Unfit for Publication: Corsi's The Obama Nation filled with falsehoods
SUMMARY: In its preface, Jerome Corsi compares his new book, The Obama Nation, to his 2004 book Unfit for Command. The comparison seems apt: Just as Unfit for Command contains false attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, a Media Matters review finds that The Obama Nation similarly contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.
In the preface of his recently released book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, author Jerome Corsi writes: "My intent in writing this book, as was the case in coauthoring Unfit for Command, is to fully document all arguments and contentions I make, extensively footnoting all references, so readers can determine for themselves the truth and validity of the factual claims." Indeed, Corsi's comparison of the two books seems quite apt: Just as Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry contains false and baseless attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, a Media Matters for America review finds that Obama Nation similarly contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.
Media Matters previously documented false and baseless charges Corsi made in Obama Nation about Obama's positions on the Global Poverty Act of 2007 and nuclear weapons. Media Matters also pointed out false statements Corsi made while discussing the book with Fox News host Sean Hannity, concerning Obama's position on abortion and Obama's memoir Dreams From My Father (Crown, 1995).
Below are additional falsehoods from Obama Nation, listed in the order in which they appear in the book:
The divorce
Corsi baselessly suggests that Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., may have divorced his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, "following the prescripts of Islamic sharia law." Corsi's sole source for this statement is a blogger who made the claim in a March 20 post, which featured the false headline, "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS MUSLIM FOR 31 YEARS" and misstated Obama's mother's name as "Shirley Ann." The blogger Corsi cited, "Majalah Bulanan Kumunitas Indonesia Di Edmonton," provided no substantiation for the claim that "the senior Obama divorced Dunham according to Sharia law."
On page 44, Corsi writes:
The circumstances of exactly how or why Stanley Ann ended her marriage with Obama's father, like much else in the narrative, remain unclear. One version is that Stanley Ann divorced Obama Senior in 1964, when Obama Junior was three years old and Stanley Ann realized Obama Senior had returned to Africa to rejoin the previously undisclosed wife he had abandoned in Kenya. The other version is that Obama Senior, following the prescripts of Islamic sharia law, divorced Stanley Ann when he returned to Africa in 1963 to begin his work as a bureaucrat in the Kenyatta government.4
The endnote for Corsi's claim reads as follows:
The first version, that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama divorced Obama Senior, is the version commonly found. The version that Obama Senior divorced Stanley Ann under sharia law is told in sources such as the following: Majalah Bulanan Kumunitas Indonesia Di Edmonton, "Barack Hussein Obama was Muslim for 31 Years," March 20, 2008, at http://www.indonesiaedmonton.org/berita/
2008/03/20/barack-hussein-obama-was-muslim-for-31-years/.
In the blog post that Corsi cites, the author asserted:
The senior Obama married a fellow student, eighteen-year old Shirley Ann (Anna) Dunham of Witchita, Kansas. Dunham was an anthropology student. Obama Jr. was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu.
Two years later, the senior Obama divorced Dunham according to Sharia law and returned to Kenya the same year that Kenyatta took control as the first prime minister of a self-governing Kenya (June 1963).
In Dreams from My Father, Obama quotes his mother stating of Barack Obama Sr., "I divorced him":
The teapot whistled, and I stamped my envelope. Then, without any prompting, my mother began to retell an old story, in a distant voice, as if she were telling it to herself.
"It wasn't your father's fault that he left, you know. I divorced him. When the two of us got married, your grandparents weren't happy with the idea. But they said okay -- they probably couldn't have stopped us anyway, and they eventually came around to the idea that it was the right thing to do. Then Barack's father -- your grandfather Hussein wrote Gramps this long, nasty letter saying that he didn't approve of the marriage. He didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman, he said. Well, you can imagine how Gramps reacted to that. And then there was a problem with your father's first wife ... he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce ..." [Pages 125-126]
On Pages 49-50, Corsi falsely claims that Obama did not dedicate Dreams from My Father to his mother or his grandparents. Corsi writes:
Interestingly, Obama did not dedicate Dreams from My Father to his mother, or to his father, Barack Senior, or to his Indonesian stepfather. Missing from the dedication are the grandparents who raised him in Hawaii, especially during the years his mother abandoned him to return to Indonesia to be with Lolo [Soetoro, Obama's stepfather].
In fact, while the 2004 edition of Dreams -- the version Corsi cites in Obama Nation (Part One, endnote 2, Page 306) -- does not contain a separate dedication page, on Page xvii, the last page of the book's introduction, Obama writes:
It is to my family, though -- my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents -- that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book. Without their constant love and support, without their willingness to let me sing their song and their toleration of the occasional wrong note, I could never have hoped to finish. If nothing else, I hope that the love and respect I feel for them shines through on every page [emphasis added].
Corsi falsely claims that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, during the chapter in Dreams in which he discusses his time living in Indonesia. Corsi writes:
In the midst of the personal drama being played against the background of this Indonesian turmoil, on August 15, 1970, Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, was born to his mother and stepfather. Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to his time in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes no reference to Maya's birth [Page 48].
In fact, on Page 47 of Dreams, in the chapter discussing his time in Indonesia, Obama writes that "my mother and Lolo would remain cordial through the birth of my sister, Maya."
Zulfin Adi
Corsi writes that in a March 16, 2007, Los Angeles Times article, "The newspaper quoted Zulfan Adi, who described himself as one of Obama's closest childhood friends" during his time in Indonesia. Corsi further writes:
Adi said neighborhood Muslims worshipped in a nearby house. When the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Adi remembered seeing Lolo and Barry walk together to the makeshift mosque. "His mother often went to the church," Adi told the Times, "but Barry was a Muslim. I remember him wearing a sarong" [Page 56].
In fact, as Media Matters has noted, key aspects of the March 16 Los Angeles Times article were later challenged by the Chicago Tribune, which reported that Adi said he "was not certain" about his statements regarding Obama's childhood and that he "only knew Obama for a few months." Additionally, the Tribune reported that "[i]nterviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia."
Corsi falsely claims that Obama "has yet to answer questions" concerning whether "he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug use extended into his law school days or beyond." Corsi writes:
Still, Obama has yet to answer questions whether he ever dealt drugs, or if he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug usage extended into his law school days or beyond. Did Obama ever use drugs in his days as a community organizer in Chicago, or when he was a state senator from Illinois? How about in the U.S. Senate? If Obama quit using drugs, the public inquiry certain to occur in a general election campaign for the presidency will most certainly aim at the when, how and why questions George W. Bush successfully avoided [Page 77].
In fact, Obama wrote in Dreams that he "stopped getting high" shortly after moving to New York City to attend Columbia University as an undergraduate. From Dreams:
When Sadik lost his own lease, we moved in together. And after a few months of closer scrutiny, he began to realize that the city had indeed had an effect on me, although not the one he'd expected. I stopped getting high. I ran three miles a day and fasted on Sundays. For the first time in years, I applied myself to my studies and started keeping a journal of daily reflections and very bad poetry. Whenever Sadik tried to talk me into hitting a bar, I'd beg off with some tepid excuse, too much work or not enough cash [Page 120].
As Media Matters documented, a July 30 WorldNetDaily.com article about Obama Nation also claimed that the book "points out" that "Barack Obama admitted using drugs in his autobiography but never revealed if or when he stopped."
Obama and City College of New York
On Page 129, Corsi falsely claims that Obama "does not mention in his autobiography" that after graduating from Columbia, he "was working as a community organizer out of the Harlem campus of the City College of New York." Corsi writes:
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama mentions in passing that in 1984 he had just graduated from college and was working as a community organizer out of the Harlem campus of the City College of New York. This is a job Obama does not mention in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
In fact, on Page 139 of Dreams from My Father, Obama writes:
On the spot he offered me the job, which involved organizing conferences on drugs, unemployment, housing. Facilitating dialogue, he called it. I declined his generous offer, deciding I needed a job closer to the streets. I spent three months working for a Ralph Nader offshoot up in Harlem, trying to convince the minority students at City College about the importance of recycling. Then a week passing out flyers for an assemblyman's race in Brooklyn -- the candidate lost and I never did get paid.
Sam Graham-Felsen and socialism
Corsi writes of Obama campaign blogger Sam Graham-Felsen, "After leaving Harvard, Graham-Felsen published an article in an avowedly socialist magazine" [Page 148]. Corsi goes on to assert that "Writing in Socialist Viewpoint in the May/June 2006 issue, Graham-Felsen discussed a trip to Paris in which he participated in leftist street riots that involved a controversial employment law designed to facilitate the ability of French companies to fire workers under twenty-six years old." In fact, the article Corsi presents as having been "published ... in an avowedly socialist magazine" was actually published in April 2006 in The Nation, and reprinted by the Socialist Viewpoint. This is clearly indicated on the Socialist Viewpoint website for which Corsi provides the link. The same Graham-Felsen article was also reprinted at CBSNews.com. The May/June 2006 issue of Socialist Viewpoint also reprinted articles from the February 27, 2006, edition of Detroit Free Press, and from the March 29, 2006, edition of London's The Guardian.
Rezko and the Obamas' house
Discussing the house Barack and Michelle Obama bought in 2005, Corsi falsely cites a February 1 Salon.com article for the claim that convicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko "found the house for Obama. Salon.com reported that Donna Schwan of Metro Pro Realty, the real estate agent who listed the property, recalled the deal starting when Rezko expressed interest in the listing" [Page 165]. In fact, in the Salon.com article Corsi cites, Edward McClelland reported: "Asked who approached her about the house, Schwan told Salon, 'I honestly don't remember. Tony Rezko lived across the street, so he'd been interested in the lot.' " In an interview with the staff of the Chicago Sun-Times, Barack Obama asserted that it was his wife who found the house. From the transcript of Obama's interview, which included a prepared statement by Obama before he took questions:
OBAMA: We'd outgrown our condominium. We contacted our real estate broker, Miriam Zeltzerman. She was the person who sold us our condo in East View Park. Told her we were interested in putting our condo on the market, interested in having her show us houses in the area. She and Michelle went off and probably looked at 10 houses. One of the last ones they looked at was the house on Greenwood, which Michelle fell in love with and was actually slightly above, well it was above, what we'd originally intended to pay.
Michelle called me. She says, "I saw this house, I really like it, it's more than we originally budgeted for. I'd like you to take a look at it."
On Page 168 of Obama Nation, Corsi writes, "In his prepared statement, Obama told the Sun-Times that Michelle fell in love with the house," but he does not note that in the same prepared statement, Obama said that she had found it.
Discussing the purchase of the house, Corsi also writes:
The problem was that the doctor who owned the property wanted to sell the vacant lot and the house at the same time, even though the two properties were separately listed. Also, while the sellers wanted to find a buyer as quickly as possible, they did not want to close the deal until June 2005. The list price just for the home was $1.95 million, outside the reach of the Obama family, even with Obama's reissued autobiography, Dreams from My Father, hitting bestseller lists, his U.S. Senate salary of $157,082, and Michelle's 2005 income of $317,000 at the University of Chicago Hospitals.34
Rezko came up with a solution. His wife, Rita, bought the vacant lot at full price, permitting Obama and Michelle to negotiate buying the house for $1.65 million, a discount of $300,000 from the asking price. [Page 165-166]
Corsi later writes: "The [Boston] Globe also reported real estate agent Schwan's recollection that the Obamas may not have made the highest bid, but that the willingness of the Obamas and Rita Rezko to close in June was decisive." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, the Obamas reportedly did not receive a "discount" on their purchase of the house, and the sellers have reportedly said that the Obamas gave the best offer. Documents available on the Obama campaign's website indicate that the original asking price of the house was $1.95 million and that the Obamas paid $1.65 million. According to a February 18 Bloomberg News article, "The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller."
Additionally, Corsi writes of Obama's March 14 meeting with reporters from the Chicago Tribune to discuss his relationship with Rezko: "The transcript of the question-and-answer session clearly shows the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama. Yet Obama persisted, denying he coordinated the purchase with Rezko [Page 168]." But Corsi did not reconcile his assessment that "the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama" with the subsequent publication of an editorial in which the paper asserted that Obama had "offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives." From the March 16 editorial:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.
The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did. [...]
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
NewsMax, Obama, and Trinity Church
Corsi falsely claims that "NewsMax's Ronald Kessler reported that Obama had been in Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22 [2007], when Kessler was present," during which Obama's then-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, gave a sermon in which he "blamed the 'white arrogance' of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks." In fact, Kessler did not report that he had been at Trinity United on that date. Kessler's March 16 Newsmax report cited an August 9, 2007, Newsmax.com article by "freelance reporter" Jim Davis and stated: "On July 22nd [2007] he [Davis] sat next to Barack Obama as Barack Obama heard some of these same statements from that very preacher [Wright] and was nodding along."
Corsi wrote:
Obama's denial spurred investigators to prove the contrary. On March 16, two days after Obama's denial appeared on the Huffington Post, new evidence emerged. NewsMax's Ronald Kessler reported that Obama had been in Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22, when Kessler was present.74 Kessler claimed he and Obama both heard Wright preach a sermon that day in which the preacher blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. The Obama campaign promptly posted a new denial, claiming Obama did not attend church services in Chicago on July 22.75
While Corsi acknowledged that "[t]he Obama campaign promptly posted a new denial, claiming Obama did not attend church services in Chicago on July 22," he did not note that, as reported by several media outlets, Obama was in Miami on July 22, 2007, speaking at the National Council of La Raza's (NCLR) annual convention. According to the NCLR's schedule for the day, Obama spoke as part of a "special forum" between 1:30 and 3 p.m. ET.
Bill Kristol's March 17 New York Times column also cited Kessler's March 16 Newmax.com column. Later in the day on March 17, Kristol issued a correction that read:
In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.
Discussing a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 -- opponents of which said posed a threat to abortion rights -- Corsi writes:
Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present."5 In the Illinois Senate, voting "Present" is the equivalent of voting "No," because a bill must have a majority counting only "Yes" votes to pass [Page 238].
In fact, contrary to Corsi's suggestion that no senators voted against the bill -- and therefore Obama voted "present" because he did not want to be the only one to vote against it -- the roll call for that vote was "34 voting aye, 6 voting Nay, 12 voting present," according to the transcript of the Senate's proceeding, which Corsi himself cites. According to ABC News, Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, stated that Obama voted "present" on the bill as part of a legislative strategy. From a July 17, 2007, post on the ABC News blog Political Radar:
When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."
Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood's national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.
"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."
"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it's also not a 'yes' vote."
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.
Corsi writes that in a September 19, 2007, blog post, U.S. News & World Report money and politics blogger James Pethokoukis "pointed to the result of most Democratic plans to increase corporate taxes: the government ends up collecting less capital gains tax revenue, not more." Corsi continues:
Why? The answer is fairly simple: under higher capital gains tax rates, investors realize their gains before the higher capital gains rates kick in. Moreover, as long as the higher rates remain in effect, investors and corporate boards make decisions to reduce the amount of capital gains that have to be realized. One clear way to accomplish this goal is for investors and corporations to cut back on investments. Discourage investments and fewer capital gains taxes will be paid. As a result, higher capital gains tax rates tend to produce less capital gains tax revenue, not more. The economics of this principle have been proved repeatedly in the two decades since Reagan was president [Page 245].
However, as Media Matters has documented, numerous economists have challenged the assertion that cuts in the capital gains tax raise revenue in the long term. Additionally, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years.
Corsi falsely claims that Obama "has pledged to reduce the size of the military [Page 257]." Similarly, Corsi writes that "Obama will undoubtedly campaign in the general election saying he wants to maintain a strong military, just as he will say he is fully committed to the survival of Israel. Obama's problem is that neither position may be credible in the face of video clips that show him saying he wants to reduce the military, cut nuclear weapons, and pull out of Iraq" [Page 279]. In fact, during the Democratic primary, Obama repeatedly asserted that he would "increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines." Obama's "Plan for a 21st Century Military," posted on his website, states: "Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: A major stress on our troops comes from insufficient ground forces. Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families."
Discussing Obama's "antiwar ... foreign policy," Corsi conflates Iraq and Afghanistan to falsely suggest that Obama supports "de-escalat[ing]" troops from Afghanistan. Corsi writes:
Obama can be expected to invoke more explanations, attempting to sound patriotic in his unwillingness to abandon U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they are there, but he will still be explaining himself. A presidential candidate in a close general election campaign who is forced to spend time explaining contradictions between his words and actions is, by definition, losing ground.
Since becoming a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama has not introduced a single resolution or bill calling on President Bush to end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, only a January 2007 bill to de-escalate. [...]
Will Obama still run against the war if the reports coming from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to validate the Bush administration's military policy in the region? If McCain wanted to stay the course until he could declare victory and stage an orderly withdrawal, why would Obama object? Would Obama do anything different? [Pages 259-260]
But Obama's January 2007 bill -- the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 -- establishes a timetable for the withdrawal of most troops from Iraq, and calls for "appropriate units of the Armed Forces" to be redeployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as "elsewhere, to meet urgent United States security needs." As Media Matters has noted, Obama has been calling for an increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan since at least 2006 and has specifically proposed the addition of at least two combat brigades since 2007.
Good Job MMFA, thank you. I am so tired of this crap, and you notice Hannity is the only one giving this hater air time to sell this junk.
Pretty weak rebuttal by MM, IMHO.
If this is all that MM could come up with (some minor factual errors (e.g., the dedication, minor family facts)), it gives the impression that what Corsi has written should be seriously considered!
Keep up the good work, Shoes. Hmmm, this book only has a few lies that I know of so far, and they don't seem like very big lies. Therefore, this book deserves my serious consideration!
How does your brain get to that point?
No...wait.
It finds his ear and works its way up his headphones to the top.
Ooo! Ooo!
It asks the colon for directions to his hat?
I didn't realize you were looking for the scientific definition, or I would have answered
(cartesian coordinates, of course)
The troll who has never defended the opinions he presents as fact has the nerve to critique a well-researched rebuttal of a poorly researched piece of hackery.
Keep up the lame work Shoes!
I see you read the MMfA article as thoroughly as Corsi read Obama's autobiography (meaning, you just skimmed the first part, dincha?)
"some minor factual errors..."
SHOES89, are you kidding? As MMfA shows, Cosri's numerous errors mean that either he didn't do any research, so he's incompetent, or he's wrong on purpose, so he's lying. I think most reasonable observers know which.
Either way, Corsi's constant incorrectness undermines the very reason he gives for writing the book, leading to the further conclusion that there must be a different reason. Again, I think most reasonable observers know that Corsi's real intent is to undermine Obama through lies, innuendos and rumors.
Is it too far to say that anyone who writes a book about themselves or someone else has some sort of vested interest? In that case, we should believe nothing written by anyone.
I know we don't believe anything YOU write, Science101 - a.k.a. Columbus1492.....
If this is all that MM could come up with (some minor factual errors (e.g., the dedication, minor family facts)), it gives the impression that what Corsi has written should be seriously considered!
The only thing that should be seriously considered is a frontal lobotomy for Shoes. Then, she would only have to worry about which side of her mouth she's going to drool out of today. (Wait - she's already drooling. Maybe she's already had it done....) :-)
The only thing that should be seriously considered is a frontal lobotomy for Shoes.
What, another one? You don't think the current posts are signs of an untouched mind, do you?
Looks like we have a new #1 right wing apologist around here! Pretty weak rebuttal on your part, shoes.
MMFA points out half a doezen lies that have been oft-repeated in the media and, if believed or treated as reasonable, would damage Obama's image and reputation, not to mention that they blatantly mistate his core foreign policy, which has been clear to anyone with half a brain who actually LISTENED to him, to be the best, and only reasonable strategy, and would serve to elect McCain, who would continue the disastrous foreign policy of Bush, and continue to add to the decline of this great nation.
You are either lying, blind or mad. (Though I'm guessing all three: REPUBLICAN.)
This book is obviously just GOP invective for mass consumption by the GOP faithful, so facts and accuracy are optional. What independent is going to pour through this dreck in search of wisdom on Obama's fitness as President? That's like scrabbling through a landfill for a change of clean clothes.
Randy
"[...]readers can determine for themselves the truth and validity of the factual claims."
It sounds like he's saying, "I'm just going to throw a bunch of sh*t at the wall and let's see what sticks."
1. Didn't Scott McClellan write about his actual experiences working for Mr. Bush
2. So sales/popularity trump truth. Very sad. Makes double yews second term easier to understand
3. according to you we are only informed by being entertained and only entertained by watching people lie and insult each other (maybe we should use professional wrestlers to decide the election)
1. Didn't Scott McClellan write about his actual experiences working for Mr. Bush
You obviously did not read the book. He also claim half-truths to be completely true, and asserted what other people did behind closed doors when he was not present.
2. So sales/popularity trump truth. Very sad. Makes double yews second term easier to understand
I didn't say that was my view. But people tend to follow trendsetters instead of actually researching things. Uninformed people generally assume the masses have done their homework for them.
3. according to you we are only informed by being entertained and only entertained by watching people lie and insult each other (maybe we should use professional wrestlers to decide the election)
Well, if Hollywood and the nightly news are any proof, I'd say that its generally true of society. Look at any primetime news program - you'll see how much reporting is done on negative and bad things that happen, as opposed to good things going on.
For example, whether you agree with the war or not, read the newspapers and watch the tv shows out there in the past 5 years and see how much negative coverage it got, and how little they talked about the build up of schools, increase in womens freedoms, etc.
Again, I'm not expressing that I am in favor of all this, just generally stating what is going on.
You obviously did not read the book. He also claim half-truths to be completely true, and asserted what other people did behind closed doors when he was not present.
Since I'm betting you didn't read the book either, post a link to site disclosing the half-truths and assertions.
Science you are not bright enough to read chapters of books.
I hear that Science101 is almost finished reading My Pet Goat. He started reading it on 9/12.... :-)
I don't agree with it at all
Lying sack of garbage. If you didn't agree with what Corsi is doing you wouldn't be attempting to deflect criticism of it in the way you are here. You would condemn it flat out without bringing up liar Scotty's book in a half-a$$ed attempt at the "everybody does it" excuse or Pelosi's low sales as an appeal to popularity. Like all wingnuts, you are incapable of truth.
The point is that Corsi himself will not even state that his book is 100% true, while McClennan says otherwise - yet we dont seem to see the same reaction here. However, what they both have in common is that they both wrote the book, asserting as truth what other people did when they weren't even there.
The part about Pelosi was a comparison to show that people are interested in conflict and confrontation - not simple honesty. Never have been, never will. Go back to the mid evil times and people would huddle by the masses to see someone executed.
Again, I've never even heard of Corsi, much less have a desire to read his book. Any judgements I have of Barack Obama come from living in a Chicago suburb from 2004-2007 where his policies and views were made widely available.
I tend to take books - but biographical and autobiographical - with a grain of salt only believing what someone else can vouch for. An alibi or witness serves more proof to me than hearsay and personal gloating.
Boy do I feel dumb. Even more so than I usually feel.
I read Mr. Science's post where he mentions the mid evil period and I just thought he was speaking of the period just before the 2004 election.
I know that today we're in the end evil period and from 2001 to 2003 we were in the early evil period.
I can't wait until President Obama is inaugurated and we're in the post evil period.
And don't you know that Science101 has multiple advanced degrees?
His parents should ask for their tuition money back.
How can you possibly have advanced degrees and not have some idea that "mid evil" is not the name of the period in time? He apparently didn't have a clue though. Typical. Science101 and 'didn't have a clue' go together like Karl Rove and antichrist, or George W Bush and AWOL or Cheney and 'shoot your friend in the face if he gets in the way of you shooting a bird'.
Sure, go ahead and mock science101 based on a single quote taken out of context, just like you do with savage-weiner all the time. Here's the quote, with some helpful hints to assist you idiot liberals in understanding what science101 was talking about:
Go back to the mid evil times [pre-Bill Belichick] and people [the Patriots offense] would huddle by the masses [Foxborough stadium, Massesschusetts] to see [call a play for] someone [wide receiver, tight end, or possibly running back] executed [run the correct pattern].
Nobody can deny that the pre-Belichick days were just plain evil for Patriots, and science101's history is indisputable. Now, do any of you think that Obama is a TRUE patriot? No, of course not. Science101 has proven that he's a late-comer, a bandwagon jumper. So suck on that, libs.
And even in todays full evil times, the Catholic church is no longer allowed to hold execution masses, so even if it was colder like in the mid evil times, people wouldn't have a mass to huddle by. I suppose they could huddle by the wakes or the catechisms, but the missing element would still be the execution.
Texas, while Bush was governor, was prime huddling territory, except that attendence was limited. They didn't limit the people who could be executed, just those that could huddle. Thus, our best chance to again form huddles by masses was legislated away. Another example of the nanny state taking away our rights.
Some day, after we're victorious in our war on terror, we'll return to the barely evil times again, where citizens are required to attend mass, evil is what we determine it to be, and executions are legal, safe, and common. Then you'll see some huddling...
The point is that Corsi himself will not even state that his book is 100% true
So he knows that he's lying? An honest, reputable author would fix or remove the parts he knew to be untrue (i.e., lies). You have said that Corsi did nothing of the sort. Therefore Corsi is neither reputable nor honest.
Science,
Thank you for admitting that Corsi is a liar. When will the media give a liberal political author that much air time?
Not really sure what it is ranked? And don't really care..
But did you see what this little, old lady did to the powerful snake oil salesmen of that macho Republican Party....she spanked their little sissy behinds and they cried and cried and cried. And eventually went home to their mommys. How could these war lovin' goons let this happen? And her book sales are low!!!! Your boys got a good pu$$y whippin'....as they will for the next 8-16 years. Wait til Hillary gets hold of these little boys..how on to your b@lls Repubs
A relative of mine got to visit the US Capitol today and actually got to go inside the House of Representatives - a Republican Congressman invited a tour group inside.
Luckily that relative has their head screwed on tight and so was not influenced by what the Republican liars had to say.
This would be a good time to remember the Anita Hill slam that MMFA founder wrote and later recanted. Anyone who has read Mr. Brock's excellent books will understand how this game is played. You are correct, the whole point is to sling and sling and then see what sticks.
No doubt a lot of the muck being hashed around by the Fox/rush crowd is having its effect on poll numbers. Of course, we desearve a better pre election discourse than this but unfortunatly this is what we get. The whole thing sounds like an extended campaign add: sleezy and reaking of special interests.
Close your eyes and imagine what a rational, logical, productive pre election national dialogue would be. Obviously it would be the complete opposite of this!
This is exactly the point. We already know that there is a well financed right wing attack machine that cares NOTHING for honesty and facts. The fact that the corporate media spends all its time on trivia rather than issues plays right into their hands.
This is why I have no patience for the moronic middle; the undecided voter, who doesn't bother to educate himself and keeps claiming he doesn't know enough about the candidates. At the last minute, these people make a decision, usually based on a "feeling," which could just be indigestion.
I wonder if anyone will write a fake book about McCain. Throw in a few lies about McCain being brainwashed by the communist in North Vietnam. Write a few more lies about McCain having Alzheimer’s. Fill in some more pages with lies about McCain cheating on his wife. Then throw in some more lies that John McCain is out to bomb China as well as Iran. Then end the book with links between John McCain and the Führer. I wonder what the right wing of the Fox Noise Channel would do about that.
Of course this kind of stuff is all non-sense. Nobody from the middle to the left cares about lies, they want the truth. This is why writing fake books about any Republican never works, because people from the middle to the left wouldn't even buy it. Only the Right wing excepts these obvious lies as being true. Sad but true.
Of course this kind of stuff is all non-sense. Nobody from the middle to the left cares about lies, they want the truth. This is why writing fake books about any Republican never works, because people from the middle to the left wouldn't even buy it. Only the Right wing excepts these obvious lies as being true. Sad but true.
You mean similar to how no one from the middle to the right bought Pelosi's book? Actually, kinda seems like no one but the FAR FAR left bought her book. Even then, those numbers are deceiving. Perhaps she bought all them so far herself in effort to promote it...
Following the Nixon tradition of how to pump up sales then.
Not.
Actually there is a book or two out about McCain that has been panned by the Right the way the Left is jumping all over this book about Obama. One book I know of [The Real McCain] was written by a guy named Cliff Schecter, a HuffPo contributor...another words a Left-wing partisan, who has presented, at least from what I've read, a very unflattering biased account of McCain.
When it comes to political books authored by partisans about the other side one almost comes to expect fabrications, distortions, & innuendo.
I always research an author before buying a book dealing with politics or a political figure.
Knowing Corsi's history, I wouldn't waste my money on this book...I wouldn't even take it out of the library. Why waste the time?
I haven't wandered into a book store recently, but if this book is put front & center, a quick skimming of the jacket will probably determine who will buy it. Cons will. Libs won't. And those still undecided might be tempted. It's those undecided voters who need to be alerted to what this book clearly is, a cheap smear job on Obama.
Well darlin I bet you thought I only read the comics ;-)
Klein's novel Primary Colors was great, I haven't read any of his non-fiction. But I'll take your word he's not worth bothering with.
The thing is, if an author is partisan [either way] it's hard to expect they'll write an non-partisan account of anything political, be it a situation/event or a person.
If a Con or a Lib writes about one of their own...expect it to overlook certain facts, or gloss them over. If a Con or Lib writes about the opposition or an opposing viewpoint or event, you again have to cut through the bias.
Got any books you could recommend? Like you, I prefer to bypass the obvious smear books.
Hi sweets,
There is a book that might be right up your alley (although I haven't read it) called "Reclaiming Conservatism" by Mickey Edwards. Another one I enjoyed and actually have read is John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience". I also enjoyed "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast - he is an equal opportunity author, he doesn't care who he offends :-0).
Thomas Franks has written a number of books and his newest is coming out this week called "The Wrecking Crew". He is the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas. I also like books by George Packer, and Jeremy Scahill has written some good stuff about Blackwater. I even like that rambling country lawyer, Gerry Spnce but he's much too abstract and rambling for you. He's right up my alley though. He wrote a book called "Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power" about the new conservative hate culture.
My oh my, aren't we (you and I) behaving ourselves? But since someone is hatin' on us, I guess no more fun flirting for us :-(
Hey darlin,
I'll try to confine my thoughts to one post ;-)
I'm straight out at work today...hoping to sneak out soon for a cig break. Hey don't look at me like that. Barack does the same thing ;-)
I guess we have to keep our flirting at a minimum, or at least keep it light. It upsets a few uptight folks here.
Thanks for the book suggestions. I've read John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience". And I agree it was good. Edwards book is one I've had my eye on. I just read a review about Thomas Franks new book last Sunday, the critic said it didn't come up to the standards of "What's the Matter with Kansas". I haven't read that yet, though it's been on my "list" for ages. So many books, so little time. Al Gore. Nope. Let's move on ..Gerry Spence..wow that's a name from the past. I remember the guy from the OJ trial, it was all over the boob tube. I always liked the guy. .
So where the heck are you going? Anywhere near New England? Wait a sec...I just had to slap my face for thinking what I was thinking :-O. Moving on...I'll miss ya sweet Julia. Have a safe trip!
Hey one of these days you might get an e-mail. No turning back after that ;-)
So where the heck are you going? Anywhere near New England? Wait a sec...I just had to slap my face for thinking what I was thinking :-O. Moving on...I'll miss ya sweet Julia. Have a safe trip!
Hey one of these days you might get an e-mail. No turning back after that ;-)
Jeter, my last trip to New England was when my H and I rented a house for the week in Nantucket in 2004. But I have traveled to New England extensively for years before that as I love the area and had a sister who went to Harvard. In fact she was just up in New Haven last week visiting friends. But unfortunately I won't be going there this trip. In the near future very possibly though.
I have often wondered where exactly you are located since I have traveled there frequently. Maybe if we do email I can tell you all the places up there I've been. I am a traveling fool who has just settled down to not so much travel in the last couple of years. I have a long and interesting history.
Anyway, yes, after the email there's no turning back. We'd have to have rules. But as I mentioned I wouldn't mind having a new cyber friend ;-) We'll see.....I think we probably have a lot in common.
Oh, almost forgot, our trip is to Baltimore to visit my husband's daughter from his first marriage and to meet her fiance and his parents. Then over to Rehoboth Beach for some sun and sand as well as some historic areas in between. In the meantime, don't slap yourself silly :-0)
Jeter,
Schecter is a partisan, so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, but I can't find anything that's been proven to be false in his book.
Hey little buddy Science,
That's a fantastic comeback. You are getting really good at this.
Ignore those other posters that don't get your play on words with "mid evil". I got it and thought it was very funny. They are just jealous.
But, to be honest, I really couldn't find any. Have you found some? I'd be interested to know.
Skep,
I haven't read the book [maybe I wasn't too clear about that] What I wrote was I knew of the book & from what I had read [reviews] I'd heard it was an unflattering biased account of McCain.
You've obviously read it. How did you determine what was or was not false/true?
I would like to find a site like MMFA that would research the book & point out what is or what isn't an honest account.
Jeter,
I have read a lot of material on McCain. I was a big supporter of his as far back as 1992 and definately in 2000. I was always looking for information about him.
Even back then there was a lot of unflatttering stuff written about him and he confirmed a lot of it. It added to his "Maverickness" if that's a word.
None of the stuff in this latest book is new and it really won't hurt him.
What has hurt him is the way he has completely changed. After Bush/Rove smeared him so badly in South Carolina and he did nothing in return (I wanted him to slug one of them) I started to lose respect for him. I really wanted him to hang in that race, but he backed out and has been kissing their collective rear ends ever since.
He completely changed after that really pisses me off.
But, back to your question, I knew it was accurate material because I had read most of it before as well as the fact that no one has actually disputed any of it (at least not with any actual facts to dispute it with).
As an aside, since Hannity seems to think that Obama has internalized each and every viewpoint of every person he has had a conversation with, how much would all of us enjoy a guest of Sean's saying:
Sean, since you are friends with Corsi you obviously think that:
Islam is "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"
Catholicism is: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"
Muslims are: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together,"
etc. from
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010?f=h_top
Wouldn't that type of confrontation be hilarious?
Wouldn't that type of confrontation be hilarious?
Yes, but the powers that be at Faux News would kill the mic and cameras in a New York Minute to protect their golden boy Sean.
I'm still waiting to hear Hannity's comments about how his book (and books written by Bill O'Reilly and Michael Weiner) were found in the house of that wacko who shot up the Unitarian Church in Knoxville.......
As a result, higher capital gains tax rates tend to produce less capital gains tax revenue, not more. The economics of this principle have been proved repeatedly in the two decades since Reagan was president [Page 245].
I'm so sick of this damned lie.
This is clearly a polemic, and as with all election-year polemics seemingly cobbled together rather hastily over a few months. Virtually all such books, regardless of their political biases, inevitably will either overlook things out of convenience, quote disputed or controversial sources, or just flat present (un)intended factual mistakes. Many of the issues enumerated here tend to fall into the nonstarter category, and expurgated don’t necessarily divorce Corsi’s narrative of any cogency. Specifically, the Trinity thing is a stupid oversight that deserves correction in subsequent additions and nothing more; Obama never notes whether he *permanently* stopped using drugs (coke is a serious addiction as Texans can attest vis-à-vis our current prez, and Obama’s been BS’ing us on the cigarette issue for the past six months); far more State Senators voted “present” on the abortion question than “no” (thereby validating Corsi’s argument about political fallout); the capital gains issue is a matter for legitimate academic contention; the “size of the military” section omits the actual 2007 clip Corsi alludes to; MM doesn’t contradict the Afghanistan point at all. It’s very easy to nitpick on comparatively insignificant crap (which Brock has made a career of since the early 90s), but a serious philosophical debate on the merits of Corsi’s case is conspicuously absent here. Furthermore the Nation is *itself* arguably a Socialist publication, considering its abject sycophantism for “benevolent” autocracy in the 20s and 30s and its apologia for failed European economic policies in the subsequent decades.
You write quite a polemic yourself here. I've read "Blinded by the Right" and also "The Right Wing Noise Machine" which documents very carefully how this right wing attack apparatus is set up and how it works.
I see that amongst the "trivia" you seem to be interested in is whether Obama is still smoking. Gee, what an important thing for understanding his positions.
There isn't much substance to your critique, and hopefully you will use paragraphs in future posts.
The circumstances of exactly how or why Stanley Ann ended her marriage with Obama's father, like much else in the narrative, remain unclear.
And even if this were true...... exactly what is the relevance of Obama's parents divorcing? I guess he's trying to tie in Obama's growing up with divorced parents to make Obama seem sour about it?
In fact, while the 2004 edition of Dreams -- the version Corsi cites in Obama Nation (Part One, endnote 2, Page 306) -- does not contain a separate dedication page, on Page xvii, the last page of the book's introduction, Obama writes:
Oh..... so because it was in the back of the book instead of the front, this is proof that Obama has no love of family or whatever it is Corsi trying to imply
Corsi falsely claims that Obama "has yet to answer questions" concerning whether "he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug use extended into his law school days or beyond."
I realize that its Grampy McSame and not Bush that is running..... but to bring up drug use and whether a politician may or may not still be using may not be the smartest thing to do....especially considering Bush is still in office!
All in all...... scary that this book will be read by some and been seen as all true simply because those people are convinced that Obama is evil and McCain is perfect for no other reason than he is a Republican.
Anyone - - > Over/Under on any of the corporate media (besides posibly Olbermann) that do to this book as MMfA has done??
the capital gains issue is a matter for legitimate academic contention
No it isn't. Evidence proves that cutting the capital gains tax loses revenue in the long run, even when dynamic scoring (taking into the account the economic boost attributed to the cuts) is factored in. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html
http://www.cbpp.org/7-18-08tax.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm
You might want to look at reviews on Amazon.com of these screeds. First, there were four 5-star reviews of the Corsi book before it was even released. (A line or two, "He's great.")
I think it's a pretty extreme right-wing, fringe faction who gets into this stuff. I hope so, anyway. Anyway, you may want to look over the Amazon reviews and comment thereon.