There's a lot going on in our busy, complicated world, so it's heartwarming that our offering has generated some interest and feedback. Thanks, on behalf of Dano and myself, for your comments, criticisms and suggestions. We do appreciate it.
Our goal was to create a format for intelligent conversation, and so far we've succeeded. So it's sad to consider that, while we here in this little corner conduct debate in a way that can only be described as honorable, there are people on the national and international scale whose only agenda is to denigrate and destroy, through whatever means possible, those who would seek to lead our nation.
Jerome Corsi, who started the "Swift Boat" movement in 2004 which doomed the candidacy of John Kerry, is at it again. His book, listed as a New York Times Bestseller (not hard, by the way - 10,000 copies will do it. Print a 90-page anything and publish it from your computer, have your mom buy 10,000 copies, and you're a best selling author) is called "Obama Nation". Put the words together and you get his drift. This book, of which I have read inserts, is a collection of rumor, exaggeration and bold-faced lies regarding the Illinois Senator who would be President. It incorporates the worst of the worst the media, the Internet and the radical right has to offer to demonstrate that Obama's success would be the downfall of America.
Two things make me really sad in regard to this publication. First, Corsi doesn't deny anything I just said. He really doesn't care that his book portrays Obama in a false light. He freely admits that the only reason he wrote it is to help assure that Obama is not elected. For that reason alone, I would implore you to simply ignore anything you hear about it, or fight to get the media and the Republicans to vocally and vociferously repudiate it. America should hear no more from this malcontent.
Secondly, Mary Matalin, a conservative voice that I once respected, has lent her name to this fallacious diatribe, thus costing her whatever credibility she once had. Her husband, liberal commentator and political advisor James Carville, must be grinning over his corn flakes at his wife's major screw up. I would love to be a fly on the wall at their house as the "I told you so's" are mingling with his signature chuckle.
My hope is that the media will treat Corsi in 2008 as they treated Ralph Nader in 2004 - a non-entity on the political scene not worthy of conversation. If that happens, perhaps we will see a return to civility and respect on the campaign trail. Does this suggest there won't be attack ads and personal digs against the opposition? I'm not that foolish.
But maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when we make our decisions based on how well our candidates articulate their positions on the issues that are really important. In other words, how well they do what we're trying to do right here. God, what a wonderful world it would be.
Posts
Trump a Dancing Fool
12 hours ago
8 comments:
Yeah, Reed...in a lot of ways, you're right. But we should talk. Really.
Reed:
I hadn't heard of this until you posted your comments. Thanks!
So I went and did some research. I find most of your comments sad as they follow the typical liberal attack machine. Corsi appeared on CNN with Media Matters a known left wing attack machine. Waldman of Media Matters brought out a vicious attack on Corsi and guess what, he admits he hasn't even read the book. In fact he has barely looked at it.
So as typical I'm betting you fell into the liberal clap trap instead of thinking for yourself on this one. (I'm not tying to attack you like Corsi was attacked but I will call the subject out.)This is the same thing that seems to happen to about 50% of the population of this country seems regular basis. Some "news" outlet said it's so, it must be true.(Granted you may not have seen the same thing I did but the attacks are all similar on this book.) It's all about the emotion and how can the main stream media make their candidate look good and the opponents to their candidate look bad. You prove that in your last paragraph which I will get to in a minute.
Essentially what you have here is a guy who wrote a book, did the research and then you have a direct opponent saying he's a liar. Now who am I supposed to believe? The guy who did the research or the guy who didn't even crack the book but claims he knows what's in there?
Reed, how do you know the book is a collection of rumor, exaggeration and bold faced lies? You can't possibly know in reality and therefore you have no right to make those comments. What you did is hear or read someone else who said it. I'll bet if you didn't get excerpts (not inserts by the way) of Waldman directly, your source, like Waldman probably didn't read the book either. The media in this country has failed us. They have ignored the first ammendment. Instead of getting the facts and telling us the truth they choose sides. Corsi did the research, Waldman didn't do any research.
In one example Waldman sites a CNN report that did say Obama went to school as a "muslim" but then went on to excuse it mostly as a "secular" school so it doesn't matter. Problem is, Obama went there 35 years ago when it was a serious muslim school. All Corsi does is point this fact out. It's not a lie. Waldman on the other hand says Corsi is lying and people buy it.
The next thing I find sad is that this Corsi book is largely going to go no where as you suggest but you pick it as an example of "the worst of the worst" in media.
In the mean time we have this guy on CNBC every night by the name of Keith Olberman. He spews nothing but hate night after night and no one says anything about it. That's because he hates Bush. The main stream media does too so they don't challenge Olberman. I mean it's free expression after all right? Wrong! I thought Clinton and his crew outlawed "hate speach" well they did but only if it's hate speach against the Liberal Lefts beliefs.
The difference between guys like Limbaugh and Olberman is the Limbaugh challenges policies and positions liberals don't like it because it challenges their beliefs. Limbaugh may be right they may be right but the Liberals don't like it so they call it "hate speech." In the mean time Olberman doesn't challenge any ideas or policies he preaches pure hate. He's and angry liberal! Proof?! His segment known as "The Worst Person in the World."
Now finally the last sad point. You want a candidate that is "articulate." (Read your last paragraph.) I damn sure don't. I don't care how good he sounds on TV. I don't care how good he sounds on the radio. I want someone to make the right decision when needed. I don't want someone that can make a bad decision sound like a good one. We had that for 8 years under Clinton. I don't care if the guy talks like Elmer Fudd, was it the right decision?
Obviously I want someone that can communicate. I don't want to pick a president on that alone. As an example, Gore at one time said "what should be up is down, what should be down is up." His audiance just swooned all over him. Oh he gives such a good speech. Yeah Really? What I want to know is facts. What was up that was suppose to be down. Oh I'm suppose to believe that to be true just because he said it? Many people did believe it. Obama does the same thing. He talks in generalities much of the time.......but my goodness doesn't it sound good!
Before some of you reading this have a knee jerk reaction about my Obama statement I have two things to say. First of all I'm not a particular McCain fan but he talks a lot more specific than Obama does. Obama even talks in general about the war. Most people that like him want out of Iraq and that's it. They think of nothing else. Obama says I'll get us out of Iraq and it makes it sound like it's going to be right away. However when you he has been pinned down on the topic he back pedals and says it may take time. Yeah he knows he can't get out right away but he talks in general and makes you think it's going to be faster than you could possibly imagine. I got more news for you too. McCain will likely get us out of Iraq too. We will probably be out in the next four years no matter who gets elected. (Don't feed me that 100 years line the media twisted and sent all around about McCain either.)
I wonder who among us is a fan of the "Zing!" column in the Tallahassee Democrat. I am not - I have always been a believer in backing up what you say and having enough confidence in your position to ascribe your name to it.
That being said, I would like to point out, for the record and for Anonymous' sake, that I don't watch network news, and that includes CNN and Fox. I try to get my news through credible news reports provided by organizations like the Associated Press or Reuters, which are not affiliated with any particular publisher or privately held entity with it's own agenda.
I read columns by editorialists as diverse as Cal Thomas and Arianna Huffington, Kathleen Parker and Leonard Pitts, Dave Broder and George Will. I take what I find useful and compelling, I research "facts" when I find them dubious, and I form my opinion.
Based on the "facts" cited in Corsi's book, which I researched from a variety of non-aligned sources, and based on Corsi's own admission that his motive for writing the book was not to provide serious public discussion but to damage the Obama campaign, then I stand by my assertion that his offering, and others like it on both sides of the political spectrum, have no place in the context of this campaign. Corsi himself supported my opinin when he said in a recent talk-show format that Obama's strong response to the book was an indication that he would "create a Department of Hate Crimes and throw (his critics) in jail." He then shot his own credibility when he asked, "Where's his sense of humor?" In other words, this isn't supposed to be a book for critical thinkers to take seriously.
I'm concerned that some of your comments have taken on a personal tone, such as your associating the writer's posts with the "left-wing attack machine,- and this is a violation of Blog rules. Your agenda is clear, and you are entitled to your opinion. But I am sure there are better places to contribute your ideas. What you sight as "research" looks more to me like you went in search of validation. If you can't have an open mind in this format, I'm not sure you understood the reason we set it up in the first place. Think about it.
Reed
In The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso uncovers the stories the mainstream media has neglected, revealing Obama for who he really is: the U.S. senator with the #1 most liberal voting record in the Senate. And a politician whose rhetoric of "change" does not match the reality of his corrupt, "Chicago-machine politics" background.
As American citizens, it is our right and duty to question the background, character, and proposals of any candidate who could be our next commander in chief. Democrats and the media are not holding Obama accountable, so conservatives must. I'm grateful to David Freddoso and my publisher, Regnery, for finally revealing the man behind the myth.
Reed
As stated it wasn't to be an attack on you. However if you are going to have a forum like this....expect your beliefs to be challenged. Problem is most people take a challenge to their beliefs as a personal attack. Admittedly not the easiest thing to distinguish at times.
When you go out and repeat pretty much everything the left wing attack machine has written or said about this book and take their angle on attacking this book it's not surprising that you may have been pigeon holed on this one.
Since most of my time was spent reading what the left had to say about this book that doesn't evoke validation to my opinion. My opinion was generated because most of the left said they actually hadn't read this book, which is typical.
My opinion is what it is because the media isn't doing their job. In fact I didn't read a singe "right wing" sight researching this subject so know I was looking for validation. I was only trying to figure out where you got your own validation.
Geeeez, anonymous...even Bill O'Reilly condemned this Corsi book as garbage. I'd like to congratulate Bill for his ability to be, simultaneously, a member of the "right-wing" and the "left-wing attack machines."
Anon isn't very good at making his point. Or the first and third anon anyway. Can't figure out if the middle anon is the same anon. Anyway, anon (the first and third) has a good point to make, just not very good at making it.
That is the media isn't doing its job. It hasn't for decades. Not only has it not questioned Obama, but it hasn't investigated McCain either. That's because both of them are media darlings. As poor a candidate as McCain is, he'd have this election won no prob if Hillary was running. Because the media doesn't like Hill.
The mainstream media sucks. So all we who really want to know are left with is blogs and slam books from both sides. And radio from the right, sorry Air America no one wants to listen to just propoganda. They want humor and entertainment with their propoganda in the background. :)
No one's challenged McCain's voting record. I researched it and found that McCain has avoided every spending bill and every bill of consequence for the last two years. Two days AFTER I researched it I heard a passing comment about it from Glenn Beck (an accused right-winger, but in fact a self-delcared libertarian-leaner as of a week ago).
No one is doing their job in the media and its a multitude of reasons: bias is one, group think is another, but just as important and always ignored is fear of being thrown out of the press corps. As a former journalist I know. These guys on the campaign trail with McCain and Obama get TOO close to their subjects after months and months and months. They've been on the road too and feel a connection with their subject. They've got to know them.
And they do not want to blackballed in a competative market. They do not want to run a negative or investigative story. We saw what happened when that magazine put Obama and his wife ont he cover. The reporter from the mag was left off the European tour. Trust me, BOTH candidates have this unwritten policy. Write something bad and you do not get the news of the day and maybe not the news for weeks and maybe not the news ever.
And that could mean a reporter with a pristine, top of their profession gig (covering presidential politics), gets put back in the office covering the New York Councilman from Queens.
So, I haven't even heard about Corsi's book. But I know one thing, years ago I didn't want to believe anything people on the left were saying about Bush. I learned my lesson. I should have listened. I'll not make that mistake again for either side. So I will research what Corsi has to say. As Ronnie (as in the Gipper) used to say, "Trust but verify."
To anonymous #2: your publisher, Regnery? Are you suggesting you are a published author? Do tell.
And just for the fun of it, perhaps you can tell us why Regnery, a self-professed "conservative" publisher that only works with right-wing authors, represents a viable place to "question the background, character, and proposals of any candidate who could be our next commander in chief?" They don't appear to offer any unbiased examination of "any" candidates. They seem to publish only slam books about Democrats and feel-good books about Republicans. Feel free to correct me.
Post a Comment