Barrack Obama: Lying Sack of Shit

Yet another Obama lie:

Recall the Kissinger reference from debate? Surprise surprise... Obama was wrong!

Kissinger Unhappy About Obama
"Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

~

I like that McCain didn't even look at the rookie Senator...

 

Here's what Obama said in the debate:

Here's what Kissinger said:

Obama was right, and McCain just didn't know what his own adviser had said.

 

As an Obama supporter, I admit that he plays loose with some facts the way that . . . . wait for it . . . . all politicians do. The "100 years war" thing is a prime example and one that should be expected. Given that, I am trying to figure out from what you posted where the lie is?

He never said that "Republicans" shredded the regulations, only that "we" did this. Sure, that was a jab at republicans where he says that it comes in part from a philosophy that regulation is always bad, although there are democrats that fall into that definition as well. Hell, I fall into that definition with some qualifications.

He should certainly have to answer questions about Rubin as an advisor as should McCain answer questions about his advisors. Nothing new there.

 

No doubt.

There are some things that both have done that make my blood boil and then there are things both do that I just shrug and say "it's politics."

In fact, I think that is the biggest trap that Obama supporters fell into early on is thinking that this guy is not a politician. He is a very good one. He is also a pragmatist and has some good instincts. Given our current state, I think those are good things.

I like him for a number of reasons, but as you mentioned, just getting us out of Iraq and not getting us INTO Iran or other wars is reason enough to support him.

 

Obama/Biden for CHANGE...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0bWz79oFeo

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-25-earmarks_N.htm

 

Doesn't matter for two reasons. First, Biden and Obama have not run as earmark holy warriors. It is true that Obama has stopped requesting them as a candidate which is a purely political move, but he didn't make eamarks the hallmark of his campaign. Not only did McCain make them the centerpiece of his campaign, he exploited the shit out of Palin as his soulmate in the cause after selecting her.

Therefore, her record of going after earmarks aggressively as a mayor and as governor and her support for the bridge are relevant to a central theme of the McCain campaign in a way that they aren't in Obama's.

Second, the timing for this counter attack is piss poor and will get completely lost. Earmarks are a zit on the ever expanding ass that is our economic and spending problems. When you talk a couple three trillion for Iraq and the bailout, 18 bill a year is literally close to nothing. Earmarks and even spending more generally have little to do with the current crises which is all the voters are focused on right now.

 

The epidemic of earmarks, in graphic form:

 

Yeah, let's pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It's really not important.

Why not then bash Obama for his central theme then? CHANGE.

 

When it is warranted, I certainly do.

If you are specifically asking about earmarks and change the answer would be because Obama has not made earmarks a central theme of his change argument.

For one think, it is just too simplistic. Not all earmarks are created equal. Take a look at Obama's requests. He published them all. Some I question but the great, great majority are worthwhile projects. Not a Woodstock museum in the bunch.

I don't know that much about Biden's but when I do, I will be happy to comment. I do know that there is not much difference between the study of bear and Harbor Seal DNA. So, will McCain make Palin famous?

Final note. I think many people have the wrong concept on Obama's change. It has to do with lessening the influence of money on the political process and generating government from the bottom up. Something all should be able to support although I will concede that some will think it is pie in the sky thinking.

 

You mean where he said he was going to do the government matching because to not do so would make himself beholdened to his donors, and then, lo and behold, when he was generating such a large amount of money he suddenly turned down the federal matching so he could raise more?

 

Yes. That is exactly what I mean.

I would have to go back and find it in one of the old election forum Obama threads, but I was critical of him for only paying lip service to his committment to sit down with the republican nominee to discuss a way for both camps to only use public financing.

As to your comment above, he never "pledged" to take public financing only that he preferred public financing and would meet with the other side. He wasn't going to leave himself hanging to the unlimited swift boat dollars that can be generated. Again, he half-assed his pledge to meet with McCain about this but it's hard to blame him when just a month earlier, the NC republican party was running Rev. Wright ads which McCain SAID he was against but seemed powerless to control. That was the party. Forget about Corsi and the rest.

So, yes I was not a fan of how Obama handled the issue. On your second point, however, I am not as concerned because the huge numbers he has raised HAVE come from small donors who are expecting nothing in return. Even the big hollywood dollars don't bother me as they don't have much of an agenda beyond their own political beliefs.

Finally, I think he was vindicated a couple of weeks ago. When McCain was trashing him for his fundraiser at Babs place, McCain was out the very same night raising $5 million . . . but wait . . . that was after the convention when he was supposed to be on public financing, right? My point. Too many to game the system to get worked up about it.

 

I recognize that he can only take "small" donations. So I don't know that I agree with his original premise, $2000 isn't going to make any politician owe anybody anything (unless it's the people who are able to pull in a lot of other donors - which is probably what he meant). And I don't remember his quote, nor am I going to look it up, but he talked about how it corrupted people in Washington so he wasn't going to do it. It's not something he made a central theme in his campaign, but having talked about it as such an evil, it's a pretty big flip-flop.

 

Ok, I swear I didn't see this earlier when I posted, but here is a little further vindication:

Weeks after John McCain mocked Barack Obama for raising money in Hollywood "with his celebrity friends," the Arizona Senator is slated to join his wife for a fundraiser on Los Angeles' Avenue of the Stars this Wednesday.

The McCain-Palin Victory California Leadership team is sponsoring the October 1 event at the Century Plaza Hyatt Regency in L.A. Supporters who bundle at least $250,000 receive entrance to a host committee dinner and private reception; others can attend the general reception for $1,000 per person (or $2,500 per person for a limited edition "McCain-Palin CA" lapel pin).

The event comes two weeks after McCain chided Obama for fundraising in southern California. "He talked about siding with the people just before he flew off for a fundraiser in Hollywood with Barbra Streisand and his celebrity friends," McCain told a crowd in Ohio. "Let me tell you, my friends, there's no place I'd rather be than right here with the working men and women of Ohio."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/mccain-to-hold-la-fundrai_n_130195.html



The bottom line is that there was going to be no conceivable way to limit the campaigns to $85 million. The loop holes are too big. Look at John McCain. Apparently on October 1, his hard working "friends" in Ohio can go ******** themselves. . . At least until the checks clear.

 

Your bullshit don't fly here... At the beginning of his campaign Barack Obama made a pact with John McCain that, if the two were to be their party’s nominees, each would accept public financing for the general election. Obama made a promise that he thought would be cost-free and McCain took him up on the offer; Obama lied his ass off and broke his pledge.

You can spin this anyway you want. But don't try to cover Obama's lie because it's on record.

 

Link? Seriously, Link?

I have never seen a quote from Obama saying flat out, "I will accept public financing." If you got it. Bring it. If not, then you are doing nothing but lying about a "lie."

Now, I have actually been critical of my candidate on this, and you? Please justify how a candidate who so strongly supports publicly financed campaigns is out there holding multi-million dollar fundraisers with Hollywood elites.

Would it really have helped the system if Obama took the public dollars and then raised $60 million a month for the DNC that would turn around and spend the money on his campaign?

Obama did not act in good faith by simply sending some lower level people to talk briefly to McCain's people, however, there is no way you can tell me that McCain is living up to his ideals about campaign financing. If he were, he would simply be campaigning now and not hosting big ticket fundraisers right up to the election.

 

Obama Waffling on Campaign Finance Promise?
"On November 27, 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public interest groups based in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, released the results of a questionnaire that they sent to all of the presidential candidates.The following question was on the questionnaire: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?"

OBAMA Answer: Yes.

We told you Obama is a liar; it's on record!

 

You know, it is difficult to make the argument that someone is a lying sack of shit when you are a lying sack of shit.

From your very own conservative link.

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


Now, I have criticized the man because I don't think he did "aggressively" pursue an agreement with McCain. That is very different then Obama simply making a blanket, declarative statement that he would accept public financing. This answer is consistent with everything he has ever said on the issue. Please join me in criticizing Obama for failing to go beyond a meeting between campaign lawyers before opting out, but please stop lying.

 

Lie... worship would be the active verb here...

He didn't pursue at all, "aggressively" or otherwise...

Your understanding of "different" is leagues apart from the rest of America...

He lied here; which is consistent with his other lies - a consistent liar.

Oh I criticize him for this and many other things to be sure...

 

I will put my faith in my conservative friends around these parts to be able to read. There is sufficient info to criticize Obama on public financing without lying and then denying it.

 

If Obama's lies are not apparent to you now they will be later.

 

Obama's lying continued in third debate last evening:

From debate:

MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So — and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers’ living room.

OBAMA: That’s absolutely not true.

MCCAIN: And the facts are facts and records are records.

OBAMA: And that’s not the facts.

As we all now know, (1) Obama paid ACORN over $800,000 for GOTV efforts and (2) Obama's campaign did launch his career at a party hosted by Ayers. Which begs the legitimate question: How do we know whether Senator Obama is lying lately? Is his mouth open?

 

Obama "launched" his political career at the home of some Rabbi whose name escapes me right now.