The verdict on Obama’s bracelet

posted at 8:30 am on September 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, people pointed out that Barack Obama had been asked to stop wearing the bracelet of Sgt. Ryan Jopek by his mother Tracy, who had given it to him early this year but had second thoughts about his using it as part of his campaign speeches.  The Associated Press got in touch with Tracy Jopek, who confirmed that but also said she had no problem with Obama’s use of the bracelet in the debate:

After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.

But Jopek told The Associated Press on Sunday that she’s satisfied with how Obama discussed it during last week’s presidential debate. …

“His response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said. “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.”

Ms. Jopek also said her ex-husband mischaracterized her viewpoint during his interview on a Wisconsin public radio talk show.  She asked Obama to stop talking about the bracelet out of respect for the feelings of other Gold Star families who still support the war.  She was afraid the issue would get exploited by anti-war groups, and apparently she doesn’t want to become the next Cindy Sheehan. Ryan’s father Brian may feel differently about his son’s sacrifice (Brian is currently stationed in Guantanamo Bay), but Brian Jopek didn’t give Obama the bracelet.

We can criticize Obama for his delivery and for forgetting Jopek’s name in that moment of the debate, but Obama didn’t disrespect Tracy Jopek’s wishes.


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

Myth: Obama is not ready to lead.

FACT: Then who led John McCain’s sorry white a$$ back to the campaign and the debate podiums?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

I kind of expected this, and agree – if the mother is OK with it, then it’s OK. I disgree with their viewpoint but respect their right to disagree.

All it shows now is how much of a “me too” loser The Savior Of All Mankind is.

Red Cloud on September 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM

What has this to do with Obama’s association with ACORN, Rezko, or the domestic terrorist?

Browncoatone on September 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Yes, e should choose to be fair in this, and all, issues. The sad thing is, if we lose the election, our moral discipline will be the reason why.

But we will not lose. :/

pugwriter on September 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Nevertheless it was a gimmick and that makes it just as distasteful. Had McCain not mention his, that dolt Obama would never have acknowledged the one he had. Wake up people you’re being had by this Marxist.

rplat on September 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM

Myth: Obama is not ready to lead.

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

FACT: Then where was he last week in the midst of a financial crisis unprecedented in decades? Campaigning, or trying to use his position as a Senator to fix it?

You’re pathetic.

Red Cloud on September 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM

We can criticize Obama for his delivery and for forgetting Jopek’s name in that moment of the debate,

And I do criticize him harshly for that!

4shoes on September 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Yep. It’s always best to wait for the truth to out. Of course, with the MSM so quick now to repeat whatever crazy allegation is tossed out about a Republican, waiting for the truth to out has become a dangerous strategy.

Joan of Argghh on September 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM

Take the bracelet off, B.O.! You are not fit to wear that hero’s name, much less carry his shoes.

pilamaye on September 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM

And I do criticize him harshly for that!

4shoes on September 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM

That was the only issue I had with it.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 8:38 AM

If I understand correctly, Obama did, indeed, disrespect Ms. Jopek’s wishes, despite her explicit approval after the fact. In any case, Obama clearly demonstrated that Ryan Jopek’s sacrifice is not something that he truly honors, but exists as nothing more than a prop for those moments when he needs to pander to those of us who do.

-phil

phile on September 29, 2008 at 8:39 AM

What exactly did you expect her to say now that BO has violated her trust and did what she asked him to NOT do? She wants to diffuse the subject and get out of the spotlight…expressing outrage would only intensify the media scrutiny. The story should be on BO’s breach of trust.

David in ATL on September 29, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Ed,

Well done. I applaud you for telling the truth. You demonstrate integretiy that the MSM lacks.

shick on September 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM

He still had to read it

tomas on September 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM

John McCain’s sorry white a$$

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

raaAAAAAAcist!

Alden Pyle on September 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Wait a second…! She didn’t ask him to take it off, but she did ask him to stop talking about it on the campaign trail. And then he talked about it on national TV (and it came out in an especially tacky way). In retrospect, she’s okay with what he did (presumably because she’s a supporter), but he couldn’t have known that in advance.

S. Weasel on September 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM

If I understand correctly, Obama did, indeed, disrespect Ms. Jopek’s wishes, despite her explicit approval after the fact. In any case, Obama clearly demonstrated that Ryan Jopek’s sacrifice is not something that he truly honors, but exists as nothing more than a prop for those moments when he needs to pander to those of us who do.

Sheesh, black really is white (‘scuse the pun) for you guys isn’t it? She doesn’t have a problem with it. Drop it already.

Grow Fins on September 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Fuck off, ‘fins.

S. Weasel on September 29, 2008 at 8:47 AM

The Audacity of BraceletGate!!

canopfor on September 29, 2008 at 8:48 AM

John McCain’s sorry white a$$

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM
raaAAAAAAcist!

Alden Pyle on September 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Get used to it. Obama is up 8 points in the Gallup Daily and gaining more every day. McCain and the GOP are throwing it away.

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Brent Bozell was on Fox ripping the media for ignoring the Obama’s braceletgate – NOT reporting about Soldier’s father’s opposition to O’s abusing his son’s name on campaign.

Anita on September 29, 2008 at 8:49 AM

So we should all rest assured knowing that Obama was personally committed to wearing “WhatsHisName’s” bracelet.

bloggless on September 29, 2008 at 8:49 AM

To honor the bereaved mother’s wishes, all he had to say in response was, “I’m wearing one as well, but I’m bound by the soldier’s mother not to make his name public.” It still would have had that me-too sound to it, but at least he would have been true to his word. He of course also would have avoided the embarrassment of forgetting the soldier’s name.

jackmac on September 29, 2008 at 8:49 AM

kilmead just lost his mind after an obama surrogate told him fox was making stuff up when talking about this… get that clip…

stlpatriot on September 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM

Obama campaign douche Robert Gibbs bitched about Fox “making stuff up” at about 8:50am, when they were simply askin him questions about the bracelet situation… Doocy was relatively polite with him, but Kilmeade wasn’t havin’ any of the attacks. Must see clip.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Fuck off, ‘fins.

:)

Grow Fins on September 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

It was “me-too!, me-too!” moment by Obama.

And to quote your text:
“She asked Obama to stop talking about the bracelet out of respect for the feelings of other Gold Star families who still support the war. ”

Well, Obama did not respect that. He was more interested in the “me-too” aspect.

albill on September 29, 2008 at 8:54 AM

hmmm, I triggered spam filter I guess… anyway, I see stlpatriot is here requesting the same clip (I already emailed you guys, and was just pasting the body of my email here anyway). But I second stlpatriot’s request, and I can’t wait to see if this clown did this on his own and gets reprimanded by Barry or whether they’re going to step up the “victim” nonsense.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Sheesh, black really is white (’scuse the pun) for you guys isn’t it? She doesn’t have a problem with it. Drop it already.

Grow Fins on September 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM

With all due respect, it is grotesque that Obama has not the respect for the person symbolized by the bracelet to commit his name to his heart.

Ms. Jopek needs to meet up with a few other mothers of deceased sons to have it kindly explained to her how you can tell when someone has attached deep meaning to a symbol and when they haven’t.

The fact that he didn’t commit her son’s name to heart is deeply indicative of how deeply empty this is for Obama. If it wasn’t absolutely ridiculous, it would be dropped.

Marine_Bio on September 29, 2008 at 8:55 AM

FACT: Then who led John McCain’s sorry white a$$ back to the campaign and the debate podiums?

jay12

Another classy, adult contribution by our friends on the Left.

Do you even realize that you and your ilk are the reasons why people stop voting Democratic? Try expressing your viewpoint without the hatred/foul language and you may be taken seriously by a broader audience other than people who think exactly like you.

flyawaybird on September 29, 2008 at 8:55 AM

It was “me-too!, me-too!” moment by Obama.

And to quote your text:
“She asked Obama to stop talking about the bracelet out of respect for the feelings of other Gold Star families who still support the war. ”

Well, Obama did not respect that. He was more interested in the “me-too” aspect.

albill on September 29, 2008 at 8:54 AM

Right on! Obama is a piece of self serving crap and not amount of lies and obfuscation will change that fact.

rplat on September 29, 2008 at 8:56 AM

Jay12 being a bit racist?

Barry is not Black (his skin is) he is actually mixed, but by adopting his black heritage allows him Affirmative Action which is the only way he got to where he is. Let’s not forget, his grandmother is a typical white woman.

I know quite a few African Americans who are not voling for him as they see him as an embarrassment using his color as a means to advance himself instead of acheiving his accomplishments by his own right.

Barry is not a patriot nor does he give a crap about our Military men and women. He will use any ploy to get elected.

Robyn S on September 29, 2008 at 8:56 AM

The original interview with the father said his ex wife would do anything to get Obama elected. So even if she really said for Obama not to wear the bracelet or politicize it, she threw herself under the bus to save her precious One’s candidacy.

eaglewingz08 on September 29, 2008 at 8:58 AM

but Obama didn’t disrespect Tracy Jopek’s wishes.

Obama most assuredly DID exploit Tracy Jopek’s wishes, and he disrespected Brian Jopek’s wishes, and since Obama is not related to Ryan, he certainly has no legitimate place dividing the parents of this fallen soldier. Ryan did not ask Obama to wear his name while failing to appreciate his ultimate sacrifice and failing to admit that through Ryan’s ultimate sacrifice, America is succeeding in Iraq where victory is occurring as the POTUS debate rages.

It is understandable that a mother who loses her son finds some comfort hearing her loss advertised during a national debate. Condolences to the Jopek family.

Shame on Obama.

maverick muse on September 29, 2008 at 8:59 AM

FACT: Then who led John McCain’s sorry white a$$ back to the campaign and the debate podiums?

jay12

Hey, numb nuts . . . stick it in your ear or the orifice of your choice.

rplat on September 29, 2008 at 9:00 AM

kilmead just lost his mind after an obama surrogate told him fox was making stuff up when talking about this… get that clip…

stlpatriot on September 29, 2008

That was good! Finally, someone challenged that pimp Randy Gibb.

John Doe on September 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Kilmeade is unloading on that Obama campaign d**che in the after the show show (online) right now.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 9:02 AM

she threw herself under the bus to save her precious One’s candidacy.

eaglewingz08 on September 29, 2008 at 8:58 AM

I suppose that would be possible. As a veteran and a parent I have a hard time conceptualizing it.

Then again, at least before this financial crisis, more people were worried about American Idol than who they elected to congress. Will they wake up? Or are we well on the way to being one of the lions of Tarshish?

Marine_Bio on September 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM

By the way, at the very end of the regular show… like 8:59, the Fox & Friends gang read a quote from an article that sank that Obama campaign turd who had just accused them of “making things up”, prompting the reaction from Kilmeade that we’re all begging to see posted.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 9:10 AM

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:48 AM

I’ve been staying away from the polling websites, but I have only heard the national polls. My suggestion is for you to go look at the battle ground states. They are mostly small states and will be under represented in the national polls compared to their importance in this campaign.

Because the MSM is not talking about the state polls, I am suspicious that those battle ground states are still very close and therefore the only polls any candidate should be looking at.

I don’t look at them so I could be very wrong. But if I were a poll wonk, that’s how I’d judge the race.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Thanks Ed! The Obama camp appreciates your diligence in running this story into the ground for them. They really appreciate the time and effort and the prominence HA gives to defending The One and really appreciates your ignoring this little fact:

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates.

Now she’s changed her mind, That’s wonderful. I am glad The One has the power to devine what people really want before they have actually expressed the desire. It will be wondefully helpful as POTUS.

TheBigOldDog on September 29, 2008 at 9:13 AM

If I understand correctly, Obama did, indeed, disrespect Ms. Jopek’s wishes, despite her explicit approval after the fact.

That’s the way I understand it too. She never gave Obama permission to start using Ryan’s name again and now, because as her ex-hubby said in the interview she supports Obama and didn’t wish to make an issue of it – she’s “approving” his use after the fact.

katablog.com on September 29, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Saw Gibb on Fox and friends accuse Fox of makin it up, saw dems blaming Bush and Repubs for credit crisis, saw Barry lying his ass off during debates on virtually every policy position most of which he has taken both sides of:

Saul Alinsky tactics get in the oppositions face and lie your ASS OFF if it furthers the cause!

Ends justify the means!

The Liars need to be held accountable and soon!

dhunter on September 29, 2008 at 9:15 AM

I do not know if it is just me, but to say that there is no problem to use the bracelet during the debate but it is not OK to using it as part of campaign speeches is equivalent having the cake and eating it too.

Lucm on September 29, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Mrs. Jopek’s viewpoint wasn’t mischaracterized by her husband, given the evidence — instead, she had a post-debate change of heart.

That’s ok. We now know that her husband, whose son was killed in Iraq and who is on active duty (and deployed) in the Wisconsin Guard holds contrary politics to his wife (he is a McCain supporter), and has publicly stated that he is unhappy that Obama is using his son’s name this way. I suspect that this is the reason that Mrs. Jopek originally wrote Obama to not further use her son’s bracelet — that it had caused friction between her and her ex-husband.

But we now have here, in hindsight, yet another Cindy Sheehan moment, where mama’s views don’t match those of either her son (whose name is, after all, on the bracelet) or his daddy, and it’s been aided and abetted by Barack Obama.

We can’t use the word “family” here in terms of opposition, since the Jopeks have a daughter (Jessica) who apparently is an Obama supporter too. But she wrote this in 2006, which gives some indication of Sgt. Jopek’s feelings:

He has a strong heart
and great amount of stubborn pride
He’s a brave one
and he shows it with every stride
I know he won’t let us down
as he serves our country over
in a dangerous land
For, even though he won’t admit it,
he’s holding God’s hand
He’ll fight for their freedom
while helping us hold on to ours

unclesmrgol on September 29, 2008 at 9:17 AM

I kind of expected this, and agree – if the mother is OK with it, then it’s OK. I disgree with their viewpoint but respect their right to disagree.

All it shows now is how much of a “me too” loser The Savior Of All Mankind is.

Red Cloud on September 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM

While I agree with your first point Red Cloud, I disagree with your second… point.

I hardly think that Obama is a ‘me too loser’. To the contrary, I think he was pointing out that, while McCain may have the support of some veterans groups and current troops, he does not have ALL of those groups’ support. Obama was essentially saying, “Look here Senator, I have the support of troops as well, so don’t act like you are the ‘troop supporting candidate’.”

http://thepajamapundit.com/

thePajamaPundit on September 29, 2008 at 9:23 AM

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was “ecstatic” during Friday’s debate when Senator Barack Obama mentioned the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that he remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

She criticized Internet reports that suggested Obama exploited her son for political purposes.

She acknowledges e-mailing the campaign in February asking that Obama not mention her son in speeches or debates.

Bishop on September 29, 2008 at 9:24 AM

We can criticize Obama for his delivery and for forgetting Jopek’s name in that moment of the debate, but Obama didn’t disrespect Tracy Jopek’s wishes.

Wrong Ed, see what others have posted in the comments here:

She acknowledges e-mailing the campaign in February asking that Obama not mention her son in speeches or debates.

And this is exactly why Kilmeade lost his cool when the Obama campaign asshat accused them of “making things up”.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 9:29 AM

This reminds me of B Hussein’s lifting of lines from Deval Patrick and then having Patrick say that it was okay. The fraud was not committed on Patrick but on the audiences that B Hussein tried to impress with “his own” words. It boggles my mind that so many people let this sort of underhandedness by BHO go, but he seems to get a pass on just about everything.

progressoverpeace on September 29, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Um, Ed? The bottom line here is that she asked Obama not to mention her son in speeches or debates and he did anyway. It’s a moot point whether she happens to be OK with it after the fact. She’s a committed Democrat and “political junkie”, so she knows how bad this could look for BO. It’s telling that she wouldn’t say whether she wants Barry to actually stop using her son’s name now that she knows he’s just ignoring her request.

WolkingsWorld.com on September 29, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Ed must be having breakfast or something, because I’m surprised he hasn’t come back and corrected himself, after everyone keeps pointing out that she DID ask Barry not to do this, but as a supporter now claims it was okay, obviously just because she doesn’t want to hurt his campaign (and knowing his campaign, I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s getting some cash or something in order to keep her saying what she’s now saying)

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 9:39 AM

It’s a lot simpler than that. If the family isn’t 100 percent behind you mentioning their son’s name in your political campaign, you don’t do it.

A smart, genuinely empathetic person can see that…a typical politician who’s a bit dim doesn’t have those concerns.

Asher on September 29, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Myth: Obama is not ready to lead.

FACT: Then who led John McCain’s sorry white a$$ back to the campaign and the debate podiums?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

jay12 be careful what you ask for. If Barry O gets elected President that will be the end of affirmative action in this country.
That means all of those sorry black asses that have been living off the largese of society. That have gotten to where they are by set asides and reverse racism will be gone.
jay12 that will mean from this day forward you will have to earn what you want and not just belly ache about it and wait for the government to give it to you.
That from this day forward you will be measured by your quality not the color of your skin. From your statement and the ignorance of your comment get used to saying “do you want fries with that sir.”

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM

It’s still pretty disgusting.

The father of that soldier has every right to voice his opinion as well. Here we go again with the voice of a father somehow holding less weight.

Obama once again bringing hope and change through division. This time between two parents that lost a son in the service of his country. Pathetic.

Hening on September 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM

jay12 be careful what you ask for. If Barry O gets elected President that will be the end of affirmative action in this country.

With Obama in the White House and a supermajority of Democrats in Congress, who do you think will “end” afirmative action? You?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM

jay12 be careful what you ask for. If Barry O gets elected President that will be the end of affirmative action in this country.

With Obama in the White House and a supermajority of Democrats in Congress, who do you think will “end” afirmative action? You?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM

jay12 well in case you have not been keeping up with current events the last challenge to affirmative action that went to the supreme court was beaten back by 5 to 4. The majority decision said that it should be given 25 more years to see if it is still needed. Or a major shift in the political landscape.

The fifth vote was Sandra Day O’Connor and all through her opinion it was said that if there is a shift in the landscape. Guess what fool?

Winning the presidency is a major shift in the landscape. There are at least five cases winding their way to the supreme court challenging affirmative action as I write this.

It will be struck down and it will never see the light of day again.

After your last comment forget getting the exalted position of working the counter. You are on mop detail cleaning the toilets.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Agreed!!! I could care less that Obama is black/white/purple/or green-his policies are soo bad for this country in regards to national security/economy-and if God forbid he does win, he actually has to show up everyday and make decisions…not just voting present because he can’t decide on what to do…

Static21 on September 29, 2008 at 10:13 AM

The majority decision said that it should be given 25 more years to see if it is still needed. Or a major shift in the political landscape.

There will certainly be a change in the political landscape, all right…..and the change will produce the direct opposite of the result you predict.

Here’s a quiz for the politically ignorant:

What segment of the population is the Democratic Party’s most powerful and loyal constituency?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM

She asked Obama to stop talking about the bracelet out of respect for the feelings of other Gold Star families who still support the war.

She still asked him to stop using it, she might be happy after the fact, but she did ask him to sop. If she asked him to stop as to not disrespect other gold star families then Obama clearly disrespected her and the other families. She wants to spin it when all is said and done to support Obama but she herself just set the record straight that Obama was wrong here.

Rbastid on September 29, 2008 at 10:26 AM

With Obama in the White House and a supermajority of Democrats in Congress, who do you think will “end” afirmative action? You?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Naw I think he was saying something more along the lines of “because we elected a black president all racism, institutional discrimination and inequality will magically vanish and we will have perfect equality of opportunity”.

The fifth vote was Sandra Day O’Connor and all through her opinion it was said that if there is a shift in the landscape. Guess what fool?

Winning the presidency is a major shift in the landscape. There are at least five cases winding their way to the supreme court challenging affirmative action as I write this.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM

O’Connor’s gone and you don’t have 5 justices willing to strike down AA now. In the last big AA case Kennedy (the swing voter) wrote an opinion saying that we still need to use race-conscious measures to safeguard equality of opportunity. Not to mention Obama will have a shot to put a couple more liberals on the court. Face it, no matter how you look at it your ideas are losing.

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Jay-I’ll bite-it’s the black community…for reasons I’ll never understand because it is the Republican party who has done more to advance the causes of the black community ex: civil rights act in the 60′s…Civil war etc. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, should I go on?

Static21 on September 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM

First off, missed the after-the-show show from Fox & Friends and I hope it gets posted! Couldn’t believe that doofus saying that bit about fact checkers on Fox, yeah right. And then saying that they were just making stuff up. Yet, BO still gets support.

I, too, believe that the days of affirmative action will be over. Who cares “what segment of the population is the Decmocratic Party’s most powerful and loyal constituency” is? What are they going to be able to say about whitey keepin’ ‘em down- when the POTUS is black? Not to mention, that it won’t even be up to the voters- but to the Supreme Court.

cibolo on September 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM

jay12 your entertainment value is waning by the moment. Now you come back with two bizarre premises. The most loyal constituency are blacks. It does not matter that the Democrats have done nothing for the blacks. It does not matter that the Democrats have done everything possible to keep blacks down. They like the lemmings have gone off the deep end and allowed themselves to be f**ked by Democrats and never ever got a reach around. They vote historically over 88% for Democrats which is higher then any other political sub division including labor unions.
Powerful That would be wall street that is where the money is. You know the fannie mae and freddie mac people as well as the Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and the others that have contributed over $200 million in this election cycle alone.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I believe you are mistaken I am not sure what case you are speaking of but there has been no major affirmative action decision since the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor. Do you want to cite your case?

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 10:39 AM

First off, missed the after-the-show show from Fox & Friends and I hope it gets posted! Couldn’t believe that doofus saying that bit about fact checkers on Fox, yeah right. And then saying that they were just making stuff up. Yet, BO still gets support.

cibolo on September 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Well, to clarify, the “incident” itself didn’t happen on the After the Show Show… But Kilmeade just added a few words about it there. The incident happened during the regular show at around 8:50am, and Kilmeade fought with the clown on air. Then after coming back from break, they read the line (as others have quoted above) showing that the mother did ask Barry not to do what he wound up doing, which knocks out the “making stuff up” claim made by Gibb.

Aside from hoping the guys will post it, I’m still disappointed in Ed for not having returned to correct himself on this post. Again, the mother admits to having asked Barry not to do this, and only now (to save his campaign some heat) is saying she’s okay with the fact that he did it.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.

If he can break his promise to a Vets mother, just because Sen. McCain used his appropriately. But to further disrespect him by forgetting his name is reprehensible.

As a Vietnam vet (retired 25 years) after I returned, and the bracelets came out, I specifically requested one with the name of COLONEL GEORGE E. “BUD” DAY who I had the honor to work with in the USAF. That bracelet did not come off until Col. Day returned and still is in safe keeping.

Obombem has not respect for anything or anyone except himself.

MSGTAS on September 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM

I believe you are mistaken I am not sure what case you are speaking of but there has been no major affirmative action decision since the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor. Do you want to cite your case?

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 10:39 AM

You’re referring to the Michigan State AA cases of course which were back in 2003. I’m referring to Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). While it did not tackle AA in the same way as the Bollinger cases, I think it can serve as a good indicator for how a new AA case would go with the current court. Of course in this case Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas voted in lockstep, basically saying we that any consideration of race should be invalidated. But Kennedy wrote in his concurrence that

“The plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race.”

I don’t think he would provide the swing vote to invalidate AA.

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Jay-I’ll bite-it’s the black community…for reasons I’ll never understand……..

Static21 on September 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM

I’ll help you understand. There are two reasons. The #2 reason is called “lip service”, and you know how good Democrats are at that.

The #1 reason is…..Affirmative Action! Keep it up with your opposition to affirmative action, and blacks will reject you forever. Forget about your eloquent arguments that AA “hurts” blacks; those arguments don’t work. AA gives blacks an unfair lifetime advantage. It makes WHITES the second-class citizens. 85% of blacks will NEVER say “No” to that. It’s called “reality”, dude.

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s getting some cash or something in order to keep her saying what she’s now saying)

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 9:39 AM

haha seriously dude what is up with you and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Weren’t you showcased on C&L’s last year because of one about Hillary?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM

For me the sticking point in all of this is not the dispute over whether or not the soldier’s family wanted Obama to stop wearing the bracelet. The pathetic political ploy via Obama having his “me too, me too!” moment was beyond sickening. The Obama camp has said they knew McCain would bring up the bracelet because he has often spoken about the bracelet. So, on the face of this, Obama and his Brown Shirt Thugs used this soldier’s service to this nation as a political stunt. Now that is the definition of political stunt you moonbats.

Secondly, the moron could not remember the soldier’s name, or the Mother’s name. A Gold Star Mother at LGF said she would have been devastated over Obama not remembering, or stammering out her son’s name. And she reminded us that it was Gold Star Mother’s Day this past weekend. This was a slap across the face of our military families that have lost loved ones in this war on terror. We can debate until the cows come home about whether or not the war in Iraq was justified, but one thing should be abundantly clear to Obama, but it obviously was not, and that is our fallen soldiers are not to be used in such a despicable manner. They are there serving this nation. They are doing good, and they deserve much better from Obama than what he is doing to them by using them as political ploys. This whole move smacked of Murthaisms and reminded me of what Obama said after 9-11 and how the Democrats in both Houses have slimed our military men and women for the past five years. For that, I guess we should be grateful to Obama, because that moment alone, in one fell swoop defined Obama. Self-centered. Do you really want a man like that in the White House? One that would stoop that low? One that would use a dead soldier in order to win something solely for himself? How revolting!

freeus on September 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Jay-I’ll bite-it’s the black community…for reasons I’ll never understand because it is the Republican party who has done more to advance the causes of the black community ex: civil rights act in the 60’s…Civil war etc. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, should I go on?

Static21 on September 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM

I’ll give you a hint. Black voters started abandoning the Republican party in the mid 60′s. What was going on around then? Which party was doing what?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:58 AM

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM

crrr6 I had a feeling that was the case that were you going to cite. You are way off base comparing that case to Bollinger.

Plus you choose willful ignorance I guess in Supreme Court cases in regards to discrimination and affirmative action. At no time has the Supreme Court or any justice to my knowledge not described affirmative action as discrimination. In all cases that have settled AA actions all 9 justices have always written that AA is discrimination based upon race.

All cases dealing with discrimination have also been time specific. In other words they have all stated that there must come a time when these laws are not necessary. Every justice that has written a decision from either side has stated this.

Also all cases dealing with AA or discrimination have referenced the political landscape whether past racial discrimination or present. They have always stated that any significant change in such will cause reverse racism (affirmative action) to be dumped on the trash heap of history along with the Jim Crow laws.

With your comical comment about marching lock step I find it amusing that left wing loons say conservatives march lock step yet they are either too blind or too stupid to see that the swing votes on the Supreme Court have always come from judges described as conservative.

Name me one justice of the Supreme Court that has said the Affirmative Action is not discrimination.

Name me one justice of the Supreme Court that has said that Affirmative Action is not time based, i.e. it has to end sometime in the future.

Name me one justice that has not said that the political landscape will determine the outcome of AA.

Also in the case that you cite Anthony Kennedy voted with Scalia, Roberts, Alioto, and Thomas against the Seattle School district. That is why I find it odd that you chose to cite that case.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Actually, Ed, Obama DID still disrespect the wishes of the family. She had e-mailed Obama asking him not to use her son’s name during his campaign. She may have since changed her mind, but this is the information he had when he violated her wishes.

davenp35 on September 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM

haha seriously dude what is up with you and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Weren’t you showcased on C&L’s last year because of one about Hillary?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM

First of all, STFU troll. Second of all, if I remember what you’re talking about correctly, the portrayal of what I said was dishonest, as is your portrayal of what I said as “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory”.

The mother asked Barry not to do exactly what he did, and somehow she’s now fine with it? Well, considering the scandalous and arguably most dishonest campaign in history that Barry is running, all of his shady associations, etc. etc. the point is, I wouldn’t put it past his campaign to throw her some hush money. That’s not a “conspiracy theory”. I didn’t assert that he did this, or that there is any evidence to suggest he did… Just that I wouldn’t be shocked to learn he did at all. This was the same with the Hillary thing when there was a standoff at some NH campaign headquarters with some whacked out gunman. She was coming off a shocking defeat in Iowa, where she was destroyed and that was the beginning of the end of her run, in reality. You’ll recall that she sunk to crying to pull out a win in NH. I only suggested, in the midst of the standoff, that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it was something staged by the Clinton Machine. Was I suggesting it was or that there was any evidence of a “conspiracy”, no, it was simply a commentary on the dishonest of the Clintons (the latest example is them claiming to support Obama, yet clearly not).

So again, STFU. To say I wouldn’t be surprised to see some underdog team with the World Series doesn’t mean I’m insisting there is a conspiracy involving umpire payoffs. Get a grip.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Aside from hoping the guys will post it, I’m still disappointed in Ed for not having returned to correct himself on this post. Again, the mother admits to having asked Barry not to do this, and only now (to save his campaign some heat) is saying she’s okay with the fact that he did it.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Bingo!

davenp35 on September 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

I’ll give you a hint. Black voters started abandoning the Republican party in the mid 60’s. What was going on around then? Which party was doing what?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:58 AM

The democrats were starting the social engineering of minorities to move them into slum areas, keeping them at odds with whites, and teaching them to not work and the government will house and feed them for free.

csdeven on September 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM

She said she didn’t have a problem with Obama using it. I think it’s still a valid argument as to how important it is to Obama. His casual “I’ve got a bracelet too” comment was awful, in my opinion. It depends on your POV, of course, but I think veterans and parents could easily be offended by it as well, and have every right to be.

Personally, I would have preferred if neither candidate brings up another “real-life” person’s story in their debates and speeches. It’s OLD and hackneyed. There may be another way to work it in, but they haven’t figured it out yet. It just makes me, and I believe the average voter, TUNE OUT.

connertown on September 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Myth: Obama is not ready to lead.

FACT: Then who led John McCain’s sorry white a$$ back to the campaign and the debate podiums?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

No class, you racist.

pukara61 on September 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

What would it take to get a 527 to put out an ad with this content?

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Barack says:

I got a bracelet too. Nanny nanny nanny goats… Me too Me too

Kuffar on September 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM

We can criticize Obama for his delivery and for forgetting Jopek’s name in that moment of the debate, but Obama didn’t disrespect Tracy Jopek’s wishes.

I think most folks realized the “mother’s wishes” thing was a non-starter, but the problem with how O! handled the bracelet issue in the debate was deeper than delivery, it was the contrast to McCain’s story about his bracelet.

For O! soldiers are props to be used as photo opportunities or as illustrations about the horrors of war to support O!’s own defeatist policies.

McCain cares about the soldiers. Their stories are his story, which is why he is so at ease when he talks about soldiers and their families. McCain doesn’t have to use them as props and he certainly knows about the horrors of war.

For Obama, the bracelet was a prop in a scene from this scripted play we call his campaign for the White House. He did not know about the soldier whose bracelet he wore because that soldier was not what was important to him — what was important to him was the affirmation he got from a grieving mother that his foolhardy desire to cut and run from Iraq was somehow justified.

It was a powerful moment in the debate, but not in the way Obama’s handlers wanted.

Y-not on September 29, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Not to mention Obama will have a shot to put a couple more liberals on the court. Face it, no matter how you look at it your ideas are losing.

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I did not believe you would respond to the questions that I put to you. You are wrong crr6 and you know it. I wondered where you were getting your information about court cases and I found that you quoted word for word from Wikipedia.

I might in the future suggest you use the West Law Review.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 12:20 PM

OMG! A Conservative blog that tracks down a possible Obama embarrassment and clears Obama. Can you point me to a lefty blog that tracks down possible Palin embarrassments and clears her?
-
What a concept. A blog that puts truth ahead of ideology.

Mark30339 on September 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM

crrr6 I had a feeling that was the case that were you going to cite. You are way off base comparing that case to Bollinger.

Plus you choose willful ignorance I guess in Supreme Court cases in regards to discrimination and affirmative action. At no time has the Supreme Court or any justice to my knowledge not described affirmative action as discrimination. In all cases that have settled AA actions all 9 justices have always written that AA is discrimination based upon race.

All cases dealing with discrimination have also been time specific. In other words they have all stated that there must come a time when these laws are not necessary. Every justice that has written a decision from either side has stated this.

Also all cases dealing with AA or discrimination have referenced the political landscape whether past racial discrimination or present. They have always stated that any significant change in such will cause reverse racism (affirmative action) to be dumped on the trash heap of history along with the Jim Crow laws.

So your whole argument is pretty much dependent on Kennedy changing his mind because of Obama’s election. I think he’s a bit more intellectually sophisticated then that. If Obama is elected the inequalities between blacks and whites in income, education and wealth will not disappear. I’ll now patiently await for your reply blaming these inequalities on blacks, playing the tired old game of assigning negative traits to an entire race.
By the way, way to equate AA with Jim Crow laws. Classy..

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 12:24 PM

You are wrong crr6 and you know it. I wondered where you were getting your information about court cases and I found that you quoted word for word from Wikipedia.

Wait…why were you on wikipedia??

haha I read the opinions of Roberts, Breyer and Kennedy in their entirety last year. I just needed to find that specific quote though to back up my point.

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Wait…why were you on wikipedia??

haha I read the opinions of Roberts, Breyer and Kennedy in their entirety last year. I just needed to find that specific quote though to back up my point.

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM

crr well if you could read you would have seen that in the post I made. I was curious how anyone would use the Seattle case as evidence that this court would uphold AA with Barry O sitting in the white house.

By the way, way to equate AA with Jim Crow laws. Classy.

Also you do know who it was that first said Affirmative Action Laws are just Jim Crow in reverse? You do know who I was quoting. I did not say who I was quoting because I had a feeling you would pounce on that. I do so thoroughly enjoy making fools of people who believe themselves to be wise.

Anthony Kennedy will vote against AA. If you had bothered to read the Michigan case you would know he will. He voted with Scalia, Thomas, and Berger.

I tell you dude, you got that West Law Review. By the way since it is painfully obvious that you are not an attorney what set aside program are you employed under?

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM

OMG! A Conservative blog that tracks down a possible Obama embarrassment and clears Obama. Can you point me to a lefty blog that tracks down possible Palin embarrassments and clears her?
-
What a concept. A blog that puts truth ahead of ideology.

Mark30339 on September 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Newsbusters is still saying that the mother asked Obama not to wear the bracelet. According to them, the AP is posting misleading headlines. I think it is still up in the air as far as the truth goes.

Glynn on September 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM

So your whole argument is pretty much dependent on Kennedy changing his mind because of Obama’s election. I think he’s a bit more intellectually sophisticated then that. If Obama is elected the inequalities between blacks and whites in income, education and wealth will not disappear. I’ll now patiently await for your reply blaming these inequalities on blacks, playing the tired old game of assigning negative traits to an entire race.

Still waiting on a response Jdripper….why would Obama’s presidency mean the immediate invalidation of AA?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Anthony Kennedy will vote against AA. If you had bothered to read the Michigan case you would know he will. He voted with Scalia, Thomas, and Berger.

Also, the opinion I cited is from 2007, yours is from 2003. Which is a better indicator? We all know Kennedy has been trending left.

Also, you seem to love the Jim Crow quotes, so you must be familiar with this one…

Indeed, it is a cruel distortion of history to compare Topeka, Kansas, in the 1950’s to Louisville and Seattle in the modern day.to equate the plight of Linda Brown (who was ordered to attend a Jim Crow school) to the circumstances of Joshua McDonald (whose request to transfer to a school closer to home was initially declined).

Better check the West Law Review…lol

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Better check the West Law Review…lol

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 1:00 PM

crr you are hilarious. LOL You refuse to answer any questions. You misquote, you torture logic, you mislead, and attempt to engage in debate by constantly expanding and contracting the parameters of the argument.

Anthony Kennedy is trending left that is too funny for words.

I called a friend of mine and told him that he is still laughing. He is a professor of law and the constitution I just had to tell him.

You have been a nice and comical diversion from a very busy day.

You never answered any of my questions. You attempted to parse and spin your way through a question that was obviously above your pay grade. Good luck in the future trying to impress people in the future with your ability to copy and paste from Wikipedia.

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Oh I almost forgot it was Thurgood Marshall. In a speech he said that America would finally reach its rightful place in history when all of the laws that promise discrimination will finally be cast away “whether they be Jim Crow or to remedy evils done in the past”.
I agree with him discrimination is wrong no matter who does it or employs it. I have never prescribed in creating an evil to address an evil.
This will be a better country when AA and racism in all of its manifestations is eradicated. Surely you agree with Justice Marshall and me on that?

Jdripper on September 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM