American politics has only grown over the decades.

At first glance, the trick was merely an ordinary right-wing smear, twisting a small fact torn from context into a sinister accusation. Almost 40 years ago, little Barry Obama -- who would grow up to become a stellar law student, a bestselling author, a U.S. senator and a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination -- spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, where he lived with his mother and stepfather. During those years he attended an elementary school run by Muslims, long before the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and then as an adult joined a Christian church in Chicago.

Yet on the far right, poisonous propaganda can be concocted from the most innocent ingredients. That is precisely what the Unification Church's Insight magazine proceeded to do on Jan. 19, with the eager assistance of Fox News Channel and right-wing Web sites such as Lucianne.com. Insight portrayed the Indonesian school as a "madrassa," suggesting the Saudi-financed institutions that allegedly train Wahhabi terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere, indicated, to incite religious prejudice, that Obama had been "raised Muslim" -- and then attributed these fabrications to political operatives in the Clinton camp.

These false claims lacked any sourcing, but that didn't prevent the usual media miscreants from broadcasting them, from John Gibson on Fox's "The Big Story" and Rush Limbaugh down to Melanie Morgan and her sidekick at San Francisco's KSFO radio station. Just the usual modus operandi of the noise machine -- except for that telltale twist of smearing Clinton with responsibility for the attack.

Where could they have gotten that brilliant idea?

Performing a dirty trick on one Democratic presidential candidate in a way that would reflect blame on another Democrat was the specialty of the Watergate crew led by Hunt, which back in the early '70s included G. Gordon Liddy and Donald Segretti, as well as a host of lesser goons and spies such as the ingénue Lucianne Goldberg.

According to "Nightmare: Underside of Nixon Years," the definitive book on the Watergate scandal, by the late, great journalist J. Anthony Lukas, Goldberg filed gossipy espionage reports from George McGovern's press plane on "who was sleeping with whom, what the Secret Service men were doing with the stewardesses, who was smoking pot on the plane -- that sort of thing." Or so she told him.

Meanwhile, Segretti and company had been putting out nasty smear stories about certain Democratic candidates and attributing the smears to other Democrats, in order to divide the opposition and destroy Nixon's potential competitors.

During the Florida primary campaign, reported Lukas, the Nixon gang printed up fliers attacking Sen. Edwin Muskie's position on Israel and placed them under the windshield wipers of cars parked outside Miami Beach synagogues. Those scurrilous fliers were designed to look as if they had been distributed by New York Mayor John Lindsay, also running for president as a Democrat.

Around the same time, on stolen Citizens for Muskie stationery, a letter went out attacking Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. "We on the Sen. Ed Muskie staff sincerely hope that you have decided upon Senator Muskie as your choice. However, if you have not made your decision you should be aware of several facts." Those supposed facts were that Sen. Jackson, as a high school senior in 1929, had fathered an illegitimate child with a teenage girl -- and then had been arrested on charges of homosexuality in Washington in May 1955 and October 1957. The charges were all lies, as was the claim in the same letter that former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey had been arrested for drunken driving in December 1967 with a prostitute in his car. The bogus letter was intended not only to encourage rumors about Jackson and Humphrey, both of whom were potential candidates against Nixon, but to create chaotic civil war among the Democrats.

As one of Hunt's operatives later explained, "The idea was to get the candidates backbiting each other and possibly starting doing it to each other outside our activities."

It is worth pointing out that Goldberg is not the only contemporary propagandist whose sordid roots trace back to Tricky Dick. Fox News is the creature of Roger Ailes, the jolly face of the Nixon gang, and Gibson and all of the other spewing heads on that network are his minions and nothing more. The Rev. Sun Myung Moon was among the last and most bitter defenders of Nixon, whose brainwashed "Moonies," just as obedient as any Fox anchor, stepped lively whenever they were ordered to demonstrate against impeachment on the steps of the Capitol.

Despite the right-wing regression to such ugly tactics against Clinton and Obama, there was a moment of hope as well. Rather than simply repeat the charges and rebuttals as if each bore equal weight, CNN sent an actual reporter to Obama's old school, who demolished the tale -- and at the same time, the news network emphasized that there was no evidence whatsoever linking Clinton to the attack. If such old-fashioned journalism is the template for campaign coverage this year and next, the dirty tricksters could soon face the unforgiving scrutiny they have always deserved.

-- By Joe Conason

[penchief]

Scummy behavior by the right being disseminated by right-wing hacks like FOX News? Naawww, I don't believe it. Get outa here....

[SLQ]

Praise God Almighty for the Second ammendment.

"Fill your hands you sonofabitch", John Wayne.

Pretty good. I wish I had thought of that quote!

[patteeu]

Selective skepticism? When Insight identifies an unnamed source as coming from the Hillary Clinton camp, you guys just assume that it's a lie and it really came from Republicans. But when the NY Times, an organization just as committed to liberal causes as Insight is to conservative, identifies an unnamed source as an administration official or something similar, the thought never crosses your mind that it might really be coming from a democrat?

[SLQ]

Selective skepticism? When Insight identifies an unnamed source as coming from the Hillary Clinton camp, you guys just assume that it's a lie and it really came from Republicans. But when the NY Times, an organization just as committed to liberal causes as Insight is to conservative, identifies an unnamed source as an administration official or something similar, the thought never crosses your mind that it might really be coming from a democrat?

Somehow that seems to be the point.

[CHIEF4EVER]

One just needs to see one of our own on the board to know what RWNJs will be doing to SB Obama.

You mean what ScHillary has already done or something different?

[BucEyedPea]

He posts in the main forum because he knows the rules of the board (well, as they apply to most of us) but he can never stay out of DC.

histamaque (sp?) said they don't apply that rule anymore. BTW, just where are the rules? In the Faqs. I never looked in there.

[HolmeZz]

One just needs to see one of our own on the board to know what RWNJs will be doing to SB Obama.

So so true.

[Messier]

So so true.

Wow! Nice!

[Ultra Peanut]

One just needs to see one of our own on the board to know what RWNJs will be doing to SB Obama.Hahahahaha

This is ****ing awesome.

[patteeu]

So so true.

The RWNJ's around here are so good at it that they've made much of it appear to come from memyselfI!