PDA

View Full Version : The Week in Blog: Who's Fact-checking the Fact-checkers?


Bloggingheads
05-02-2008, 04:00 PM

graz
05-02-2008, 04:35 PM
At the 17 minute mark Conn throws a bone to his fan club with feigned yawning, eye-rolls and implied what-evers. I so dig his spunk. I have seen the light... it's all about gold baby. Wright is gold and that's that.
Bill: you gave as good as you got today.

harkin
05-02-2008, 05:02 PM
It's so hilarious how the netroots refuse to admit that Fox News is about equal to the better network and cable news services and is in fact less slanted than CNN (Soledad O'Brien: "Wright's speech was a home run!") and MSNBC. Their insistance that no one should recognize Fox News is a clear admission that they fear their own supporters actually getting a look at it and making a decision on their own (in which case, many would see it's not near as bad as they've been told). Remember, freedom of choice is OK for women with inconvenient pregnancies, but not for party members seeking to reach voters on how they stand on the issues.

The fact that the democratic candidates and their supporters are afraid of Fox News says volumes about how they will face much more daunting objectives when and if they regain the White House in 2008.

I don't support Obama but I applaud that he told these dishonest milquetoasts that it's OK to speak to conservatives and moderates who get their news from Fox. If more liberals could actually have a discussion without demanding that they start from a reference point based in BS (try getting a liberal to admit the difference between legal and illegal aliens) it would certainly help finding the common ground that is difficult enough to reach in an honest debate.

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 05:58 PM
Glad to see that these two have actually gotten back to the original premise of what the series was supposed to do and that is discuss the issues, from the left and the right, as they are being covered in the blogisphere.

Mr Carrol is correct when he says he'd take Pastor Haggie and the 100 year kerfuffle as opposed to Pastor Wright and and what will be an obvious need for Senator Obama to seriously address Iraq.

David Thomson
05-02-2008, 06:41 PM
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy will not disappear. It has served as a wakeup call to naïve middle of the road whites who didn’t realize how much they are despised by Ivy League white left-wingers and their radical black allies. “Barry” Obama is going to stick it to them---if he gets the chance. These are the same people who forced middle class whites to bus their kids across town while their own children attending expensive private schools. No sensible white person should be voting for Obama. That is simply voting for your enemy.

graz
05-02-2008, 06:48 PM
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy will not disappear.
Not as long as you are alive and well.

Bill Scher
05-02-2008, 06:59 PM
David Thomson, stay classy

David Thomson
05-02-2008, 07:04 PM
"Not as long as you are alive and well."

I’ve gotten the message. How does that old saw go? Fool me once, and it is your fault. Fool me twice---and I have nobody to blame but myself. “Barry” Obama freely chose to join a “get whitey” church. A sensible white person merely needs to notice that a high percentage of the Ivy League graduates of Harvard, Yale, and Columbia support Obama. That’s all they need to know. Their enemies are out to damage them.

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 07:12 PM
David Thomson, stay classy You know Mr. Scher I have at times wanted to say the same thing to you. Your instance that the Pastor Haggie endorsement is anywheres equivalent to 20+ years of spiritual advisement is almost s laughable as David Thompson' s "No sensible white person should be voting for Obama. That is simply voting for your enemy."

Read this only substitute White where ever Black is used, THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM (http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html), and try to tell me it isn't racist.

I do appreciate it when the diavlogers participate in the comment forum.

graz
05-02-2008, 07:44 PM
You know Mr. Scher I have at times wanted to say the same thing to you. Your instance that the Pastor Haggie endorsement is anywheres equivalent to 20+ years of spiritual advisement is almost s laughable as David Thompson' s "No sensible white person should be voting for Obama. That is simply voting for your enemy."

I don't pretend to speak for Bill, but he never said they were equivalent. In fact Bill is giving us (the left side) what we asked for in the forum. That is to say: comebacks to Conn's talking points.
I agree that the two pastors and their respective issues are not equal in weight by association.
But as for wacky points - Haggee or Parsley are right up there.

themightypuck
05-02-2008, 08:21 PM
This is almost as silly as saying that Hitler came to power in Germany because the people read Mein Kampf. http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=00:19:24&out=00:19:36

themightypuck
05-02-2008, 08:34 PM
I guess I'm drunk on dingalinks. Here's the real reason that the right is attacking Obama and ignoring Hillary: they fear him http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=00:27:51&out=00:28:14

Bill Scher
05-02-2008, 08:39 PM
For the record, I think all the guilt-by-association attacks -- Wright, Hagee, Ayers, Parlsey, Quinn, etc. -- are equivalently irrelevant.

I embrace the McCain standard: "when somebody endorses you or befriends you, they're embracing your views, the candidates' views, not the other way around."

http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/mccain_guiltbyassociation_for.php

Now if only McCain (and his supporters) applied that standard consistently...

Wonderment
05-02-2008, 08:46 PM
No sensible white person should be voting for Obama.

That's beautiful, Dave. Definitely up for Klan Bumper Sticker of 2008 Award.

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 08:52 PM
As I mentioned in my previous comment read this only substitute White where ever Black is used, THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM (http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html), and try to tell me it isn't racist. This is the official policy of the church that senator Obama has attended for over 20 years. I guess Senator Obama was not privy to this information, or if he was has excepted it.

David Thomson
05-02-2008, 08:56 PM
"For the record, I think all the guilt-by-association attacks -- Wright, Hagee, Ayers, Parlsey, Quinn, etc. -- are equivalently irrelevant."

But they are not "equivalently irrelevant." That is an absurd position to embrace. It also reflects an inability to think and follow a logical argument. There's a world of difference between the minimal relationship between John McCain and Rev. Hagee---and the fairly close one between “Barry” Obama and Rev. Wright. McCain barely knows Hagee and never cited him as a close advisor and confident. Obama says this about Wright: "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

http://tinyurl.com/2zabxe

themightypuck
05-02-2008, 08:57 PM
The upside of the voter fraud decision is that we can finally get rid of the voter registration process. A driver's license or ID card should allow a person to vote in a general election.

Bill Scher
05-02-2008, 09:13 PM
John McCain has had Richard Quinn as a campaign adviser since 2000. Paid his firms $184K in this election. Quinn has run, as both editor-in-chief and owner, the racist neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan for over 20 years. That's a pretty significant association.

Yet McCain came around and supported a Martin Luther King holiday. He apologized after the 2000 campaign for supporting the Confederate flag. It does not logically follow that the fact that McCain pays a racist for his political services, means McCain holds racist views.

Nor does it logically follow that because Obama's former pastor holds certain political views, no matter how long they've known each other, therefore Obama shares the same views. Especially when Obama's own views -- from 11 years in public life and laid out in two books -- are quite clear.

Feel free to hate Obama, but do yourself a favor, and hate on his actual record.

themightypuck
05-02-2008, 09:14 PM
Well duh it's racist. I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is whether it is immoral or unAmerican in the context of American history. You think the Irish didn't close ranks when they were getting beat on?

David Thomson
05-02-2008, 09:24 PM
"Quinn has run, as both editor-in-chief and owner, the racist neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan for over 20 years."

I have seen zero evidence that the Southern Partisan is a racist magazine. Perhaps you might be able to provide and example or two? Yes, even one example would be most helpful. The Southern Partisan's editorial policy might be a bit peculiar---but that is not the same thing as per se racism.

themightypuck
05-02-2008, 09:41 PM
You need to understand the strategic difference between Hagee and Wright. Hagee was picked up for political reasons. Wright is being dropped for them. How can you compare the two other than patronizing the electorate with the obvious fact that politicians are politicians.

Edit: sorry this response was supposed to be on the main thread line.

Bill Scher
05-02-2008, 09:51 PM
For those interested in some of Southern Partisan's greatest racist hits, here you go: http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/mccain_guiltbyassociation_for.php

David Thomson
05-02-2008, 10:12 PM
"For those interested in some of Southern Partisan's greatest racist hits, here you go: http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/...iation_for.php"

I read the piece---and found no evidence whatsoever of racism. Perhaps you might wish to check a dictionary for a definition of racism. This might help:

“rac•ism Audio Help ˈreɪ sɪz əm[rey-siz-uh m] Pronunciation Key
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 11:18 PM
Well I find it pretty ironic that the man that is supposed to heal the racial divide has for 20+ years essentially endorsed this racial doctrine with his money, his participation and his silence.

artoad
05-02-2008, 11:57 PM
As someone of a conservative disposition, I was somewhat dismayed by Mr. Carroll's glibness bordering on arrogance. After two terms of Bush, conservatives will have to muster more thoughtful policies than unquestioning confidence in the free market and comfort with a military presence in the Mid-East for one hundred years. I admit that the Wright albatross hasn't probably run its course for Obama yet. However, that's a pretty thin reed to run with until November. The unrestrained unregulated Wall Street crowd has in the words of John Bogle lost the soul of American capitalism and contributed greatly to current economic turmoil. As far as a hundred year military engagement in Iraq, do you think the U. S. would be in Japan, Germany or Korea if sundry explosives were being detonated in the streets of Tokyo, Berlin or Seoul five years after major hostilities had ceased?

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:09 AM
I'll start off by offering a hat tip to Conn for being a much better reporter in this diavlog. Whether it was due to the commentary in the forums following his last appearance or that of his stand-in, or a leftover happy buzz from the Heritage Foundation junket, or something else entirely, his presentation deserves real appreciation. I would say he lost his ability to remain above a little bit as time went on, when he started spouting "straight talk" on McCain's behalf, uncritically recounting the Clinton talking points on FL and MI, and parroting stale talking points regarding the Supreme Court case involving non-existent "voter fraud," but during the first half hour and at other times afterwards, he was everything I could ask of him by this measure: analysis that favors one side good, mindless trotting out of the party line bad.

Thanks, Conn.

Complaint (one I've made before): When Bill and Conn speak of the "netroots" or "blogosphere," they really only reflect the feeling displayed on a few of the top blogs, like Kos, TPM, Bowers, Stoller, and Malkin. For example, Bill here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=06:53&out=07:27) -- I know it's impossible to keep abreast of all the millions of blogs out there, but many bloggers below the A-list are quick to leap to Obama's (or Clinton's or McCain's) defense. Somehow, I would like to see Bill make an effort to pick up on, say, Oliver Willis (http://www.oliverwillis.com/) and John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/). (I don't know the right's B-list well enough to say -- most of what I see from, say, Ace o' Spades and Confederate Yankee, are probably not points that Conn would care to represent. I know I'd be embarrassed.) Maybe Bill and Conn could just try to note a couple of examples at random, by following links from the A-list blogs, or by Memeorandum, or whatever.

Three moments:

Howler moment: Conn here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=19:23&out=19:49). To borrow a favorite phrase from the entire rightosphere, I call bullshit. To say that "the American people know a lot less about Barack Obama than they know about John McCain" is flat-out nonsense. Conn makes a fair point that health care policy wasn't the reason that Obama beat, say, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, but to the larger reality: The only thing the average voter knows about John McCain is "war hero," "maverick," and "straight talk." Bill was right to interject "McCain isn't?" when Conn tried to claim that Obama is just a "biography candidate."

Shaky moment: On the 100 years in Iraq meme, I have to say, I'd have hated just as much to be in the position that Conn so clearly hated being in here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=31:43&out=32:29). It comes as no surprise that his voice sounded noticeably quivery and stammering. First, anyone with half a brain knows it's an utter crock to compare US troops stationed in Japan, S. Korea, and Europe with US troops being stationed in Iraq. Second, and much more importantly, this is probably the first sound bite the left has successfully managed to tag the right's candidate with in decades. You think Rev. Wright won't be going away? "100 YEARS" is never, ever going to go away.

And finally, your moment of truth: Conn predicts the outcome in November: You heard it here first, folks (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=27:59&out=28:14).

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:20 AM
artoad:

Thanks for bringing the conservative, yet not blindly partisan, point of view. I, for one, look forward to hearing more from you in the future. If you continue to display the clear-eyed perspective you showed here, I will be happy to reciprocate as regards my own side.

To paraphrase that organ blockage guy:

Go Honesty!

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:23 AM
harkin:

I don't support Obama but I applaud that he told these dishonest milquetoasts that it's OK to speak to conservatives and moderates who get their news from Fox.

We are matched on this one. I am one of the few hard leftists that saw anything good in Obama agreeing to appear on Fox, and I lost a lot of respect for the more strident ones who were whining "sell out!" Ultimately, a candidate for president has to be able to win over some votes from the other side and has to show that he is not afraid to go into the lion's den. And even more importantly, our president has to be able to listen and to talk to both sides.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:24 AM
No sensible white person should be voting for Obama.

That's beautiful, Dave. Definitely up for Klan Bumper Sticker of 2008 Award.

LOL @ Wonderment!

I propose a new 527 group: Insensible Ofays for Obama.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:30 AM
DT:

This bit:

... Ivy League white left-wingers and their radical black allies.

makes me ask: Now who's stuck in the '60s? This sounds like Leonard Bernstein and his "radical chic" thing, an idea which I'm pretty sure is about as au courant as turtlenecks and puka shells.

News flash, dude: We're post-racial now. We aren't anywhere near as distinctly separated as you might think. There are a few dead-enders, to be sure, but really, the white middle of the road is not that worried about the black middle of the road, and vice versa. We're all just trying to get along, as best we can.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:37 AM
I'll add to graz's

I agree that the two pastors and their respective issues are not equal in weight by association.

this:

McCain, who is clearly old enough to know better, and who by now should not have any uncertainties about his identity or a need to build local political support, nevertheless and still chose to solicit Hagee's support and to reaffirm it in face of public outcry. You can bash Obama for sticking with Wright as long as he did, but if so, it's also fair to ask, how did McCain, as the epitome of a "grownup," fail to see what Hagee stands for, and how did he fail to realize his association would say about him and his so-called "maverick" attitude?

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:40 AM
DT:

To your credit, you said this:

How does that old saw go? Fool me once, and it is your fault. Fool me twice---and I have nobody to blame but myself.

a little better than George W. Bush ever did.

To your demerit, there are no lower bars to clear. The idiom is: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I fail to see why these twelve words are so hard to memorize.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:44 AM
mighty:

Great minds dingalink alike (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=75970#post75970) (see the last one, labeled "You heard it here first, folks.").

You might have posted before me, but I swear, my comment and dingalink were arrived at independently.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:46 AM
The irony of David Thomson typing this:

It also reflects an inability to think and follow a logical argument.

cannot be overstated.

Sgt Schultz
05-03-2008, 12:48 AM
That which Bill Scher wrote on 05/02/2008 at 09:13 PM - is that coming from the same guy who @ 08:56 PM For the record, I think all the guilt-by-association attacks -- Wright, Hagee, Ayers, Parlsey, Quinn, etc. -- are equivalently irrelevant.

I'm not following this.
Irrelevant as in unrelated to the matter being considered-type irrelevant?
Or some sort of nouveau-fancy-ironic-haircut-club / decoder-ring type of irrelevant?
Which, then , no wonder I don't get it.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 12:50 AM
However much one might agree or disagree with Bill Scher's political leanings, I think we can all get together in thanking him for his active participation in the forums.

Thanks, Bill. You're a credit to, and an example for, all diavloggers.

Whatfur
05-03-2008, 01:12 AM
Conn Carroll...Unhinged! (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=00:17:28&out=00:17:45)

Need I say more? (http://new.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-2.wav)

When compiling damning evidence of the Hagee relationship; I am not sure a blog on the left, sourcing a news article from a left wing newspaper, quoting an advisor about the endorser is all that convincing. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=00:17:49&out=00:18:09) But add to it some amazing voice inflection and then who knows.

Incoming. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10734?in=00:19:53&out=00:20:20) ...and 23 years worth.

Whatfur
05-03-2008, 01:27 AM
"To say that "the American people know a lot less about Barack Obama than they know about John McCain" is flat-out nonsense. "

I laughed so hard an antler came out my nose.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 01:29 AM
"To say that "the American people know a lot less about Barack Obama than they know about John McCain" is flat-out nonsense. "

I laughed so hard an antler came out my nose.

Dismissive chortling is not exactly unexpected from you, Whatfur. The question is, can you substantively dispute my claim?

hans gruber
05-03-2008, 01:59 AM
As far as a hundred year military engagement in Iraq, do you think the U. S. would be in Japan, Germany or Korea if sundry explosives were being detonated in the streets of Tokyo, Berlin or Seoul five years after major hostilities had ceased?

McCain never said he'd support 100 years in Iraq if the violence continued. He said he'd be OK with a presence, a peaceful one, like we have in South Korea and Japan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnVZpA69j0) He was absolutely clear on this point, saying that aslong troops are not being wounded or killed then he would be fine with their presence in the region. Whether or not that is realistic is open to debate, but Obama and the nutroots outright lied about what McCain said. And it appears you fell for it.

hans gruber
05-03-2008, 02:09 AM
You think Rev. Wright won't be going away? "100 YEARS" is never, ever going to go away.

You put way too much stock in this. Obama and the nutroots lied about what McCain said. A few weeks ago, Obama was called out. I haven't seen the meme come up since (at least from a major candidate, but maybe I'm wrong). It's possible to attack McCain's conjecture of a peaceful Iraq as unrealistic, but to suggest he wants 100 years of war, as Obama and Hillary did, is a complete lie.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 02:38 AM
You put way too much stock in this. Obama and the nutroots lied about what McCain said. A few weeks ago, Obama was called out. I haven't seen the meme come up since (at least from a major candidate, but maybe I'm wrong). It's possible to attack McCain's conjecture of a peaceful Iraq as unrealistic, but to suggest he wants 100 years of war, as Obama and Hillary did, is a complete lie.

You're right about some of this, Hans, although, first, I'd characterize Obama as having, at worst, exaggerated or misrepresented the emphasis rather than lying. (Oh noes! He's acting like a politician!)

Second, whatever you might think about Obama's, or anybody else's, way of characterizing McCain's line, the fact remains that the "100 years" meme has major stickiness. Any doubts about this are easily removed by the panicked response displayed by both the McCain campaign and the GOP in general in reaction to the use of this meme in ads like this (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/04/ill-take-iraq-for-100-alex.html) and this (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/04/100-years-100-years-100-years.html).

I'm not saying there's anything to admire about the Dems/left/Obama harping on "100 years." Of course I'd like the qualifications of our candidates to be debated on a much higher plane. I'm just saying, given the sad reality of the way the game is played, there is for once something that works as well as for the left as inanities like "lapel pin" have worked for the right.

The right has had a monopoly on this sort of thing for decades, from "Willie Horton" through the Swiftboaters and all the crap that is being flung at Obama, as far as getting things with marginal truthiness to stick in the minds of the average voter and the MSM goes, and it's laughable for the right to complain about it working against them, this one time.

themightypuck
05-03-2008, 03:19 AM
I concede that if you ever bought into the "heal the racial divide" stuff you got taken for a ride.

themightypuck
05-03-2008, 03:23 AM
I'm a rank amateur but what I see is a pivot. The lefties are gonna grouse. The righties are gonna try to pin the man down. How is this not utterly obvious?

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 03:27 AM
mighty:

I'm a rank amateur but what I see is a pivot. The lefties are gonna grouse.

Maybe so. But who else are they going to vote for?

At the end of the day, anyone who is not an incurable zealot recognizes that his or her preferred candidate has to speak to, and take, compromising positions in order to win. And you can't govern if you don't win.

breadcrust
05-03-2008, 05:02 AM
The reason McCain's 100 years of war comment will not die is because he's advocated no other course than to stay in Iraq. He has said we will stay in Iraq indefinitely if it's like South Korea. It's not even close. So if he wants us to believe that he has any intention of leaving Iraq during his term, then he has to tell us what conditions would lead to that. Otherwise, he's just offering us eight more Friedman units... to be followed by 192 more for all he cares.

breadcrust
05-03-2008, 06:30 AM
Obama supporters should not directly compare McCain's pastor and religious endorsers with Wright because the situations are so different.

We should focus instead on the differences between Wright and Obama. Crazy and screamy / Calm and even-tempered. Hates white people? / Has white people in his immediate family. Blames U.S. for 9-11 / Blames the murderers themselves. So the whole accusation that Obama has "bad judgment" regarding Wright is a stretch. Since all those things about Wright which are negative and scary are not mimicked by Obama, then accusers should define his "bad judgment" more carefully. I don't care very much if someone closely associates with horrible people (http://mjhinton.net/slides/duhbya/bush-abdullah-8.jpg) as long as he doesn't act like them.

Regarding McCain and his religious "associates" (not to be mentioned in concert with Wright) why did McCain rescind his original pronouncement that Falwell and Robertson (who blamed guiltless Americans for 9-11) were "agents of intolerance?" That's not straight-talky; it's a pure flip-flop. How can the owner of the S.T.E. flip-flop? And shouldn't McCain excoriate Hagee over and over and over for his statements that the Catholic church is a giant whore? There are millions of recent immigrants to the U.S. (and registered voters) who would disagree. Does McCain want to alienate them? These things should be mentioned regularly without comparing them to Wright. The situations are different because Obama has already renounced Wright and McCain can't renounce Hagee, Falwell, or Robertson without pissing off most of his base. We should act like Sean Hannity and talking-point these things to death.

piscivorous
05-03-2008, 07:51 AM
I concede that if you ever bought into the "heal the racial divide" stuff you got taken for a ride. Didn't buy into that particular story line, nor the "different kind of politician" line nor the "I'm a uniter not a divider" line. Is there any thing left to the Senator's stich after that.

I once commented that Senator Obama brought to my mind the image of a snake oil salesman. The more I've learned about this particular politician the stronger that image becomes. Like the charlatans of the old west he offers an elixir that he promises will cure our every ill, but in reality will only leave us poorer, with a wicked hangover when we come down from this artificially induced high.

JLF
05-03-2008, 09:58 AM
Mr Carrol is correct when he says he'd take Pastor Haggie and the 100 year kerfuffle as opposed to Pastor Wright and and what will be an obvious need for Senator Obama to seriously address Iraq.

Yeah, but not for the reasons implied. Carrol quite rightly believes that any similarities vis-a-vis Haggie and Wright are lost in the MSM spin that works against Obama and drowns out any consideration of McCain's problem with Haggie. Add to that the short attention span of the public at large, and any further discussion of "pastor problems", whether Obama's or McCain's, and MEGO.

In the context of the November election, this is probably no more significant than an annoying mosquito buzzing in the collective ear. And at some point it could work against McCain, assuming he's seen as the one responsible for continually bringing it up, when voters want to move on.

JLF
05-03-2008, 10:15 AM
For the record, I think all the guilt-by-association attacks -- Wright, Hagee, Ayers, Parlsey, Quinn, etc. -- are equivalently irrelevant.

Maybe not always. There's the ultimate guilt-by-association: John McCain, brought to you by the same fine folks who brought you George Bush, the Iraq War, record deficits, and an incipient recession. If you've liked the last eight years, you'll love McCain for the next four.

piscivorous
05-03-2008, 11:08 AM
As long as this issue is about fact checking I ran across what I think is a pretty good analysis/explanation of the math behind the various popular vote counts. (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_inestimable_popular_vote_e.php)

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 11:12 AM
Thanks for that link, pisc.

The Democrats' method of picking a nominee is clearly baroque. The only question is whether to pronounce that word in one or two syllables.

Whatfur
05-03-2008, 01:11 PM
"To say that "the American people know a lot less about Barack Obama than they know about John McCain" is flat-out nonsense. "

You wrap up your descripion of McCain in 3 words and then you refer to ME as dismissive..? Have you ever considered comedy as a profession? Seriously, I understand your attempted point about the average person however I would argue that even the average person (even if subconsciously or by osmosis) understands that in matters of degree Obama could not wear McCain's jockstrap when it comes to real life experience. Like so many liberal talking points you want to base your argument on a perception of reality as opposed to...oh say...reality!

Right now, I gotta get outside, but I will take your 3 words and raise you one timeline comparison and a dare to ask for more...

1961--BH Obama is born.

1961--John McCain, Having just graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, is busy learning to fly, becoming a Lieutenant, and serving his country like his father did... and his father did.

piscivorous
05-03-2008, 01:22 PM
For those that are more interested in the polls than facts here is link to the latest PEW Survey Report Obama's Image Slips, His Lead Over Clinton Disappears (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=414). It is a very detailed look if one follows the links at the bottom.

themightypuck
05-03-2008, 03:14 PM
I suspect a lot of people made their own mental dingalinks of that one ;-)

Whatfur
05-03-2008, 06:36 PM
Maybe not always. There's the ultimate guilt-by-association: John McCain, brought to you by the same fine folks who brought you George Bush, the Iraq War, record deficits, and an incipient recession. If you've liked the last eight years, you'll love McCain for the next four.

First, although people like JLF want to desparately tie McCain to Bush and feed the still rampant BDS crowd, fresh tofu. It fails for a large number of reasons. The largest of which... that except for maybe immigration (where Bush and McCain probably lined up pretty well and unfortunately also lined up better with the left), McCain was almost the anti-Bush in the Republican party. McCain was vocally against the tax cuts (oops). If not against the war, critcial of how it was being run (and pretty much proven dead on with the successes of the "Serge"). And while the left constantly painted Bush as unbending, and derisive, McCain often seemed to go out of his way to be the opposite, at least when dealing with the left. If you still wish to point to the war, like Conn, I would suggest you go read the Crowley (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6001af15-399f-4b11-b7fb-6f52baca6bcc)article ...if you think Obama is going to get everyone home in 16 months (just one more thing he is lying to his zombies about)

So, No, Nice Try, he isn't anything like Bush. So I would call it more of guilt-by-a-stretch. But speaking of the deficits and recessions; I can think of worse Presidents to be compared to...

Many on the Democratic side seem to have very conveniently forgotten that the economy was heading south at the end of the Clinton Era and that we had a little thing called 9/11 that added to the "Clinton recession" and sent the economy reeling. The stock market was tanking, unemploment was rampant and the general economic health of the nation was grim. Hardly, George's fault, but that did not stop the Democrats from immediately attempting to blame Bush for everything and anything negative concerning it. Of course the market bounced back to record levels, unemployment receded almost to what used to be called "full employment", the deficit numbers started shrinking at a rate faster than even Bush's predictions, and John Kerry pretty much lost the election because one of his biggest talking points, the economy, became almost a mute point come 2004. From about then until the last quarter of last year, because of the economy's huge comeback, it pretty much was "The greatest story never told" in the MSM. But now with the first REAL cyclical downturn lefties are again attempting to make hay.

I often wonder if left in this country had not chosen a path of constant negative disparagement of EVERYTHING this President has done where we might be as a nation right now. Democrats also forget that during the 2000 campaign, Bush made a couple remarks about how the economy was starting to falter and slow and he was criticized by the MSM and the left as possibly aiding its downturn. Since then they have, hypocritacally, made an art of being economic naysayers (not to forget their constant negativism towards everything Iraq to the point of encouraging the enemy).

Bottom line is, McCain is not Bush and thank goodness he is also not Obama or Clinton.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 09:43 PM
Whatfur:

I am not talking about what you, specifically, know about John McCain. It's clear that you know more than most people about politics. I am talking about what the average person knows about John McCain. I'll grant I was being a touch hyperbolic to sum him up in three phrases, but I think that my basic point stands -- that the average voter knows very little about John McCain, and to the extent that they feel like they know him, they mostly know him as a "biographical candidate."

It's hard to pin this down precisely, but one indication that can be shown via polling data is the difference between McCain's voting record and what people think of his place along the ideological spectrum. He's invariably rated as one of the most reliably conservative senators on the basis of his voting record, yet many people, including most members of the media, describe him as a "maverick" or a "moderate."

JLF
05-03-2008, 10:38 PM
I think you missed the point of my reply to Conn's disparagement of associations: "brought to you by the same fine folks." It's the same party; it's the same ideas; it's the same disaster for America and most Americans.

Whatfur
05-03-2008, 10:41 PM
BHK,

I guess I was not clear...I understood your "average person" point and can agree with it to the point of the naivety of the average person. I am also saying though that even the average person understands that Obama's experience does not come close in comparison. Luckily for Obama; experience is not the driving force behind why people would be voting for him.

I was also alluding that the left (and you?) prefer this ignorance because without it; the disparity in experience between McCain and either of the Democratic candidates (but especially Obama) is profoundly huge. Actually, I think one could argue, (and I did ;o) ) that ANY and ALL of the Republican candidates at the start of this thing had better resumes than the top 2 Dems.

Yes, JLF, like Brendan, perception ...as opposed to reality is what you pin your star to.

graz
05-03-2008, 10:56 PM
" perception ...as opposed to reality is what you pin your star to."

You maybe missing the point. The reality of J. McCain is persuasive enough to allow for the expectations of any alternative. And the choices are clear.

bjkeefe
05-03-2008, 11:10 PM
Whatfur:

I am also saying though that even the average person understands that Obama's experience does not come close in comparison.

Sorry if I overlooked this previously. Yes, I agree. But, as you also note, that is not necessarily a deal-breaker for everybody. Many of the people who like Obama like him, in part, precisely because he hasn't been in Washington since forever. "Change" can be an empty slogan, no doubt, but there's also something real to the desire that many people hold to stop doing things the way we've been doing them.

So, I don't buy so much your insistence that we on the left "prefer" people to be ignorant. This claim seems to contradict your previous idea that people aren't unaware of the experience difference, in any case.

Finally, I don't think the "resumé" issue is a matter of fact; i.e., an impartial measure by which the candidate with the longer one automatically gets to count this as an indisputable advantage. It matters more to some, and less than some others; i.e., it's just another judgment call as to where to place this on the hierarchy of considerations involved in evaluating the candidates' worthiness. As I noted above, a lot of people don't particularly want someone who's lived inside the Beltway for decades to be president. Others might say, "Yeah, long resumé, but filled with stuff that I see as mistakes, bad decisions, dubious associations with groups I don't like, or decisions made that go against what I want."

One step back from that, there is the consideration of what policies the candidates propose. To my mind, and the mind of most Obama supporters, it doesn't matter how much more experience McCain has if he's proposing to do a lot of things that we don't want him to do.

hans gruber
05-04-2008, 12:45 AM
Brendan,

Obama absolutely lied about McCain's comment. He said he wanted 100 years of war when McCain was absolutely clear that is not what he meant. Any attempt by Obama to run an ad or bring this up into debate will result in McCain pointing out Obama's previous LIES, even though he may have some substantive point he can honestly make.

If Obama and Hillary and the netroots wanted to make some political hay out of McCain's statement, they shouldn't have lied about it so outrageously. Any attempt to bring it up will result in as much (and probably more) damage being reflected back on them. Frank Rich and Meredith Viera called Obama out. Isn't that a sign it's not going to go over in the MSM? Good luck with this one, man.

Whatfur
05-04-2008, 01:08 AM
BHK,

Sure, the amount and/or quality of the experience may or may not float someones boat.

Not being an Obama supporter though, I am able to look past the "Hopeity Hopeity, Change Change"<--sorry and see a not very well defined community organizing position constantly floated, leading to an attempt and a loss of a state representative seat, followed by him being pretty much handed a state senate seat where he was known more for stealing the legislation of others (and being helped by party bosses in the "grooming" businesss to do so)than being effective on his own. This seemingly was a window into his current Senatorial position which also was pretty much handed to him where he has created no real legacy on his own...short of voting LEFT of EVERYONE and putting his name on bills after others did all the work. Oh yeah, he wrote 2 autobiographies which I understand are more observation than anything concerning extraordinary deeds or accomplishment... which was a good idea because he obviously has more observations than he has deeds or accomplishments.

To be honest, I find it rather disturbing that someone so poorly vetted by experience might actually become President...which is almost as disturbing as almost a quarter of this country working to make that happen.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 02:21 AM
Hans:

I don't think we'll be able to agree on whether Obama "lied" about McCain's "100 years" answer. If you're inclined to oppose Obama and/or like McCain, sure, you see it this way. If you're an Obama supporter and/or dislike McCain, you see it as fairly typical politicking -- taking something said by an opponent and twisting it to serve a purpose, but you don't see it as a lie.

As I said, I don't think there's anything admirable about Obama doing this, just as I don't like it when other politicians do it. Sure, I know what McCain meant, just as most people who used, say, "he as for it before he was against it" as an attack slogan knew what John Kerry meant. Unfortunately, that's the way the game gets played.

I think Obama probably doesn't need to harp on the "100 years" thing himself. The rest of the left has latched onto it, especially now that they see how much it's getting under McCain's, his supporters', and the GOP's skin. I don't think there's much risk of a backlash, either: the only people who are annoyed by this are people who long ago made up their mind not to vote for Obama anyway. I think the real reason someone like you is inclined to react to such attacks by calling them lies is because you resent their effectiveness.

Finally, as far as continued references to "100 years" goes, there's not really much of a need to do anything but repeat McCain's words, which he has more or less repeated several times since that town hall meeting. The bottom line is that he's in no hurry to leave Iraq. He'd like the violence to stop, of course, as would we all, but people who think little of his fondness for long-term occupation believe that US troops cause some of the violence, just by being there. A lot of people also think that Iraq will never be like Korea, Japan, or Germany in largely accepting a permanent US military presence, so it shows a lack of understanding of the way the world works to be thinking as McCain does.

Ultimately, I think it's fair game to keep hammering on McCain for his views in this area. Whether we should stay in Iraq indefinitely or not is a real campaign issue. The sad part about it is, of course, the only apparent way to make such criticisms work on the scale of swaying the electorate is to present them in a sound bite. But, as I said, that's the nature of the game.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 02:29 AM
Whatfur:

I understand that you don't like Obama, and what it is you don't like about him. That's fine. If the lack of experience is a big part of this for you, that's also fine. We just don't agree on this -- I think Obama has sufficient life experience, enough smarts, and plenty of willingness and ability to be able to learn, all of which will make him a good president. Also, McCain's longer time in Washington does nothing for me, since I don't like pretty much everything he did while he was there. But I think we've beat this point to death, and we're not going to budge each other.

Keep in mind, though, that our original topic of discussion was whether the average voter knows that much more about John McCain than he or she does about Barack Obama. Or maybe we sort of settled that, too, implicitly.

Whatfur
05-04-2008, 08:29 AM
So in other words Obama is a crap shoot you are willing to risk.

"Keep in mind, though, that our original topic of discussion was whether the average voter knows that much more about John McCain than he or she does about Barack Obama. Or maybe we sort of settled that, too, implicitly."

Yes, we have...but I will add that at least there is a large historical record that the average voter CAN go examine concerning McCain while there is close to nothing worth barking at with Obama (while seemingly every time someone goes digging they come back with a Wright, or an Ayers, or a Rezko). While McCain's will and character were were being tested; the result was heroism and courage over and above that of most men as a POW. Obama has shown that when the going got really tough...well...he could defer those student loans for a couple months. While McCain when faced with tough decisions with legislative problems where he knew success was dependent on reaching across the isle; he has done the reaching. Obama, when faced with similar issues, has shown a whole lot of ability to talk about reaching without any evidence of actually doing so.

So, while you make the statement...

"I think Obama has sufficient life experience, enough smarts, and plenty of willingness and ability to be able to learn, all of which will make him a good president."

I would counter that words like "sufficient", "enough", and "plenty of" do not instill images of anything presidential to me and are a window into your own subconscious misgivings.

I have to admit that for selfish reasons, I too would not mind an Obama presidency as it is destined to be the disaster the GOP needs to get back on its feet in 2010 and 2012. But because this is not about me but about our country I could never vote for someone so lacking in real accomplishment.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 08:40 AM
Whatfur:

So in other words Obama is a crap shoot you are willing to risk.

No. I see him as the best choice. McCain is a known quantity that I know I won't like.

I'm not going to debate this any longer, since neither of us is going to budge, and we're way off the topic that we started with. Have the last word, if you like.

look
05-04-2008, 09:19 AM
While McCain's will and character were were being tested; the result was heroism and courage over and above that of most men as a POW. Obama has shown that when the going got really tough...well...he could defer those student loans for a couple months. While McCain when faced with tough decisions with legislative problems where he knew success was dependent on reaching across the isle; he has done the reaching. ould never vote for someone so lacking in real accomplishment.Whatfur, what do you think of the "McCain has an awful temper" meme? Also, have you seen this diavlog?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8545

JLF
05-04-2008, 10:19 AM
I'm not going to debate this any longer, since neither of us is going to budge . . . .

Although my question is also off-topic, your last comment, if not this entire thread, raises what for me is the penultimate question: Have we reached a point in our national debate where each side draws its own conclusion from its own set of Maginot Line facts, confident that no opposing army of conclusions can breech its unassailable redoubt?

Perhaps it is just my perspective, but I find this attitude to be particularly true of Republicans in general and the Right in particular. Their view of history is a hagiography of Great Americans; their economics almost a religious devotion to markets; and their morality a paean to Christian conservativism. None of this admits to compromise. While decrying the political correctness of the Left, they have created their own shibboleths that cannot be challenged.

So the ultimate question: why bother?

johnmarzan
05-04-2008, 10:25 AM
Not as long as you are alive and well.

no, the jeremiah wright issue will not go away because jeremiah wright will not go away.

after listening to the loury/joshua and rob long/ellen podcast, what they are trying to say is that it's possible that jeremiah is offended by barack trying to distance himself from him. it's possible that wright thinks what obama is presenting to the public now as a "post racial" "mainstream" candidate is not the same obama he knew for 20 years. and he sees hypocrisy in that.

obama used wright's church to gain street cred with the black community and get himself elected to the state senate. and now he's going to turn away from him?

maybe if rev. wright does one of his book tours during the campaign, the MSM should avoid covering it so that they won't have to report the nutty things he may say in the q and a.

johnmarzan
05-04-2008, 10:30 AM
here's the danger for obama: if rev. wright tells the truth about barack's past in one of his future presscons, barry is screwed.

if he says something like, "barack is saying one thing now, that's not what he confided in me in the past re israel, re his views of america, re race etc." or like "that's not the barack i know, i think he is not being true to himself and is presenting a facade to white america."

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 10:33 AM
I have a hard time understanding individuals that believe the American political system, of today, is any more polarized and bifurcated than it has been historically. The whole system was set up to achieve stalemate in the absence of a significant majority populace support for a particular policy goal or objective. This seems to me a very wise design for governance.

look
05-04-2008, 10:36 AM
20 years. and he sees hypocrisy in that.
obama used wright's church to gain street cred with the black community and get himself elected to the state senate. and now he's going to turn away from him?

Obama dis-inviting Wright to speak at his candidacy declaration must have been a real kick in the head, too. Couldn't trust a brother to behave himself in public.

johnmarzan
05-04-2008, 10:38 AM
personally, i think barack is an overrated phony, just like david axelrod's other ward, gov. deval patrick aka barack v1.0

johnmarzan
05-04-2008, 10:49 AM
artoad:

Thanks for bringing the conservative, yet not blindly partisan, point of view. I, for one, look forward to hearing more from you in the future. If you continue to display the clear-eyed perspective you showed here, I will be happy to reciprocate as regards my own side.

To paraphrase that organ blockage guy:

Go Honesty!

really? i sense a little bit of BDS in him. :lol:

look
05-04-2008, 10:55 AM
As far as a hundred year military engagement in Iraq, do you think the U. S. would be in Japan, Germany or Korea if sundry explosives were being detonated in the streets of Tokyo, Berlin or Seoul five years after major hostilities had ceased?Yes. I have heard that it took about 10 years for things to completely settle down in Germany.

Whatfur
05-04-2008, 11:09 AM
JLF
"why bother"? Now I know you are asking the question more in general but let me reel it back to this one by way of example...

I am actually looking for the left to actually provide me with some sort of real rebuttal. You mention a "Maginot line" of facts and I have to counter with "What facts?". Show me something in Obama's history of substance or show me something above that has been provided already. I've not seen it.

As to the general and your swipe at the right that is pretty simple too...

While we acknowledge mistakes; the want to define our history by inclusion of successess and respect and admiration of "Great Americans" is hardly unique to America and for that matter hardly a negative trait. It actually is ok to be proud to be an American...you should try it sometime.

We look to markets and capitalism because they have been shown to promote the lifting up the average of the average while providing greater freedom to all ...while the philosophys the left holds hands with generally brings down the average and reduces the freedoms. Its not that difficult a concept.

And as far as some on the right finding joy via their religion, why would you want to begrudge that. I am not personally religious but I actually am able to find joy in their joy. You, on the other hand, wish to castigate them for it. Pretty sad actually.


And look.

McCain's temper does not bother me at all and generally laugh at the lefts futility in finding substantial talking points. I will give the diavlog a look sometime.

johnmarzan
05-04-2008, 11:16 AM
after bill clinton compared obama to jesse jackson in south carolina, i wouldnt be surprised if they continue to play the race card by comparing obama to another one of axelrod's slickly packaged talents, the disappointing and increasingly unpopular gov. patrick of massachusetts.

do people want another deval patrick in the white house? do the voters want another one of axelrod's overhyped products?

Bloggin' Noggin
05-04-2008, 11:46 AM
McCain never said he'd support 100 years in Iraq if the violence continued. He said he'd be OK with a presence, a peaceful one, like we have in South Korea and Japan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnVZpA69j0) He was absolutely clear on this point, saying that aslong troops are not being wounded or killed then he would be fine with their presence in the region. Whether or not that is realistic is open to debate, but Obama and the nutroots outright lied about what McCain said. And it appears you fell for it.

I'm sorry -- there was no lie. In the full context of the question he was asked (which definitely did not limit the occupation to a peaceful one), McCain's answer was a very strong indication that he plans to stay for his own full term. Hendrik Hertzberg was there -- have a look at his account.

If McCain feels his intentions are being misrepresented, he can tell us under what circumstances he WOULD withdraw or how long he's prepared to stay if Iraq doesn't magically transform itself into Japan in a year or so.
The current political attacks APPROPRIATELY put pressure on him to explain himself, not to ride forever on his original fantasy-conditions evasion.

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 12:07 PM
Actually you know the video is available on the web but I guess it is easier to do the he said she said than spend the time to find it. So I have done the work for you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk)

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 12:26 PM
I guess that Senator McCain is not the one with the anger problem Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1924872/Michelle-Obama-Barack-has-hit-boiling-point.html) It's bad enough when the candidate whines about his treatment but to send your wife out to whine for you?

JLF
05-04-2008, 02:06 PM
Oh, I completely agree that we are no more polarized - and in fact, less so - than in times past. Ft. Sumpter comes quickly to mind.

My concern is with our inability to find common ground and understanding. If I can't believe a word that comes out of the White House, how can you argue facts that they posit as truth? If you can't accept as truth of the myriad attempts to suppress the African-American vote in Ohio and Florida in 2004 and 2000 because it was likely the vote would be Democratic, how can I argue the Supreme Court is supremely misdirected when it comes to real voter fraud?

I don't mind discussion or debate - if I did, why would this be one of my favorite sites? But other than just debating points, it loses some of its ability to suggest possible solutions to real problems.

hans gruber
05-04-2008, 02:43 PM
I don't think we'll be able to agree on whether Obama "lied" about McCain's "100 years" answer.

Brendan. You have got to be kidding. McCain was EXPLICITLY talking about a peaceful presence ("aslong as Americans are not being wounded or killed") and likenened the hypothetical presence in Iraq to South Korea and Japan. You don't think it's a lie to then say McCain wanted 100 years of war in Iraq? You cannot be serious. I think you've been in the Kos echo chamber too long. McCain NEVER said anything which could be reasonably construed to support 100 years of war. Obama, Hillary, and the netroots were lying. And if the the left starts running ads like this, we have the Obama footage of him LYING (repeatedly) about McCain which can be included in any response.

Whatfur
05-04-2008, 02:50 PM
JLH, I suggest you start with the truth if you are looking for common ground or maybe just start by admitting you lost the 2000 and 2004 elections instead of continuing to baseline your thinking from there. It stunts you.

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 03:48 PM
Oh, I completely agree that we are no more polarized - and in fact, less so - than in times past. Ft. Sumpter comes quickly to mind.

My concern is with our inability to find common ground and understanding. If I can't believe a word that comes out of the White House, how can you argue facts that they posit as truth? If you can't accept as truth of the myriad attempts to suppress the African-American vote in Ohio and Florida in 2004 and 2000 because it was likely the vote would be Democratic, how can I argue the Supreme Court is supremely misdirected when it comes to real voter fraud?

I don't mind discussion or debate - if I did, why would this be one of my favorite sites? But other than just debating points, it loses some of its ability to suggest possible solutions to real problems.The one thing he left is not short of is layers that like to sue. If there is a case with documentable evidence, as opposed to hinted at suppositions where is the trial. I mean even under the standards of evidence available in civil court there has been what 0 cases made.

look
05-04-2008, 04:39 PM
I guess that Senator McCain is not the one with the anger problem Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1924872/Michelle-Obama-Barack-has-hit-boiling-point.html) It's bad enough when the candidate whines about his treatment but to send your wife out to whine for you?Well, that's hardly the same kind of anger problem.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 05:34 PM
really? i sense a little bit of BDS in him. :lol:

Don't you believe it's possible to both be conservative and dislike Bush?

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 05:37 PM
Hans:

I have only seen/heard/read quotes of Obama saying, "John McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years." I have not heard him say, "John McCain wants 100 years of war."

Sorry. As much as you guys try to push back on this one, the 100 years tagline is going to stick, and it's not going to work to try to twist it against Obama.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 05:43 PM
JLF:

So the ultimate question: why bother [to debate, since no one is going to budge]?

You're right, especially as it comes to most of the hot-button issues from this election.

However, there is some worth to engaging, for at least two reasons: (1) for the benefit of readers who haven't made up their minds, (2) to rebut what one sees as the other side's "Big Lie."

Also, in this particular case, I did start the thread by debating with Whatfur about something that didn't seem as cast in stone as the views people have on Wright or "100 years."

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 07:00 PM
At this juncture in time it is not necessary to try and twist anything around. By now many have discovered for themselves that Senator Obama and President Clinton could argue for hours about the definition of the word "is." Senator Obama is an intelligent Harvard trained lawyer and will do his best to use his lawyerly talents to lie even as he states his version of the "truth. " I mean if you think about it, and look at his electoral history it you might notice that it has been his lawyerly skills that have gotten him into office and not his political skills. I'm not sure he will be able to lawyer his way to the presidency.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 08:06 PM
pisc:

Again, it's your opinion that he lied, and it's far from a universally-held one. We'll see how it plays out. I suspect the "100 years" meme will stay alive and well, even without Obama needing to bring it up himself, and you all will be as tired of the left hammering on it as we have been about Rev. Wright and lapel pins.

I'd also say it's laughable of you to try to imply, by your examples, that only Democratic politicians play the game this way.

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 08:49 PM
pisc:

Again, it's your opinion that he lied, and it's far from a universally-held one. We'll see how it plays out. I suspect the "100 years" meme will stay alive and well, even without Obama needing to bring it up himself, and you all will be as tired of the left hammering on it as we have been about Rev. Wright and lapel pins.

I'd also say it's laughable of you to try to imply, by your examples, that only Democratic politicians play the game this way.Bang away it is not the left that Senator McCain has an interest in getting to vote for him. I can understated just how badly the left needs some rhetorical crutch right about now and if it makes you feel better to rant in direct contradiction to a video readily available on the web feel free.

As for the second half of this comment where you get the idea that I was implying that only Democrats do this is baggage that you brought with you. It was merely a comment about the ability of lawyers with good rhetorical skills to parse language precisely to create an impression. President Clinton's remark about "what the definition of is is" is I think an excellent example of this ability.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 09:32 PM
Pisc:

...it is not the left that Senator McCain has an interest in getting to vote for him.

Correct. However, the left does have an interest in both boosting turnout from their own ranks and in swaying moderates and undecideds. And so far, this looks like it has a good chance of working. Admit it: the reason McCain and the right are so upset about this is that they fear its effectiveness.

And, for more on how this isn't a lie, see here (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/100_years_1.php), here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192737.php), and here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192778.php). And in case you miss the link within the last post, here (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/01/a-hundred-years.html) it is again -- a transcript of the original "town hall" session and analysis of why the sound bite pretty much captures the whole thing.

This post (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191838.php) compares one of the ads with the full video of the event, side by side. I suspect a lot of people who haven't already made up their mind will find the argument that the ad is fair persuasive.

Money quote from the last post:

... what the McCain campaign is pushing for here is a standard in which any negative ad targeting McCain must be delivered with the McCain camp's own spin included in order to be within bounds -- a standard few politicians, to say the least, have ever been granted.

piscivorous
05-04-2008, 10:06 PM
Yglesias, Marshal, Marshal and Hertzburg. I'm sure they bring a large slice of the demographic that Senator Obama, Senator Clinton or Senator McCain will need to capture to actually you know win the presidency. It is the middle third of the voters that decide presidential elections and my guess is that these three may have a difficult time reaching that third. I mean come on if you have to read a New Yorker piece to get the subtleties?

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 10:09 PM
Pisc:

You're right about that. On the other hand, I think the case they make about the ability of the Dems to hammer on the "100 Years" meme without fear is a solid one.

look
05-04-2008, 10:46 PM
Pisc:


This post (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191838.php) compares one of the ads with the full video of the event, side by side. I suspect a lot of people who haven't already made up their mind will find the argument that the ad is fair persuasive.The Obama ad is misleading, I think, to the point of being unethical. It's like cutting off a quote without including the elipses, and all the spin Josh tries to inject doesn't change that. Twice Josh misquoted McCain by saying 'a million years,' which isn't very accurate for a news organization.

If I were McCain, I'd re-work it saying something like 'what my opponent doesn't understand is that our noble goal is to bring a hundred years of peace to this troubled land and bring an end to terrorism...'

hans gruber
05-04-2008, 11:16 PM
I have only seen/heard/read quotes of Obama saying, "John McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years." I have not heard him say, "John McCain wants 100 years of war."

Please see this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnVZpA69j0)

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 11:18 PM
The Obama ad is misleading, I think, to the point of being unethical. It's like cutting off a quote without including the elipses, and all the spin Josh tries to inject doesn't change that. Twice Josh misquoted McCain by saying 'a million years,' which isn't very accurate for a news organization.

If I were McCain, I'd re-work it saying something like 'what my opponent doesn't understand is that our noble goal is to bring a hundred years of peace to this troubled land and bring an end to terrorism...'

First, it's not an Obama ad. It's an ad made by the DNC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw).

Second, McCain did say "a million years," according to David Corn (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html):

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned.

Whether you think the clip of McCain as used in the ad is fair or not is open to debate (except among those who either like Obama or dislike Obama ;^)). I have said several times that I don't much care for such tactics, but on the other hand, it's the way the game is played. If you haven't already read it, I refer you to Josh Marshall's line, quoted in my earlier post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=76157&postcount=7).

Regarding the suggestion you make on McCain's behalf for recasting his statement: First, I don't see the presence of US troops in Iraq as anything leading to 100 years of peace. Second, I also don't think it would be politically smart of McCain to use the phrase "100 years" in any context. At this point, all it's going to do is remind people of the first sense of how he used it -- in support of a near-permanent US occupation.

bjkeefe
05-04-2008, 11:26 PM
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Hans. However, I must say, even in a bunch of cherry-picked clips mashed up by an Obama-hater, I still think Obama's larger point comes through, and is true: What McCain wants is to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, a situation that seems certain never to bring about peace.

look
05-04-2008, 11:40 PM
First, it's not an Obama ad. It's an ad made by the DNC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw).Oops. Ok.

Second, McCain did say "a million years," according to David Corn (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html)Oops. Ok.



Whether you think the clip of McCain as used in the ad is fair or not is open to debate (except among those who like Obama or dislike Obama ;^)). I have said several times that I don't much care for such tactics, but on the other hand, it's the way the game is played. If you haven't already read it, I refer you to Josh Marshall's line, quoted in my earlier post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=76157&postcount=7).It's a misrepresentation of what he said, that is, it's basically lying. But we'll see what the RNC can come up with...if it turns out to be Hillary's Tuzla story, that ought to be a hoot.

Regarding the suggestion you make on McCain's behalf for recasting his statement: First, I don't see the presence of US troops in Iraq as anything leading to 100 years of peace. Second, I also don't think it would be politically smart of McCain to use the phrase "100 years" in any context. At this point, all it's going to do is remind people of the first sense of how he used it -- in support of a near-permanent US occupation.I'm not saying it would lead to peace, but I'm just suggesting a re-frame for McCain. And if it's going to be a constant Dem drubbing point, he may as well address it...and his target audience is Republicans and swing voters like my retired auto-worker Uncle who voted for Bush the second time...maddening.

bjkeefe
05-05-2008, 12:11 AM
look:

It's a misrepresentation of what he said, that is, it's basically lying.

I agree with the first part. Not with the second part, though: The larger point that the ad makes is that John McCain doesn't want to leave Iraq, and even he doesn't deny that.

And if it's going to be a constant Dem drubbing point, he may as well address it...

That's a fair point. My instinct, however, is that unless and until the Dems' harping on this point becomes endless, he'd do better to avoid using that phrase. That's almost the same thing as you're saying. The only difference is I'd advise him to wait and see.

P.S. Thanks for acknowledging my sourcing on the earlier minor points.

hans gruber
05-05-2008, 12:50 AM
Brendan,

Your membership in the Straight Shooter club is hereby revoked. You didn't even know Obama had accused McCain of supporting 100 years of war which explains why you thought Obama was being deceptive but not lying. I gave you evidence of incontrovertible lying (saying he supported 100 years of war) and you still cling to your assertion it doesn't rise to the level of lying. Why?

look
05-05-2008, 01:05 AM
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Hans. However, I must say, even in a bunch of cherry-picked clips mashed up by an Obama-hater, I still think Obama's larger point comes through, and is true: What McCain wants is to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, a situation that seems certain never to bring about peace.Then why doesn't he just address the larger point? He's messing with 'the brand' when he starts going old school.

bjkeefe
05-05-2008, 01:44 AM
Brendan,

Your membership in the Straight Shooter club is hereby revoked. You didn't even know Obama had accused McCain of supporting 100 years of war which explains why you thought Obama was being deceptive but not lying. I gave you evidence of incontrovertible lying (saying he supported 100 years of war) and you still cling to your assertion it doesn't rise to the level of lying. Why?

Because Obama is accurately stating what McCain wants -- a near-permanent, large troop presence in Iraq, which amounts to an endless war. What I see Obama doing in those clips is simplifying McCain's message and making it more punchy. As I said, I don't like the distortion that such tactics imply, but Obama is really not saying anything much different from what McCain is selling. McCain just doesn't like his fuzzy words brought into sharp focus.

Sure, McCain would like the violence to stop, as would we all. But it's not going to, not by continuing to do what we've been doing. And for as much as McCain is pissed off about the ads, he has yet to say anything to rebut the belief engendered by his famous phrase, as Ron Brownstein (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24426770/), among others, has noted. As far as I can tell, here's McCain's plan: Leave the troops where they are and hope that peace magically breaks out. If it does, we don't leave. If it doesn't, we have to stay.

McCain has made some statements about hoping to turn over security responsibilities to Iraqi troops, which strikes me as "when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" all over again. Apart from that, I haven't heard anything else but paraphrases of "stay the course" and "we have to win." I think the last few years have shown the emptiness of such slogans.

So, maybe Obama isn't precisely quoting McCain. But he's got the larger truth right.

bjkeefe
05-05-2008, 01:49 AM
Then why doesn't he just address the larger point? He's messing with 'the brand' when he starts going old school.

I think that's exactly what Obama is doing: addressing the larger point. More on this in my reply to Hans (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76171#post76171).

As for him messing with his brand, well, yeah, it can be spun that way if you're of a mind to bash Obama with anything you can grab. Unfortunately, trying to remain completely above isn't an option in American politics. And let's not forget how, just a few months ago, all the anti-Obamatrons were saying his big problem was that he wasn't tough enough, that he wouldn't get in there and mix it up.

hans gruber
05-05-2008, 01:53 AM
Because Obama is accurately stating what McCain wants -- a near-permanent, large troop presence in Iraq, which amounts to an endless war.

McCain was explicit that he was OK with a 100 year presence aslong as troops were not being injured or killed (does that sound like war?). So it's just a lie to use that comment to say he wants 100 years of war.

Obama is really not saying anything much different from what McCain is selling.

This is pathetic. Frank Rich has enough integrity and sense to realize this is a lie. Why can't you just admit Obama was lying?

McCain just doesn't like his fuzzy words brought into sharp focus.

I am honestly perplexed by your refusal to concede the obvious. You don't think McCain said what he really means, so you are OK with lying about it because you imagine the lie is more accurate than what he actually said! I guess it would be OK for McCain to lie about Obama, aslong as he feels he's reaching some higher plane of truth by doing so?

So, maybe Obama isn't precisely quoting McCain. But he's got the larger truth right.

Oh yes: Fake but accurate!

hans gruber
05-05-2008, 02:01 AM
Then why doesn't he just address the larger point? He's messing with 'the brand' when he starts going old school.

And he's essentially prevented himself from using the remark against McCain in the future. Honestly, if he brings it up (even in an accurate way), McCain can bring up his past lies and how disreputable it was. What does Obama say then, "Oh, OK, I lied then but now I have an honest critique!"

bjkeefe
05-05-2008, 02:21 AM
And he's essentially prevented himself from using the remark against McCain in the future. Honestly, if he brings it up (even in an accurate way), McCain can bring up his past lies and how disreputable it was. What does Obama say then, "Oh, OK, I lied then but now I have an honest critique!"

I'd say two things: First, he doesn't have to bring it up himself. The meme has been spread well enough that it can propagate on its own from now on.

Second, no matter how many times you say it, I don't see what Obama said as a lie. Therefore, if McCain tries to go after him more than he already has been, Obama won't have to start by acknowledging this, as you might like.

If McCain's whining about being misquoted rises to the level where Obama feels he has to respond, then Obama can say, "Perhaps I misunderstood you. So what, then, did you mean by being willing to stay for 100 years? Sure, you said if Americans weren't getting killed. So how do you propose to bring about this happy state of affairs? How much longer should we wait for it to happen? And if it doesn't come to be, then what's your plan?"

My guess, though, is that this is unlikely to happen, unless it's brought up in a debate. I think McCain doesn't want to get into a long give and take about "100 years," because that's the only thing the casual voter will remember.

look
05-05-2008, 08:39 AM
What I see Obama doing in those clips is simplifying McCain's message and making it more punchy.There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture.

Again, he could have cut straight to the chase, avoided confusion and damage to the brand, and brought into sharp focus the actual issue.

piscivorous
05-05-2008, 09:07 AM
So i guess that Senator Obama's remarks boil down the the skit of a political humorist and "truthiness" or something like that.

Bloggin' Noggin
05-05-2008, 11:21 AM
It's a misrepresentation of what he said, that is, it's basically lying. But we'll see what the RNC can come up with...if it turns out to be Hillary's Tuzla story, that ought to be a hoot.

He could easily address it if he wanted to say "I never meant that we should stay indefinitely in Iraq if things continue to go badly -- and then go on to give some idea under what conditions he would reconsider his commitment. But McCain doesn't want to do that, because his commitment is basically total, a fact which his little evasion about "as long as things are peaceful" (as though things were peaceful now, or even as though he'd offered some great plan that would make things peaceful in the foreseeable future) was meant to obscure.
The ad could have chased all these loose ends down, but probably at the expense of being too long and involved to be effective. And if you did spend a lot of time arguing over what he said and what he meant by that in the context of the question, you would end up with the same conclusion: that McCain does not foresee withdrawing within his 4 or 8 year term of office.

By the standards of debate on BloggingHeads, the ad would indeed be unfair, but we have unlimited time here. Kerry explained what he meant by "I voted for it before I voted against it" -- if that ad was fair, then I don't see how this ad is unfair. If that ad was not a lie (by not including Kerry's full explanation), then this one is fair too.
[/QUOTE]

Bloggin' Noggin
05-05-2008, 11:32 AM
Yes. I have heard that it took about 10 years for things to completely settle down in Germany.

I'm curious what you have in mind. I've certainly never heard that there was any kind of large insurgency or that Americans couldn't move about pretty freely in Germany 5 years after the German surrender.
One thing is pretty clear: the Germans under American, French and British occupation were delighted not to be under Soviet occupation and wanted to keep it that way. And later on, once they were no longer under occupation, they still preferred to have American security guarantees, along with a long-term American troop-presence rather than risk invasion by the Soviets.

I don't get the impression that the majority of Iraqis prefer America to Iran enough to back such a long-term presence. McCain's caveat is simply a fantasy and an evasion.

hans gruber
05-05-2008, 02:39 PM
First, he doesn't have to bring it up himself. The meme has been spread well enough that it can propagate on its own from now on.

You don't get it. Now Obama is locked into the lie, he's been part of it. So if the lie continues Obama can be blamed for it. So pro-Obama 527s run the risk of hurting their candidate whenever they bring it up, because it raises the salience of the issue which raises the salience of Obama's lying.

hans gruber
05-05-2008, 02:42 PM
How was the "I voted for it before I voted against it" meme unfair?

look
05-05-2008, 02:57 PM
He could easily address it if he wanted to say "I never meant that we should stay indefinitely in Iraq if things continue to go badly -- and then go on to give some idea under what conditions he would reconsider his commitment. But McCain doesn't want to do that, because his commitment is basically total, a fact which his little evasion about "as long as things are peaceful" (as though things were peaceful now, or even as though he'd offered some great plan that would make things peaceful in the foreseeable future) was meant to obscure.He'll have to address that at some point.
The ad could have chased all these loose ends down, but probably at the expense of being too long and involved to be effective.I think an effective ad could have been made along the lines of 'he wants this war to end in a decades-long occupation, like we've had in Germany and Korea. (And as images of crumbling bridges, deteriorating schools, homeless people, empty factories appear) 'We have better things to do with X billion dollars a year.'
And if you did spend a lot of time arguing over what he said and what he meant by that in the context of the question, you would end up with the same conclusion: that McCain does not foresee withdrawing within his 4 or 8 year term of office.Then that is what should have been addressed, not kicking off the whole debate under a cloud that compromises Obama's integrity.
Kerry explained what he meant by "I voted for it before I voted against it" -- if that ad was fair, then I don't see how this ad is unfair. If that ad was not a lie (by not including Kerry's full explanation), then this one is fair too.I don't recall that there was a brouhaha over that, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

look
05-05-2008, 03:28 PM
I'm curious what you have in mind. I've certainly never heard that there was any kind of large insurgency or that Americans couldn't move about pretty freely in Germany 5 years after the German surrender.
artoad's question:
As far as a hundred year military engagement in Iraq, do you think the U. S. would be in Japan, Germany or Korea if sundry explosives were being detonated in the streets of Tokyo, Berlin or Seoul five years after major hostilities had ceased?
Twenty lashes with a wet noodle for me for not researching first, but in my defense, I didn't mean when anwering artoad's question, that there was a large-scale resistance (bombs in the streets all over), but that there was resistance, and we did quell it, and would have quelled much more, if need be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf
One thing is pretty clear: the Germans under American, French and British occupation were delighted not to be under Soviet occupation and wanted to keep it that way. And later on, once they were no longer under occupation, they still preferred to have American security guarantees, along with a long-term American troop-presence rather than risk invasion by the Soviets.

I don't get the impression that the majority of Iraqis prefer America to Iran enough to back such a long-term presence. McCain's caveat is simply a fantasy and an evasion.I don't think it's as clear cut as that, and I don't know how most Iraqis feel about an Irani hegemon. We may have turned a corner (with Iran's help) with regard to getting the Iraqi government finally moving in the right direction.

bjkeefe
05-05-2008, 03:35 PM
You don't get it. Now Obama is locked into the lie, he's been part of it. So if the lie continues Obama can be blamed for it. So pro-Obama 527s run the risk of hurting their candidate whenever they bring it up, because it raises the salience of the issue which raises the salience of Obama's lying.

We'll have to wait and see, of course, but this sounds to me more like wishful thinking more than solid analysis or a plausible prediction. To someone like you, who is looking for additional reasons not to like Obama, sure, you'll think "lie" every time you hear an ad like the ones made by the DNC or MoveOn, or hear Obama refer to McCain's line. But it's not like you were going to vote for Obama anyway.

For the casual voter, I suspect, the key will be "100 years" and that's it.

bjkeefe
05-05-2008, 03:55 PM
Hans:

McCain was explicit that he was OK with a 100 year presence aslong as troops were not being injured or killed (does that sound like war?). So it's just a lie to use that comment to say he wants 100 years of war.

I will stipulate that McCain does not want 100 years of war. However, the real question is, how do we avoid what's been the reality of the past few years in Iraq by continuing along the same path? What's is going to make things change? And if they change, then why do we need to stay there? The tacked-on disclaimer of McCain's, "... as long as American troops aren't being killed," provokes nothing more than a "Well, duh" response -- of course no one wants more killing, but how are we supposed to get to that point?

It's like me saying, "I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs, as long as no one abuses them." Would you let me off the hook for the first part, just because I added the second part? Of course not. You'd say my plan was unrealistic.

Frank Rich ...

Didn't see this. In a column?

You don't think McCain said what he really means, so you are OK with lying about it because you imagine the lie is more accurate than what he actually said!

Now who's twisting words? One, I don't think McCain said something other than he means, and two, I don't think it's a lie to have reused his words the way they have been. I think McCain said what he meant, that while he'd like things to get better in Iraq, he is in the meantime perfectly happy to maintain the status quo. I think Obama, and the other ads, are capturing the spirit of what McCain is really advocating. I think you're making a big deal out of Obama's exact words because you can't really dispute this larger point.

I am going to drop this here, because we're going around in circles. If you'd like to have the last word, please feel free.

Bloggin' Noggin
05-06-2008, 02:19 PM
I don't recall that there was a brouhaha over that, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

The relevance is that (a) Kerry's whole statement was not included -- as McCain's whole statement was not included and (b) the DNC ad should not be judged as though they were position papers or blog posts -- they need to be judged against the going standard for political ads.

Bloggin' Noggin
05-06-2008, 02:21 PM
I didn't say it was unfair. I said that it cut off that one little soundbyte without letting Kerry go on to give his full explanation of what he meant by that. If that's fair, then cutting McCain off before he adds that he's talking about an alternative universe in which there is no insurgency in Iraq also appears to be fair.

look
05-06-2008, 02:38 PM
The relevance is that (a) Kerry's whole statement was not included -- as McCain's whole statement was not included and (b) the DNC ad should not be judged as though they were position papers or blog posts -- they need to be judged against the going standard for political ads.BN, I must confess igorance of the ad. I remember the 'he voted for it,' but that's about it. Will you please give me a quick synopsis of the controversy.

It would be nice to see a breakdown of politcal ads, and how they compare over the last few cycles.

Also, this topic goes in two directions, I think. One is what the RNC did and the other is what Obama said.

bjkeefe
05-07-2008, 05:01 AM
A little late to this debate, but as far as mischaracterizing your political opponent's position goes, have a look at this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03check.html).

Excerpt:

Senator John McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain.

The suggestion is incorrect. While both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York are calling for universal health care and an expanded role for government, they stop well short of calling for a single-payer plan.

Mr. McCain has made the assertion several times in recent days, even as he and the Republicans have made repeated calls for accuracy on the campaign trail. They have been complaining indignantly that the Democrats were grossly distorting his position by suggesting that he favors a “100-year war” in Iraq, when he has simply said that he would be fine with stationing troops there for 100 years as long as there were no more American casualties.

Yet on repeated occasions, Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has inaccurately described the Democrats’ health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine.

(h/t: Ezra (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2008&base_name=good_media_watch))

Bloggin' Noggin
05-07-2008, 10:36 AM
A little late to this debate, but as far as mischaracterizing your political opponent's position goes, have a look at this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03check.html).

Excerpt:



(h/t: Ezra (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2008&base_name=good_media_watch))

'Oh my GAWWWWWD! McCain is LYING! There goes his reputation for being a different kind of politician and for "straight talk"!'
--The Conn Carroll of the Left

look
05-07-2008, 01:56 PM
A little late to this debate, but as far as mischaracterizing your political opponent's position goes, have a look at this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03check.html).

Excerpt:



(h/t: Ezra (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2008&base_name=good_media_watch))Good point, Brendan.

look
05-07-2008, 01:57 PM
'Oh my GAWWWWWD! McCain is LYING! There goes his reputation for being a different kind of politician and for "straight talk"!'
--The Conn Carroll of the LeftMrow.

Jack McCullough
05-07-2008, 10:18 PM
Is Conn kidding?

Does he really expect us to believe his theory (or rationalization) of the Wright/Hagee thing?

The reason the wingers are pushing the Wright issue is that it's an opportunity to associate Obama with an angry black man We've always known that the R's would use racism to get at Obama, and now they have one way to do it.

graz
05-07-2008, 10:21 PM
Jack McCullough:
Quote:

Is Conn kidding?

No, it's his job. And he seems to relish it.