Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on October 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama wants to make political hay over a controversial moment at the last Republican debate:

“You want to be commander-in-chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient,” the president told the crowd in reference to a recent Republican debate.

In case you didn’t catch the event in question, here’s the tape of a crowd acting in an un-American fashion while a Presidential hopeful doesn’t do anything to stand up for what’s right:

Oh, wait — here it is:

No, wait, that wasn’t it either. This is the actual clip:

As it happens, I agree with Herman Cain that someone on stage should have at least thanked the man for his service, and that booing him was wrong. But the clip puts this in perspective. It sounds like 3 people out of 3,000 actually booed — and I’m pretty sure that the candidates on the stage didn’t spend 20 years in that auditorium while claiming to have never heard anything “particularly controversial” from the person on stage, and just not from a couple of people in the audience.

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at [email protected] with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Blown way out of proportion because they have nothing else

cmsinaz on October 3, 2011 at 8:10 AM

turnabout is fair play.

booya

ted c on October 3, 2011 at 8:10 AM

I’m just curious why your sexual orientation should be known and talked about at ALL when concerning military service? DADT was a fine idea. Bcs it is not anyone’s business.
Unless I’m mistaken, wars are usually not fought with soldiers’ private parts.
DADT was not broken.
A few homosexuals in the crowd just wanted to flash around their sexual practices for the whole world to behold so that we would be forced to approve of it.
Which many of us do not.

Badger40 on October 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM

At least PBHO respects the troops enough to visit wounded soldiers at the Ramstein military hospital rather than shoot hoops for a photo-op.

Bishop on October 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Says the President who remains silent on his Administration running guns into Mexico that have killed at least one Border Patrol Agent.

ctmom on October 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM

I’m just curious why your sexual orientation should be known and talked about at ALL when concerning military service? Badger40 on October 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Or anywhere else! Far too many of us think we are far more interesting than we really are.

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Let’s not forget that Re-Rend Wright married Barack and Michelle and Baptized their children.

/But no, he never heard a controversial word spoken in that “church”

Key West Reader on October 3, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Says the President who remains silent on his Administration running guns into Mexico that have killed at least one Border Patrol Agent.

ctmom on October 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM

And many Mexicans have been killed by these guns, too.
What say you, Mr President?

itsnotaboutme on October 3, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Blown way out of proportion because they have nothing else

cmsinaz on October 3, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Well they have faux race issues too.

darwin-t on October 3, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Badger40 on October 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Aye, there’s the rub. It’s not enough that you accept the perversions or unnatural acts of others, you must embrace and celebrate them. Otherwise, you’re a vile homophobe (and that must be an awful thing because people always say that word with a sneer).

Extrafishy on October 3, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Yep.

gophergirl on October 3, 2011 at 8:27 AM

I didn’t see it, but by definition didn’t this soldier join the military despite knowing the policy of the military vis a vis homosexuality?

JohnTant on October 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Aww c’mon, we all know Barry never actually heard any of that anti-American, racist, anti-Semitic invective that his spiritual mentor Rev. Wright was spewing from the pulpit. Barry didn’t hear it when he was sitting in the pews, within spitting distance of Wright, for 20+ years, and he certainly didn’t hear it when he took audio tapes of Wright’s sermons with him to Harvard so that he could listen to them and learn to mimic Wright’s speaking style.

Perhaps we should take a page from CNN’s objective, unbiased style of “journalism” and declare this site to be a “Wright-free zone” whenever questions are raised about Barry’s long-term apprenticeship with that nasty bigot. It would be unfair and clearly raaaaacist to even hint that Barry’s close relationship with Wright may suggest troubling things about Barry’s character.

AZCoyote on October 3, 2011 at 8:31 AM

was America defended when that guy from the ‘hood, Billy Ayers, er….Professor William Ayers, said “guilty as hell, free as a bird, oh what a country!”???

ted c on October 3, 2011 at 8:34 AM

I’m just curious why your sexual orientation should be known and talked about at ALL when concerning military service?

Badger40 on October 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Or anywhere else! Far too many of us think we are far more interesting than we really are.

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Excellent comments.

hawkdriver on October 3, 2011 at 8:37 AM

And, then there’s this:

And so here we are again confronted with a situation in which Barack Obama’s choice of allies is likely to confound voters. Though his relationship with Rev. Meeks is not nearly as significant as his affiliation with “spiritual mentor” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Obama’s ties to Meeks are nonetheless disconcerting, particularly in the wake of his recent address on race in America and his campaign’s early fumble surrounding the decision to invite homophobic gospel artist Donnie McClurkin to perform at a campaign Faith and Family Values fundraiser in South Carolina.

Fallon on October 3, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Since the subject is kinda of about gays in the military did anyone hear about this case recently

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=26786

In some of the clips, he was shown wearing his Marine dress blue coat, complete with decorations and rank insignia; others showed him wearing a Marine physical training jacket. At one point he mentioned on-camera that he was a Marine, and still shots from the videos were used for online advertising, McClatchy reported.

[…]

He pleaded guilty to charges of misusing his uniform, but in its ruling the court set aside part of those convictions: Because Simmons never wore the complete uniform, there was no “visual evidence” for the general public of his government authority, and even though he identified himself as a Marine, he didn’t say they supported his behavior.

Seems like the court tried real hard to find away to make this go away.

warren on October 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM

The few and rare who were heard booing were not working to deride the soldier but the repeal of DADT.

It was the policy not the person.

CommentGuy on October 3, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Fast and Furious killed one of our soldiers. What is the president doing about that?

tinkerthinker on October 3, 2011 at 8:54 AM

This is why it is illegal for soldiers to participate in political activities while in uniform or otherwise making their status known — it politicizes the military when they are to remain neutral in serving the country regardless of their CinC’s political affiliation. A better POTUS would have taken him to task, but count on Oboobi to seize this as another tool to beat the opposing party over the head.

AH_C on October 3, 2011 at 8:55 AM

If you want to be commander in chief, you can start by remembering the name of the only living Medal of Honor recipient you were privileged enough to meet. (He’d met only one at the time he fluffed it.)

Quisp on October 3, 2011 at 9:01 AM

This is why it is illegal for soldiers to participate in political activities while in uniform or otherwise making their status known — it politicizes the military when they are to remain neutral in serving the country regardless of their CinC’s political affiliation. A better POTUS would have taken him to task, but count on Oboobi to seize this as another tool to beat the opposing party over the head.

AH_C on October 3, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Not anymore at least for Marine SGT Matthew W. Simmons.

warren on October 3, 2011 at 9:03 AM

It sounds like 3 people out of 3,000 actually booed

And I think those “3 people” (or thereabouts, I agree with your point, that it sounds like it was but a few individuals who boo’d [though very loudly]) were boo’ing the reversal of DADT, not the soldier. The soldier interjected his “gayness” in the issue and led to the homosexual agenda (pushing other demands in his questioning) and THAT is what was being boo’d, I am nearly certain.

I agree, too, that someone among the candidates ought to have thanked the soldier for his service, but the soldier was, in my view, out of line with what he was saying in relationship with the military AND Rick Santorum provided a very appropriate response to that, and did so politely (though didn’t include a “thank you” to the soldier).

Lourdes on October 3, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Fallon on October 3, 2011 at 8:40 AM

.
Another quote from the article you linked from 2008, “Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem”:

Some, like CNN contributor Roland S. Martin (who, for the record, is a member of Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church), say, as he did in a recent commentary on the cable news network: “Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.”

As usual, liberals will lecture us to death about “what’s fair” and turn around to commit the same acts they defame in words.
.
So, let’s focus on the candidates and their views on the issues so that Ø can be soundly defeated in November, 2012. Of course, we’ll have to do that with a biased, pro-Ø media.

ExpressoBold on October 3, 2011 at 9:09 AM

This is why it is illegal for soldiers to participate in political activities while in uniform or otherwise making their status known — it politicizes the military when they are to remain neutral in serving the country regardless of their CinC’s political affiliation. A better POTUS would have taken him to task, but count on Oboobi to seize this as another tool to beat the opposing party over the head.

AH_C on October 3, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Obama and the Left have seized upon this incident, such as it was and was not, because they have nothing else. Oh, wait, they have their irrational claims as to “racism” about Herman Cain and the Tea Party — about most of the Republicans, in fact, if not all of us — so they’re retreated to their sand castles of identity politics: if you’re not “one of this kind,” then you’ve just gotta’ be the devulll. Or something, in Leftspeak, like that.

Lourdes on October 3, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Far too many of us think we are far more interesting than we really are.

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Excellent quote, I’m going to bookmark it.

fossten on October 3, 2011 at 9:10 AM

didn’t this soldier join the military despite knowing the policy of the military vis a vis homosexuality?

JohnTant on October 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM

It’s called Homosexual Activism. They infiltrate (meaning, they “join” by deception, swear to oaths they don’t take seriously in most cases, or about which they have intent to violate despite the oaths sworn-to) for purposes of violating the oaths by one means or another.

I don’t see how anyone can honorably support the IDEA or concept of repealing DADT and still claim to be serving honorably. I say, the concept, because I acknowledge what some courts have decided about the policy, but the military does have the right/ability to establish and maintain it’s own code of ethics and required behaviors, so in that context, DADT isn’t up to the courts as to repealing it or not.

The “gay soldier”‘s “question” was, in my view, indecent.

Lourdes on October 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Wright: “We have bombed Gaddafi’s child!”

So has Barack HUSSEIN Obama…

Steve Z on October 3, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Steve Z on October 3, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Does it count if it was a lie?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2088074,00.html

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

You can count on the left to make a big deal out of anything that will distract from 4 years of accomplishing nothing.

GarandFan on October 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Obama, over and over has proven himself to be a great liar, and mediocre actor.

The problem is not his continuous lies…the problem is, those who still cheer at his lies, and believe everything he says or does, even with evidence to the contrary. The brainwashed morons.

capejasmine on October 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM

In my unit in Germany (1972 to 1975) we had two gay solders who shared a room. It was an open secret (you might say they were in the closet but the door was left open just a bit). They were decent guys who didn’t bother anyone so nobody gave them any crap. I even hung out with them sometimes, listened to 50’s and 60s’ rock & roll and drank beer. I just knew enough not to get too drunk around them…just in case. To my mind the system worked. Of course, as with anything run by the government, something that works must be tinkered with till the damn thing breaks.

SKYFOX on October 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Let’s not forget that lovely speech by one Jimmy Hoffa and the fervent disavowal of his comments by Jay Carney… Oh wait.

Drained Brain on October 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I served with gays for 30 years, Active and Reserve…

It never became an issue unless THEY outed themselves… And it was only an administrative issue, not a perspective issue…

Back in 1984 before WESTPAC deployment on my ship, a lot of them gave me “the letter” (prepared by a lawyer in San Diego; “I have never performed any homosexual act or acts onboard any US military base or installation… on and on…) because they know they would gets administratively discharged from the Navy with a TWSR (type warranted by discharge) discharge, no penalty in the civilian world… One of my collateral duties was “Legal Officer”, so I had to prepare and process EVERY ONE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGES… I had JUST gotten married, so the “last minute” ones took me away from my wife before the ship sailed… A temporary inconvenience for their personal (and selfish) discharge wishes…

Hell, one of the BEST Yeoman I ever had working for me was gay… But he kept it to himself, did his job, and there wasn’t any problem from my perspective…

Khun Joe on October 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

He wasn’t booed when he said he was a gay soldier. His QUESTION was b ooed. Listen to the audio.

DavidM on October 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I didn’t see it, but by definition didn’t this soldier join the military despite knowing the policy of the military vis a vis homosexuality?

JohnTant on October 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Yes, yes he did. And here’s the thing. He violated official policy, but not the desired goal. He isn’t old enough to have joined prior to the Clinton administration enacting DADT, so he has always served under that rule. However, the “stated” policy was that it was still improper to be on active duty as a homosexual, but that anybody currently serving who was not “outed” was not going to be bothered. DADT was an administrative standing, while the official military regulations still prohibited homosexual servicemembers. Which is why it was horrible policy, because it’s lose-lose, makes everybody vulnerable in one direction or another.

But that’s all beside the point. This soldier joined under regulations that prohibited his service, but with a condition in place that “made it ok” as long as he stayed “in”. He accepted those circumstances when he joined, it’s his own problem if he feared “losing his job”.

Freelancer on October 3, 2011 at 8:55 PM