Obama screwed upFollow

See, I don't think that you understand that I don't care. We did win and when you whine about it I just smile and laugh. Eight more years of it, baby!

Huh? You hired a hooker?

Er? I'm sorry. You can parse out the language anyway you want, but when someone makes a point of observing that both Obama and Jesus were community organizers, they are comparing Obama to Jesus. I'm not sure what definition of "compare" you are using here...

Also, while the media did report on this, Tom Brokaw repeated the line during an interview with Rudy Giuliani and held up a freaking campaign button with that phrase on it. Can we get over/past the idea that this was something made up by the Republicans? We weren't the ones who repeated the phrase on the house floor. Where it came from is irrelevant. It was clearly picked up and repeated by Democrats in favor of Obama.



As to the main topic: I get that admitting a mistake is a good thing. But I think that's somewhat nullified when you set out deliberately to do something you knew was wrong (and in violation of your own stated promises in fact), and when you were caught by it you think that you can erase this by just admitting a mistake. It was *not* a mistake folks. He knew Dashle's record. It was discussed during the vetting process. Obama made the call that the tax issue was less important than getting him on the team. He made that decision. He knew it violated the spirit of the very promises he was making about his requirements to work in the White House (much touted in fact!), yet presumably hoped the public would just ignore it anyway.


He's apologizing because he got caught, not because he made a mistake. Let's get that clear...

What was wrong with the means? Daschle was vetted, his records were made available to the Senate Finance Committee and the end result was Daschle dropping out. I mean, if Obama & Daschle had selectively whited-out those pages or never filed amended returns and trusted the SFC to not notice the error, you might be onto something.

If by "means" you meant "letting the vetting process do its thing through both the administrative & Senate phases" then, yeah. Guilty

Driftwood,

I would rather be able to trust that my leader isn't lying to me. Isn't that what you're supposed to be about?

He didn't apologize, he admitted fault. I understand that subtle things are lost on you.

Obama is appointing a bunch of people who don't pay their federal income taxes, including his Treasury Secretary.

Does this mean that all of his appointments understand the federal income tax is unconstitutional and voluntary (until the media reports on it)?

Does this mean he is secretly planning to outmaneuver the Federal Reserve banking families and make the Fed insignificant with the establishment of a new national banking system (after the current pork-barrel stimulus fails to revive the economy)?

We can always 'hope.'

I wonder why Republicans are so critical of this though I thought you all were the ones that wanted to pay less taxes, it seems like this type of stuff would be admirable? Or maybe you just want to score typical partisan political points and leave significance, relevance, and undersanding out of it?

First off, my comment was about the comparison, not just "the media" connection. I'm not sure where that particular strawman came from, given that only one mention was about "the media", and was specific to Brokaw's interview. Other mentions were Democrat campaign organizers, private groups supporting Obama's bid for president, and one specific Democrat House Representative.

The statement in question clearly compares Obama to Jesus, and (in this context) Palin to Pilate. Can we agree on that also agreeing to hold off a discussion of who said it for elsewhere in the conversation? You're using the complex question fallacy to switch which bit you're talking about back and forth.

Again: Can we agree that the statement compares Obama to Jesus? Yes or no?



Excellent. Provide context so we can discuss it.[/quote]

I just did Joph. It's not like it's hard to find a transcript of the interview. He very clearly repeated the phrase and then asked Giuliani if, in the context of this, he felt that he was wrong to have dumped on Obama for being a community organizer at the Republican Convention. Brokaw wasn't discussing other's statements, but was clearly proceeding as though the comparison was "true" when asking that question. He didn't ask if Giuliani thought that the comparison was valid, he simply proceeded as though it was.


That's "the media" adopting and repeating the phrase Joph.


And they weren't the only ones. My point is that it's kinda silly to complain about this. Obama is going to be characterized by the messianic image his followers have placed on him. You can complain about that all you want, but it's not like Republicans were the ones who made the comparisons Joph. Are you trying to argue that it's wrong for us to respond? How convenient for you I guess. You get third parties to say stuff about your candidate, but we're not allowed to respond cause you didn't say it yourselves. Well. Except for the Dem strategist, and the elected Dem official in a statement on the House floor, of course...


Obama has set unrealistically high expectations Joph. His entire campaign ran on the "I'm different and better than everyone else". So yeah. He's going to be judged by that. And so far, he's managed to bungle a whole lot, and has shown himself to not only be short of the elevated image he placed for himself, but short of even what we expect of "regular" politicians.




Yup. That was the point. How on earth did he think that after spending all this time talking about how he was going to clean up washington did he think the public would give him a bye on this? It smacked of not holding himself to the same standards he was holding everyone else to. He *just* finished setting policies for white house employment, but then assumes that no one's going to hold him to it?





What reaction did he think he'd get? Let's be honest here Joph. He knew that the public would not let this slide. He was hoping (assuming) that the public wouldn't find out. I'm not sure to what degree he thinks the media is "on his side", but that would be the only reason one would think he'd get away with something like this.


I'm not sure what balloon you think got pricked. Getting spanked on appointments right out of the gate is usually a bad sign for a President. And to do so, not because of some unknown fact buried in someone's background, but on something you knew was there but went forward with anyway? You've got to really be drinking the kool-aide to see this as anything other then a major lose for Obama.


I know you Liberals don't place much weight on things like credibility, preferring to invent the meaning of the word as you go along, but Obama just lost a whole bunch of it with this.

Right. The media reporting what someone said is not indicative of media bias. That's indicative of the media doing their job.

Sucks about Ginsberg, even more than that poor racist idiot in the UK I'd never heard of.