« Poll: Obama's National Lead Shrinks; McCain Leads On Russia | Home | Speaking To Veterans, Obama Directly Takes On McCain's Attacks On His Patriotism »
Associated Press Gets One Right
Whoopsie! Check out this inadvertent description of Joe Lieberman in an Associated Press story on the Veepstakes...
His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.
A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that...
Special thanks to TPM Reader KS for spotting this one.
Late Update: Turns out Atrios was on this first.
Advertisement
Wow. AP has finally printed something factual. These guys might find work as journalists yet.
August 19, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
jo jo jo gotta go go go !
August 19, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad that The Daily Show is on vacation this week, before they show up at the Democratic convention on Monday.
Three things in McCain's favor last week: 1) Obama was on vacation, 2) McCain could bluster on the Georgia crisis without rebuttal, and 3) McCain is having to spend down his primary stash in August, thereby outspending Obama massively in the swing states. Bad news for McCain last week was that it was Olympics week with NBC and its satellite cable stations racking in record ratings. Net result, Obama still leads McCain in the Q-poll outside the margin of error, although by a reduced amount.
The Georgia (and Pakistan) events will be seen increasingly as major failures by the Bush administration. There was a lot of ineffective talk for 7 years, but in the end the U.S. policies and goals were in ruins. Obama should point out that McCain's empty blustering will accomplish no more than Bush's empty blustering.
August 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama should point out that McCain's empty blustering will accomplish no more than Bush's empty blustering." Problem, between Obama's hims and haws as he dances around the point he's afraid to make in every answer, his empty blustering doesn't even reach the bluster level...it's just emptiness.
August 19, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leave it to a Republican to equate careful consideration of words to fear.
He doesn't speak in pre-packaged sound bites like McCain. You obviously see that as a weakness and that's no surprise.
August 19, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
He won't answer a question...that's not thoughtfulness, that's trying not to get pinned down to an issue so you can change your answer to the next group you pander to without being called a flip flopper. At least when McCain changes his view he says "Well I was wrong..."
August 19, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
He must spend most of his free time admitting mistakes, being that he's the Olympic sponsor of the flip flop and all.
August 19, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pitiful really, lurking around here in the self appointed role of defending that senile old coot.
August 19, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarge needs to down some of your avatars, YB, maybe he'd lose the warmonger urge and stop stroking his bayonet...
August 19, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He won't answer a question"
That's simply false.
August 19, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
and really funny coming from anyone who might've seen McCain give this answer on Saturday:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11078
August 19, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're half right...the ones he answers, he answers different ways depending on the audience...like "Why did you vote against the Illinois Born Alive Act?":
"Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."March 30, 2001
"A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies." March 5, 2002
"Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative." August 2004
"Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics." October 2004
"Anyway, doctors don't do that." October 2004
"Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle." July 2006
"the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade.... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill." October 2004
"This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of "born alive" in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level.
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.
When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL's paragraph (c), Amendment 1 below, to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill."
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html
August 19, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That has to be one of the most misleading cut and paste jobs I've ever seen. You should be ashamed of yourself. You've got quotations around those phrases leading people to believe that those are direct quotes from Obama himself, but they're not. Uuugghhh....I used to give you more credit than that and think that you were really interested in a serious debate. I'm sorry that you have to stoop to such intellectually empty tricks to try and prove your point.
August 19, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, really pathetic, SFC.
August 19, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's got the link to the page I was quoting from.
August 19, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got a question posed to Obama followed by a bunch of answers in quotes...what did you think everyone was going to take from that? Did you think that everyone would assume that those were answers somone other than Obama gave?
August 19, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schrodinger,
he's a right winger who quite often references right wing sites as his sources. Expect him to soon quote Jerome Corsi.
August 19, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even still. A horribly misleading comment. I think you actually made Fogu2 blush.
August 19, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone attacks the poster or the cite...funny how the "Content" is never addressed...Remember, it was The National Enquierer...but they were right too.
August 19, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
..thats not a defense of a shoddy argument.
August 19, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
...but the argument isn't shoddy, that's the point. You guys look for ways around the argument...that came from FNC...or I can't belive you cited that rag...never answering the truth of the charge...Obama answers questions in a "Clintonesque" fasion and complains when he gets called out on it.
August 19, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on brother, you are fast becoming a troll with those hamfisted rebuttals - you're better than that.
August 19, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Humanity,
no he isn't.
August 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few days ago you dismissed the veracity of a book I suggested because of the title, so don't be hypocritical.
Besides, don't try and change the subject. Let's look at the facts: you were trying to prove that Obama changes his answers to suit his audience; in defense, you stated a question that was posed to him and then listed a bunch of statements in quotations....leading any reasonable person to believe that those were Obama's different answers to that question. In reality, those "quotes" were, in fact, quotes of other peoples' interpretations of things Obama had said. How was that "content" an intellectually honest argument?
August 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You follow the link...read the quotes and say "Damn...he's right...Obama does change his answers based on who he's talking to."
August 19, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you bother with the fake quotes then? You can try and twist this all you want, but I'm sorry, you were very misleading.
August 19, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you are confused . . . Obama changes the words he uses to answer DIFFERENT questions. While knee-jerk, mindlessly-simple, jingoistic platitudes are easy to digest for the easily distracted and the illiterate . . . Polysyllabic words may have to be rearranged to actually address the question asked.
August 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just the point....those weren't Obama's arguments that you listed....those were someone else's words.
August 19, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
With quotes...dates...links to the text of the speeches...did you even read the stuff?
August 19, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The different quotes in your post were not Obama's words.....how can they prove anything about how Obama answers a question? So I'll meet you half-way...the person whose quotes you listed sure does change their arguments....how's that?
August 19, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC, speeches? You just said Obama changed his answers depending on the audience. Speeches are not answers to questions.
Your posting was extremely disingenuous. It's fine to oppose Obama, just make sure you think the alternative would make a better prez.
BTW, the answer is McDumbass won't.
August 19, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone here and across the liberal and neutral blogosphere needs to realize, McCain's campaign website call for trolls to attack our sites has begun to mature, and like any old rotting corpse they are destined to stink up the place, like Sarge has done here.
Expect many more of these neophyte neocon wannabe bloggers to post these disjointed "arguments" for us all to roll our eyes at.
Someone needs to keep a collection of these newly-minted trolls and their posts, they are so blatantly transparent, the biggest joke is that they think they are somehow fooling anyone.
But that is one of the hallmarks of the dunderheads and doofuses who accept McCain's challenge to go forth and blog, so far, without an exception that I can find, their arrogance is outweighed only by their ignorance.
August 19, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Someone needs to keep a collection of these newly-minted trolls and their posts, they are so blatantly transparent..."
You may not agree with me and even consider me a troll. However, as for the "newly minted" charge, I'm willing to bet that I've been posting on this site (under the same user name) longer than 90% of the commenters on this thread...make that 95%.
August 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
can you supply sources for those comments you attribute to Obama?
August 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
August 19, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
Click on that site you provided,, go to Page 5, then page 85 for Obama's comments, then show me where he backs up your comments.
August 19, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crickets. Figures.
August 19, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"SFC" is a fraud, plain and simple. Shows up with weak repetitions of already-discredited Republican talking points and restates them poorly.
If you ask me, he's some kid in his parents' basement play-acting.
August 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
YEP! Obama is a READER. Ya can't trust READERS. They are elitist. I would be better if Obama were a jingoistic platitude spouter like McInsane. The โshort-bussersโ can understand sound bites of ten words or less without nodding off . . . Yep. That Obama . . . He be a READER. Ya can't trust READERS. They are elitist. Repeat ad nauseum . . . AGAIN.
August 19, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope...but it would be nice if he...er....um....well...did...uh...in a way...kind of...mmmm...answered a freaking question!
August 19, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much like it would be nice if you showed up here with something that was either factual or original.
I'm not asking for both, mind, I know that's unrealistic, just one or the other.
Or is it beyond you to do even that, you fraud?
August 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. Bush may have thought "subliminable" was a word and McCain might not know the difference between the Shia and the Sunni, but at least they say things quickly and with confidence. The last thing I want is a president who thinks before he opens his mouth....that might be embarassing.
August 19, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can "make it real" by telling the anecdotes which show up in today's NYT times article about the Russian army's activity in the Georgia naval Black Sea port city of Poti. Five armored US Humvees which were part of a joint US-Georgia training exercise were in crates on boats ready to be shipped back to the US. The Russians captured those Humvees and are today transporting them back to Russia. Similarly, 44 working tanks of the Georgia army (probably bought with US funds) are being sent back to Russia too.
Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia on Aug. 7 was exactly the trigger that Russia was waiting for as a pretext to invade Georgia and wipe out 6 years of a US military build-up of Georgia. That's the reason Russia is slow in withdrawing from Georgia, such that it can wipe out as much of Georgia's military capability as possible. Neither Bush nor McCain can do anything about this now with just talk. Obama will have to come up with a policy of how to pick up the pieces instead.
August 19, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
SPOT ON ASSESSMENT! This should be a reader post, BronxInTN...
August 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
YEP! Obama is a READER. Ya can't trust READERS. They are elitist. I would be better if Obama were a jingoistic platitude spouter like McInsane. The โshort-bussersโ can understand sound bites of ten words or less without nodding off . . . Yep. That Obama . . . He be a READER. Ya can't trust READERS. They are elitist. Repeat ad nauseum.
August 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love it!
August 19, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny.
I'm assuming it's taking its place on TPM's front page for Obama's benefit.
Ah, teenagers playing politics.
August 19, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you even LOOKED at your avatar?
August 19, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Much better than yours, by the way.
August 19, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing irony (among other things)is lost on you?
And if you can't appreciate "Spinal Tap" well, then, that just makes me kind of sad....you must be more of a Carrot-Top or Gallagher type of person.
August 19, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Lalo.
Spinal Tap > Abraham Obama
August 19, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
maybe ole jo will run off and play goper for good.
August 19, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty pathetic when the Fourth Estate has to stumble into truth in reporting. But they sure got this one right!
August 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLMAO
August 19, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing irony (among other things)is lost on you? And if you can't appreciate "Spinal Tap" well, then, that just makes me kind of sad....
August 19, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry...meant for Lalo above...
August 19, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohh that is hilarious! I can't stop laughing!
August 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm laughing my *** off, too. I hope the copy editor who did this does not get fired
- heck maybe he should get submitted for a Pulitzer. LOL
August 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calling JL a prick I think is being overly harsh to all the other pricks in Washington. And if we didn't have Bush and Cheney and all their prick buddies all the people at TPM would be looking for work.
August 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's a thin line between stupid and clever, y'know.
August 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
BronxinTn. A voice of reason. Sfc a trool. I think sfc hearts Rick Warren, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson. Always wanting to control others people in the name of religion.
August 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Someone needs to keep a collection of these newly-minted trolls and their posts, they are so blatantly transparent..."
You may not agree with me and even consider me a troll. However, as for the "newly minted" charge, I'm willing to bet that I've been posting on this site (under the same user name) longer than 90% of the commenters on this thread...make that 95%.
August 19, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . And you have no venom for those of us who were posting for months upon months when this site was under TPM Cafe'.
Now, I am sad.
August 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to argue with Larry Johnson, during the Valarie Plame thing, daily. He was a god here until he backed Hillary. Now he's been voted off of the island...it's kind of funny actually.
August 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now he's been voted off of the island...it's kind of funny actually."
Respectfully SFCWallace, Johnson has been "voted off the island" because he's a drooling xenophobe and a reprehensible smear merchant.
August 19, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was saying years ago on here...but everyone was calling me a troll and bowing before LarryTheGreat chanting "we're not worthy...we're not worthy..."
August 19, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
..that wasn't me.
August 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace says:
Correct, you aren't "newly minted."
August 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accurate reporting . . .
August 19, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a lost cause to try to credit who noted what first these days, but since TPM EC has been trying of late, it should be noted that it appears that Wonkette (8:55 am) beat Atrios (8:57) by 2 minutes with the AP Lie berman 'prick' post.
August 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love SFC Wallplaque, aka "twiddling sabres". Without individuals like him we might waste too much time preaching to the choir. This numb nut actually helps us all refine reasonable arguments in the face of obfuscation, misdirection, outright deceit, and of course that most favored fallback of the ethically and intellectually challenged repubs, patriotic bunting. But after a while arguing with a fool just looks like two fools arguing. So I say, let's not engage him. Just let him slide like accountability off a repub's back.
August 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually those "twiddling sabres" is the 7th Cavalry Regimental crest but when have you ever been interested in truth or accuracy...?
August 19, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose you represent the 7th Cavalry? Why are Iraq war vets and active duty military contributing to Obama's campaign 7-1 over McCain's?
Like I said earlier, arrogance is one of the hallmarks of Mccain's troll patrol, and assuming you speak for your fellow vets and the 7th fits nicely into that definition.
Why don't you use a photo of yourself?
That is the only honest avatar any of us might choose. Nothing against the cartoons and other funny stuff, that is excusable.
But to take such a venerated insignia and claim it as if you represent them is, at the very least arrogant.
Change your avatar to a photo of yourself, if you have any self respect.
August 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't "represent" the 7th Cavalry, though I was a proud member along with several other units but I chose the 7th for my Regimental affiliation. That you assume as to what I assume speaks to your arrogance not mine. You might want to read Matthew 7:3
August 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually since I can remember. And I actually apologize for those words, take responsibility, as it were. I don't mean to condescend, or demean anyone in the service. But calling bullshit isn't always pretty. You seem erudite by your posts but you continue to make fallacious arguments. You seem a person who has seen much and paid attention but ultimately have come to the wrong conclusion. The transparency of the speciousness of your points reveals that you don't have a clue about what the other side is fighting for. Incidentally, I came to the realization that truth and accuracy matter around the time of Nixon. Switched parties then and never turned back to the dark side. With all due respect, when do you think you will become interested in truth and accuracy?
August 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You seem erudite by your posts but you continue to make fallacious arguments. You seem a person who has seen much and paid attention but ultimately have come to the wrong conclusion. The transparency of the speciousness of your points reveals that you don't have a clue about what the other side is fighting for."
I couldn't have said it better myself...back at you.
August 19, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"seen much and paid attention"
half right... prejudiced attention is flawed, and I don;t mean racial, I mean cultural..
and prejudiced perspectives tend to result in wrong conclusions, which wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so many imnpressionable voters being misled by these blind leaders...
August 19, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think i read in bob shrum's book that Gore's final two choices were John Edwards and Holy Joe Lieberman and the only reason Gore picked Lieberman was because he wanted his pick to be a historical first. In this case, the first Jewish Vice-President. (and it didn't hurt that Joe was so enthusiastic in denouncing Clinton during the impeachment fiasco, and gore wanted to distance himself from that as much as possible).
but...who knows...Edwards may not have turned out any better either.
August 19, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
i really like the way McCain answers questions, his straight-talk is so maverick, compared to that elitist flip-flopper who hates America and wants to make everyone a communist muslim. ITS TRUE!! The liberal media is controlled by Putin and abortionists. This is the REAL MCCAIN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
August 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
All attention paid is prejudiced, if only by our own experience. Mine is; SFC Wallace's point. But our speech reveals those prejudices at times, no? If our speech consistently demonstrates an understanding of the other points of view but still finds a different conclusion, we can be excused if we have a teneble argument. Otherwise we're hypocrites and contradictory just for the sake of argument. Mr. Wallace might fall into this category. His stated conclusions and inferred reasoning aren't inegmatic, just non-sequitur. It's not a prejudiced perspective that's a problem so much as his trying to convince us that shit isn't brown. And ditto on the sheeple remark, Jep.
August 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Joe is being properly vetted. So the AP let their Freudian slip show and allowed a little truth to sneak past the editor. So ol' "what the hell are you smoking?" Joe is gonna be McCain's McAble. Joe is stuck in the turnstyle and on his way out of the park. Let him have a last grandstand. Any bets on how long his career lasts after being a two time loser?
August 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman a vice presidential prick... it's funny 'cause it's true.
August 19, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink