Fox News' Banderas ignored McCain's smear of Obama, while repeating McCain's charge that Obama was making "a dig at John McCain's age"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Referring to comments Sen. Barack Obama made during a CNN interview, Fox News' Julie Banderas stated that Obama "made what some are calling a dig at John McCain's age." But Banderas did not provide the full context of Obama's remark, nor did she note that Obama was responding to a smear by McCain.
On the May 9 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, guest anchor Julie Banderas asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "made what some are calling a dig at [Sen.] John McCain's age," referring to comments Obama made during a May 8 CNN interview. Banderas then said to her guest, Brown University professor Wendy Schiller, "Let's first address Obama's comments by basically saying, or possibly bringing up the age issue by saying that McCain is losing his bearings." However, Banderas did not provide the full context of Obama's quote or note that Obama was responding to a smear by McCain. In response to McCain's recent statement that "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States," Obama stated: "I've said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they're willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."
In the May 8 interview on CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer read McCain's April 25 statement: "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. ... I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare. Senator Obama is favored by Hamas. I think people can make judgments accordingly." Obama replied:
OBAMA: Yeah, this is offensive.
And I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics. And then to engage in that kind of, you know, smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy towards Hamas has been no different than his.
I've said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they're willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.
Banderas asked Schiller: "Let's first address Obama's comments by basically saying, or possibly bringing up the age issue by saying that McCain is losing his bearings. He has been around. He's 71 years old. He's been in the Senate for more than 21 years. He knows how to stand up to a guy like Obama. What do you think?" Following Schiller's response, Banderas said, "Obama's campaign spokesperson, Bill Burton, said that by saying 'clearly losing one's bearings' has no relation to age. When you think of losing your bearings, you're kind of thinking 'losing your marbles' and you're thinking 'crazy.' I mean, a little bit, right?" Schiller responded, "Right, right. I mean, I think they can't get away with saying, you know, that they're not trying to hit McCain."
From the May 9 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
BANDERAS: Meantime, McCain's likely opponent, Barack Obama, made what some are calling a dig at John McCain's age. So, will this be an issue in the general election? We're talking now to Wendy Schiller, associate professor of political science at Brown University, also a regular guest on The [O'Reilly] Factor. Thank you so much for talking to us.
SCHILLER: Good morning.
BANDERAS: Let's first address Obama's comments by basically saying, or possibly bringing up the age issue by saying that McCain is losing his bearings. He has been around. He's 71 years old. He's been in the Senate for more than 21 years. He knows how to stand up to a guy like Obama. What do you think?
SCHILLER: Well, I think just like you said -- he's been around for a long time. And I think every time Obama says "age," you know, McCain says "experience." And so, it's a risky strategy for Obama, I think, to go after McCain on his age. Also, let's not forget: Who votes the most frequently? What's the biggest turnout rate, highest turnout rate? People over 65 in this country. People are living longer, more active. Nobody over 70 wants to be told that they're irrelevant. So I think on a double level, I think Obama's taking a risk here. And I don't know that it's going to pay off for him.
Last night, McCain looked sharp, articulate, with it. He had charm; he was approachable. And he was experienced. Every answer he gave O'Reilly was, "Listen, I know what I'm talking about. I've been there. Here's what I would do." And it seemed very reasonable and very easy to understand by the average voter. And I think Obama's going to have a little bit of trouble in the sense that he uses fairly lofty rhetoric a lot. He's not as approachable. I mean, John McCain, on a one-on-one or a small-town meeting -- you know, he's really a star.
BANDERAS: Obama's campaign spokesperson, Bill Burton, said that by saying "clearly losing one's bearings" has no relation to age. When you think of losing your bearings, you're kind of thinking "losing your marbles" and you're thinking "crazy." I mean, a little bit, right?
SCHILLER: Right, right. I mean, I think they can't get away with saying, you know, that they're not trying to hit McCain. But, you know, listen, Obama's got another thing to do now, right? He's got to prove he's tough enough to run against John McCain. And just like John McCain said, he's been through worse than a political campaign. Obama's got to prove not only to the superdelegates and the Democratic Party, but to voters in general he can run the country and will be as tough as McCain. So, waging a tougher campaign, a nasty campaign, doing what he has to do to win --
BANDERAS: Right.
SCHILLER: -- that's partially what he needs to do to show the American people he can be a president.
BANDERAS: Right.
This story is making me toss my cookies. If my man Obama had really wanted to paint the Old Man as a septegenarian (which he is), he would have said McCain's Depends are full of caca, or that Mc Cain's concentration is not up to snuff because he hasn't taken his Centrum Silver. Or something clever like that. Now THOSE are digs at his age. "Losing one's bearings" is common speak for getting turned around (much as, coincidentally, one does with the onset of senility).
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/mccain-camp-uses-obamas-hamas-compliment-as-fundraising-fuel/
If it so happens that Bin Laden endorses The Old Man McCain, who will you vote for?
Just a rhetorical question. Thanks.
- Ramadan Adassi of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
- Ahmed Yousef of Hamas
- Raul Reyes of FARC (killed by Colombian security forces before an official endorsement)
- Bill Ayers of the Weathermen (this one is a former terrorist unlike the first three liste here)
- Malik Zulu Shabazz of the racist "new" Black Panthers
Let us stick to the real endorsements instea of bringing hypotheticals into the iscussionWhich means what exactly? If we declare that we favor Shiites over Sunnis does that make us Shiites?
No - it means we can tell Shiite from Shinola. :-)
Glenn-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but McCain is losing his bearings.
Just because something is true, doesn't mean it isn't a smear.
I've always known "losing your bearings" to be metaphorical reference to a compass and to navigation.
Some tools of the trade never outlive their usefulness though. What do ship captains reach for when the RDF, Radar and GPS all go down at once?
A few may reach for a bottle of Scotch, but most will reach for a compass and a sextant.
Tommy,
If a Con had made that remark about an older Lib...say a Ted Kennedy or Murtha. MMFA would present it here as a smear. Suggesting it was about their age...or questioning their mental capacity.
That's how you achieve fairness and balance?
Presenting hypothetical quotes from hypothetical people causing a hypothetical uproar and a hypothetical MMFA reaction as a balance to real quotes from real people?
If want to call the hypocrisy WAAAHmbulance, you can at the very least give a real-world example.
Jeter, You are absolutely correct, I don't disagree at all.......I just don't see it here, honestly. If it was meant that way by Obama, I am wrong.
Tommy,
When I first heard the remark the first thing I thought was Obama was giving a shot about McCain's age. Of course he might not have been.
My point was simply that had it been the other way around...a Con saying it about an older Lib, I just have a feeling MMFA might have presented it as a dig.
Sometimes we all hear something differently. It's no biggie :-)
J2, losing one's bearing has nothing to do with age. It just doesn't. Now if Obama had said geezer man (we're not allowed to say gramps anymore you know) had lost his marbles or some other statement relating to dementia then I might agree. Even losing one's marbles isn't necessarily about age since I suspect you are not THAT old ;-)
I heard an interview with Sen. McCain on 60 Minutes a few months back where the question was his about his age. His response, to paraphrase, was 'I am offended'. Huh?
It seems like the the Senator's campaign knows that his age is a problem a nd is trying to spin it to their advantage.
I am forty and think he is too old to lead, at this time.
We can read and comprehend the context of Obama's statements just fine.
Of course Roundhouse...just like I & others here can read & comprehend the context of many many articles MMFA presents here. Of course that has never stopped you or others from telling us what we should think....
I gave my opinion. You gave yours.
A guy like you complaining that you're being told what to think.
Jeter wrote:
>>If a Con had made that remark about an older Lib...say a Ted Kennedy or Murtha. MMFA would present it here as a smear. Suggesting it was about their age...or questioning their mental capacity.
Wow! Talk about a silly argument. How are we supposed to prove that MMFA wouldn't have made the same stupid argument that Fox made? Plain and simple, Jeter, this comment shows Fox at its worst.
Not a silly argument at all.
I've been around these parts long enough to know how MMFA works & what they might present as a smear.
If a Con suggested that a Lib, seventy years old or older, was losing their bearings....there is a darn good chance it would be a thread here suggesting the Con had smeared some elderly Lib.
For McCain to say Hamas favors his opponent is straight out of the Rove-Cheney playbook, as mispronounced by Dubya.
Patriot,
McCain did not exactly pull this out of his arse. Of course MMFA failed to include the fact in this article that Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the prime minister of Hamas had said in an interview that Hamas hoped Obama would win the election.
So this is where McCain was coming from. Was it snarky? Of course. But you know full well that the GOP would jump on this & would attempt to spin this as the terrorist want Obama because he is weak against terrorism.
The other side of that, & the one the Dems should go for is that Obama is viewed as someone who will be more fair & balanced when it comes to the Middle East. Another words won't automatically back Israel. Of course I think that's a crock. Like every Prez before him, Obama will cave to the Jewish Lobby & to Israel.
You can call this negative campaigning on McCain's part, or Politics 101. Technically McCain wasn't lying, just spinning. Both sides do it.
Obama's response can be read anyway you'd like. I've no idea what Obama was getting at. But it's possible he was giving McCain a dig about his age. Old folks often to seem to lose their bearings because they forget things easier than us younger folks...Again this is politics, & Obama isn't above playing the game.
Yeah, we all absolutely know the GOP are full of scumbags who care nothing for the consequences of their destructive politics on fellow Americans. We know the GOP has no conscience.
But who cares, right? It's all good! Conservatives are happier people than liberals. (How they achieve that happiness says alot about their ability accept injustice and inequality.)
I think conservatives are happier because they are nearly always the ones perpetrating the smears. In an article on the non-partisan website factcheck.org, they have noticed a huge disparity in the way conservatives and liberals apparently do business in the smear game.
"Snopes.com has been investigating e-mail and other urban legends since 1995, and the site's founders, Barbara and David Mikkelson, have written articles about 31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate. While a handful had elements of truth in them or couldn’t be verified, the vast majority were flat-out false.
"Another writer who debunks rumor and lore is David Emery, author of About.com's Urban Legends page. He lists seven e-mails about Hillary Clinton and five about Barack Obama. His verdict: 12 false and misleading, 0 true.
"We have yet to see e-mails about John McCain, and Emery notes a decidedly anti-Democrat tilt to the bulk of the e-mail chatter. But there's still plenty of time before the election. In 2004, a left-leaning e-mail claimed the Bush administration was quietly pushing legislation to reinstate the military draft. The claim was bogus, but the e-mail prompted such paranoia that a GOP-controlled House overwhelmingly voted down a bill to reinstate the draft just to show that it rejected the measure. Snopes has chronicled two claims about McCain – both were true, and one was a positive story.
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html
It's hard to be upset when everything is going your way?
I have spoken with people from all over the world in the last year or so. When they find out I am an American, they usually tell me how much they like Obama. Nobody even knows who McCain is. I don't see it as such a terrible thing that even our enemies like Obama - from what I have seen and heard with my own ears nearly everybody does.
I can't see how anyone can take exception to that or twist it into a negative. Obama has a decent chance to change the course of the world by merely being elected. We live in exciting times.
Please don't overestimate the result of this tiny skirmish: it's nothing like "punishment".
The Fox News Channel's gang does here what they often do: they play to their own narrow demographic... a greying elderly confused at the speed and new-fangledness of this "modern and immoral world"... "kids today! when I was young, it wasn't like this!... that's Fox's only real demographic that has survived their years of Bush and Iraq cheerleading.
They serve their own narrow demographic by implying Sen. Obama is disrespecting Mr. McCain's old-age: "kids today! when I was young it wasn't like this!"...
They serve their own narrow demographic, and amuse the rest of the American People, who are not so old yet as to gripe about "kids today!', or cheerlead mindlessly for George W. Bush, and Iraq.
They make a mistake playing this "kids today, they're so disrespectful to their elders!" card.
It's no "punishment" to Mr. Obama... it's more a cause of amusement, at the fired up activism of the Greay Panthers and their Fox News Channel, against a flood of American People intensely interested in this presidential contest, and mostly because they're young enough to care, and not so old as to curse these "modern times", and watch Fox News Channel during the day.
And the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" to the Regulatory Policy of the FCC, is just an Executive Order away (or a non-vetoed Act of Congress, either will do: Congress having twice already tried to restore the "Fairness Doctrine" to FCC Regulations, and twice been vetoed by George H. W. Bush)... and it seems that President Obama might issue such an Executive Order (or not veto an Act of Congress accomplishing the same), because the broadcast lobby may not have enough Congresspersons in their pocket at the present time (Sen. Obama included), to keep going what it is they accomplished 20 years ago, when they had influence enough with Reagan's FCC, and Congress, to repeal the "Fairness Doctrine" as FCC Regulatory Policy...
A repeal which gave those broadcasters the power to use their privileged FCC Licenses to broadcast on the Public Resource known as the PUBLIC AIRWAVES... to use that privileged power, to influence and manipulate the Political Opinions of the American People, and thereby Unfairly and with Imbalance, skew the American Democratic processes, toward the personal and private Politcal Opinons, of those who hold those precious and privileged FCC Licenses.
Doris
Do you have any proof that that will occur? You sound like a radical.
Bob
Usually you are very fair, I do not understand the point of your question. Do I have proof? No. Do I have proof that it will be sunny On June 1st? No but I can look at previous June 1st and make a prediction.
Please be serious and stop playing games.
Bobthep:
It's called expressing an opinion about the future.
No one here is required to prove anything to you. You are free to accept or reject any opinions you hear.
Hope that clears things up for you...
Well, the top swift-boat liar was on Fox almost EVERY SINGLE DAY promoting his book of lies.
Fox may not have been behind the swift-boat liars, but they certainly gave them a soap box to stand on and endlessly spout their lies.
Let it go, dude. History is against you here. (Plus it's already begun - North Carolina anyone?) Putting aside that you are asking for [past] proof of a [future] prediction, your doubt makes you appear either dishonest or just plain stupid.
I'd say he's just stupid. Reason being - he asked her if she was a radical, just for using history to predict the future.
Too bad guys like BobtheP (I have an idea what the 'P' stands for) like to revise history to fit their own agendas.
Do you have any proof that that will occur? You sound like a radical. - BobtheP
Thanks, it does, Sorry Doris I misread, I thought you said FOX was behind the Swift Boaters. - BobtheP
Doris, the second statement doesn't match the first. We are all right, he challenged you to prove a future event. The second statement is simply him backtracking and pretending he'd said something else after he realized he'd been foolish. It's not a big deal to me, but he's not being honest about misreading.
Gov.
Funny!
To "lose one's bearings" means the same as to "lose one's way". It doesn't have a damned thing to do with age.
It does when you do like Banderas does and say "that's like saying he's lost his marbles". Hey, changing the complete meaning of the phrase... what's the big deal?
These guys are really reaching...
What exactly is McCain's smear against Obama?
McCain only stated the truth, Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did in fact endorse Obama. that is not a smear.
However Obama's characterization of McCain as having "lost his bearings," is is an attempt to stereotype McCain as suffering from dementia. If you think that is not a smear, then please pass the kool-aid. :-)
Stop it AA
Hahaha.. Who said I didn't know what was going on.
You guys don't see that MMAM (Media Matters Against McCain) is projecting here.
McCain expressed an inconvenient truth about Obama.
Obama came back with a snarky smear against McCain's mental acuity.
But you believe McCain smeared and Obama didn't!
And you say I am pretending! Hahahahaha.....
AA wrote:
>>McCain expressed an inconvenient truth about Obama.
It is called a smear. It is no more inconvenient than if the KKK endorses McCain.
>>Obama came back with a snarky smear against McCain's mental acuity.
Now who needs to get his definitions checked?
Funny,
Thanks for proving my point. If the KKK did endorse McCain you would be correct.
AA wrote:
>>Thanks for proving my point. If the KKK did endorse McCain you would be correct.
No. If the KKK endorses McCain, it says absolutely *nothing* about McCain. In the same way, Hamas's statements says nothing about Hamas. Way to keep up the smears, AA.
**** shhhh... everybody remain calm... the dittohead is very close to that analogy... if that thick concrete thinking falls over on the abstract connection, there could be some real fireworks... just ... back... away.. slowly...
Funny,
Okay this was fun but lets try to resolve the misunderstanding. I never said it would say anything about McCain did I? You are simply confusing the fact that someone undesirable endorsed a candidate with what you feel is the negative connotation one derives from the endorsement
You said that it would be a smear if Obama pointed out that KKK endorsed McCain. Of course it would be. That's why McCain did this - it's a smear.
The fact that it's a smear doesn't mean that in reality it says anything about the candidate.
And as for "losing his bearings", this is the first time I've ever heard "bearings" have anything do to with mental capacity. It always means direction.
Source: Full interview with Ahmed Yousef - http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/?attachment_id=1219
fawlty,
I only agreed that if the KKK endorsed McCain, it too would be an inconvenient truth.
I find it funny that the left keeps pointing out the endorsement of Hagee to McCain. It is the same thing as Hamas endorsing Obama. One may or may not like the endorsement, but that does not make it a smear.
So then you would agree that if Obama emphasized the KKK's support of McCain, that it would not be a 'smear'?
Luckily, for all of us, Obama is more civil than that.
What? That doesn't make the slightest sense. Ramadan Adassi is a leading light in AMB (Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) and Ahmed Yousef is the political director for Hamas. They are both senior "leaders" and I think it is perfectly fair to assume that their statements are representative of the organizations they lead.
Hahaha.. Who said I didn't know what was going on. You guys don't see that MMAM (Media Matters Against McCain) is projecting here. McCain expressed an inconvenient truth about Obama.
LOL
Today, John McCain blamed the curiosity of American voters for a comment he made suggesting Hamas wants Barack Obama to be president. Appearing with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman at an event in New Jersey, McCain tried to clarify a statement he made on "The Daily Show" on Wednesday night, in which he alleged that Hamas approves of Obama:
Where was that concern when the rest of the world was asking to not invade Iraq? Where is that concern over what the rest of the world thinks when we are dictating who should have nukes and who shouldn't?
McCain's concern just rings hollow. Like that of a man who has lost his bearings.
I think you are missing the conservatives' consistency here. To conservatives, it is a bad thing if someone who lives outside of the USA likes you or says anything good about you. Conservatives either don't care if the world hates us or is currently actively working towards that end. It is a failure in their eyes (as it was in Machiavelli's The Prince) to be loved. The conservatives believe it is better to be feared.
I don't agree with that point of view, but it is apparently the way they want things.
Not true....I'm hopeful that even liberals will accept the fact that endorsemets from the Who's Who of various murderous terrorist organizations is nothing to be proud of. However, if partisan politics makes you accept these endorsements (even if grudgingly), that's a pity.
Exactly - and Bin Laden wanted to cripple our economy, which at one time seemed like a pipe dream.
Until our Fearless Leader decided on policies that are doing just what Bin Laden dreamed of.
Now who's in bed with the terrorists?
CSL,
You forgot to refer to yourself bv your alter ego - Doris.
If not, I see she must've been abducted by aliens and I commend your telepathic ability to know what she was thinking and answering for her. :-)
Barack Obama - does he represent change that we'll regret?
I think people have a right to know. Attempts to squelch discussion by using false outrage doesn't serve participants in any democracy.
McCain only stated the truth, Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did in fact endorse Obama. that is not a smear.
And it somehow matters than a non American makes comments on a American election? Why didn't McCain mention that: Rebels who have stepped up attacks on Nigeria's oil industry in the last month said on Sunday they were considering a ceasefire appeal by U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama. http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0444578520080504
LOL, oh no McCain couldn't talk about that, it's may be good news.
However Obama's characterization of McCain as having "lost his bearings," is is an attempt to stereotype McCain as suffering from dementia. If you think that is not a smear, then please pass the kool-aid. :-)
AA, stop! McCain is old, that's a fact. He confuses Shia with Al Qaeda, again fact. He says he going to improve the lower9th ward then minutes later says he may destroy them, again fact. He's old and he forgets. Is it dementia? I don't know, but he is old, again fact!
improve the lower9th ward then minutes later says he may destroy them
Im going to have to disagree with you here. Improving the lower 9th ward (an section of the city, not a building or set of buildings) could mean tear down and rebuild new - condos, apartments, townhomes, single family homes, etc. That could be considered improving the lower 9th ward. You may see improvng the existing homes & buildings as an improvement, but you are not improving the area or calling for people to relocate to NO.
McCain told reporters he was not sure if he would rebuild the lower 9th ward as president.
"That is why we need to go back is to have a conversation about what to do -rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is,” he said.
?
Did he say the first time that he would improve it by rebuilding, or just improve it? Then the second time he came back with that statement?
Im not up to date on this topic of the lower 9th ward, I just personally think that a full tear down and rebuild is the way to improve and attract people to the city.
Columbus,
Where are you going to put the people of the 9th Ward? Or is that their problem?
Did he say the first time that he would improve it by rebuilding, or just improve it?
At historically black Xavier University, McCain added, "We’ve got a range of issues here in New Orleans correcting the mistakes from the past policies and past actions to the hear and now. I want everyone of us to be able in the near future to walk through the 9th ward and see everyone of those homes restored with people living in them."
You're an elitist.
Any person can "lose their bearings" for a myriad of reasons, regardless of age.
"Loss of bearings," or disorientation, is not a symptom exclusive to dementia, nor is dementia limited to old age.
Disorientation can be brought on by psychological trauma, by physical injury, or by substance abuse, just to name a few.
There is no age connotation for "losing your bearings."
There is no age smear in this case.
AA wrote:
>>What exactly is McCain's smear against Obama?
Are you playing dumb, AA? Do we really have to point out that Obama has no control over how endorses him? If the KKK endorses McCain, does that make McCain a racist? (No.) McCain should have said something like "We do not let terrorists groups determine our elections." Instead, he tries to associate Obama with Hamas, the very epitiome of negative campaigning.
But I see that is how you operate, AA. Always willing to pass on the latest right-wing talking points and smears.
If the KKK endorses McCain, does that make McCain a racist?
This is exactly what I was thinking. If the super grand master imperial clown wizard of the KKK said he was voting for McCain, would it be acceptable for Obama to say the KKK wants McCain to win or the KKK is in league with McCain and/or the republican party?
Loonz wrote:
>>This is exactly what I was thinking.
Yes, but AA won't address this at all.
AA wrote:
>>You are wrong once again.
No, I'm not. But you are really revealing your lack of decency and honesty. I know you like to think of yourself as a conservative who likes to present an honest argument on a liberal board. I hope those paying attention now see otherwise.
Funny,
I don't know why you are casting aspersions toward me. I simply offer my opinion and enjoy discussing the differences of opinion with other people who disagree withe me.
Apparently you are one of those who are personally offended by someone disagreeing with you. There are a few others here who like you, when presented with an opposing opinions start insulting the person with whom they disagree. There really is no need for that, (but good natured jabs are kind of fun,) as it takes away from the discussion.
I am of the opinion that those who resort to insults and casting aspersions have very low thresholds and are not really interested in discussing the threads. Instead they use these forums to vent whatever anger it is that they have at those who have opposing viewpoints. Both liberals and conservatives do it here. Nobody is perfect but the name calling means nothing and does not further the discussion at all.
Funny,
You need to get your definitions checked.
Repeating a fact is not a smear. The AFL-CIO endorses Hillary. Is that a smear? You may not like the fact that a terrorist organization again is rooting for a Democrat, but it is a fact. Sucks to be him.
A smear is stating something negative about an opponent that is not a fact but casts the opponent in a negative manner like Obama did against McCain. It doesn't say much for Obama's quest to bring people together when he engages in statements like this one.
AA wrote:
>>You need to get your definitions checked.
Sorry, AA, but you need to take a course in rudimentary logic. In fact, repeating fact can be a smear, if done selectivly, which is what McCain did. I've already explained this. And you are repeating the smear. Yes, a terrorists organization is rooting for Obama. And if the KKK is rooting for McCain, does that make him a racist?
So keep on smearing, AA. I would like to say that you also lost your bearing, but you never had any to begin with.
Funny,
thanks for the lesson in LOL 101. (Lack of Logic - 101)
You - Yes, a terrorists organization is rooting for Obama. And if the KKK is rooting for McCain, does that make him a racist?
Me- For your "logic" to be correct, I would have had to call Obama a terrorist. Did I call Obama a terrorist? No. I made no "if A is true then B is true" type of argument at all. Therefore your logic fails and you have no point. I'll give you points for a failed "straw man" argument.
I find it funny you accuse me of smearing by pointing out the facts while you find it perfectly acceptable to smear me with the same smear as Obama and using no facts and bad logic. Thanks for proving my point and making my day!
AA wrote:
>>Me- For your "logic" to be correct, I would have had to call Obama a terrorist. Did I call Obama a terrorist? No. I made no "if A is true then B is true" type of argument at all. Therefore your logic fails and you have no point. I'll give you points for a failed "straw man" argument.
No, AA. Apparently you don't know what a strawman argument is, either. If you state that it sucks that a terrorist organization is rooting for Obama, then you obviously think that Obama is tainted by this endorsement. But then McCain should be tainted by the endorsement by the KKK. But you won't address that point. Obviously, Obama has no control over who endorses him. But because the endorsement makes Obama look bad, like a terrorist sympathizer, McCain repeats it. That is a smear.
And you do need a lesson in logic--and decency. Selectively pointing out facts to make someone look bad is the same as lying. Linguistics even call this a linguistic lie.
Funny,
Endorsements can be either positive or negative for any candidate. You may think Hamas endorsing Obama is a positive. That is okay with me. If I happen to think it is a negative, that doesn't make it a smear, it only means that I think the endorsement doesn't help Obama. It is perfectly fair to let the voters know that Hamas supports Obama in the same way it would be perfectly fair to report that the Teamsters support Obama. (I think they do, but I may be wrong.)
Sorry, your repeated attempts at pointing out endorsements as smears doesn't hold water.
I do think the AAMB and Hamas endorsements help Obama immensely with the ultra-left wing of the Democrat Party incl. the CodePink/MoveOn/CAIR types. They don't hurt him with a significant part of his base.
This is a win-win for Obama. On one hand, he can "condemn" these terrorists. OTOH, the terrorists will explain their "understanding" so that he doesn't get into trouble with a significant demographic in the left wing.
Sad - but that's politics, Obama style.
AA,
Look. No one is denying the fact that Hamas made the statement. Endorsement? I guess so. Anyway, the obvious point here is that McCain brings it up, knowing it will be national news. Why would he do that? Is it because he just wanted to let everyone know this in a non-partisan way. Is McCain a journalist? No. The whole point is that he brought it up, and it's like saying "look everyone a terrorist organization supports Obama" It's obvioulsy a political ploy to insinuate such things as "Does Hamas' endorsement mean Obama is a terrorist?" "Does Hamas' endorsement mean Obama is soft on terror" blah blah, blah. It's a smear plain and simple. McCain was not just reporting the news here. That is the difference.
You - Yes, a terrorists organization is rooting for Obama. And if the KKK is rooting for McCain, does that make him a racist?
McCain is employing something similar to guilt by association. He's an asswipe who will do anything to win the election.
Loonz wrote:
>>McCain is employing something similar to guilt by association. He's an asswipe who will do anything to win the election.
Yes, guilt by association. Though in this case, Obama has *no* association with Hamas.
But let's play AA's game. AA is a Christian. The Christians are responsbile for some horrendous things, like the crusades and the inquisition. Now I simply need to point out every time AA posts, that he is a member of an organization that burned people to death because of superstition. I just need to point that out each time, and then say that since I am must pointing out a fact, though an inconvenient one, I am not smearing AA.
Col.
You are wrong again. Hitler's parents may have been Catholics but Hitler was not.
Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.
...
The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a "culmination" of Christianity.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0110.htm
Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious.
He wasn't anti-religious. He mixed Nazism with the Christian faith and created his own brand of Christianity. And Germany was overwhelmingly Christian and yet the people chose to follow the Nazi ideology.
Loonz,
Interesting topic, but I thank you for supporting my contention that Hitler was not a Catholic. He wrote and said many things for public consumption to dupe the Christians into thinking he was Christian. However his actions repudiated his words. He, like Lenin and Stalin and other dictators, developed the cult of personality, mixing in religion, (while corrupting the religions,) for his own personal political gain.
dineshdsouza ??
I guess that settles it. A few words are even in quotes, and he's writing for Catholic education. Sorry, I've got to ditch this font.
Sorry, my preview was showing up in gigantic red letters. Anyway, it's just as easy to come up with evidence of Hitler's close ties with the Catholic Church, as it is to come up with quotes to dispute it. It's as ridiculous an approach as citing terrorist endorsements of candidates.
Your problem, AA, is that you question anything that doesn't agree with you ( I recently have seen you dismissing AP and Reuters as questionable), while you use Townhall and Human Events (both documenteed propaganda sites) as sources.
Here's some info and some quotes, many from Mein Kampf, clearly outlining Hitler's Christian background.
BTW, before anybody misinterprets and attacks me, let me make it clear; I am, in no way, trying to align Adolph Hitler and Christianity or the Catholic Church. I'm only pointing out the idiocy of these guilt-by association efforts,and, as AnotherAmerican demonstrated with his post, how easily the gullible can be led to see what they want to see, and to be blinded to that which is uncomfortable, or doesn't agree with their beliefs, while being spoon-fed exactly what they want to hear..
Col.
I find it funny that you are trying to prove me wrong by using the same argument you say is wrong. The logic of that escapes me.
The Hitler thing you bring up is just an off topic sidelight. If you want to think Hitler was a Catholic, I don't care. I have provided sources that show Hitler used religion as a tool but had contempt for it, thereby showing your original contention was wrong, (as are most of your arguments.) . Your quoting "Mein Kampf" does not disprove my contention. It is widely know Hitler used that book propaganda.
If you don't like anyone mentioning the fact that Hamas endorses Obama all I can say is.. oh well.
The logic of that escapes me.
That's really all you needed to write, but thanks for all of the supporting proof. I may be moving back to my former opinion, that you're doing performance art as the most obtuse wingnut in the world. Nobody could really have this much trouble understanding this.
Funny,
Go ahead and play your game. I feel no shame at all in telling people I am a Christian even with it's past mistakes. I thank God everyday and love Jesus for his saving act of dying on the cross for my sins. I look forward to seeing my loved ones when I die. I pray that by my actions here on Earth I am worthy to enter Heaven when that day comes.
No big deal . . .Obama's innocuous comment aside, it's already clear that smear merchant loonies on the far left are gonna take subtle, yet not very clever, digs at McCain's age, just as their counterparts on the right are gonna take stupid digs at Obama's name . . .
I just hope that neither Obama nor McCain get too much involved, and do, instead elaborate their differences on the issues as the campaign winds down, so that it will be taken seriously come November
Yeah, dredge that ancient story up for public consumption...a real winner!
Why don't you hand the election to McCain on a platter?
Douchebags on the right are dredging up Obama's relationship with a radical from the 60's....is that going to hand Obama the election? If so, bring on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300647.html
Tommy,
It is Obama who is legitimizing Hamas with his (conditional) promise that he'd go talk with them. It is Carter who legitimized them by actually going and talking to their leaders.
It is an inconvenient truth that these anti-American terrorists want Obama to be our next president. Pointing out that enemies of the United States want Obama as President is as legitimate as it gets.
Obama is on the record that he'll talk to anybody, irrespective of their intent or ideology. As a result, the enthusiastic endorsements he receives from the likes of Hamas, FARC, and AAMB are subject to analysis and examination.
We all know how the Hamas thing is a smear. Just link a terrorist organization to the candidate (Obama) by an "indorsement" which Obama did NOT seek or acknowledge, and you have done your work. The idiot in the diner will pick up on that and yack his way into the minds of the other idiots willing to listen. McCain has done HIS duty.
Don't forget 16% of conservative republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim.
Ignorance is un-patriotic.
As do 10% of Democrats.
I don't know where you got your statistics but here are a few:
Associated PressPublished on: 03/28/08
WASHINGTON — One in 10 voters believes Barack Obama is Muslim, a mistaken impression that lingers across party lines, a poll showed Wednesday.
Fourteen percent of Republicans, 10 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of independents mistakenly think he is Muslim, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just over half of each group correctly identified him as Christian, while about a third said they don't know his religion.
Don,
My trick? You give me way too much credit. :-) I am not out to trick anyone.
I find you having to caution all the progressives out there reading this as not too complimentary toward them. Apparently you think others here are not smart enough to form their own opinions when faced with an opposing viewpoint.
Why are you against someone having an alternative interpretation to MMFA and debate it vigorously? Are you afraid someone might change their mind? Is it too threatening?
Again, thanks for the backhanded compliment. :-)
AA, I don't think the "compliment" you saw had anything to do with your persuasive arguments, I think Donald was referring to the time-wasting element of trying to have a discussion with you.
He may be new around here,and think that you're just a troll who's playing dumb. Those of us who've been around are more inclined to think you actually believe the things in your comments, and find you entertaining.
Unless you're doing performance art ! ;0)
"And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."
Get a grip, what part of that was "insulting to McCain's age"?
-Will Damon
Wow, this is what Rove calls a two for one smear. You can both smear your opponent because some terrorist "endorsed" them (it's just as possible the "endorsement" was meant to HURT Obama with American voters), and when they reply saying you claimed you were going to run a clean campaign but have "lost your bearings", you can then use that to smear him by pretending he was talking about our age.
...and the media plays along.
We can expect round after round of these types of manufactured scandals involving Obama. I don't think the American people as a whole are stupid enough to believe them. They might actually have a "boy who cried wolf" affect.
Exactly right, Brian, a two-fer while pretending to take the high road on both.
The scheme is directed at the most simple, those who think advisors to terrorist organizations make off-the-cuff honest remarks, when basic logic tells you they would aim these comments at those most susceptible to take the words of fanatics at face value without analyzing motives.
The same target audience who can be persuaded that "losing ones bearings" is a hateful ageist smear.
And speaking of hateful ageists, where's Worrierking? That whippersnapper is usually all over these Grampy McSame threads, spewing his vitriol at the geezer-Americans.