obama opponents mistakes
obama opponents mistakes: Page 1
Ed Morrissey of HotAir offers "An end to fringe mainstreaming?" (link) in which he worries about the backlash from the Democrats and the MSM over the Van Jones resignation. He also shows that solving problems isn't exactly his forte:
...we can expect the media to hold Republicans to the standards the conservative punditry imposed on Van Jones, and to be a lot more aggressive about it than they were with Jones himself... it means that no one who ever expressed public support for Birthers to get the benefit of the doubt. The two conspiracy theories are different, but they both are entirely speculative and imagine dark conspiracies at the highest orbits of power, and neither have any actual direct evidence for support. Anyone who signed a Birther petition can expect to get bypassed for political appointments in a Republican White House with a halfway-decent vetting team, strictly on the basis of politics, in the wake of Jones’ resignation... [The media] will use the Van Jones Standard to launch attacks on high-profile conservatives, looking for everything from John Birch Society membership to militias and Birtherism as well... To some extent, this isn’t a bad trend. The nation could improve with a little more disavowing of conspiracy theorists and political extremists, although they tend to degrade into very damaging witch hunts more often than not.
I already discussed here what respectability-seeking, pearl-clutching hacks like Morrissey (and many others) just aren't smart enough to figure out. Regarding Morrissey himself, I've pointed out that what he wrote was directly contradicted by Hawaiian law. He refused to correct his false statement but instead chose to continue to lie just as badly as the MSM does. If, instead of doing that, he would simply tell the truth he could show how the MSM has lied. He could then use that to impeach the MSM's credibility when they go after more vulnerable members of the GOP. Maybe Morrissey wants a much smaller GOP that portrays a good portion of their base as insane and he wants to help the MSM get the GOP to that point. More likely, he (and all the others) have neither the intelligence nor the integrity to figure out how to get out of the situation they helped make for themselves.
FactCheck offers "Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200" (factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200), a discussion of a chain email for which they say:
A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims. Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading. Only four are true.
FactCheck recently misled about illegal aliens being covered under the House bill and for that and other reasons they aren't a credible source. However, I'm going to leave pointing out what if anything they got wrong in this case to those who are experts on the bil.
In this case, they make the following claim:
We can trace the origins of this collection of claims to a conservative blogger who issued his instant and mostly mistaken analyses as brief "tweets" sent via Twitter as he was paging through the 1,017-page bill. The claims have been embraced as true and posted on hundreds of Web sites, and forwarded in the form of chain e-mails countless times.
The blogger in question claims he didn't write the chain email (link) and a quick comparison of his tweets (link) with the contents of the email shows that they match up in some cases but in others have been slightly modified. If FactCheck is right about some of the claims being false, this is yet another example of Obama opponents mistakes, whether on the part of the blogger or on the part of whoever created the versions of his tweets in the email. In any case, it's dirty pool to try to pin the blame on the person who's post was used as the basis for the email but who didn't write the email itself.
Almost all of the leaders of the supposed opposition to Obama are so incompetent that they actually helped him win the election.
Jack Cashill is back with shocking news: "Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama's 'Dreams'" (americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html). Visiting that page, I was half expecting to find some actual evidence that Bill Ayers had written Dreams From My Father. Instead, all he has to offer are "Mr. West" and "Mr. Midwest", two researchers who don't want to give their names. (Maybe Larry Johnson knows who they are):
Mr. West's analysis was systematic, comprehensive, and utterly, totally, damning. Of the 759 matches, none were frivolous. All were C-level or above, and I had no doubt of their authenticity.
Yes, that's right: there's no actual evidence, such as incriminating documents of some kind showing Ayers transmitting book passages to Obama or the like. Instead, all it is is the same old similarities between Obama's book and those from Ayers. The easier explanation is that Obama was inspired by things Ayers said or wrote, and maybe Ayers even helped edit parts of it. At this point in time, this story is just speculation, and there's no way it would break out until they find some sort of documents clearly linking Ayers to major parts of the book. If they even exist, those documents have probably already been thoroughly deleted by now.
While they're wasting their time on that, Obama is promoting actual policies that may have an extremely delitirous impact on the U.S. Instead of chasing pipe dreams, opponents should concentrate on those. See the question authority summary for a technique, and see Obama immigration for just one of his incredibly flawed policies that opponents should spend their time on.
Before the election, many Obama opponents kept making the same mistakes over and over; those mistakes had the ultimate impact of helping Obama win. Several days before the election I listed twenty mistakes those opponents made in satirical form; as if to reinforce my point, that list was immediately deleted when I posted it to FreeRepublic. A couple days before the election, I accurately predicted how the "Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry" story would end; simply telling the truth would have actually been effective.
Now comes RNC member Jeff Kent and RNC Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. with a proposed RNC resolution with Kent as the chief sponsor suggesting that the Democratic Party changes their name (news story here, description here):
In just a few months, the goal of the Obama administration has become clear and obvious - to restructure American society along socialist ideals. The proposed resolution acknowledges that and calls upon the Democrats to be truthful and honest with the American people by renaming themselves the Democrat Socialist Party. Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the evil empire galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism.
1. It's false to say that Obama, the leadership of the Democratic Party, or the great majority of Democratic leaders are socialists. Some of them may lean in that direction more strongly than others, and that can be pointed out on a case-by-case basis. Misleading and smearing about a whole group is not a wise idea.
2. Some of Obama's less-informed fans might favorably associate Obama with socialism and support that ideology because they think he does.
3. Millions of mainstream Democrats - including those who are more conservative on some topics than many GOP leaders - will take umbrage at being called socialists. This resolution isn't going to win the GOP any converts from that group or crossover voters.
4. Millions of independents and moderate Republicans will no doubt think the GOP has taken leave of its senses.
5. The MSM's "fact checkers" will rush to remind everyone that Obama and the Democrats are not socialists. That will have the impact of both hurting those making that claim and helping Obama.
Why are Jeff Kent, James Bopp Jr., and the rest of the RNC so intent on helping Obama?
Obama's doublespeak on a "Full and Free Exchange of Ideas" in the media (not the Fairness Doctrine) - 01/27/09
The all-new whitehouse dot gov's section on technology reads like something out of 1984 (whitehouse.gov/agenda/technology):
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets
...Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
He wants a free and fair exchange... by driving his opponents off the airwaves. What that boils down to is in effect bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, just not calling it that and using a different technique in order to roll back what the repeal of the FD allowed to happen: the flourishing of rightwing talk radio. Whatever technique they use, the upshot would be the same: using government power to control what can be broadcast over the airwaves and reducing the power of rightwing talkers such as Rush Limbaugh. Obama recently tried to divide Rush from the Republican Party RINOs in Congress ("You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"), but that follows smearing him via an extraordinarily misleading ad and coming close to accusing him of inciting violence.
Note also that another mistake Obama's opponents make is to claim that he wants to bring back the FD, when it's only a few Democrats that want to do that. That allows Obama's supporters in the media to point out that Obama says he doesn't want to bring back the FD, taking the wind out of the sails of those opponents. Instead, they should phrase it as I did above.
Zogby poll shows how misinformed Obama's supporters are (and is yet another example of Obama's opponents making mistakes) - 11/19/08
John Ziegler - a former KFI talk jock who was pushed out after a dispute with John & Ken - has a video documentary including interviews with Barack Obama supporters showing how ignorant and/or misinformed they are.
His site (link) also includes a Zogby poll he commissioned that tries to show the same thing. Unfortunately, some of the questions that are supposedly true either aren't true or are disputed.
So, it's a two-fer. The poll shows not only how misinformed many Obama supporters are, but also provides yet another example of Obama's opponents making mistakes. See #18 at that list for a point directly relating to this poll.
Note that Obama's supporters will jump all over the mistakes the poll makes in order to blunt its impact. In fact, I'm going to provide a blank update section in expectation of them doing exactly that.
The poll was conducted after the election, with "97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates". Some of the questions are about Sarah Palin and show that people have bought the MSM/SNL caricature of Palin. And, very few people were actually doing effective things to fight that caricature; see the "mistakes" link above. Let's take a look at some of the Obama questions, like:
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
The veracity of this question is disputed; I haven't looked into who's telling the truth, but see mediamatters.org/items/200806020007.
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
That question is not entirely correct: Ayers' home was only one of the places, not the exact place. In fact, Obama's surrogates spent a lot of time pointing out that the official location where he started his career was a hotel conference room; see the Lynn Sweet article. In discussing that, I said:
It helps illustrate a problem the McCain campaign has had that the Obama-supporting MSM has tried to drive a truck through. Namely, when speaking about the Bill Ayers-Barack Obama connection they haven't presented the matter in ultra-precise, lawyerly terms.
Obviously, that same inability to figure out the correct way to do things continues with the Ziegler documentary.
Are there any Obama opponents who have both a megaphone and the ability to figure things out?
UPDATE: [space reserved for Obama's supporters using mistakes in the above questions to blunt the impact of the poll.]
UPDATE 2: Zig made yet another mistake, at least on the video. Sarah Palin said you can see Russia from Alaska. In her SNL take-off, Tina Fey changed that to seeing Russia from her "house", and that's how it is in the Zogby poll excerpt provided at the link above. However, on the video he uses the word "home", which is a more general term than "house": Alaska is Palin's "home", and some on the video might have taken it in that sense.
And, in response to the first comment, by "Obama's supporters" I'm refering to the MSM and leftwing bloggers, not necessarily all his supporters.