Corsi: Critics of Obama might be "put ... in jail" if he's president
SUMMARY: On C-SPAN, Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation, asserted that, if Sen. Barack Obama were elected president and someone were to write a book critical of him or to publish "a cartoon like The New Yorker," "Obama might just have to create a department of hate crimes and put them in jail."
Appearing on the August 16 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions, August 2008), asserted that, if Sen. Barack Obama were elected president and someone were to write a book critical of him or to publish "a cartoon like The New Yorker," "Obama might just have to create a department of hate crimes and put them in jail." Responding to a caller's assertion that "we cannot question Obama," Corsi stated:
Ma'am, you make some very interesting points. Senator Obama is now appearing to have the thinnest skin of anybody I've ever seen run for president. And, you know, it reminds me because -- if this is the reaction for writing a book, and remember, I did not commit a crime. I wrote the book. And under the First Amendment, that's supposed to be protected and allowed. And it's a critical evaluation of Senator Obama.
But it has been pointed out, there has been many, many -- how many critical books of George Bush have there been? And George Bush doesn't come unglued at the people who write those books. It raises questions in my mind. If Senator Obama is reacting this ballistically -- this out of control, I mean, bouncing off the walls insanity, you know, concocting fake pictures of books that were never written attacking this -- 40 pages. Why didn't they write 140 pages? Because I wrote a book.
What's -- how is Senator Obama going to sit in the Oval Office and handle a crisis? I mean, all an enemy of the United States has to do is write a book about him and he'll go insane -- or put a cartoon like The New Yorker with Senator Obama, Muslim garb -- and Hillary [sic] dressed as a -- you know, a black militant.
And Senator Obama might just have to create a department of hate crimes and put them in jail. Where is the sense of humor here?
Also during the broadcast, Corsi continued to compound the falsehoods in his book by falsely claiming that he asks in his book for "definitive proof" -- such as "drug testing" -- that Obama has stopped using drugs. Corsi's claim came after host Pedro Echevarria pointed out that the Obama campaign and several major news outlets, such as The New York Times and Associated Press, have noted that Corsi's assertion 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 law school days or beyond," is false. Indeed, even before the book's official publication date, Media Matters for America documented this falsehood, noting that Obama wrote in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, that he "stopped getting high" shortly after moving to New York City to attend Columbia University as an undergraduate, following two years at Occidental College -- a statement that contradicts Corsi's claim in Obama Nation that Obama has yet to say whether he stopped using drugs.
On Washington Journal, Corsi said:
What I'm asking in the book is where's the definitive proof? And I look for many uses of definitive proof. Where's the drug testing? Where's the other records? If Senator Obama wanted to establish this on the record, he could then or now do the drug testing and establish the issue. At least now it would establish it for now. Athletes are required to do this. They don't trust athletes to self-report on drug use. And, the questions that I'm asking now that the issue is on the table, put there by the senator himself, are questions I also say in the book, President Bush should himself have been forced to answer in 2000 and 2004 -- when he himself -- when the issue came up in his own campaign.
In fact, Corsi did not ask about "drug testing," "other records," or "definitive proof" in any of the book's passages about Obama's past drug use.
As Media Matters has noted, Corsi has previously mischaracterized the false claim he made about Obama's answers to questions about his drug use on at least two occasions and has issued other additional falsehoods while promoting his falsehood-laden book.
From the August 16 edition of CSPAN's Washington Journal:
ECHEVARRIA: You write on Page 77 of the book, looking at various aspects of Senator Obama --
CORSI: Sure, go right ahead.
ECHEVARRIA: This about drug use. You say that "[s]till, Obama has yet to answer questions whether he 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." The Obama campaign, from what it put out, came out with this, it said -- and you can find this also on the senator's website -- that "Obama has made clear repeatedly that he stopped using marijuana in college, which peers have affirmed." Went on to go on to quote statements from The State Journal Register of the Springfield [Illinois], The New York Times, the Associated Press and the Politico. Again, an example of your claim against what they say is false.
CORSI: Well, you know, first of all, let me point out The New York Times and many of these other sources were -- have also been wrong dramatically about Senator Edwards, so their sources saying that Obama quit using drugs is probably just repeating what they were told, and I doubt they really did their own independent investigative research into the subject. Notoriously, people who use drugs, especially heavily, and Senator Obama says at Occidental, the drug use in college -- was his first college -- the drug use had actually become really habitual. In fact, he discusses how much of a habit it had become. For people who use drugs like that, their self-reporting that they stopped using drugs is usually notoriously inaccurate. But they'll repeat that to many people, who then repeat it as well.
What I'm asking in the book is where's the definitive proof? And I look for many uses of definitive proof. Where's the drug testing? Where's the other records? If Senator Obama wanted to establish this on the record, he could then or now do the drug testing and establish the issue. At least now it would establish it for now. Athletes are required to do this. They don't trust athletes to self-report on drug use. And, the questions that I'm asking now that the issue is on the table, put there by the senator himself, are questions I also say in the book, President Bush should himself have been forced to answer in 2000 and 2004 -- when he himself -- when the issue came up in his own campaign.
ECHEVARRIA: We'll take a look at various aspects of the book, but first to your calls.
[...]
CALLER: Good morning. And thank you for the book, sir. Appreciate it.
CORSI: Thank you. You're welcome.
CALLER: And I bought it a couple of days ago, so I'm reading it now.
CORSI: Deeply appreciate it, thank you.
CALLER: Mm-hmm. I -- we need something like this, because we cannot question Obama. Even his ears, he says, I don't like people talking about my ears, so we don't talk about his ears. But we talk about McCain's age, right? You didn't hear him say, "I don't like people talking about my age." So we're told what we can say, how we can say it.
And thank you, sir, because we need to know about this guy. He's left us -- they're hiding it. And I'm not sure how -- with the press like it is if you can do much good. And I'd love to talk to you for two hours.
CORSI: Well, thank you, ma'am. The mainstream media did not do its job. It was asleep. The mainstream media was busy making up epithets to use in case I wrote a book. I guess that's what they spend all their time doing.
Ma'am, you make some very interesting points. Senator Obama is now appearing to have the thinnest skin of anybody I've ever seen run for president. And, you know, it reminds me because -- if this is the reaction for writing a book, and remember, I did not commit a crime. I wrote the book. And under the First Amendment, that's supposed to be protected and allowed. And it's a critical evaluation of Senator Obama.
But it has been pointed out, there has been many, many -- how many critical books of George Bush have there been? And George Bush doesn't come unglued at the people who write those books. It raises questions in my mind. If Senator Obama is reacting this ballistically -- this out of control, I mean, bouncing off the walls insanity, you know, concocting fake pictures of books that were never written attacking this -- 40 pages. Why didn't they write 140 pages? Because I wrote a book.
What's -- how is Senator Obama going to sit in the Oval Office and handle a crisis? I mean, all an enemy of the United States has to do is write a book about him and he'll go insane -- or put a cartoon like The New Yorker with Senator Obama, Muslim garb -- and Hillary dressed as a -- you know, a black militant.
And Senator Obama might just have to create a department of hate crimes and put them in jail. Where is the sense of humor here?
I think that Senator McCain made a very appropriate comment yesterday when he said, "Let's just all keep our sense of humor." And I think that the criticism of me, the things that have been said have been over the top, and I've -- you know, my wife was calling me up trying to ask me to explain all the words I was being called on television.
ECHEVARRIA: From our line, for those who support Senator Obama, Little Rock, Arkansas.















I think he might have a point here... He hasn't been the only one saying it. Boortz, Limbaugh and Savage have made similar remarks. The Fairness Doctrine would be one phase of the Obamessiah's plan.
That concludes my GOP talking point for the day.
Hell, I can't wait til they get arrested. Once the Democrats gain control of everything, I'm all for it. And then we go after the posters who disagree with anything Democrats say. Can't wait....Better yet, we can have them all castrated on Pay-Per-View. Yippee....but to view it, you will need a magnifying glass and tweezers.
Round Em up.
THE NEOCON BIBLE
To the Muppet DAWUSS again:
African American running for POTUS: I am NOT the Messiah!
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
African American running for POTUS: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Blonde air-headed right wing news model : Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
African American running for POTUS: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Moronic viewers of Murdoch morning cable show who believe everything right wingers tell them: He is! He is the Messiah!
African American running for POTUS: Now, fcuk off!
[silence]
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: How shall we fcuk off, O Lord?
You really are the poster boy for someone with an irony by-pass arn't you.
Maybe, just for you l should post some of the "comedy stylings" of Dennis Miller or Andrew Dice Clay. Muppet.
DaWuss,
Here are examples of people wearing anti-Bush shirts and being arrested:
1) National Archives: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30068
2) West Virginia: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20310306/
3) Cindy Sheehan : http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/
4) Or a librarian outside of a McCain rally.
Worried yet?
And the Fairness Doctrine, does not carry with it jail time if someone doesn't put an opposing opinion on. No. What it would do would be to possibly take someone's license away for operating a broadcast station, and or a fine. It's called a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty, but then again, I don't even support the FD anyway.
So because I happen to agree with some points that conservative talking heads make I must agree with all of them. OK, got it.
I also happen to agree with some points that liberal talking heads make. So apparently I must agree with all of them as well.
Some liberal talking heads say things that conflict with what conservative talking heads say. If I was a droid my programming would contradict itself and I would be totally kaput. So says Assimov.
"Boortz, Limbaugh and Savage have made similar remarks"
So these known rightwing zealots say the same things as Corsi...... and DAWUSS says that Corsi has a point because other likeminded poopyheads spread the same vile garbage......
Its true then....... moronic racist sleeze do think alike!!
Thank you DAWUSS for proving yet again that your presence here at MMfA is as entertaining as it is a waste of everyones time...
I wasn't here then. I am now.
And when MMFA calls them out on it, I will be right along side of them.
..now that you are aware, are you planning on calling them out on it?
or is it so far in the past its just old news and does not mean anything at all to present tense.
You know, the fact that it is the cons that do all the calling for the arrests and death of liberal...you know.
Gonna call them on it or not?
"Boortz, Limbaugh and Savage have made similar remarks."
I think these three clowns are jealous of the attention the new clown in town is getting.
"Where is the sense of humor here?"
I enjoyed how Corsi began his rant with the standard I'm-the-real-victim-here routine, and then ended on the It's-just-a-joke defense.
Where is the sense of humor here?
Oh, so it's all just a joke? That's a relief.
That "its all just a joke" defense is a mainstay of rightwing ideology....
Like this I wonder? ------->
Rightwinger: Looking at a black man, "Hey ni**er"
Black man: Being properly angry "I'll teach you, I'm gonna beat your butt"
Rightwinger: Using fake defense "Dude, I was just kidding. Relax. I'm sorry you were offended by my remark."
Black man: Flabbergasted "I don't think so... dude!"
Other like minded rightwinger: "Jesus man, it was a joke. Can't you black people ever see that he said sorry?"
Black man: "What do you mean.... you black people?"
Rightwinger: "Man, you liberals are so touchy. All I said was a word and you got all mad, I said sorry that you were offended, now move along."
Black man: "One. I'm not a lib..."
Other rightwinger rudely interupting "Doesn't matter, since you can't take a joke, that is your problem and since you are unable to accept our apology....." And both rightwingers walk away believing that their lame non-apology was sufficient and that all liberals are still all pinko commies that have no sense of humor.....
And thus ends a brief conversation between two rightwingers and a black man
Corsi: Critics of Obama might be "put ... in jail" if he's president
There you have a classic example of projecting one's own shadow. Intimidation and threats of punishment for dissent is right out of the Goopers' playbook.
If Obama puts Corsi in jail for being an enemy combatant against truth, he can thank Bush for establishing the gulag system facilitating his indefinite detention. See, it's OK for Republicans to abuse power and authority, not Democrats. Wrong, Corsi. It's never OK for ANY American to abuse the mantle of office. When O when will you and your self-superior ilk understand that?
Randy
Indeed. If Obama jails his critics, he'd only be continuing a Bush administration policy.
Congratulations wingnuts, welcome to a Democratic president complete with all the executive powers grabbed by Bush over the last 8 years.
That emotion you feel right now? That's called regret.
CORSI: "you know, my wife was calling me up trying to ask me to explain all the words I was being called on television."
Apparantly his wife has never heard or doesn't understand the meaning of the words liar, shill and blood-filled wood tick.
And think of the children... We must always think of the children...
Wasn't there a clip here where The Lephrechaun was wailing about how his children were getting death threats because of Media Matters?
A little off-topic, but I do know that conservatives periodically mention how their families get treated because of how their statements were interpreted by the liberal mainstream media
In the mind of a lefty, constructive means you agree with them. If you have the gall to challenge a lefty or disagree with them, their pea sized brain can only compute that as not being constructive.
"Why don't you just shut up" is the classic retort when a lefty is unable to debate a point or topic.
"Why don't you just shut up" is the classic retort when a lefty is unable to debate a point or topic.
No. This is the classic retort to people babbling nonsense and a whole host of things.
Taz, so you're another rightie victim?
My problems with righties are many, a leading of which is the adamancy of your opinion seems to be to you the functional equivalent of truth. That, in fact, is what gives o'leilly the "credibility" he has.
Heaven knows there's right wingers I can discuss with, even respect. But too many are just adamantly expressing their opinion and, again, interpreting that as truth, therefore unarguable.
I think Taz and the Wussie are two screen names for the same person.
Taz and the Wussie are the only two posters I've ever seen use colored emoticons here. Taz's was the one with a falling down, laughing out loud, wiggling little guy, and the Wussie used another yellow, yet more subdued emoticon.
Coincidence? I bet not. Taz has been totally disgraced in the past months, and so had to come up with a new screen name, and now is using the old 'one screen name defends the sockpuppet's screen name's rubbish' method.
sure, because we've seen two liberal screen names both posting within days or hours of each other, both being the only two screen names using new, fancy emoticons, right?
Oh, not right?
Then you have no point, and have admitted that your a sockpuppet of Taz. What was the new, thirs screen name that was only here for a day or so the end of last week?
"Taz" opened his mouth, and this vomit came out:
"Why don't you just shut up" is the classic retort when a lefty is unable to debate a point or topic.
Actually, it's the only retort Bill O'Reilly uses when he is unable to form a coherent thought, which is to say, during his entire time on the air.
"Why don't you just shut up" is the classic retort when a lefty is unable to debate a point or topic.
O'Reilly's a liberal? Really?
A little off-topic, but I do know that conservatives periodically mention how their families get treated because of how their statements were interpreted by the liberal mainstream media
What, you mean by accuratly reporting what they said by using direct quotes from their own words?
So you think Michael Savage hates Muslims and Lou Dobbs hates Mexicans?
WTF?!?!?!?
Are you completely deranged? How long have you been posting on this site? You must have read the comments of Dobbs on immigration and Savage, when he's not picking on defenseless Autistic children, on Islam? Are you just posting this to PROVE you're an ignorant irony by-passed muppet?
Your posts remind me of the juvenile game my football playing cousin and his friends used to play when they went out clubbing in the North of England. They would go up to unsuspecting females and say something crass in the hope that they would get a drink thrown over them. The winner would be the idiot who was drenched the most.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06tKiBiOwIQ
2:30 and 3:40
Though I recommend watching the whole thing
That is what you are pointing to?
A man who states himself that in the SEVEN YEARS of reporting on Illegal Immigrants he has done TWO POSITIVE STORIES?!?!?!?!?
And when it's pointed out to him that he has done 94 negative stories in a single year discounting the main one we thought would be brought up all he has is smug hubris and self rightous indignation? I'm too pissed off to thank you for wasting part of my download time with that crap.
What l saw was the S.T.O of conservatives on tv. Get angry and shout over someone while jabbing your finger at them, pick up some minor point he/she may be wrong on and beat the opponent to death with it, but do everything to avoid answering the main point of the arguement as you know you have no defence. And if that doesn't work, play the victim card. I have no respect for a bunch of people who act like a three year old who has fallen over and skinned her knee. There's nothing worse than watching a fat right wing wanker weep.
He was able to refute the accusations posted against him.
Also, at 0:24 he establishes an important clarification.
Again, you lie, and steal more space than your point requires, and a ton more space than you lie deservers.
Dobbs didn't win the debate, not by a long shot. Defending yourself from the bad things you've done doesn't include mentioning the good things you've done.
That's why Media Matters doesn't restrict itself to posting items from people who have no redeeming features. There's no one, or almost no one, who has no redeeming features. The fact that overall John Edwards is a good guy doesn't mean that he could legitimately use any of those good points to in any way excuse his breaking of his marriage vows or the risk he put the left side of the aisle in by running for President with that sword hanging over his head!
Dobbs didn't do what you say he did. Dobbs is off topic, and simply another attempt by this screen name of yours to distract us from the real topic of this posting, and you're 100% wrong that this video does anything to redeem anything bad Dobbs has said.
Here's a much better resource.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06tKiBiOwIQ
Waldman beats down the myths and exaggerations.
In the piece you mention, about 2 minutes in, Dobbs gets to go off on a long speech, and Waldman waits until he's done and tries again to make the point that he's been trying to make since the beginning of the interview, but Dobbs interrupts him again and again. Then Dobbs claims that Waldman isn't allowing Dobbs to make his point! It's would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Dobbs refused to let Waldman make his point, the reverse isn't true, yet it was Dobbs who was whining.
same GOP hacks in another disguise; a common ruse. Don't waste your words on the likes of him, or her, or it. A simple one word expletive like, "FOOL!" would suffice. If
you want to really get your dander up just read some of the posts at Slate, Salon, the New York Observer, or the NY Times, etc. In my younger days, I took cold showers for other reasons than to cleanse myself of the vile ideas I read every day at too many other sites. Time for a martini.
Even though both of them have said positive things about their respective "subjects of hatred"?
Yes i'm sure they have. I'm sure the KKK used to have lovely things to say about them there uppity nigras too. Something along the lines of " They kin carry lotsa heavy stuff, and they can run fast" .
Best post of the day!
Corsi doesn't like having his "on-the-record" statements examined too closely ... he just likes being treated like a white-haired dependable swift-boating expert and raking in right-wing praise and profits from his various smear campaigns. It appears that Harvard PhD certifications oughta have expiration dates.
The right-wing noise machine has been covering up the lies and continues to treat Corsi deferentially, so it's significant how this is hitting the MSM.
No surprise there. I mentioned this yesterday as OT, but it's sorta related. We now have video of CNN Newsroom asking if Obama is the antichrist. Incredible that debate has been devalued to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps if they made the bible a pop up book with crayons the right wing might actually be able to understand what it means?
Actually we are perfectly positioned to use one of the wingnuts favorite devices: 'some say/are/question...'.
We could start a story with 'some are questioning whether Corsi's mother was a prostitute.
Has anyone actually SEEN a copy of Corsi's birth certificate that didn't look like it might have been photo-shopped? Is there PROOF that his mother NEVER had any relationship with a man of color?
why would you want to take a Corsi tactic and demean his "mother". She is not the target, Corsi is.
Hurting her, should she be alive, or hurting her name is not what Democrats are about, now is it.
Attack the person you intend to attack, not another. It is not fair to the other, and it lowers you to corsi's standards.
The right wing attack machine loves to pretend that the people they oppose are doing the very thing that they are doing. Of course Corsi is a liar and not even a slick one. But the Republican Rove wing has thrown its political opponents in jail...Don Sieglemann and others. Most of us are amazed at the viciousness of these people.
We'reamazed at the charges they make because they are so ridiculous. Then we realize, oh yeh, it's outrageous, but they are guilty of horrible things that no American patriot would ever dream of doing.
It's kinda sad to see when you become what you criticize. And it happens on both sides. Liberals are as corrupt as conservatives, Republicans are as corrupt as Democrats - both want the government to enforce their way of life and only their way of life by using any means necessary to do so. When the government doesn't do what that faction wants, they cry outrage.
And plus, many conservatives behave like many liberals when you really start to observe the two.
Liberals are as corrupt as conservatives, Republicans are as corrupt as Democrats - both want the government to enforce their way of life and only their way of life by using any means necessary to do so.
This is bullshít.No one took any of the bullsh!t you spewed and took it out of context.
It's kinda sad to see when you become what you criticize.
We see that all the time here. Because righties are slimy smear merchants, they assume everyone is, but we aren't, and so that's why some of us sometimes say 'look in a mirror'.
And it happens on both sides.
No it doesn't. There isn't a left wing smear machine. There isn't a vast left wing conspiracy. There wasn't a Grover Norquist on the left's side, ever. There's no one on the left comparable to Ann Coulter. There's no network with comparable strong lefties and weak righties, like Hannity and Colmes. There's no left wing cable news network, like there is a rightwing cable news network - Fox. It's not that they both do it! That's a lie spewed by rightwing hacks like you.
Liberals are as corrupt as conservatives, Republicans are as corrupt as Democrats
Nope. People from the right are more corrupt than people from the left. They are also hypocrites about those corrupt compatriots. Republicans in Congress passed so many more earmarks than the Democratic Congress before them it's not funny! Democrats actually used to respect respectable opposition from their colleagues on the right. The Republicans stymied bi-partisanship in Congress every chance they got, and they've been blocking reasonable legislation and responsible government since Dems regained control 18 months ago. I could go on and on.
both want the government to enforce their way of life and only their way of life by using any means necessary to do so. When the government doesn't do what that faction wants, they cry outrage.
When the Republican govt tried to decimate government, the Dems cried foul - that was the reasonable thing to do, and you object to it? When the Dems tried to reinstate responsible government, the Republicans whined about it, and you want to compare those two actions as being equivalent, and then whine because your nonsense wasn't given the 'respect' it deserved?
I was right the very first time I saw you post, helping Science101 disrupt and distract and lie.
And plus, many conservatives behave like many liberals when you really start to observe the two.
If you really, fairly observe the two, they are not comparable. If you're trying out a rightwing talking point, you might say that, but no one could really mean that. There's no one self-deluded enough who could fairly examine the evidence and come to that conclusion.
And that's why Media Matters is here. For too long, too many people were allowed to pretend that they were examining the evidence and were coming to these conclusions. Now, they have no excuse. The evidence is put in front of them, in front of you, day after day after day, and yet you still come here and try to defend the indefensible, and then whine when you aren't allowed to get away with it!
Yes, I have to laugh at the right wing posters on some other sites fret about what Obama will do to the economy, what Obama will do with your freedoms and so on and so forth. And in every case they describing TO a TEE (SP) the last eight years of Bush rule.
Corsi, in the article above, is showing us how thin his skin is while accusing Obama of having a thin skin.
And it almost sounds as if Corsi's wife doesn't have a clue that her husband wrote another book of fairy tales. ("Why are they calling you all these names, Jerry. Can you come home? I can't find my stash and I need another gallon of vodka. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE THIS TIME?") Of couse that last quote is entirely made up. She never actually said that. Or did she?
I am sure that Corsi will someday end-up in jail, but it won't be the result of Obama being president (I guess if he does get arrested, he and his nutty fanatics can always blame Obama).
Judging by his behavior, I believe he will be arrested for possession of crack cocaine (or cross burning).
himself president ?
What I'm asking in the book is where's the definitive proof? And I look for many uses of definitive proof. Where's the drug testing? Where's the other records?
Yes, when did you not beat your wife?
I'm guessing it's finally occured to this weasel and his publishers that they might be facing a civil lawsuit for libel and slander. Er, Jerome, the First Amendment doesn't allow you to lie.
Enjoy that falsely inflated #1 bestseller status while you can, but don't spend the money. I've got a feeling it may be going to Malia's and Natasha's college fund.
There are recognized limitations. Slander and libel are not constitutionally protected.
"If Senator Obama is reacting this ballistically -- this out of control, I mean, bouncing off the walls insanity..."
This is like a 4th grade bully who calls a kid a "f*g," and then when the kid gets angry, the bully mocks the kid for getting so upset.
Remind you of any adults?
It's kinda fun watching Corsi--the King of Ad-Hominems and breathless innuendo--denounce those who are offended by his smears.
The fact that he (and John McCain) have both basically admitted that it's all a joke is a good first step.
What's -- how is Senator Obama going to sit in the Oval Office and handle a crisis? I mean, all an enemy of the United States has to do is write a book about him and he'll go insane -- or put a cartoon like The New Yorker with Senator Obama, Muslim garb -- and Hillary dressed as a -- you know, a black militant.
Not only is his book crap but he goes on C-Span and mixes up Hillary Clinton for Michelle Obama. This is what right wing America has sunk to? Pathetic.
I want to see this man's PHD. Not a copy which has been photoshopped, the real thing. And if he cannot provide it ho do we know that it is real?
Watching Jerome Corsi these days is like watching someone dig their own grave. Corsi is becoming a laugh-out-loud joke to anyone who doesn't consider Sean Hannity their own personal Jesus.
Common sense people -- not just liberals and progressives -- have made Corsi nothing more than a punchline and for once, the media has done their job.
I assume that this applies to a past history of alcohol abuse, also -- especially if one were to get caught driving while intoxicated
*cough* Kennedy *cough*
cough*Wilber Mills*
cough*buncha people everywhere* cough
Kennedy, absolutely. You did get that this was meant to be ironic, though, right? There is no way to absolutely prove a negative. In case you missed the non-so-subtle (I thought) sarcasm, though . . . think hard: who is alleged to have had a cocaine issue in the 80s and who admits to being a recovering alcoholic and who was arrested for DUI in Maine in the late 70s? Was this person publicly asked to prove that he was "clean"?
You ahould see someone about that nasty cough.
The thing is, in order for Bush to get pulled over, and arrested for drunk driving in Maine, in the 70's, he had to be super duper piss drunk, I mean, falling down piss drunk. Either that, or the locals didn't like some rich boy driving drunk on their roads, which is another reason I could see for him getting busted. I have family in Kennebunkport, and they don't really like the Bush family down there. At all. Never did.
What I'm asking in the book is where's the definitive proof? And I look for many uses of definitive proof. Where's the drug testing? Where's the other records?
In the absence of definitive negative proof, isn't it reasonable to just take the person's word? No evidence exists which contradicts Obama's claim that he stopped taking drugs.
I mean, where's the "definitive proof" that Corsi still doesn't post bigoted, hateful statements on right-wing sites?
Even if Obama still gets high, that only makes McCain and Republicans look much worse. They're having so much trouble defeating an elitist-black-militant-pothead. They just suck that much.
They're having so much trouble defeating an elitist-black-militant-pothead.
Good point, Carn. I sort of feel for them, just like those olympic gymnasts. So many of the commentators are questioning if the Chinese girls team are all 16 years old, and I have to think the other teams wish they'd shut up.Do you really want to be seen complaining that you're getting beaten by a bunch of 12 year olds?
Back to Corsi, I had to read his comments in this item a couple of times. Maybe he's exhausted from flying around the country defending his POS book, but he really seems to have trouble putting a coherent sentence together. Read the transcript of his remarks out loud to somebody else, and see if they don't think it sounds like a long-term drug abuse casualty.
Interestingly, the caller is just as addled, yet they seem to understand each other. Their paranoid buzzwords come off like a glimpse into early man struggling to develop language.A series of grunts and yelps targeting the simplest reflexes, but they're communicating at the same level.
All of that grunting and sighing
Sounds like sex, there can be no denying
In flagrante delicto
Might apply to his dick, though
It also applies to his lying
"Shyster" , "smear merchant" "Fraud" and "on crack"
There's no conscience to prick
In this Corsi-con dick
His wife really should give him a whack.
.
Funny, Mary! :)
So many of the commentators are questioning if the Chinese girls team are all 16 years old, and I have to think the other teams wish they'd shut up.Do you really want to be seen complaining that you're getting beaten by a bunch of 12 year olds?
So your saying you should only force someone to follow rules and regulations, when you see fit?
Colonel, Sir, I assume that you are knowledgable of 2 year old reptiles. With all due respect, Sir, the entire reptile world has just been insulted. I don't think it is proper to treat Sci-Fi guys and The Wussie as reptiles. Sci Guy just tries to post nonsense while the Wussie must get paid to sit by his keyboard to try to get an early post to steer the thread. What other type of idiot would do that?
In closing, Mr. Wussie, can you prove that you are not being paid to post here? If you cannot prove that, maybe you should be banned. Of course, you can return as the WideSpacer.
So your answer to POW's question is "no."
Thank you, you may step down.
Maybe he's exhausted from flying around the country defending his POS book
You mean LIEING around the country, don't you?
BADUMPUMP
Too bad colonels can't demote scientists.
I was hoping the Wussie was still around...it is Saturday night and nothing important needs posted so we can have fun.
Why Is CSPAN Giving Jerome Corsi A Forum
So, If I wrote a book saying John McCain sold be high grad pot, would CSPAN put me on the Washington Journal. By giving Jerrome Corsi a well known forum like the Washington Journal, CSPAN, which has a conservative edge, is giving legitimacy to Corsi's lies.
No matter how you slice it, Corsi will get a boost from this appearance and CSPAN knows it. Anytime you give a lie a debate formate, you are giving that lie a life associated with choice: Mines or theirs. CSPAN is using its reputation for covering both sides to give this lie a chance to hurt Barack Obama. It does not matter if they put someone on from MediaMatters to counter the lies. The damage was done before the counter got on TV.
I know many would disagree with me, but I don't give the Washington Journal a fair rating at all. The very core call in structure is designed to minimize the popular opinion. As we speak, George W. Bush has an approval rating of 25% or lower, yet, on the Washington Journal they may as well have one 50% or better. The calls are set up for one Democrat, one Republican and one Independent. This format takes away from any sense of a issue becoming a outrage among the people. In fact, it hides the fact that the public may be for or against a issue. As it stands, this is a perfect format for Corsi because half will hate what he's doing and half the callers will make points for his actions.
Josseph
And I got accepted into college, yet I still have not received my high school diploma despite graduating two years ago. Does that mean I never graduated? Do I still have remaining years of athletic eligibility while I'm at it?
To be honest, after reading your posts these last few weeks l have to say that i'm not shocked that you have been accepted into college, i'm amazed!! In fact if you said that you could get up in the morning, dress yourself and take a piss, that would be less shocking to me.
I'm more concerned wit his military eligibility, not his athletic eligibility.
He's been around for several weeks now, talking up "victory" in the War in Iraq. How many people his age are doing more than talking about it?
The guy was making a joke. Have a sense of humor. Not everything has to be so serious.
But before he made the joke about the department to go after criticizers he makes a good point about how sensitive Obama seems to critism. I would like to see a candidate for president a a little thicker skin.
And for the last time, Corsi did not write this book as a "joke", why should anyone take it as a joke? They shouldn't. This man is trying to bring down a campaign and another presidential candidate, and the person he's attacking shouldn't be mad about it? You guys are a little deranged if you think Obama should grow "thicker" skin. I point to an example. When the NY Times brought out its story (which quickly went away amazingly enough) about McCain and his dalliances with a certain lobbyist, the outcry was immense and a lot more vitriolic than anything Obama has done with Corsi. And I believe, chances are good, that the NY Times story was probably true. Do I believe that Senator McCain responded correctly? You bet he did. Again, I don't agree with him, but if someone impugns your character, and your standing, especially when you're running for President, you hit back.
We keep hearing from right wingers such as yourself that Kerry didn't hit back hard enough in 2004 and that's a good reason why he lost. I don't actually disagree with that statement. And now that Obama is hitting back at his critics and people lying about him, he's "thin skinned" and somehow not tough enough to be President. I point to another example. Go back, watch ANY of George W. Bush's press conferences since he's been President, all 6 of them. Look at his reaction when he gets a question that actually, you know, questions him. You want to talk about thin skinned and petulent like a baby? Watch how he answers questions, and gains an attitude about him that says, "How dare you question me about things I've done. I'm the President!!!" Apparently, he wasn't too thin skinned to be President. Twice.
Don't we want a President who will respond to attacks? Because that's what this book is. It's not some nice little piece of work backed by real world facts and information. No indeed. It's a hit job. It's an attack. Pure and simple. You guys would be rolling over and saying that Obama wasn't tough enough to be President if he said nothing about Corsi's book, but now because he has said something about it, he's thin skinned?
Your twisting of logic is amazing most of the time.
Now that was a professional dismantling of a crackpot statement. Well done, ML!
If InsaneLoki has any character at all, he will admit to his foolishness and try to make more sense next time. I'm not counting on it, but we can always hope.
At least the Cowardly Lion found his courage. This hack hasn't found his yet. Or his brain. The jury's still out on his heart.
It was eaten by the Wizard of GOP.
I have just one observation- when Jimmy Carter announced during his campain for President that he had tried drugs, why was there no hue and cry that he be tested to prove he hadn't continued to use them? Huuummm.
Obviously Jerome Corsi is was on drugs during this very C-SPAN interview. He has yet to produce any evidence that he has never in his whole life and presently taking drugs. It's too late to establish the record for the past (therefore I must conclude that he is obviously a past and present heroine addict), but at least establish for the present that the words coming out of his mouth is not heroine induced.
So what you are saying with your post is that Corsi still deserves crediblity for his admitted joke book.
Sure let's have Barack Obama debate Ted Kaczynski on CNN after that.
But shouldn't Barack Obama and Jerome Corsi address their accusers (each other) one-on-one and have the record set straight in front of the whole country?
Oh yeah, that's right:
"I oughta put you on, uh, Fox News. Have you go against Sean Hannity. You'll tear him up." - Barack Obama
But I also haven't seen McCain debate his critics either...
I'm sure his grammer's correct and his spelling is perfect, but as for the rest of it--well, I'm not sure an "F" would be a low enough grade.
But, Dawuss, Corsi's book was not intended as an 8th grade exercise. He wrote it to frighten grownup voters from voting for Obama in 2008. It follows his 2004 attack on John Kerry (Unfit for Command), which was similarly shown to have numerous errors of fact (lies); however, in 2004 Corsi's errors didn't receive MSM attention, Kerry failed to defend himself vigorously, and Corsi's smears unfairly impacted the 2004 election. That is the reason for the push-back. Can't you see that?
In my mind, there is no teeter-totter balance between Corsi's lies and Obama's self defense for you or anyone else to take into account, or that would require the two to debate. Are you able to distinguish propagandized non-issues from real issues?
I'd like to know if you have entertained the idea that Obama might be the anti-christ? 666 and all that? before I take any more trouble replying to your posts.
I'd like to know if you have entertained the idea that Obama might be the anti-christ? 666 and all that? before I take any more trouble replying to your posts.
I may poke fun at/with it for entertainment value (much like "Obamessiah" - but that's making fun of the MSM equally for promoting him as such).
As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of the Obamessiah - He has numerous views that I disagree with (pending which flip-flop you declare canon and non-canon) which include his Marxist and Communist affinities, his terrorist and Marxist and anti-American affilates, the messiahnic image promoted by the MSM which he does nothing to dispel (you could make an argument that he encourages that behavior, but I'm not ready to go that far yet), his non-politically-relevant celebrity status being more important than his politically-relevant status...
And I'm not a big fan of the Maverick either - Like the Obamessiah, he has numerous views that I disagree with (again add the flip-flop clause), and the only thing he has going for him in my favor is the WOT, which he's been consistent with since Day 1.
And TBH this election has been more about the Obamessiah than the Maverick (wow that's a moniker that's changed hands - first it was the Dems who used it now its the Reps that use it), and it's been more about the nonsensical things involving the Obamessiah (OMG! He's black! OMG he's a Muslim! OMG! He's a noncitizen! OMG! He's smokes cigarettes! OMG! Did you hear that [nonpolitical] comment his wife made?! OMG! Did you hear what he said about Sean Hannity [someone who isn't on the ballot]?!), and the Maverick is more or less the shoo-in candidate who happens to be running against him.
Now, there are numerous people who would LIKE to talk about his politcs, but instead both sides are playing defense about a response to one of the nonsensical issues.
The Obama mesianic/celebrity stuff bothers me too. I've taken some trouble to follow up with it, and it seems that Obama's attempts to dispel the craziness are not well covered by the MSM. Perhaps he hasn't tried hard enough ... but recall he's also trying to juggle other off-the-wall criticism from crazt pundints who, for example, want to make his electability revolve around his vacation plans. These are nonissues, though.
I don't believe that Obama has terrorist/marxist affiliates of substance. IMO Hannity and Levin are blowing his weak associations with extremists out of context, for political gain. If you can provide some links to credible sources of troubling currently-extreme-left wing associations (i.e. not WND) that refute my take on this subject, I'd appreciate it. I can easily find links to support my claims about the rightie-radio pundints, but I assume you listen too, so it shouldn't be necessary.
McCain and Obama are fencing with different sides of the same problem ... now that they are presumptive nominees Obama has to play to the center to draw from McCain's holding-their-noses supporters, while McCain has to play to the far right, who don't support anyone yet. The evangelicals are up for grabs ... since 2004, there have been some thoughtful evangelical leaders who have noticed that none of the issues important to them have advanced in any meaningful way by the GOP, while issues that are important to them (like environmental stewardship) have degraded. Meanwhile republicans still seem to want to take the evangelicals for granted as a voting block. In spite of what Levin claims, no one is playing to the far left in this election.
IMO the flip-flops of either/both can be explained by the concept that upon serious reflection and availability of new evidence and data, people can and should be able to adjust their opinions accordingly. Failing to do so reflects rigidity of thought that we should be a lot more frightened of than flip-flopping. The flip-flop thing was another non-issue used against Kerry, IMO.
Between 1994 and 2006 the republicans had absolute control over the HoR, where spending bills originate. Since 2006, the dems have had a majority insufficient to make anything real happen. The republicans, nominally for smaller govt and less spending/pork have spent us into phenomenal budget deficits since Bush2 took office. The deficit is so enormous that by now, the only real way to pay it off is by inflating it into tinyness. The inflationary nightmare might be staved off for a while by changes to the tax structure, I dunno. The rate of inflation/taxation that will be required to reduce the deficit will likely effect you well into your middle age, and possibly into your old age and your future childrens' middle ages.
We really do need leadership wrt making govt smaller. There are many democrats besides myself who do not want an endless growth of govt, and there are many of us who fear loss of liberty at the hands of republicans. Be fair: how many times have you heard liberals called traitors by right-wing pundints?
Does it not bother you that President Bush43 has routinely operated outside of the Constitution? There is no constitutional basis for the documents he attaches to bills he signs (signing statements) indicating which parts of those bills he will execute, and which he plans to ignore. Now that a democratic presidency looms, do you think the republicans continue to quietly tolerate these signing-statements? Recall, these signing statements have no basis in the constitution. Are you OK with this practice? I can tell you truly try to be fair-and-balanced, so please don't reply that it's OK with you for Bush to do it, but you fear the precedence with respect to democratic presidents.
Why should republicans be given any more of the public trust in 2008? What have democrats done that has harmed the public trust?
Again, if you're so concerned with the "WOT" why are you supporting it with just your keyboard and fingertips?
Anyone your age who is a supporter of this war should have his or her ass in the fight.
"If it's properly sourced and grammatically correct..."
Well, we already know it isn't properly sourced. Suggesting that Obama should debate Corsi is idiotic. There's no way to justify this dishonest hack getting a fraction of the media coverage he's had so far, let alone a debate with a presidential candidate. What other debates do you want to see? Obama vs. Random Michelle Malkin Commenters? How about Obama vs. Grandpa Who Gets All His News From the Factor?
Wow, this Corsi guy really is nuts.
And--what a shock--you have the nutballs from Faux who have him as a guest, thank him for his great work...
Corsi is whining that he's a victim--of someone he accuses of whining and claming he's a victim. Projection? Or psychosis?
I've been reading on the anti-intellectual (often STUPID) Americans. Yep, they're claiming their reading Corsi nonsense (though if you look at their "reviews" on things like Amazon.com, they're commenting on it while showing no evidence that they've read it.)
Obama and the dems have to be carefull,because there are stupid people thath will believe all of that bs you guys know Obama is black and that is dificult for some people to vote for him,so we all have to take action and speak up.
Sounds like a variation on the old Clinton 'hit-list' smear.
What a bedwetter this Corsi is. What a crybaby.
No surprise, really. He is a right-winger, isn't he?
Hi Dave. How are you doing? Good.
You seem a little hysterical.What you need to realize is that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and a lot of other GOP mouthpieces are going to tell you a lot of really stupid things in order to frighten you.
Pussies like you are their target demo. They like to use words like "commie" and "gay" to get you so excited you can't even start new paragraphs.
Calm down. Relax. What you're lashing out against is your own shame. You, and many other bedwetters,were so frightened by 9/11 that you voted a second time for the worst president in the history of our nation.Now you have so much invested in this failure that you can't even think straight, and believe that voting for the same party is going to fix things.
Are you familiar with that definition of insanity, Dave? The one about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
I'm guessing you're probably not more than 15 or 16, so there may be hope for you. You can still become a man. You just have to leave the safe and artificial womb of conservative propaganda. I know, it's scary, but so is much of life, as you'll discover on your journey to manhood.
Corsi is a garbage man and I'm not speaking about the wonderful men that pickup our material refuse. I mean, this is a person who never served in the military because he complained of a skin disorder and was relieved from going to Vietnam. He is another lazy crazy Republican wimp who avoided his duty, but loves war and had the audacity to criticize and smear the good record of an honorary veteran like John Kerry who served his country and had the courage to speak against bad policies of our government.
I watch Washington Journal faithfully every morning and I saw this disingenuous Corsi smirk as he tried to undermine Obama. And as much as I am distressed that C-Span would give this snake a platform, I am gratified to hear the many sane voices of citizens that call in to express their outrage and disgust of him and the crimes, deceit, and lies of these neo-cons and the right-wing media that cover their asses.
Their policies have done enough damage. People all around us are losing their jobs. My husband is barely hanging to his job with only four days a week. He is grateful that he is still employed, but dismayed while he sees his company (This is a well-established company that has survived 41 years.) cut jobs from over 250 people to a mere 25 in a period of 1 year.
We need to look at facts and ignore the trivia of the mainstream media. Too long we have been drugged with the silliness of sitcoms and advertisements that have dulled our senses. It is no wonder that America is despised and ridiculed by the rest of the world. When will Americans start getting smart?
This is my first e-mail to Media Matters, but I want to thank you so much for investigating and correcting errors in our so-called media. You are the watchdog for us.
Thank you so very much!!
Maggie
Thanks Mary,
This is a first for me. I suppose it shows.
Maggie
This guy looks like "Wart" in Mario Bros 2.