While I give JJV credit for an inspired title to his latest blog post, he trots out below a number of so-called “facts” about Barack Obama which are at best misleading, and at worst downright falsehoods. As a public service to the readers, here are some of these myths debunked:
Obama is NOT the most liberal member of the Senate.
First, does anyone really believe that Obama is more liberal than Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders (an admitted socialist)? Second, the claim that Obama is the “most liberal” is based upon a National Journal “rating,” which has been widely criticized as having a completely flawed methodology. The flaw is that the “key Senate roll call votes” used to calculate the rankings are handpicked by the conservative shills at the National Journal (it should not come as a surprise to anyone that John Kerry was apparently the most liberal senator in 2004). Third, if one actually looks at the votes utilized (which one can do here http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm), one can see that the differences between being the allegedly “most liberal” senator (Obama) and the 16th most liberal senator (Clinton) are two actual votes (with Obama voting for ethics reform and allowing certain immigrants to stay in the US while they renew their visas, and Hillary voting against), and two “conservative” votes by Clinton on bills on which Obama did not vote (and one of those two bills was a “sense of the Senate” resolution – my feeling on “sense of the Senate” resolutions is that they have the exact same force and effect as my personal “sense of our household” resolutions). Go ahead, you can look it up.
Obama is NOT good friends with the 9-11 Pentagon Bombers.
The Republicans and the right-wing nut jobs love the so-called “story” about Obama’s “close, personal friendship” with Bill Ayers, who took part in a domestic terrorist plot with a group called the Weathermen and set a bomb in a Pentagon bathroom in protest to the Vietnam War in 1969, when Obama was all of 8 years old. While even conservative commentators such as Andrew Sullivan have called this story “part of the right wing freak show,” and virtually every reputable news source has called the ties between Obama and Ayers “tenuous,” Republicans love this story because it purposefully gives the misleading impression that Obama was friends with the 9-11 Pentagon bombers. Utter garbage.
Obama simply misspoke about 57 states.
At the time that Obama uttered his 57 state comment, he had actually visited 47 states – all of the continental US with the exception of one state, and he had not been to Alaska and Hawaii. His comment, which can be seen on YouTube, contains a lengthy pause between the words “50" and “7.” I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that he was correcting himself mid-comment and simply misspoke. I quite frankly don’t even know why this is a story at all (I mean, it’s not like Obama made reference to a non-existent country in two consecutive foreign policy speeches), but since folks like JJV keep dishing it, it is important to repeatedly debunk it.
Typical right wing nut job strategy, though – when you’ve got nothing, simply make things up.
17 comments:
Prediction: JJV won't respond to this post ... and will refer to all of these "talking points" again at some time in the future.
Admittedly, I've jeapordized the first by calling him out. I have supreme confidence in the second, though.
JCC
That the National Journal is "right-wing" is crazy talk. It is a bureucratic snooze fest. It is routinlely called "the respected national journal." It also highlights that he became even more left-wing in the year before he was going to rally the moonbats in the primary.
I don't know about you but I have never been to the house or started a campaign, or sat on the board of a company with a guy who attacked the United States and is unrepentant about it and whose statement to that effect was published in the NY Times on 9-11 which statement did not stop him being bosom pals with Obama. Obama has from an early period sought out the most left-ward folks imaginable for counsel and support. If someone attacked my country and engaged in a plot to kill people in America and was still reveling in it 30 years later I would barely be able to refrain from striking him. He would not be "one of the guys in the neighborhood."
If any Republican had said there were 57 or 58 states we would still be hearing it. Obama's gaffes go into the dust bin. I will keep taking them out.
You know what the problem with right-wing bloggers is? They're not getting enough sex or roughage (as in fiber, not bondage, though that might be a better idea) and as a result are cranky and irritated, especially about guys who are getting more, attention and chicks, that is.
I'm all for a "fair" fight, but this crap is hitting below the belt (though a hit below the belt may be the only action they can get).
BTW, of course Obama does not call his wife names (no evidence McCain does either) but the reason is she carries a freak'n kalishnokov.
OK. Now THAT's funny.
McCain doesn't call his wife names because she carries the freakin' checkbook.
If any Republican had said there were 57 or 58 states we would still be hearing it. Obama's gaffes go into the dust bin. I will keep taking them out.
JJV, "throwing gaffes into the dustbin" is only an issue if one asserts that it's being done unfairly ... and how on earth could anyone think that the media is giving Obama leeway that they're not granting McCain in spades? Right off the top of my head I can think of several McCain whoppers that were one-day stories at best:
-Czechoslovalkia!
-Sunnis? Shiites? (Eh, they're all monolithic mohammedans to me ... )
-And then repeating the same gaffe within 24 hours, both times corrected by Lieberman
-the 20 second silence when asked about whether insurance should cover birth control
As these examples show, the idea that Obama is a media darling and getting a free ride that McCain isn't getting simply doesn't hold up, no matter how often the table is pounded or the dudgeon level of the speaker.
Oh, and bonus points to those who note JJV's lovely sleight-of-hand on the debunking of the "most liberal" moniker. By arguing whether the National Journal is as a right-wing rag (it certainly isn't as whacko as the National Review or the Weekly Standard) JJV completely avoids having to address the fundamental assertion of flawed methodology or the rather notable fact that statistically the quickest way to being named "most liberal" is in fact to be nominated for President by the Democratic Party.
JCC
McCain's gaffes are repeated endlessly, Obama's rarely mentioned in the MSM.
BTW, I still use Czechoslovakia as do many Cold Warrior types. That's what we learned growing up. It was a flash point at Munich and in 68 and has resonance in memory that the Czech and Slovak Republics can't match. I think Obamaites hate the term as it reminds too many people of Munich and Obama is a pretty Nevily kind of guy.
Winston Churchill never refered to Iran as Iran but always Persia. He never ceased saying St. Petersberg and even on occassion used Constantinople rather than Istanbul. The older terms carried more weight and meaning, particularly to the West. So it is with Czechloslovakia.
I also still call the capital of China, Peking; Burma, Burma, and will only say "Mumbai" under threat of death. I eat Peking Duck, follow the Burma Road, and drink Bombay Gin. Those are the English language names for those places and ought to be used.
McCain's gaffes are repeated endlessly, Obama's rarely mentioned in the MSM.
I do not yield this point. Suffice it to say that our experience of the MSM differs. I personally know Dems that feel McCain is getting a free ride and Reps that think that Obama is. To a certain extent they are both right, IMO, because the MSM isn't very good at its job.
I think Obamaites hate the term as it reminds too many people of Munich and Obama is a pretty Nevily kind of guy
*rolls eyes* I do find your ability to see into the hearts and minds of your political opponents to be a neat talent. Perhaps you might consider that your description of their motivations is no more accurate than you perceive lefties' descriptions of your motivations. Perspective. Try it on for size!
Pay attention, JJV, and stop listening to talk radio scripts. Obama is more of a saber-rattler than Chamberlain ever was. Obama doesn't want "peace in our time" he wants to fight a different fight - one against the people who attacked us on 9/11. It's an important concept in the military - remember your mission! If Ney had remembered to bring nails to spike Wellington's guns at Waterloo, the Guards' final assault on Wellington's center may well have carried. Instead Ney spent time galloping around the British infantry squares, losing time and lives that ultimately cost the French dearly.
As for "Czechoslovalkia" - FWIW, I've never heard anyone (and I know many that you would not doubt describe as "Obamaites") "hate" the word. It just happens to be incorrect. It's one thing to hold the line on a city, which is at least still there as a political entity even if the labels have changed. Do you refer to the Balkans as the "Austro-Hungarian Empire?" Alsace-Lorraine as part of Germany?
JCC
I considered JJV's last comment virtually unanswerable but JCC has got the bit between his teeth on this one and came through in fine style. Not only that, but it was our 1000th comment on the site! When I have time to actually blog I will recognize this milestone.
My only two observations are as follows:
1) "The West" (and, by extension, JJV's worldview) may be understood to consist of Churchill's brain. No more, no less. We were this close at Gallipoli (holds thumb and index finger together)...
2) Did somebody say Waterloo? The final assault of the Imperial Guard was stopped primarily by infantry fire, particularly from both flanks. This is not to say that artillery was entirely absent, but I would argue it was less of a factor. Now, had Ney brought along horse artillery to unlimber and hit the squares point-blank, that might have been somethin', as the French would say.
My understanding, however, is that Ney's brain was further back in the baggage train and only rejoined "the bravest of the brave" during the retreat. David (no relation) painted a monumental canvas, "The Reunion of Marshal Ney with His Brain Outside Charleroi, 19 June 1815," but it was quite sensibly destroyed after Ney's execution by firing squad.
My reading of the battle is somewhat different, although admittely I am operating from memory here.
I don't say that the Imperial Guard wasn't hurt by infantry fire. But this was not WWI; unrifled muzzle loading muskets of the day, even fired en masse, were not nearly as effective as infantry fire was to prove in the Civil War. When Ney charged, the British formed squares and their artillerymen sheltered inside them while the French galloped about the guns ineffectively. Those unspiked guns were later put into action firing canister at the oncoming Guard, seriously ruining their afternoon.
Squares were horribly vulnerable to artillery fire. Bringing horse artillery on a cavalry charge is much less traditional than having some freakin' nails in your packs to spike guns. Like paratroopers, it's much easier for cavalry to overrun ground than to hold it.
Either way, the larger point concerning focusing on the mission remains. :)
JCC
We agree much more than we disagree, as is proper among right-thinking folks. (Right, not rightward.)
It is very true that the French failure to spike the guns changed the Guard's attack from a march across a field to a march across a field under murderous canister fire, which almost certainly harshed le mellow francaise. The musket fire of which I speak was delivered at effective musket range (about 50 yards) or less from three sides, and caused the Guard to turn and run after a few volleys. (I have just re-read John Keegan's The Face of Battle so this is relatively fresh.)
I disagree slightly about the "traditionality" of horse artillery, which was in fact developed precisely to accompany cavalry charges. Given Napoleon's own contempt for his adversaries ("This affair shall be nothing more than eating breakfast") I am not surprised that his lieutenants would neglect to maximize their chances of victory.
One of the interesting overarching themes of Waterloo is the inability of both sides to control their cavalry at a time when it was becoming abundantly clear that horses did not belong anywhere near a set-piece battle like Waterloo.
Um, I am afraid I have forgotten what the mission was.
IIRC, the English cavalry had one shining moment at Waterloo, and then more or less vanished. But I didn't just finish reading a book on the battle :)
The mission of cavalry is to support the main body of the army; as you note, they could not be decisive in a set-piece battle. Harass the enemy's supply lines, provide mobile stop-gap reinforcement, and use their mobility to take advantage of opportunities to cripple the enemy (you know, like spiking their guns if opportunity arose). Ney may have thought that he could carry the center on horseback (unlike JJV I cannot read minds, present or past), but if so he would have been forgetting his role and mission.
And notwithstanding Eomer's (not Earkenbrand's, who was pushed aside for the Hollywood guy) charge at Helm's deep, horses don't fare well against massed bayonets or pikes. And my Dad (a big fish in the vary small pond of the Historical Miniature Gaming Society) noted that Eomer cheated, since he had the wizard turn up the sun on the Orcs, breaking their ranks.
Another great example of cavalry forgetting its mission is J.E.B. Stuart's gallivanting around PA and northern MD rather than serving as the eyes and ears of Lee's army. This crippled Lee during the run up to Gettysburg, and may well have been decisive.
JCC
The British cavalry's shining moment quickly passed when they decided to turn a successful local counterattack into a long-distance attack on the French artillery, at which point they were in turn counterattacked by lancers and chased back across the battlefield at unnecessarily high cost.
One other purpose of cavalry, which the British did quite well at Waterloo, is to position them behind one's own troops (allied Dutch-Belgian-etc. in this case) to prevent unauthorized retreats.
Your points on Helm's Deep are all noted with approval (I like the "turning up the sun" bit), and I would add that other geeks have noted the physical near-impossibility of massed cavalry descending a 45-degree slope at speed and maintaining order. It also points up the low training standards and inexperience of Saruman's army, as a more seasoned commander would have distributed sunglasses (or perhaps crudely forged visors) to at least the first two ranks, and the army in general would not have broken at the first reversal of fortune.
JCC, I believe we need to hijack more threads like this in future. (Raises glass)
What was this blog post about again?
I hope you boys have had fun playing with your tin soldiers. Now run along and eat your dinners.
Btw, thank you for taking up the cause of correcting JJV/putting him in his place, JCC. "Czechoslovakia," indeed.
To return reluctantly to the subject at hand:
As is so often the case, Obsidian Wings has a good analysis of the issue here including a discussion of the National Journal's methodology.
I am back from long abscence. Good posts all. Of course I don't defend methodology and rarely will. J, I can't spell, and will probably not improve.
Austria-Hungary, sometimes still use it and wish the Hapsburg's back on many occassions, particularly while galavanting in the Balkans.
Obama-if you believe he really wants to fight in Afghanistan more power to you. He will run from there or ignore the issue as much as he can if elected. Barack Obama is a "peace in our timer" and always will be.
Waterloo-glad the French lost. My one comment is that you have overlooked the issue of heart and morale on the Charge of the Rohirrim. The Orcs are creatures of darkness, hate and fear. Not only death but beauty and light unnerves them. The charge of the Rohirrim in equal measure that it uplifts the hearts of freemen, breaks that of the dark forces. Pikemen beat cavalry if they stand together. But lets see how many men could stand without breaking in the face of such a charge. The New Model Army was made up of religious fanatics who could. Others learned to. For a long time, and in many places, poorly, lead, demoralized Pikemen lost to Cavaliers in battles all over Europe and Africa.
The West-Dave is pretty accurate here, except that my view is modified to includes the views of Don John of Austria and James Burnham, and on many days, Spengler.
Post a Comment