ABC reports that Republicans are mocking Democrats' columned stage, not that 2004 GOP convention stage also had columns
SUMMARY: Good Morning America's Robin Roberts and Diane Sawyer echoed Republican talking points mocking the stage at Invesco Field in Denver, where Sen. Barack Obama plans to give his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president, for including a structure with columns. But Roberts and Sawyer failed to mention that the stage at the Republican National Convention in 2004 also included columns.
On the August 28 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-hosts Robin Roberts and Diane Sawyer echoed Republican talking points mocking the stage at Invesco Field in Denver, where Sen. Barack Obama plans to give his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president. After Sawyer noted that Republicans were "making fun of" the stage, which includes a structure with columns, Roberts responded by chanting, "Toga! Toga!" Sawyer replied: "You're right. That's what they're saying," and then aired pictures of people in togas, saying the Republicans circulated them. Neither Roberts nor Sawyer noted the Obama campaign response, which included pointing out that the stage at the Republican National Convention in 2004 also included columns.
Also during the broadcast, Roberts described the stage as "transformed with Greek-like columns and something the Republicans, yes, wasted no time in pointing out," and Sawyer did not challenge Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty when he said in an interview that the stage had a "Roman-like façade" without much substance behind it, and that Obama wanted to appear " 'emperor-like' in the setting." At no point did either Roberts or Sawyer note that the stage at the RNC in 2004 had a columned backdrop, as highlighted by Ben Smith in an August 27 post on his Politico blog, which the Obama campaign reportedly circulated. Smith wrote, "Republicans who are mocking Obama's appearance haven't mentioned it, but George W. Bush accepted his own nomination in 2004 on a set with a similar neoclassical theme, with columns rising on either side of him," illustrated with these photographs:
On the August 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski mentioned that "the McCain campaign calls the look at Invesco Field, 'The Temple of Obama,' " and asked Obama communications director Robert Gibbs how he would respond to "ridicule from Republicans, because it's setting up Obama on this stage with these columns around him." Gibbs pulled out a cellular phone, showed Brzezinski and co-host Joe Scarborough the picture of Bush standing before the RNC's columned backdrop in 2004, and asked: "Can you guys see this?" Brzezinski replied: "That's George Bush."
From the August 28 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
ROBERTS: Today, he'll accept the nomination on this field, and he surprised a lot folks by being there last night after Joe Biden spoke, and then after that, Barack Obama came here to Invesco Field to have a little run-through.
SAWYER: Yes, get a sense of this high-pressure arena for tonight's speech. Now, what is the McCain camp reaction to all of this? Well, one thing, they're making fun of it. We've seen them do that before.
ROBERTS: Toga! Toga!
SAWYER: That's right.
ROBERTS: That's what they're doing.
SAWYER: That's what they're saying. And also, they've been sending out togas, in fact. Do we have those pictures that they've been sending out? Yes, saying that they're laughing at the columns up there on stage. But, on a serious front, there are also rumors abounding that McCain is going to announce his vice-presidential --
ROBERTS: That's what we're hearing.
SAWYER: -- choice as early as tomorrow morning.
[...]
SAWYER: In any sense, do -- does the McCain camp think, "Well, gee, we envy the enthusiasm of 70,000 people in an arena like this"?
PAWLENTY: Well, I think it just feeds right into what Americans are starting to realize, that this is really about celebrity and not much substance. This Roman-like façade, or façade with Roman columns, is a perfect metaphor or icon for the point that it's an interesting production, but behind it, there's not much there. And so, you know, it's almost like he wants to come out and be -- somebody called it the other day -- "emperor-like" in the setting, at least the façade. So, I think it feeds into the big hoopla, the big production. It's about celebrity, it's about entertainment, but as with the façade, there's not much behind it.
SAWYER: Well, thank you again for giving the McCain point of view this morning.
[...]
ROBERTS: It doesn't resemble anything like a gridiron behind us. It has been completely transformed with Greek-like columns and something the Republicans, yes, wasted no time in pointing out. I took a sneak peek on Wednesday, a rather noisy sneak peek, and ran into, oh, a lot of folks.
From the August 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: You know the McCain campaign calls the look at Invesco Field, "The Temple of Obama." Let's just bring in Obama campaign manager [sic] Robert Gibbs. Robert, talk to me about the setup here, please --
GIBBS: Sure.
BRZEZINSKI: -- because it's already taking a lot of ridicule from Republicans because it's setting up Obama on this stage with these columns around him. How do you counter that?
GIBBS: (Holding up cellular phone) Can you guys -- can you see this? Can somebody see this?
BRZEZINSKI: What is that?
GIBBS: Can you guys see this?
BRZEZINSKI: What is it?
GIBBS: Can you see this?
SCARBOROUGH: Here, flatten it out a little bit.
GIBBS: Can you pass it out?
BRZEZINSKI: Uh-huh.
GIBBS: Here, hold on. Let me --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hurry, quick. Read the messages.
SCARBOROUGH: Let's see.
GIBBS: Can you see this?
BRZEZINSKI: George Bush.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Grab it and read the messages.
GIBBS: Here, actually -- yeah, don't read the messages.
BRZEZINSKI: Let the camera go in.
SCARBOROUGH: Right here. Camera, come in on it.
BRZESINSKI: Right in here.
GIBBS: Come in, right in there, as close as you can get. Keep going. Keep going.
BRZEZINSKI: Keep going. Come on in.
GIBBS: There it is. Keep going. You see --
BRZESINSKI: That's George Bush.
GIBBS: If you see that, that's George Bush, and I don't know if we borrowed those columns from him, but that would be his -- that would be his acceptance speech in 2004 at the GOP convention.
Party hacks have Selective Alzheimers, also known as Convenient Alzheimers.
That's all I can say right now.
Has anyone pointed out that "togas" are Roman, not Greek?
Morons. Uneducated idiots, who should be called out on absolutely everything.
GMAFB
Ah, I've seen a lot more homes that just rich people's houses that have had Greek columns in them.
What a stupid republican talking point. Columns! OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED!!!
How about photos? (supersized per the Col.'s request!)
And let's not forget a little reich-wing pandering, shall we?
I think it's awful that you would attempt to criticize a war hero.
John McCain wishes he had columns in that 3 by 4 foot hut he called home for 15 years.
15 years? Well, why not? He plagerized the cross in the sand story to make his experience look better than it really was, why not embellish the number of years he spent there too? ;)
Musta been one of them poor souls Braddock saved...
Carlile, you're a little rusty on your history of the POW.He actually had a column in his 3' x 4' cell. It was a 2' x 2' column, right in the middle, leaving only eight square feet of living space.It was a load-bearing column, and the VC refused to retrofit a reinforced ceiling in order to eliminate the column.
John McCain had to sleep wrapped around that column, in the exact shape of the letter "O" in "POW".The sightlines and flow of the cell, destroyed by that column, are another story entirely, but John McCain doesn't like to talk about it..
"but John McCain doesn't like to talk about it.."
Maybe he doesn't like to talk about it, but needs to - to remind you liberals that someone fought in that war for you...to remind you that someone paid the price you wouldn't pay for your freedoms to denigrate him as much as you do.
But, you don't care about the price he paid for your freedoms. That was a war you people called unjust and illegal and your favorite president went AWOL during it in order to avoid serving, yet you complain that Bush had an easy assignment. At least he stayed IN the service. Clinton bailed the first and every chance he got. You love the coward (Clinton), but hate the hero (McCain). That's liberalism for you.
Nobody's denigrating McCain's service, it's just not the ultimate qualification for President, and it's not a defense for every criticism that's made against him.
Why is it cowardly to refuse to serve in a war that you don't agree with? That makes no sense at all.
"Why is it cowardly to refuse to serve in a war that you don't agree with? "
Because he was drafted and he ran with his tail between his legs. That makes him a coward.
Even if you object to the war itself? Why should anyone's bravery be judged because they didn't fight in a war they felt was unjust? I'd fight in a war that was morally justified, but if they tried to draft me for Iraq they'd be out of luck.
No one is denigrating McCain's service, just his political positions and his trading on his ex-POW status.
I don't want to get into a pising match with someone who hasn't a clue about Vietnam, but Clinton did not profess support for a war in which he refused to serve.
GW Bush professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Dick Cheney professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Karl Rove professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Rush Limbaugh professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Bill O'Reilly professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Newt Gingrich professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Paul Wolfowitz professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
"Scooter" Libby professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
Ted Nugent professed support for a war in which he refused to serve.
I did serve. No war while I served.
Nice list, kingofworriers, but Clinton ran-not just 'did not serve'. That makes him a coward. And, McCain knows more about that war than you do, so I hardly think your opinion over-rides his.
Good morning, good morning, good morning! My GOD, what a glorious day! :)
So what do we have on the table today - ah, Philib... nice. Talking about those who ran from the war with their tails between their legs... sweet.
Tell us about Dick Cheney, Jeff Christie, and Sean Insanity. You know... some of your 'heroes'. Tell us how high up in the ranks they made it in the service. Oh, wait, no too high, huh? Thought so. Sitting on your fat ass watching 'Hogan's Heroes' and sucking up cases of beer and waving Old Glory furiously doesn't seem to cut it now, doesn't it?
Thought so.
The North VietNamense were trying to take away our freedom to denigrate John McCain? Bastards!
BTW, Philib, I hope you stick around and post today. It's friday before a 3 dayer, I'm in a good mood, and I'd really appreciate a f***ing idiot providing some clown-style laughs. Go!
Ah, but I did serve, and much more honorably than the draft dodger who also went AWOL during his national guard service did. Which is why I expect you'll be calling me a phony soldier because I disagree with what the republicans (who don't fund VA, don't support the GI bill, consistantly fight against veterans benefits, etc. etc. etc.) who claim they support the soldiers.
Attack in 3... 2... 1...
Phil:
Name one way that being POW has any relevance to being POTUS. There have been many POWs--are they all qualified?
"Name one way that being POW has any relevance to being POTUS."
One way is that it demonstrates you have the guts to face the enemy. Does O'bama have that? What enemy has he ever faced?
Name one way that being a POW is a disqualifier for being POTUS. Are you saying that all former POW's aren't qualified to be POTUS?
That's ok, geek, I don't expect you to answer those questions. That would make you look like a fool to your cohortial minion.
"Are you such a slave to binary thinking that if something is not exceptionally beneficial, it must be a clear negative?"
It's relevent because you can't determin whether I'm a "slave to binary thinking" if you don't have military experience in order to relinquish your own "binary thinking" in this line of arguement. In other words; how can you argue whether being a POW is worthy if you've never served in the military.
However, since you didn't answer right away, I take it you have NOT served in the military in any capacity. Who's the slave to binary thinking, now?
"It's relevent because you can't determin whether I'm a "slave to binary thinking" if you don't have military experience in order to relinquish your own "binary thinking" in this line of arguement. In other words; how can you argue whether being a POW is worthy if you've never served in the military. However, since you didn't answer right away, I take it you have NOT served in the military in any capacity. Who's the slave to binary thinking, now?"
What are you smoking? Military experience has nothing to do with pointing out your logical error. I didn't make any declaration that a POW was "worthy" or not, I just pointed out your false construct.
It might help you out just a little if you actually understood the term "binary thinking" before trying to use it. Look it up.
Phil
I could not agree more. You said what needs to be said, and you did it well. Just dont think any lefties here will care or stop slamming those who gave up their freedom for them.
Mary
And how many of them were POWs? How many of them were tortured like McCain was? Attack the mans ideas and or policies.....sure. Attack his party..feel free. But attacks on his service, when BC gave nothing, to attack the real torture he sufferd, and to makes jokes about how a POW slept chained in a cell shows a total lack of class. It is you who needs a clue, as well as a shred of decency and respect.
So, YOU were not a POW either? Hmmm, neither was kingofworriers. OK, which of you brave liberals, who fought in that war, were POW's?? Colonel? Snoopy? Worrierking? Which of you know more about the Viet Nam war than McCain? So, your experience stops at being in the country. Maybe even, some of you weren't even 'in country'. Lot's of claims, no proof from any of you. Post your dd214, let's see how many of you actually did serve, or are you all just internet babblers? I suspect the latter. Liberals are known to make things up just to 'fit in'.
How bout you, Mary? Did you serve in the military? During Viet Nam? If not, then you're just as bad as those on worrierking's list for not serving.
"Keep pretending that one's views on the war don't make any difference as to whether one fought in the war or not."
I'm not pretending. If you want to claim the Viet Nam war was wrong, you have a right to. If others are going to make claims on POW status they better have experience at it.
However, your views on military in general are biased because you have never been in the military. When you join, let us know how your experience went. Until then, your opinion on war and military service is merely opinion with no factual knowledge of the subject.
Phil, if you oppose a war, it doesn't say anything about your character if you don't serve in it. If Obama launched a war against Canada for no reason at all, would one of your family members be a coward for dodging a draft? Or would you say they did the right thing?
Your government is supposed to represent what your country stands for. If you think what the government does is a fair representation of your country's values, then you should serve their purpose because you would be serving your country as well. But if you don't think your government is representing your country's values, then you're not serving your country by doing what your government wants you to do.
POV:
First, and just out of curiosity, has the US ever engaged in any sort of military action that you disapprove of, or do you believe that they have all been just and necessary?
Second, nobody is denigrating McCain's service, but the fact is that being a POW has nothing to do with being POTUS. Not a thing.
Third, your indignation with the treatment of McCain as a veteran is hypocritical. You didn't object when Kerry was smeared by the right.
I could go on, but I don't think you're going to accept anything you don't want to, regardless of whether it is true.
1. Of course there has been military action I have not agreed with. Each individual citixen while free to object however, still must do what they can to support their country. Has the US made mistakes, sure. Name a country that has not.
2. I never said, nor implied, that being a POW would make him a better President. Still, jokes about his time as a POW are in my view unacceptable and a sign of low class. Again, attack his ideas if you like, but attacking what he went through as a POW is appaling.
3. As for Kerry, I do respect his service. He could have avoided it due to his social position, but he did not. I do not approve of many of things he did when he left the service, but I have never attacked or mocked his actual service.
"He is not the man he used to be."
History:
There is some truth to that, I fear they all do and say what they think they have to to get into to office.
Snoopy said....."And what's your position on his plagerizing Solzenitzyn's cross in the sand story to lie about his own POW status?
Do you have a link where I can read about that? I dont know anything about it.
Do not diss the Devo!!!!
I think that election results and the top rated TV programs over the past 10 years or so prove that de-evolution is a very real threat! :)
How about if they have him arriving in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two fly-bys of an aircraft carrier. Then he could the alight, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet and salute those on the flight deck. Nothing showy about that, right ?
But he needs a sign too. I can't seem to think of what it should say. Maybe something like "Mission ............
Well, the Repubs can take their mockery and shove it. Once again, they are as juvenile as they can get.
That includes YOU too, ABC. Asshole Broadcasting company.
Let's be clear what the purpose of the mockery is: It's not so much to damage Obama or his image directly, it's rather to try to keep the Dems off-balance, to make them second-guess everything they say and do, to ultimately make them so cautious that they don't really say or do anything at all.
The tactic was successful in 2004. More recently, it was effective against attempts to stop the Iraq war, as Dems got scared of the very idea of maybe possibly being called "against the troops." The best way to deal with it is to just plow ahead with whatever you think is most effective and screw worrying that someone somewhere might say something mean about you.
I'm reading Scott McClellan's book, and I see now why they attacked him so viciously. One of the little nuggets that I found there, not explicitly stated but obvious nonetheless: this whole notion that Iraq could be turned into some kind of roach motel for terrorists is a talking point they latched onto after it became apparent that no WMD would be found, and to distract the ball chasing puppies in the press from the Valerie Plame problem.
Nerzog:
What worries me more than anything else is how successful they were at distracting us. What damage did they do that we don't know about yet?
Obama isn't Kerry. This campaign will be different. After all, Biden's on board.
We've got plenty of ammo. It's just getting started.
Philib, you might as well just hang it up. Gramps picked Palin as his veep. Worst choice for him... best choice for us.
Looks like Gramps wants this thing to be over. All that matters now is how badly damaged he will be after the dust settles.
"Philib, you might as well just hang it up. Gramps picked Palin as his veep. Worst choice for him... best choice for us."
Actually, she is a very good choice. Name one thing that will be a drawback for this election. She's everything a conservative, like me, would want...anti-abortion, favors conservative judges, hockey mom, willing to fight the good fight.
She'll bring a lot of conservatives to the voting booth in Nov. She'll attract more women, even some that would have voted for Clinton (or O'bama). I think the liberals got trumped this time.
She is certainly better than picking some old white guy. Which would have been the worst decision for a presidential candidate to do. What's a matter, aren't there any qualified women on the liberal side of things? You had to pick an old white guy?
So what conservatives like you want is most important to getting elected? Why didn't you guys go with a Cheney/Feith ticket then, since that would appeal to conservatives as well? Limbaugh/Coulter 08! Can't wait to see Michael Savage as Secretary of State.
The Biden pick made sense because it provided balance. If Obama had picked Hillary, it would have been labeled a huge mistake because she didn't have any experience before getting to the Senate.
Palin practically admitted that this was about playing to Hillary voters, and it's going to come off as cynical. Are women really supposed to vote for a woman just because she's a woman? If they're really that shallow, what makes McCain think that they're going to abandon their crush on Obama?
The real problem is that this is a 72 year-old man saying that a new Governor of a sparsely-populated state is the best choice to replace him if he dies. It destroys his ability to criticize Obama for being "inexperienced", since he's setting up a situation where someone "inexperienced" could be President. And if he thinks that's a problem, then he's doing what he thinks is best for him instead of what's best for the country.
I heard the favorite new talking point on the stage and columns in the run up to Obama's speech last night. Apparently the design caused controversy within the ranks of the Democrats according to the talking heads. Really? I could have sworn it was a completely artifical source of conflict and consternation generated by right wing pundits and amplified by a complicit media.
Is it my imagination or are we now witnessing the rewriting of history within 24 hour news cycles?
Isn't the columns theme appropriate, since these people are running for pres. and the whitehouse its' self has columns?
Upon closer inspection....
and, I thought this was interesting too...lol
This painting shows what the White House looked like in 1814 as the flames were burning from the British attack. You can see that it is not surrounded by lots of buildings and memorials as it is now! It also had not had any additions yet. Today's White House looks very different from its original design. Painting courtesy of the Library of Congress.
However, this toga thing might backfire on them with the christians in the dem party too.
Revived Roman Empire.....you know. Armageddon and all. Fits right in to the Left Behind, arrival of the anti-christ thingy.
Whatcha want to be we see some more of this on the telly. I am waiting for the Revived Roman Empire to be mentioned (with serious faces, not joking ones.) It's right up the repubs ally.