One of the things that tends to worry me about Obama’s run is the unusually shameless dishonesty associated with it. The more obvious examples, like breaking the promise to accept only public funding, are only the tip of the iceberg. What’s perhaps of greater concern is the more pervasive and subtle shadings of truth (largely enabled by the pliant press) such as de facto welfare disguised as “tax cuts,” the accusation that McCain’s fervor for deregulation led to the Fannie Mae collapse (when in fact Dems pushed for them to continue making dangerous loans,  against McCain’s wishes), claims to support free trade even as he opposes NAFTA and CAFTA, etc.  Obama has a worrying habit of telling people what they want to hear, so liberal San Fran elites hear him say rural voters “cling to guns and religion” because they’re “bitter,” and his close associations with Rezko, Wright & Ayers, so useful in the left-wing Chicago Machine system, are now breezily dismissed as mere acquaintances of whose corruption and extremist philosphies he very conveniently knew nothing (“this is not the Reverend Wright I knew” and Ayers was ”just some guy in the neighborhood”).Â
Perhaps emboldened by his example, his followers have perpetrated the massive ACORN vote fraud and made huge numbers of illegal contributions. Most recently, we have the popularization of the “hateful GOP” meme of the past few days, built around similar dishonesty, perhaps best exemplified by Aziz’ post below, which among other distortions claims this was said:
Obama’s got “ties†to Osama bin Laden – Virginia GOP Chairman Rick Frederick
Now if someone was claiming Obama had “ties” to Al Qaeda’s leader, that would certainly be a scurrilous attack (absent, of course, any evidence of such “ties”). But when we visit the link, we find no such claim was made. In fact, in contravention to general writing standards, the quoted word — “ties” – was not only never stated by Frederick, but never even appears in the article. Here’s what Frederick actually said:
“Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon,” he said. “That is scary.”
 Ayers himself takes credit for bombing the Pentagon, even if he didn’t personally set the bomb, so it’s diffcult to argue that this is inaccurate or misleading. And when asked if he’d bomb again, Ayers, unbelievably, says ”I don’t want to discount the possibility” (and that’s an actual quote, unlike “ties”). Scary seems to fit pretty well too.
The events of the past week should well demonstrate the need to perceive and represent reality accurately.  Our civilization is built on empiricism and trust, and when information is systematically distorted there can be hell to pay once the error is exposed. The consequences of a delusion regarding the creditworthiness of subprime borrowers could seem picayune if this kind of thing is allowed to continue unchecked and unremarked:
If the voting process is allowed to become so derelict, then we don’t deserve to be any better off than a third world despotism. And eventually, we won’t be.
{ 22 comments }
There’s plenty of legitimate harsh criticisms which can be levelled against Obama. That’s all the more reason to stick to lines of criticism which can be backed up by solid evidence.
ok, since instea of continuing the discussion in the earlier thread you want to start a fresh one, I’ll just repost my response to you from there.
He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." It is also not exactly true — though that distorted reference to Obama’s controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. "And he won’t salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don’t even know where Senator Obama was really born." Actually, we do; it’s Hawaii.
you’re right, he never used the word "ties" himself, he was just ridiculously inflammatory and dishonest in a different way. I was however wrong to use the quotes, I was catually quoting the reporter, but the actual word was "connection" rather than "tie", I seem to have substituted a synonym.
I am actually willing to grant you that you have a reasonable difference of opinion with me regarding whether the link to Ayers is significant. The "launched his career in his house" thing is pretty dishonest in itself, but theres lttle point in arguing about the details with you. I’m not particularly worried about McCain’s association with Hagee, either, though my reasoning is sure to drive you nuts, so I will spare you that, too.
I will also concede that yes, the people who immediately and ferociously pushed back against the Palin nonsense at dailykos, in thread, were indeedunable to prevent that post form being indexed by google and linked to by other sites, bestowing it with sufficient pagerank to persist in google searches. The vast left wing conspiracy seems to be losing its luster. The only inflouence we have over google nowadays is getting them to honor Paqddington Bear instead of Columbus Day. Ha ha! small victory, but victory nevertheless.
UPDATE – just saw malkins links. Cafepress shirts? columnists in the Guardian? your evidnetiary standard is much lower than the one I used in my post. If you had examples of assassination rhetoric from pundits in The Nation or American prospect, or actual Democratic party personnel, or the frontpagers at major Democratic websites like Dailykos, or even shouts from the masses at Obama rallies, or anything even remotely comparable to what I’ve shown in my post, then youd have a point, that yes the rhetoric on the right is as bad as the left – which is actually my point too, since I’m NOt arguing one side worse than the other. if you really want to go mud-dragging there are plenty of cafepress shirts about Obama I can link here and pollute the thread even further, but Im not interested in that level. Sinking to Malkin’s level rarely pays dividends.
The fact that Ayers can take credit for bombing the pentagon when he himself didn’t only proves that Osama Bin Laden could very well take the same credit for something our government did. 911 was an inside job!
These two witnesses have the proof
he was just ridiculously inflammatory and dishonest in a different way.
It may be inflammatory, but it’s clearly not dishonest.  Ayers said "I bombed the Pentagon" and his ties to Obama are quite clear in the other link.Â
Dishonest is claiming Frederick said there were any ties or connection between Obama and bin Laden.
The Nation or American prospect
Huh? The Guardian isn’t left-wing or popular enough for you?
or actual Democratic party personnel,
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/dem.ad/
Democratic club’s ad suggests shooting Rumsfeld
How about the son of a Democrat hacking Palin’s email?Â
Again, this is just off the top of my head.
he never used the word "ties" himself, he was just ridiculously inflammatory and dishonest
It may be inflammatory (i.e. leftists don’t like it) but it’s hardly dishonest – the Obama-Ayers link is detailed above. Dishonest is claiming Frederick implied any direct connection between Obama and Osama. There was nothing wrong with what he said, except that lefties don’t like it, so you lied to make it seem worse than it was.
The Nation or American prospect
Huh? The Guardian isn’t left-wing or popular enough?
Democratic party personnel
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/dem.ad/
Democratic club’s ad suggests shooting Rumsfeld
How about the activist son of a Democrat hacking Palin’s email?
Again, this is off the top of my head.
 your evidnetiary standard is much lower than the one I used in my post.
I think I just threw up.
Huh? The Guardian isn’t left-wing or popular enough?
dude, the Guardian is a UK paper. You do realize this, right? What relevance does British political discourse have on our American politics? (I am aware that some Brits think that they "should" have some say in who we yanks elect, but to that I think I speak for both of us when I say boo-frakin-hoo)
Rumsfeld ad – by a democratic "club", not the Democratic party. the Kerry campaign and the local Democratic party in teh county both condemned it:
"We are calling the Pinellas County Democratic Party chair about this ad and demand that it be retracted," Kerry campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter told CNN. "John Kerry does not condone this type of advertising and believes that it is wrong."
Pinellas County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Jensen told CNN that he, too, was outraged by the ad, and said party officials "don’t condone this type of stupidity."
The club, listed on the Pinellas County Democratic Party’s Web site as one of its "officially chartered" clubs, does not speak for the county party, he said.
(aside, i wish here was a blockquote button on this comment form. italics are so hard to read.)
as for hacking palins email, ok so his dad is a Democrat. Not a Dmeocratic party official, but a registered Democrat. Shall we go through the lists of registered Republicans and start fishing for bad behavior? Please, spare me that chore. But ok you labeled him an “activist” so now he must be someone representative of the left as a whole, nice trick.
not only is your evidentiary standard lower than mine, it’s bottom of the barrell.
The Obama-Ayers "link" is nonsense. The best the conservative punditry could do was a lengthy fishing expedition by conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz, who could only come up with the vague accusation that Obama and Ayers shared a "radical" agenda for public schools by virtue of having briefly served together on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (a foundation whose mission is to improve public school education). This is thin gruel on its own merits, let alone evidence of Obama’s hatred of America or any complicity in terrorism. And yet, the desire for conservatives’ to make some hay out of this thin reed burns so strongly, that the New York Times felt compelled to devote an even longer piece to analyzing the Obama-Ayers connection. This, too, failed to find anything of substance, though unlike Kurtz’ partisan hit-piece, the Times actually acknowledged it:
It’s amazing that some people are so invested in the Obama-terrorist-sympathizer meme that they have to keep this gossamer thread alive at any cost.
What relevance does British political discourse have on our American politics?
Obviously, when they discuss assassinating our President, it has quite a bit of relevance.  They are a part of our discourse and discuss our politics regularly.
Not a Dmeocratic party official, but a registered Democrat.
No, he’s an elected Democrat official. Good God, did you read anything about this? I’m starting to see why your reasoning is so poor.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/lawyer-for-pali.html
“David Kernell and his father, Democratic state representative Mike Kernell, ”
 Obama and Ayers shared a "radical" agenda for public schools by virtue of having briefly served together on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (a foundation whose mission is to improve public school education)
No, it’s mission was to replace education with socialist indoctrination. They are quite explicit about that goal.
You seem to be missing the larger point here. You don’t host political campaign events at a terrorist’s house. You don’t spend years working closely with a terrorist. It shows very poor judgement, and it’s incredibly dishonest of the left to whitewash this when we all know they’d be shrieking if McCain had this kind of relationship with Eric Rudolph.
New York Times felt compelled to devote an even longer piece
Yes, shocking that the Obama-worshippers at the NYT helped whitewash the relationship. You obviously didn’t read the Ayers link.
alone evidence of Obama’s hatred of America or any complicity in terrorism.
No is claiming either of those, just that he showed very poor judgement in palling around with terrorists.
not only is your evidentiary standard lower than mine, it’s bottom of the barrell.
You’ve clearly proven you have no evidentiary standards at all, and are just spewing left-wing nonsense. Â
I was however wrong to use the quotes, I was catually quoting the reporter, but the actual word was "connection" rather than "tie", I seem to have substituted a synonym.
I would say the word is "analogy", which is in no way a connection or a tie. Claiming that a tie was claimed is 100% inaccurate.
Whether the analogy is justified is a separate matter. The analogy is about as strained as Bush = Hitler (i.e., strained past the breaking point).
Martin,
See, but if Aziz had said someone "used Osama bin Laden in an analogy related to Obama’s ties to terrorist Bill Ayers" it would be clear that it was no big deal. So he distorted it to make it more sensational.
It’s plain and simple hackery, and part and parcel of the dishonesty I’m talking about.
Martin, the journalist seems to be misquoting Frederick, on re-read of the article. Agreed that her use of tie/connection is not supportable. Thanks for the cross check.
Obviously, when they discuss assassinating our President, it has quite a bit of relevance.  They are a part of our discourse and discuss our politics regularly.
Hmm. the lone example of assassination rhetoric you can find in any kind of published media isnt even on American soil, and you still claim its relevant? Ok, then. Agree to disagree.
“David Kernell and his father, Democratic state representative Mike Kernell, â€
ah, my mistake, it was the son of a local democratic party official after all. Was Mike Kernell accused of hacking Palin’s account? It was just David, an idiot son. Perhaps only Democrats have foolish idiots for children. They caught him and hes in jail, now, right?
You don’t host political campaign events at a terrorist’s house. You don’t spend years working closely with a terrorist.
except that Obama didnt host a campaign "event" at his house, and they didnt spend years "working together". At any rate, since Obama has exlicitly condemned Ayers’ actions I don’t really see why you are still wedded to this.
as far as standards of debate go, "poor reasoning" .. "dishonest" … "hackery". Have I used any comparable terminology to attack you? Our conversation alone seems a good counterexample to the argument that the left universally engages in insults and the right is unfailingly civil.
Yes, shocking that the Obama-worshippers at the NYT helped whitewash the relationship. You obviously didn’t read the Ayers link.
*sigh* here we go again. You’re quite eager to quote the SCLM when it supports your argument. when it doesn’t, they are suddenly avatars of bias.
I’ve read Kurtz’s column in teh WaPo, and I’ve read te full NYT article. I daresay I’ve understood it better than you because I read it without any preconceived notions.
I like the one about Obama and Osama "ties" – afterall – The Bush family ties to the Bin Laden family is more than well documented.Â
Imagine if Barack had sat down with the bin Laden’s and did business with them both before and after 9/11?
Then, secretly flew the Bin Ladens out of the country after 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded!
The Republicans would have LOVED him!!!Â
Afterall, they loves them some Bush! (For the Republicans – B/C those are all the things Bush has done……Mr. 22%, ROFLMAO!!!)
The head of Obama’s transition team was a lobbyists for Saddam Hussein, a leader of a terrorist state. Two of his assistants have pleaded guilty to acting as unregister lobbyists for a foreign government. Now there is a clear link to terrorism.
Oooops. That was the head of McCain’s transition team that was a lobbyist for terrorist state of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Sorry, no big deal.
Somehow, people always forget to mention that groups like ACORN are required by law to turn over every single registration form they receive from their canvassers, regardless of whether they appear to be fraudulent or not.Â
ACORN flags any suspicious forms they get all the time, encouraging election boards to follow up on them. They generally hand in these suspicious forms all in one go, at which point they can all get investigated and tossed out.  That’s called the process working precisely as it should, yet for some reason (McCain and his disaster VP sucking wind, cough cough) its being played into a scandal.
Still no evidence whatsoever that any of these things are part of any organized effort to commit actual voter fraud. And indeed, these are the same trumped up charges that many Republican US attorneys were pressured to make a big deal out of: and when they investigated and found the same non-story there, and wouldn’t bring sham prosecutions, they were fired.
In other words, this point is as inflated and asinine as everything else Price says.
Dont forget that voter registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud. It is fine if ACORN registers Mickey Mouse to vote, but on election day no Mickey Mouse is going to show up at teh polls.
Imagine if Barack had sat down with the bin Laden’s and did business with them both before and after 9/11
Nice try, but everyone does business with the bin Ladens. They’re billionaire construction tycooons. Osama was disowned by them many years ago.
Not everyone works with actual terrorists, like Obama did.
except that Obama didnt host a campaign "event" at his house, and they didnt spend years "working together".
Except they clearly did. You can’t just make up your own facts. He and the terrorist worked together reviewing proposals at Annenberg for years, and they hosted a coffee at the terrorists’s house.
This is the dishonest left, trying to just edit out any facts about Obama they don’t like.
Dont forget that voter registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud. It is fine if ACORN registers Mickey Mouse to vote, but on election day no Mickey Mouse is going to show up at teh polls.
Bullshit. I live in Chicago. I know better.
That’s called the process working precisely as it should, yet for some reason
Uh, right. When the first 2100 forms submitted are rejected, that’s not "working precisely as it should." That’s massive, criminal fraud designed to undermine democracy.
*sigh* here we go again. You’re quite eager to quote the SCLM when it supports your argument. when it doesn’t, they are suddenly avatars of bias.
Again, this is very poor reasoning. I could cite one article from The Nation if it supported my point (esp. as they share your bias, making it harder for you to dismiss them), but that doesn’t mean I think they’re unbiased or that I then accept everything else they’ve written. You really need to have some basic grasp of logic if you’re going to attempt to debate.
as far as standards of debate go, "poor reasoning" .. "dishonest" … "hackery". Have I used any comparable terminology to attack you?
If you’d stop using poor reasoning and being dishonest, I wouldn’t have to keep pointing it out.
Our conversation alone seems a good counterexample to the argument that the left universally engages in insults and the right is unfailingly civil.
Except the conversation started with you insulting Republicans by claiming they are bigots and liars, using various poorly reasoned and dishonest means to make that claim. Yes, you’ve perfectly demonstrated who is not civil — and who whines about civility after being the first to violate it.
Except the conversation started with you insulting Republicans by claiming they are bigots and liars,
ah, heres the fundamental error in your comprehension. In fact the post I began with did no such thing. But ok, you’re the victim here, fine.
. In fact the post I began with did no such thing.
Right, Aziz, because Frederick totally said Obama had "ties" to bin Laden. You just accidentally mis-used a synonym! And it just happened to completely alter the meaning to make Frederick sound crazy! An innocent mistake!
. But ok, you’re the victim here, fine.
Your victim and bete noir is reality, not me.
Comments on this entry are closed.