“General Betray-Us” newspaper scolds on negative campaigning

posted at 8:59 am on July 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Look who’s turned into a scold on “low-road” campaigning!  Why’s it’s the New York Times, the same newspaper who ran an ad calling an American military commander a traitor, initially at a substantial discount to its client organization, MoveOn.  Today, though, they cluck their tongues at John McCain — for hitting back:

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to “lose” in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).

Well, Barack Obama wanted to retreat out of Iraq regardless of the consequences, and has not changed his policy despite the enormous transformation in Iraq over the last eighteen months.  Offering redistributionist tax and spending policies certainly puts Obama in the soft, European model of socialism, as does his repeated calls for the government to deliver (and determine) “economic justice”.   And Obama did indeed cancel his visit to Landstuhl and the wounded soldiers there, offering excuses that even the Gray Lady doesn’t really buy.

Does the New York Times editorial board read their own paper?

Mr. McCain used to pride himself on being above this ugly brand of politics, which killed his own 2000 presidential bid.

I presume the Times refers to the “black baby” rumor that got spread in South Carolina in 2000.  That’s a personal smear, not criticism of policy or actions, as the Times uses as examples above.  The Times can’t seriously equate the two, can they?  Apparently they can, when they want to protect their chosen candidate.

Besides, nowhere in this editorial filled with vituperation and unsupported innuendo about Karl Rove and his associates do the editors mention which campaign went negative first.  Hint: It wasn’t McCain:

And only three months earlier, he had pledged not to run any negative campaign ads at all:

And let’s not forget the New York Times own low standard for smears:

This hyperbole about negative advertising is nothing more than the Times worrying about how effective it will be against Obama.  Candidates can and should draw comparisons and contrasts between their positions and that of their opponents, as well as highlight their records.  Obama did nothing wrong in running this ad except for the sanctimoniousness of his pledge to avoid it and the hypocritical way he reversed himself.

The Times wants to shame McCain into leaving poor Barack Obama alone.  If Obama didn’t want to face negative campaign ads, then he shouldn’t have run his own.  If the Times wanted to set itself as the advertising police, then they shouldn’t have run this atrocious smear of an honorable American commander in the middle of a war.  The Times are the worst hypocrites on this issue, and their distorted, venal, and essentially idiotic editorial today proves it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wonder how that ad revenue is working out for the Slimes…

sabbott on July 30, 2008 at 9:03 AM

If we had a media that wasn’t totally in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, McCain’s points on Obama would be more widely known.

Actually, Obama wouldn’t even be the Democrat nominee if the media had done their job. The guy isn’t even remotely qualified to be POTUS.

Finally, if the media was fulfilling its duty to the American people, the Democrat Party as a whole would not exist. The Democrat Party is a hideously corrupt racket, full of incompetents and criminals.

The Democrat Party would have been done in by the RICO laws long ago, had the media done its job properly.

NoDonkey on July 30, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Well said, Ed.

AZCoyote on July 30, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Ed,

Saying Obama didn’t visit troops because press was not allowed, then opting to go to the gym is a FALSE personal smear on Obama.

You youself make this false claim against Obama (and don’t correct it) then whine when the NYTimes calls him on it. Get a life.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to “lose” in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).

Note that the worst thing the NYTwits can say about charges that Obama’s a Socialist is that they’re “sophomoric”. Not “false.”

Spanglemaker on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

This hyperbole about negative advertising is nothing more than the Times worrying about how effective it will be against Obama.

BINGO!

They see egObama’s poll numbers coming down and are scrambling their damage control unit.

Tony737 on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

This hyperbole about negative advertising is nothing more than the Times worrying about how effective it will be against Obama.

This line is nothing more than a fantasy made up by Ed. He has NO PROOF AT ALL that this is why the NYTimes ran the op-ed.

Just as he had NO PROOF AT ALL that Obama didn’t visit troops in Germany because press wasn’t involved.

Sadly, lately, when it comes to Mr. Morrissey, facts and reality don’t get in the way of a good smear.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Ed,

Saying Obama didn’t visit troops because press was not allowed, then opting to go to the gym is a FALSE personal smear on Obama.

You youself make this false claim against Obama (and don’t correct it) then whine when the NYTimes calls him on it. Get a life.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Well Tom, then why did The Obamassiah cancel his visit to the wounded troops?

rbj on July 30, 2008 at 9:12 AM

See my posts in the NYTimes thread on the topic.

One thing is for sure, it’s NOT because press was not allowed. They never were planning on bringing press to the hospital.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Of coarse the don;t want McCain going negative becuase:

1) They know it will work and;
2) They know they’ll look foolish for being so deep in the tank

TheBigOldDog on July 30, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Wow, that editorial is stunningly hypocritical, even for the Times. Their editors need an editor!

McCain taking flak from them simply means he is hitting the target.

rockmom on July 30, 2008 at 9:15 AM

And I must have missed the Times diapproval of Obama repeating the “John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years” falsehood, repeatedly, in speeches and in TV ads.

rockmom on July 30, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM\

I think someone else needs to get a life and maybe do a little reading other than the MSM. Obama didn’t go to see them because he couldn’t make it a part of the world tour, but he could go to the gym so he could get a slobbing write up in a german paper.

flytier on July 30, 2008 at 9:17 AM

So, I guess the Times’ endorsement of McCain is pretty much officially over?

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 9:19 AM

See my posts in the NYTimes thread on the topic.

One thing is for sure, it’s NOT because press was not allowed. They never were planning on bringing press to the hospital.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM

I don’t have time to hunt around. Tell me now.

rbj on July 30, 2008 at 9:21 AM

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to “lose” in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).

1. Hussein opposed -and still opposes- the reinforcement of troops commonly known as “the surge.” Meaning, he prefers defeat.
2. Hussein is a socialist, as all of his policy pronouncements on economics suggest.
3. Hussein preferred the gym to keeping appointments with wounded soldiers last week.

Akzed on July 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Hussein preferred the gym to keeping appointments with wounded soldiers last week.

Ed, does it not bother you that your false accusation against Obama is helping misinform people? (although, in fairness, I believe your line was he preferred to go shopping… and actually, I give you credits, that does sound worse.)

Do you not care? You just throw stuff out there? If it’s wrong, so be it?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Tell me now.

Since you asked so politely… no.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

“and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)”

I’d like to hear Obama, the DNC, or The New York Times explain how Obama is NOT a socialist! What IS the difference between Democratic platform and socialism?

Star20 on July 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Star20 on July 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM

What the difference between the government bailing out banks who mess up and socialism? If you’re a pure capitalist, shouldn’t those banks be allowed to fail based on their own shortcomings?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Tell me now.

Since you asked so politely… no.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Well, you were so polite to Ed.

I don’t believe you that the lack of a photo op was not the reason Obama didn’t see to the troops. It was already a scheduled event, no reason not to visit, only a lame excuse by a guy who wants to be their commander in chief.

rbj on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Really, either explain yourself or quit complaining. And don’t expect us all to go hunting up your NYT Times posts. They’re your posts; you do it.

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Hussein said that he didn’t want to “politicize” his visits. If no cameras or press were scheduled to go however, this was not an issue. Had the Pentagon thought there was any problem with politicizing, they would not have allowed these visits to begin with.

The only acceptable reasons he could have for not going is something like that he was too tired or ill – except that he went to the gym instead and not to bed.

Hussein is just acting in character once again: he’s a zero trying to be The One, and we’re not supposed to question him. What’s scary is that his minions don’t want him questioned either.

Akzed on July 30, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Shipley,

You sir, are a prime example of the “A” typical Liberal male. A whiny angry sissy believer of the politically correct movement that is destroying freedom of speech in America. Shame on you Shipley for being such a sheep.

Ed,

Great job with this post! Awesome job you’re doing here at HA! May you stay strong and keep fighting the righteous battle against the enemies within that are relentless with their quest to destroy the American dream.

Keemo on July 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Well, you were so polite to Ed.

I agree, I am not polite to Ed. But watching a reasonable guy resort to just spouting BS on a consistent basis, well, let’s just say it’s worn down whatever social grace I possess.

And if you want to believe that, go ahead.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.”

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis’ feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

“They’ll train you so good,” he said, “you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.”

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences “for inspiration,” Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps, becoming a “community organizer” in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman’s a disciple of the late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama’s early political supporters.

TheBigOldDog on July 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

What the difference between the government bailing out banks who mess up and socialism? If you’re a pure capitalist, shouldn’t those banks be allowed to fail based on their own shortcomings?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Absolutely nothing, but that doesn’t make Barry any less a socialist!

flytier on July 30, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Hey Tom, let me get this straight. Obama visited 2 other Army hospital correct? He didn’t take the press correct? He never made it public correct? The Pentagon didn’t stop him correct? Then why would they stop him in Germany if he just going to do more of the same?

TheBigOldDog on July 30, 2008 at 9:37 AM

I think I see someone else spouting BS and it’s not ED

flytier on July 30, 2008 at 9:38 AM

No one should be surprised. The media did the same thing with Hillary. By the way the media was reporting the primaries, you would have thought that she attacked first – and the only one to attack.

jtorres138 on July 30, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Obama couldn’t take his general along and either felt uncomfortable meeting with the troops without someone by his side with military experience, or his campaign staff felt that by not having Gen. Gration with him, the candidate could make a major gaffe during the visit because of his lack of military knowledge. Either possibility doesn’t require the press to be anywhere near Landstuhl to be plausible.

As for the Times’ editorial board, they are truly one of the most insular, egotistical groups in the history of journalism. For all the talk about Barack Obama’s ego, the Times’ editorial board make him look like a wallflower. The paper accepts no criticism and has no concept of self-analysis when it comes to their positions, despite the fact you would think they would have at least broached the possibility by now that their bone-headed and contradictory positions might have something to do with the plunge in the papers’ bottom line numbers and stock price during the current decade.

jon1979 on July 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Tom Shipley,

I don’t like bailing out banks, either, but too many people are using that canard to try to paint the picture that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, or the RNC and the DNC.

How is the DNC platform NOT socialist?

Star20 on July 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Pot….Kettle….Black.

Winebabe on July 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Really, either explain yourself or quit complaining.

OK, fine.

Using the theory that the most obvious, simple answer is usually the right one, I’ll let Obama explain why he didn’t visit the troops:

We were treating it in the same way we treat a visit to Walter Reed, which I was able to do a few weeks ago without any fanfare whatsoever. I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn’t on the Senate staff.

That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political. And the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns.

So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort, what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were there.

As I said before, if anyone raised the notion that Obama’s visit was inappropriate AFTER he visited the troops, HotAir would be ALL OVER HIM for it.

You have to remember that when he visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was part of an official US delegation. In Germany, he was with his campaign. Someone at the hospital brought up the idea that his visit may be inappropriate because he was with his campaign. Yes, he could have gone on his own, but since he was no longer part of the US delegation and on his own with his campaign, he played it safe.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

What the difference between the government bailing out banks who mess up and socialism?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM

The first is the government stepping in to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. The second is a bad situation that has nobody around to keep it from getting worse.

Kafir on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Note that the worst thing the NYTwits can say about charges that Obama’s a Socialist is that they’re “sophomoric”. Not “false.

Spanglemaker on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

I was thinking that too.

MadisonConservative on July 30, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Let me get this straight: Hussein and his advisor are Siamese twins?

Akzed on July 30, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Of course, the irony is that Obama canceling the trip because it might be perceived as “electioneering” as stir up a political controversy caused a political controversy.

More evidence to my theory that no matter what Obama does, people will criticize him for it.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Yes, he could have gone on his own, but since he was no longer part of the US delegation and on his own with his campaign, he played it safe.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

But what does “played it safe” mean? How is not going on is own “playing it safe?”

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM

More evidence to my theory that no matter what Obama does, people Tom Shipley will criticize defend him for it.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

OR

More evidence to my theory that no matter what Obama HotAir does, people Tom Shipley will criticize him them for it.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Corrected that for you.

shick on July 30, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Again, as Obama said…

That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political. And the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:00 AM

More evidence to my theory that no matter what Obama does, people will criticize him for it.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

You know what? At work, no matter what I do, someone doesn’t like it.

If Obama can’t take criticism, then he shouldn’t be running for president.

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I’m starting to think freedom of the press has seen it’s days.

peacenprosperity on July 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM

But do people make stuff up about what you’ve done and why you’ve done it?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

A

gain, as Obama said…

That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Yeah, Tom, but there would have been a difference between our visit and his visit.

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Of course, the irony is that Obama canceling the trip because it might be perceived as “electioneering” as stir up a political controversy caused a political controversy.

More evidence to my theory that no matter what Obama does, people will criticize him for it.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Really? What contraversy came out of his previous two visits?

Why didn’t the Pentagon stop those visits if they are the cause of him canceling Germany as he claims?

TheBigOldDog on July 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM

More evidence to my theory that no matter what Obama does, people will criticize him for it.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

The interesting thing is that no matter what Obama does, it is self-serving, flip-flopping and socialist.

And he should be critized for every one.

shick on July 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM

But do people make stuff up about what you’ve done and why you’ve done it?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

You’ve got to be kidding. How much stuff has been made up about Bush? He certainly has a thick skin. Obama got pissed when somebody talked about his ears, for crying out loud. The man’s a whiner.

fossten on July 30, 2008 at 10:05 AM

But do people make stuff up about what you’ve done and why you’ve done it?

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Tom, that bubble you’re living in, you must be somewhere in academia.

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 10:06 AM

That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political. And the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns.

So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort, what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were there.

So why not simply leave him on the plane Tom? Why cancel a trip to help lift the spirits of wounded soldiers because of one man?

TheBigOldDog on July 30, 2008 at 10:06 AM

The interesting thing is that no matter what Obama does, it is self-serving, flip-flopping and socialist.

This pretty much sums it up.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Shipley,

You sir, are a prime example of the “A” typical Liberal male. A whiny angry sissy believer of the politically correct movement that is destroying freedom of speech in America. Shame on you Shipley for being such a sheep.
Keemo on July 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

You Keemo, are a prime example of the “A” typical conservative who has to act like a mindless Neanderthal to make a point. Shame on you Keemo for being such a twit.

Tom_Shipley is doing exactly what people should be doing on hotair: debating like an adult.

barry norris on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

So why not simply leave him on the plane Tom? Why cancel a trip to help lift the spirits of wounded soldiers because of one man?

Read the last sentence of my post.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Negative Advertising in Campaigning is now as American As Apple Pie……thrown in your face, of course.

pilamaye on July 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM

barry norris on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Thanks, Barry. And now, I will take my own advice and get a life. I think I’ve spelled out my case pretty clearly in here.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:11 AM

I think I’ve spelled out my case pretty clearly in here.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Well, if you think you have, I certainly hope you’re not in any profession where skills of argument and persuasion are required.

BigD on July 30, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Tom Shipley,

How is the DNC platform, or Obama himself, NOT socialist?

Star20 on July 30, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Tom_Shipley is doing exactly what people should be doing on hotair: debating like an adult.

barry norris on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Barry to the rescue… Did you have anything other than that lil rant to add to this adult debate? Tom and I go back several years (captains quarters); we have had hours of quality time together barry. Shipley knows better than to come to a site such as this and attack the host with hogwash Liberal whiny sissy bullshit. Back your position up with hard facts or suffer the consequences; such is life in the real world before political correctness pussified manly debate.

Keemo on July 30, 2008 at 10:27 AM

“Negative Advertising in Campaigning is now as American As Apple Pie……thrown in your face, of course.”

So what’s new? This goes all the way back to Jefferson and Adams.

GarandFan on July 30, 2008 at 10:31 AM

In other news for today, tomorrow, the next day … : the NYT daily circulation dropped by another 219 papers.

Dusty on July 30, 2008 at 10:35 AM

issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)

See? This is what they do. They are socialist, but they THINK YOU ARE STUPID! So if they just call you sophomoric, then you’ll say, “Oh, I’m sorry, you aren’t a socialist, you’re a MARXIST”. Tools.

kirkill on July 30, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Has a pod-person taken over the personna of Tom Shipley? He used to be polite and made attempts at reason. This thread seems to have set him off. Perhaps before he found his savior he made attempts to be rational, if wrong. Now the Messiah must be venerated or pain will be meted out.

jerryofva on July 30, 2008 at 10:47 AM

issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)

Let me give another example: DC Gun Ban, when we had this debate about liberals taking away 2nd amendment rights, I mentioned that I was buying more firearms and ammo, because that right might someday be taken away. One of the liberal trolls sarcastically said “As if you are going to need to defend yourself against the big bad liberal government”. Well, I don’t want THAT history repeating itself.

The thing with Tom Shipley, is he’s gullible to the point he doesn’t see the socialism right before his eyes.

kirkill on July 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Tom_Shipley is doing exactly what people should be doing on hotair: debating like an adult.

barry norris on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Aren’t you the same barry that said :

That’s clearly shown on the video. It’s not debatable.

Debating like an adult.

hillbillyjim on July 30, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Obama’s “explanation” is demonstrably lame, and shows a lack of moral courage that should disqualify your Savior from any job beyond rolling burritos at Taco Bell.

If his pet ex-general is not a senatorial aide and the rules — which apply to all — require that a politician be accompanied only by a staff person, what’s not to understand?

The military has said that they had made preparations for The Messiah’s visit, and there is no doubt that Obama’s appearance would have cheered up the wounded regardless of his smarmy political views.

I suggest you either put on some sunglasses to protect your eyes from His radiance or see a doctor for treatment of those leg-tingles. Clearly, they are out of control.

You can be helped, Tom.

MrScribbler on July 30, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Saying Obama didn’t visit troops because press was not allowed, then opting to go to the gym is a FALSE personal smear on Obama.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

I’ll agree with you here, because it is poorly worded. Press involvement had little to do with and his campaign had everything to do with it. But you know my reason is that it was because he couldn’t, out of his own choice, separate himself from his campaign strategy, just like Mr Private Individual’s Speech was then used by the campaign on Obama’s website for fundraising.
—-

[Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM]

It does, but I don’t take it the way you do. Obama is the epitome of honesty and humility. He, rightly, ought to have two pictures in the dictionary by now and it’s a shame that dictionary producers in this country are private enterprises.

Dusty on July 30, 2008 at 10:55 AM

You have to remember that when he visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was part of an official US delegation. In Germany, he was with his campaign. Someone at the hospital brought up the idea that his visit may be inappropriate because he was with his campaign. Yes, he could have gone on his own, but since he was no longer part of the US delegation and on his own with his campaign, he played it safe.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Interesting, because I could have sworn he was there as a Senator and an Individual; as his campaign insisted:

“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator”

I realize you say “with his campaign” and not that the visit was part of his campaign, however the point is valid. If the visit was as a Senator and an individual then there would obviously be no problem.

RDuke on July 30, 2008 at 10:55 AM

How can it be negative when you use someone’s own words and/or actions? So that means BO is negative?

I have no problem’s with the so called “negative” ads if facts are used. McCain needs to show the difference between BO and himself.

VikingGoneWild on July 30, 2008 at 11:03 AM

The interesting thing is that no matter what Obama does, it is self-serving, flip-flopping and socialist.

This pretty much sums it up.

Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I’ll make a correction. Obama does do somethings right. He’ll smile nicely at a swoon of fans. He’s not all bad. I’m sure he’s good to his family as well.

No matter what Obama does politically, it is self-serving, flip-flopping and socialist.

Hope I summed it up better.

shick on July 30, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Dusty on July 30, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I didn’t understand your post at first because I didn’t notice the time stamp that you were referring to.

Nicely done. Better explaination than my own.

shick on July 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM

The Times are the worst hypocrites on this issue, and their distorted, venal, and essentially idiotic editorial today proves it.

Dam# Captain,tell it like it is!!!

The NYTimes and liberals in general have always been about what position they can take that best accomplishes their political goals,not about doing what is right or telling the truth.

If Obama takes the White House,watch their views on War do a 180 degree turn concerning civilian causalities,Soldiers causalities,bombing…etc.etc.etc.

All of a sudden,”war will be the answer”.

There will be a “military solution” if Chicken Hawk Obama is sending in troops.

Bombing and killing terrorist will not create more terrorist if Chicken Hawk Obama is in charge while the killing is being done.

No bid contracts and Haliburton being involved won’t be proof of supplying the “war machine” if Chicken Hawk Obama is behind it.

There will be front page stories and pictures of Soldiers with children in the NYtimes and other media showcasing all the freedom that is being brought with
Chicken Hawk Obama in charge.

Our Soldiers won’t be “dying for nothing” if it’s Chicken Hawk Obama sending them off to war.

The NYtimes won’t be able to print all of those pictures of the big anti-war protest because there won’t be any with Chicken Hawk Obama in charge.

He!!,all of those anti-war democrats that continuously send our men and women off to war will be yelling about taking down Pakistan the same way they yelled about taking down Saddam up until we actually took him down,then they yelled about how big dumb ol’ Bush tricked all of them despite their superior intellect.

Liberals have a vast history of condemning the very things they do the most.

Baxter Greene on July 30, 2008 at 11:40 AM

It’s a shame that Sen. McCain won’t fight because this is a perfect opportunity to use the Times’ refusal to print his OpEd against them.

What better time, or better situation, than this to emphasize that the Times is doing all it can to provide cover for their designated candidate…from refusing him the opportunity of fair response, to providing cover from legitimate criticism of the Democratic candidate.

This could be shoved right back down the collective throats of Keller/Pinch and all the rest.

If only McCain would fight.

Blaise on July 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Three points:

1) For two weeks now, McCain hasn’t been doing anything but talking kaka about his opponent. That’s just not a winning strategy. He’s got to start talking about why he is a good choice, not why the other guy is a bad choice.

2) It’s fair to criticize the New York Times for their editorial content. It’s a weak argument to go after them for the ads they run. The “betray us” ad no more reflected their views than the lingerie ad on page four.

I mean, I see the ad right here on Hot Air. Does that mean Hot Air is in Soros’s pocket? Please.

3) No matter what you think about Gen. Pertaeus, you must agree that the MoveOn ad is a piss-poor way of advancing a political agenda. It’s so juvenile that it just totally lacks the capacity to change any minds. If you are on the fringe left, and I mean left of Kucinich, you’d agree with the ad, but then you didn’t need any convincing in the first place. Everyone else just kind of rolled their eyes and said “Jeez, what jerks!”

The only value the “betray us” ad had was that people kept talking about MoveOn. The more the ad is denounced, the more publicity MoveOn gets. It’s the political equivalent of the Paris Hilton sex video. Think about that the next time you feel the urge to post that picture

factoid on July 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM

What the difference between the government bailing out banks who mess up and socialism?
Tom_Shipley on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM
The first is the government stepping in to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. The second is a bad situation that has nobody around to keep it from getting worse.
Kafir on July 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Kafir, what a great statement. I am going to pass it on

issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) NYT

Sophmoric attacks are the best because they are easily refuted. A true sophmoric attack will turn anyone but a moron against the attacker

and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers). – NYT

Blatantly false accusations are almost as good because they are easily disproven.

The problem with a charge that a nominee ‘turned his back on wounded soldiers’ is that part of the accusation stands. Whether the nominee ‘turned his back’ or not, he cancelled.

Each time you refute the blatantly false accusation, you have to mention the no-show

Each time you mention the no-show, the listener is reminded you had time to play basketball, or go to France. Thus refuting the part you deem false, broadcasts the part that is undeniably true.

Very similar to a no-show at a wedding later revealed to be shopping at the mall the same date

It doesn’t matter how you cut the cake Obbie didn’t go. Obbie didn’t fight hell and highwater to go. A parent would have skipped the basketball and visited his som. Obbie is not the parent but the son becomes everyone’s som

entagor on July 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM

entagor on July 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM

You nailed it! Well done!

Glynn on July 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM

2) It’s fair to criticize the New York Times for their editorial content. It’s a weak argument to go after them for the ads they run. The “betray us” ad no more reflected their views than the lingerie ad on page four.

I mean, I see the ad right here on Hot Air. Does that mean Hot Air is in Soros’s pocket? Please.

No, but then again, I doubt that Hot Air gave a him a highly discounted rate the way that the New York Times gave the MoveOn guys for their ad.

Theophile on July 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Theophile on July 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM

When I scroll to the top of the page, I see a the “betray us” ad right there. To the right of it, there is an ad for Days Inn. Do you mean to tell me Days Inn didn’t pay more to Hot Air than MoveOn?

factoid on July 30, 2008 at 3:49 PM

“General Betray-Us” newspaper scolds on negative campaigning

The New York Slimes have no room to talk. They’re the traitorous rag that hand delivers critical information to Osama bin Laden’s cave. They’re the eyes, and ears for Al Qaeda.

A vote poll taken today by WorldNetDaily:

Here

byteshredder on July 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM

The Democrats drilling plan will not produce one drop of OIL EVER!

Chakra Hammer on July 30, 2008 at 4:28 PM

factoid on July 30, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Apparently you don’t know the difference between referencing an ad and allowing someone to buy advertising (at a discount, by the way, in case you forgot). If you are insinuating that HOT AIR endorses the flat out anti american sentiment of MOVEon, then you hardly have enough in the brain department to be part of this blog

flytier on July 30, 2008 at 4:55 PM

“General Betray-Us” newspaper scolds on negative campaigning

Isn’t that sort of a non sequitur Ed? The “Betray Us” ad wasn’t part of an election campaign.

ChenZhen on July 30, 2008 at 11:35 PM