Friday Funnies

1. How does posting 492349940 anti-Obama cartoons prove your point that the media is pro-Obama?
2. How does using "fawning" and "Messiah" in every Obama reference refute the idea that there's some group think meme that the media is fawning over Obama as Messiah.

I've got no problem with the Obama/media cartoons.  A couple of them even remotely approach the frontier of being mildly amusing.

I do have to object in the strongest possible terms, however, to the Germany troops cartoon.  Not only is it a reprehensible misrepresentation of Obama's actions, positions, and publicly expressed opinions and values, but the alleged incident on which it is based has been thoroughly debunked by every major news organization in the world.

Repeating a lie, even in a cartoon, is one of the lowest forms of slander, and has no place in a public forum that justifiably prides itself on maintaining a high standard of adherence to verifiable facts.  Where is the humor in using our injured heroes to tell a lie?

Repeating a lie ...

Whoa there, Captain.  I think we all know that anyone who defends Obama believes he is their messiah.  And we all know that anyone who attacks Obama (whether stretching the truth, or not) is just patriotically trying to knock him down a few pegs for the good of the country.  You're way out of line here.

It kind of reminds me of the months preceding the invasion of Iraq.  Yes, "lies" were told.  And yes, the truth was stretched.  But wasn't it all for our own good?  I believe Colbert once called it "truthiness".  The concept seems to have nicely transferred itself to this campaign.  Even if it isn't true that Obama ditched out on the hospitalized soldiers, it sure sounds good.  And if it is just repeated over and over again, maybe everyone will believe it.  And even if it isn't true that the media "fawn all over" Obama, it sure sounds good.  And if it is just repeated over and over again, maybe everyone will believe it!

And what's the worst that can happen?  Maybe we should ask those soldiers in that hospital, eh?

"Gordy, do you really not understand that totalitarism has to do with government policy? Obama telling kids to get off his lawn isn't totalitarianism. A president using his power to promote positive press support of his war and punish those who don't fall in line sounds exactly like totalitarian press control."

I don't see the difference in Obama denying access to reporters critical of him and the Bush WH doing the same.  Are you saying that it's different because one is a campaign and the other is government?  Aren't we supposed to guage how Obama would govern by how he campaigns?

"Gordy, do you really not understand that totalitarism has to do with government policy? Obama telling kids to get off his lawn isn't totalitarianism. A president using his power to promote positive press support of his war and punish those who don't fall in line sounds exactly like totalitarian press control."

Really?  "Exactly like totalitarian press control?"  And Obama and Bush are using the same "punishments" (denying access and perks) for press they don't like, aren't they?  And I don't consider either of them to be using actions that are in any way totalitarian.  The press has the right to cover anything how it likes.  It doesn't have the right to being enabled (in any way other than what is required by law) by those they criticize.

"Finally, now you are saying that it's ok to throw out my ideas by just labeling me "pro-Obama" and that's it? I'm very critical of Obama, just not in stupid "I regurgitate the latest McCain campaign press release" sort of way. For the second straight week, I posted the piece most substantively critical of Obama on this website."

Not at all.  What ideas of yours did I throw out?  I found the equating of press treatment with totalitarianism to be quite a reach, but I certainly didn't throw it out, or any of your other comments.

Joan, I did read the entire New Yorker piece, and the following paragraph struck me as the key point:

"Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right."

The author (perhaps unintentionally) is describing a smart, observant, pragmatic achiever who learned the "making sausage" principle as he progressed in his political career.  Would you want a President who had failed to learn these lessons?

As far as the canceled troop visit in Germany is concerned, I can't add much to the following:

"McCain is demonstrably criticizing Obama for following a Pentagon rule to which the McCain campaign itself has been subjected recently.  That's a fact.  So this seems to be a simple cheap shot at Obama, in the hopes that the media won't be internet savvy enough (i.e., able to use Google) to figure out the whole story.

"We follow the rules," Steve Schmidt from the McCain campaign said.  

Exactly.  And they have no problem attacking Obama for doing the same.  That's the very definition of "double standard."  -- Brandon Friedman, VetVoice

For those who are interested in augmenting their understanding of how Obama developed his "political chops," this article is very interesting. Appeared in the June 2008 Chicago Magazine.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2008/Obamas-Chicago-Posse/

Pattsi Petrie

"Can you say Hubris?"

Sure.  I can also say "embarrassed" when I consider how many Republicans must feel as their candidate resorts to increasingly desperate tactics such as "The One", the comparisons to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the trumped-up criticism of Obama's canceled troop visit, etc.

And I can say "Swift Boat," although the New Yorker piece indicates that such a strategy might not be as effective on Obama as it was on Kerry. 

"I can also say "embarrassed" when I consider how many Republicans must feel as their candidate resorts to increasingly desperate tactics such as "The One", the comparisons to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the trumped-up criticism of Obama's canceled troop visit, etc."

I'll be embarrassed by McCain when Democrats start being embarrassed by Obama's attempts to preemptively label all criticism of him as racism.  When it comes to overarching stupidity in this campaign, neither candidate has a monopoly.

This is going to be the most banal election in American history, because both major candidates are so woefully unsuited to the office.  But nominated these idiots, so it's exactly what we deserve.

I'm still waiting for that list of Obama's accomplishments that qualify him to be President--either at the State or Federal level; and running for public office doesn't count.

I can also say "embarrassed" when I consider how many Republicans must feel ...

Ha!  See now *that's* funny.  When have you known any Republican to be embarassed by anything their party has done?  Ask a Republican what they like least about George Bush.  The lying and manipulation that took place in the run-up to Iraq?  Nope.  The criminal misconduct of the war?  Naw.  The use of the Justice Department for political ends?  Not even close.

Medicare.  They'll say Bush blew it because he increased spending on Medicare.  It is unbelievable.

Jack Abramoff was one of the founders of the College Republicans.  Karl Rove (who, by any measure, should be in prison) is still one of the leading political lights of the party.  George W. Bush could be impeached and removed from office on any number of his actions, as could Dick Cheney.  These people are the Republican party.  What we have seen over the last few years is the real GOP.  There is no secret, hidden GOP out there quietly hoping for the days of wise government.  This is a slasher sport for the GOP.  No quarter.  Win or go home.  Anything to win.

Take a look around this site.  See what has happened to your "Good Republicans".  It is all about slamming Obama all the time.  There is no sober discussion of tax policy, no respectful dissertations on the progress of the war.  It is election season, which means the morals go to the wayside.  Anything to win - including the loss of intellectual credibility and integrity.  Anything to win.

Are they embarassed?  Please.

This is what Barack had to say about the recent ad campaign:

Given the seriousness of the issues, you'd think we could have a serious debate.  But so far, all we've been hearing about is Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I mean, I do have to ask my opponent, is that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?

It is funny if you think about it.  Is this really the best they can do?  Is the best Gordy can do is to try to squeeze some issues out of nonsense in the hope that something will stick?  Are these repetitive, sophomoric cartoons really the best Joan can do every week?  Is this really the way the GOP was envisioning this election: making fun of the opponent in a desperate hope that somehow people won't vote for him in a landslide?

Yes!  This is the best that conservatives can do.  This is it.  And honestly, what more should we expect?  I mean, look at what they pulled in 2000 to sneak Bush into the office.  Look at the levels to which they sank during the 2004 election, besmirching an honored veteran's service with lies (and look at how embarassed Joan is about that nadir in presidential politics).  Look at how they have run the country when given complete power.  Look at the results.  These folks honestly don't have a clue.  Even if McCain were to pull off a miracle upset, the 2012 landslide would be so dramatic that the GOP might go the way of the Whig party.

What we all need to realize is that this is how the GOP does things.  They have no morals, no qualms about taking and keeping power.  Far from being embarassed, Republicans are probably overjoyed that finally McCain is doing it the right way.  The low road is the right way for the GOP.  And considering the unpopularity of their ideas, the low road is undoubtedly the only way for the GOP yet again.

Stay tuned.  It will get much worse.  And the worse it gets, the more obvious the choice will become.  Change.  Obama.

The problem with the McCain campaign is that it has J.S. McCain in it.

But we knew that.

"Since when has a democrat ever *really*cared about the military anyway?  (outside of Joe Lieberman, that is...)"

Scoop Jackson served in the U.S. Senate until 1983.

I imagine that Ramirez is a decent enough human being that he will devote next week to clarifying his fabrications and publishing retractions.

Joan too, I imagine is deeply remorseful about using the troops to fabricate a political political point. After all, she seems to have a balanced, thoughtful understanding of the Swift Boat situation and how her and her end of the political spectrum have crashed our country into a cliff by electing the worst president in most of our lifetimes through such fabrications. :)

Sorry Kevin it was just a silly statement by Obama and he should have known better to compare it to additional drilling. It is funny to have him suggest something that would do little to help the oil shortage and have no impact on oil supply while people argue that we can't drill in ANWR were it will provide billions of barrels of oil because it wouldn’t add much to the oil supply. Someone should let Obama know that when they change the oil in his Limo they check the air pressure in his tires; they do on my car when they change mine. I guess most people living in the real world already know to check their tires. Time-It's funny to read the stuff MSM uses to defend Obama, 20 years to start drilling off the coasts yeah right. Even the signing of a bill will have an impact on future oil prices. That is if Pelosi will let the House even vote but of course why should we know how our elected representatives would vote on such an important issue.

Kevin-Numbers prove me wrong if they are tried but reality shows I am right it does not happen unless people really want to do it. I understand math my point is that almost everyone already has their tires inflated to there proper pressure so there is no net savings in oil usage. I think many people are trying to conserve right now if they can but they must get to work get the kids and run to the store those things you say wouldn't be required to be changed in their lifestyles. 

If conservation was so easy and there were viable alternatives to oil, people would be doing more of it they aren’t. There are no viable alternatives to oil that work as well for the public. When Obama downsizes to a Beechcraft and a Yugo to get to his campaign appearances then maybe I will believe he is serious about setting the standard for conservation. 

I know I ought not post the following, but I can not resist. How in the world did the NHTA obtain these statistics? Create a stratified sample of the USA, based on geography, type of car, size of car, truck and randomly pick certain addresses and then in the dark of night when the car tires were cool check the air pressure? Or better yet, randomly flag cars off the highway, check the tire pressure, and reduce the number by 5 psi because the tire is hot. (Oh, so cloak and dagger.) I agree that maintaining appropriate tire pressure (also in the spare tire) is important, not only for the reason being debated, but also for driving safety, gives an individual a chance to look over tires and valves for cracks, and enhances even tire wear, as does balancing.

Pattsi Petrie

"How in the world did the NHTA obtain these statistics?"

Pattsi:  A brief description of the methodology was provided in the press release I linked to:

There is apparently a fuller exposition of the study with supporting documents here, but I haven't had a chance to review all of it yet.

You raise a valid point about the tire temperature.  I think that may have been why they used such an extreme standard (-8psi) to define "underinflated."

To me there can be few better examples of the differing perspectives on American political discourse than there are still people out there who think that Time and Michael Grunwald have any sort of fact-checking credibility whatsoever.  They are both so completely in the tank for Obama that I can't believe anyone can point to them verifying one of Obama's claims with a straight face.

Just for giggles, I'll post two NRO articles using similar research to completely debunk Obama's claimed savings, here and here.  How much credibility with the NRO articles have with Obama supporters?  About the same miniscule amount as Time has with me, I suspect.

The car plate states tire inflation should be 26 psi; whereas, the side of the tire is stamped 32-35 psi.

That's not what the study looked at. From the study (actually, from Kevin's post):

For purposes of the survey, a tire was considered under-inflated at 8 psi (pounds per square inch) or more below the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended inflation pressure.

Thanks IP my wife is now wondering what the heck I am looking at on the web.

"Thanks IP my wife is now wondering what the heck I am looking at on the web."

She's probably tired of politics, so you're better off telling her it's porn.  :-)

"He prefers to use his own intuition to draw conclusions on just about everything as opposed to unbiased, objective views."

Like Time magazine?  What if ABC says that Obama's claim is lacking?

It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed current output from the OCS.

However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics -- and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says.

"So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output," he rules. "Finally, without knowing what production volumes could be expected from lifting the ban on OCS drilling moratoria, it’s impossible to assert that taking these fuel savings actions would exceed future offshore oil volumes, and in fact, one might argue that the combination of achieving these savings AND developing new supply would doubly enhance US energy security."

Emphasis added.

So who cares about scientific studies, experts, statistics, etc. now?