Wrong in the small things


21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ Matthew 25:21 NIV

As I’ve listened to the Republican speeches this week, I’ve noticed a nasty trend:  They get small things wrong, usually just for a good line.  Good Hollywood writing, but snarky, and missing historical context.  Good speeches, but a preface to bad policy, I fear.

Two examples.

First, I listened to the smarm from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee Wednesday night. It’s always a struggle to listen to Huckabee because of the way he mangles facts.  He had a great laugh line:

In fact, I don’t know if you realize this, but Sarah Palin got more votes running for mayor in Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden did in two quests for the presidency — that oughta tell you something.

Well, yeah, it tells me Mike Huckabee can’t count.

I remember looking at vote totals, and Biden’s were not great, compared to others like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  But I would have sworn Biden got a couple thousand votes in Texas, or some other race after he’d dropped out.  That should be approximately equal to a winning candidate in a town like Wasilla, which has 9,000 residents if you count the sled dogs and every moose that’s ever wandered through (slight exaggeration — the population is officially listed at under 6,000).

Sure enough, it turns out that Biden got almost 80,000 votes in the Democratic primaries this campaign.  Palin would have had to have gotten every man, woman, child and dog in Wassilla to vote for her, nine times each, to equal that vote. Huckabee was off by a factor of 9.   Huckabee can’t count.

What else in Huckabee’s speech was off by a factor of 9?

Then, Thursday night, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge said that 230 years ago this nation was founded by men who were called mavericks themselves:

More than 230-plus years ago, a group of leaders – some people called them mavericks – dared to think differently, dared to act boldly and dared to believe its future leaders would preserve, honor and protect the great land of the free.

Oh, really?  Who called them mavericks?  That would have been very prescient of them — the phrase didn’t come into use until cattle became big business in Texas, more than 100 years after the founding.  The word comes from a Texas cattleman, Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803-1870), who used to leave his stock unbranded, and then claim all unbranded cattle on a range as his.  It was a semi-legal way to steal cattle from his neighbors.

Critically, Maverick’s having been born in the year of the Louisiana Purchase, it’s highly unlikely that anyone in Philadelphia in 1776, the event Ridge was obviously referring to, would have called themselves after his actions 75 or 100 years or more in the future.

David Barton, the King of the Misquote and Mangled Quote, was a Texas delegate — surely he could have corrected these minor historical errors — had Barton any idea about what really happened in history.

Should we dismiss this errors as one-liner jokes, or do Republicans really deserve criticism for failing to know history?  It’s astounding that they’d get wrong the well-known history of our founding, don’t you think?

Coupled with Sarah Palin’s defense of the Pledge of Allegiance — “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me” (the pledge was written by a socialist minister in 1892, more than a century after the Constitution) — one could make a case that ignorance is a value the Republicans value, in their audiences.

Advertisements

35 Responses to Wrong in the small things

  1. lowerleavell says:

    My post went into the filter with the web site. Here it is again, without the link fully intact.

    This is from Wikipedia:

    “According to ABC News[60], former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

    The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them.
    Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
    The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
    Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours.
    The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
    Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.”

    Do they go too far and should I as a citizen condemn their practices. I have and I do. I agree with you here. Bush, in trying to stop evil (which is a good thing), is crossing the moral gray in order to “save innocent lives.” I think he has gone too far as well, especially with the waterboarding. It undermines the US’s credibility.

    But, there is a flip side. What would would you recommend that we do to gain information from terrorists that may be planning on killing American citizens? Give them the VIP treatment at the Ritz?

    It should be noted that McCain actually stood up to Bush on this topic and condemned him, not just with words, but with legislation.

    msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/

    By the way, what McCain went through was a LOT worse than what the Bush administration has put suspected terrorists through (though this is not meant to be justification of Bush, but rather a statement for accuracy). I’m sure that at the end of the day, the terrorists could still raise their shoulders into a salute. Not so with McCain.

    While I think that Bush was probably appalled by Abu Ghraib, I think you have a point that he did open the barn door for those who would not be so appalled.

    Like

  2. lowerleavell says:

    This is from Wikipedia:

    “According to ABC News[60], former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

    The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them.
    Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
    The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
    Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours.
    The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
    Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.”

    Do they go too far and should I as a citizen condemn their practices. I have and I do. I agree with you here. Bush, in trying to stop evil (which is a good thing), is crossing the moral gray in order to “save innocent lives.” I think he has gone too far as well, especially with the waterboarding. It undermines the US’s credibility.

    But, there is a flip side. What would would you recommend that we do to gain information from terrorists that may be planning on killing American citizens? Give them the VIP treatment at the Ritz?

    It should be noted that McCain actually stood up to Bush on this topic and condemned him, not just with words, but with legislation.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/

    By the way, what McCain went through was a LOT worse than what the Bush administration has put suspected terrorists through (though this is not meant to be justification of Bush, but rather a statement for accuracy). I’m sure that at the end of the day, the terrorists could still raise their shoulders into a salute. Not so with McCain.

    While I think that Bush was probably appalled by Abu Ghraib, I think you have a point that he did open the barn door for those who would not be so appalled.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Cheney personally insisted that the people who brought those tactics to Abu Ghraib be put there, for just that sort of “questioning.” The barn door was opened on orders from the president. He can’t really claim to be surprised that the animals got out, can he?

    Joe, that stuff is what we prosecuted, and executed, Axis Power officials for in World War II. What sort of war crimes would be acceptable to you? The attempts to redefine torture and war crimes, and the desperate attempts to keep Bush himself from indictment, should have been clues to us all.

    According to the official Bush administration position, including the written disavowal of the law Congress passed to make torture illegal again, John McCain was not tortured in Vietnam. Does that tell you how far the administration has strayed from the legal and moral paths?

    Like

  4. lowerleavell says:

    I was aware of waterboarding. I wasn’t aware that Bush commanded sodomizing prisoners and making them pose nude.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Concrete proof? How about the request to the attorney general to get the opinion that torture is okay? How about the VP’s office intervening to rewrite the Justice Department opinion to make sure torture was okay? How about the express actions to get that opinion to CIA to slap the CIA’s interrogators around into complying with the White House request for torture? How about the use of the Chinese torture manual, exposed by the Senate Intelligence Committee?

    It’s all in the 911 report and two recent Senate hearings. How can there be anyone unfamiliar with this material now?

    Like

  6. lowerleavell says:

    Not sure I defended Bush anywhere, where wrong was done. Again, do you really expect me to defend something like Abu Ghraib? Do you have concrete evidence that Bush authorized Abu Ghraib or are you throwing around wild accusations?

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Three meetings tonight, one I’ll miss completely. I think you’ve got a need for a long response, Joe, and I’ll probably never find the time.

    Maybe some ad seriatum:

    4) Spend as much time as possible hating Bush and criticizing anything to do with Iraq;

    Well, I think it’s important to stand up for America, even and especially when it requires calling Bush out, pointing out his manifold errors.

    The invasion of Iraq was a screwup, a royal bollux. In his claiming to be certain where the information was not so solid, in his discouraging of any contrary information, in his ignoring the completely contrary intelligence developed by our own and our allies’ intelligence agencies, Bush had a profound and potentially America-killing failure of leadership. His actions have risked our nation for very small gain. We needed leaders but got gamblers instead.

    Once in Iraq, Bush screwed up the execution of the operation, refusing to listen to the military about how many troops would be required. In doing so he risked, and has lost, most or all of the gains we had made.

    In authorizing torture, Bush has brought America down to a level with other state-sponsored terrorists. The Abu Ghraib incident, with the express authorization of Bush, is the sort of stuff spoken of in Genesis as the justification for the rain of brimstone and fire that took out Sodom and Gomorrah. Bush has painted you with sin as great as all of Sodom.

    When we are lead by people who are genuinely evil, even by accident, can we afford to compromise, Joe? Would it have done any good for Sodom to point out that everyone in those cities wore flag lapel pins?

    I’m curious how and why you would defend torture and policy screwups so bad that they risk our very nation. It’s not bias, it’s love of freedom and fear of God that makes me so down on Bush on this stuff.

    Like

  8. lowerleavell says:

    “And reality has a well-known liberal bias” – says Stephen Colbert, the master of tongue in cheek. :-)

    Like

  9. Ediacaran says:

    lowerleavell writes::”Ed, I really hate to point out this aspect, but your post echos like liberal talking points.”

    “And reality has a well-known liberal bias.” — Stephen Colbert

    Like

  10. lowerleavell says:

    I guess this conversation as well as the conversation on sex education is over. It’s just as well, since I have a lot of other things to do.

    Thanks for your time Ed.

    Like

  11. lowerleavell says:

    How do you tactfully and nicely tell someone that they are drinking too much kool-ade? Ed, I really hate to point out this aspect, but your post echos like liberal talking points. 1) It’s the Republicans to blame; 2) It’s these religious wackos out there we need to get rid of; 3) Are you really defending Saddam Insane?; 4) Spend as much time as possible hating Bush and criticizing anything to do with Iraq; 5) apparently the Democrats are incapable of error, except a little white lie about adultery every now and then 6) (straight from Obama’s mouth) “we can’t afford another four years of a Republican in the White House.”

    I just had thought that you were more of an independent than a loyal party member liberal. This is one thing that you have to understand about conservatives. If there are those in the Republican party who are wrong or are doing things that are harmful to our country, we’re going to speak up. Why? My loyalty is not to a party or a president. My loyalty as a citizen is to the USA, and it doesn’t matter which party is in office, they better do a good job of taking care of our country! So, like I said, I’m not defending the Republicans. I’m not all that upset about Iraq (though it would take a long time to tell all the mistakes made), but I’m more upset about domestic failures and all the pork that came from a Republican Congress during Bush’s first six years (by the way, the liberals who are now in control are doing an even worse job of getting anything accomplished – what’s up with an early vacation and no vote on energy?) Apparently, I’m learning that liberals don’t do that with the Democratic party. Either 1) Democrats are not capbable of lying or misleading or making mistakes, or 2) you can see their mistakes and policy failures, but it would hurt the Democrats politically, so you keep your words in check. This goes back to the “would rather lose an election than lose a war” comment which we hear over, and over, and over. :-) the problem is, it’s true! The Dems actually WANT us to lose in Iraq because they chose politics over country. They were frustrated by the success of the surge and refuse to give credit where its due. A party should never be in the position where winning a war makes them look bad. It’s just…wrong! No wonder the Repubs have chosen “country first” as their logo, because Obama and the Dems are simply wanting to win an election at the expense of our country. And apparently, no good Democrat can call them on it. I’d hold my breath to see if you agree with me about the Dems, but I don’t want to pass out waiting.

    I’m a Baptist. I’ll admit it. But when the Baptist name becomes more of a hindrance than a help to the cause of Christ, I will no longer be a Baptist. Why? Because I’m a Christian first. The same is true with my being a Republican. I’m an American first, and if they are in the wrong, my loyalty is not with the Republicans but with my country. I agree with them when they agree with me. I’ll vote for them to represent me when they actually represent me. However, what you need to undersand is that going for guys like Obama and Biden for a conservative is like going from being a Baptist to becoming a Mormon. It just isn’t the direction that the country needs to go, even if there are things about the Republicans that could and should be doing a lot better.

    Ok, specifically to answer your posts.

    Are you really expecting me to get on here and defend guys like Robertson, Hagee, etc.? A lot of those guys have become the Wright of the Right. It’s not a pastor’s job to spend all their time talking politics (and I really wish we could just get back to the main point I was trying to make – consistency when condemning wrong doing – wrong is wrong, no matter which party), nor is it a pastor’s job to try and get votes for any political party. I refuse to address politics from the pulpit. My job is to proclaim the Word of God, not the word of the Republicans OR the Democrats. I will talk about principles, and I will defend the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage, and other things that the Bible clearly teaches, but it is not my place to tell people who to vote for and who is right or wrong for America. Those preachers, both right or left, who have done so, have given up their number one calling. Policies won’t save America. Only Jesus Christ will! Where should a pastor’s priority be?

    Back to consistency, you’re defending Obama for cutting Wright off, when he had the opportunity to do so for 20 years and didn’t do it until it was politically suicide not to. Yeah, I’d say that was quick on the draw. The reason Republicans haven’t done so with Robertson and others is probably because they are still more popular than unpopular and they want the votes they represent. Obama didn’t need the baggage that Wright brought, so he dumped him. If Wright were really popular and his views were considered mainstream, do you think Obama would have left his church? Absolutely not! Obama’s after votes – not consistency and integrity!

    Bush was wrong, and has admitted he was wrong after 9/11. He is the one who is constantly talking about “learning the lessons from 9/11” not the left. The left now want us to believe that 9/11 was a fluke and we can go back to life before 9/11 now. It also wasn’t Bush that had Osama in his cross hairs and let him go, it was Clinton. It was also interesting that it was Clinton who was bombing Iraq all the time, having “no fly zones”, etc, and talking about how dangerous Hussein was. Even he thought there were WMDs (oh yeah, back then there were).

    I think Bush can handle the blame for al Queada moving to Iraq. Frankly, I think he would be glad that the battle ground wasn’t New York or Washington D.C. It isn’t being fought by citizens but by our best soldiers. No, this point, I don’t really have a problem with.

    Securing Iraq – yeah, that was a problem and a mistake. Legitimate criticism.

    As far as Petraeus’ comments, I think you should note that you are only telling half the story. He also said, “We got down at the people level and are staying. Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen.”

    Once the people knew that the Bush wasn’t going to let the Dems take us out of Iraq prematurely, they understood that if they stood up to al Queada, they weren’t going to get slaughtered when a Democrat Congress pulled America out. If Obama and the Dems had their way, we would have been out long before the surge and would have left Iraq a complete mess and a whole country…no, a whole world region…no, maybe even the whole world, angry with us for leaving them high and dry to have a civil war, and making the world an even more dangerous place than with Insane in power. This is an important point, because it was the Democrat’s policies to stand up against Bush in the war that kept the war going so long to begin with. The militants best chance was to see a Democrat Congress and president, because they would let al Queada win! The people in Iraq knew that, and so they wouldn’t stand up to al Queada until they knew we were in it for the long haul. It’s shameful that a party would have a vested interest in the US losing the war, and frankly, I blame the deaths of many of our soldiers squarely on the liberals in Congress and the libs who follow them, who would not support Bush in winning this war. How many soldiers died because the libs gave terrorists hope?

    As far as time in WWII, after we defeated Germany, we didn’t have the French and the Poles coming into Germany to try and kill our soldiers and blow up buildings. All of Europe was thrilled that the war was over and peace was relatively quickly achieved (except that big Russian juggernaut deal). Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have been major reasonw why it has taken so long to acheive victory. I think if we had secured the nation from foreign attacks (which would have been pretty difficult, but necessary), this war would have been over a long time ago.

    You said, “If we pulled out tomorrow, al Queada can’t claim victory.” That’s because of Bush, Petraeus, and our awesome troops in Iraq! What would have happened if the Dems had gotten their way back in ’06? We can only say that al Queada can’t claim victory, because WE are the ones who are gaining the victory in Iraq, no thanks to guys like Obama who should be ashamed of their positions, not proud.

    As far as the “we cannot afford another four years of a Republican in the White House” bit, I actually would agree if the answer were something better. Going in the wrong direction isn’t cured by going in a worse direction. The blind leading the blind….man this country needs Jesus!

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    “God $#@! America!” But I’m sure those were out of context too. Again, it goes back to both parties.

    I don’t know. I think Rod Parsley, Jon Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the late Jerry Falwell all meant it when they said it. It’d be nice if McCain would disavow the remarks, though, the way Obama cut off the one religious nut on his side. But Republicans are always slow on the draw — look at the way Bobby Jindal has let Baton Rouge rot for a week after being hammered by Gustav. But I digress.

    I don’t really understand the “alQueada’s no threat” remark. Iraq has been the central front where AlQueada has attacked us in the past several years, and the Dems have wanted to simply allow them to claim victory and leave (though I think the Iraqi’s deserve us to leave them to their own mess, I don’t think we can afford to now). I just don’t understand how you can make this remark.

    Bush and his advisors promised to get the U.S. out of entanglements in foreign affairs, to stop “nation building.” Clinton’s 8-year campaign to kill Osama bin Laden was foolish, they said. Bush refused even to be briefed on terrorism dangers prior to taking office, and on January 22, 2001, Bush signed the order stopping the hunt for Osama bin Laden and lifting the order to kill him. Al Queada was no threat, they said. After all, the Bush folk appear to have rationalized, al Queada hadn’t mounted a successful attack at all, and nothing that produced any explosions since the 1983 bombing of the World Trade Center.

    Saddam Hussein was hated by al Queada. Saddam refused to let them train in Iraq, and he was the model of the secular Islamic state that Osama bin Laden hated. There was no al Queada activity in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. If al Queada’s central front moved to Iraq after the U.S. invasion, I think the blame for that can be squarely and fairly laid int he lap of George W. Bush. It was his administration’s failure to plan to secure Iraq that allowed the looting of the Iraq National Museum, that allowed the looting of the few bomb dumps Saddam had, and that allowed al Queada to come over the borders into Iraq.

    As Gen. Petraeus notes, it wasn’t anything the U.S. did that has led to a reduction in violence over the past few months, but instead the local Iraqi tribes’ getting fed up with al Queada and throwing them out. The Iraqis succeeded where the U.S. had failed, providing evidence that perhaps the best solution is to get U.S. troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Our involvement in Iraq is already 1.5 times as long as our involvement in World War II, and much, much more expensive in non-inflation-adjusted dollars (maybe in inflation-adjusted dollars, too.)

    If we pulled out tomorrow, al Queada can’t claim victory. Everyone in the Arab world knows what’s gone on in Iraq. McCain keeps jumping up and down about how the surge worked. He needs to thank Petraeus and the Iraqis, and figure out that the surge was late, and the Iraqis are still, justifiably, ticked off about our failure to protect them and their borders, with enough troops to begin with. Bringing in a bunch more, late, was not a golden answer.

    Right, I’m pointing to Republican errors that we need to correct. They are why we cannot afford another four years of a Republican in the White House.

    Like

  13. lowerleavell says:

    Again, I’m not offering a defense of the Republicans. A lie is a lie, regardless of the source. For many Americans, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Which party is going to leave me alone to achieve my goals the most? You can see my cynicism towards both parties.

    Politicians lie because they think they can get away with it or that they are giving a lie for the greater good. With words being twisted so much these days, if you do your own twisting, you can go back later and say your words were twisted, like “For the first time, I’m proud of my country.” “God $#@! America!” But I’m sure those were out of context too. Again, it goes back to both parties.

    I really had high hopes for Bush, and I continue to pray for him. I hope you do the same. I know a pastor in SD who wouldn’t listen to one president joke until you first told him that you were praying for the president every day. I hope and pray that even if you don’t agree with him, you’re praying for him.

    I don’t really understand the “alQueada’s no threat” remark. Iraq has been the central front where AlQueada has attacked us in the past several years, and the Dems have wanted to simply allow them to claim victory and leave (though I think the Iraqi’s deserve us to leave them to their own mess, I don’t think we can afford to now). I just don’t understand how you can make this remark.

    Again, you’re pointing ONLY to the Republicans here. Why aren’t you being consistent and pointing out that both parties have a proven track record of lying?

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    Consistency? With George W. “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction,” “I’ll fully fund the No Child Left Behind Bill,” “we don’t torture,” “waterboarding is not torture,” “we will comply with all international treaties,” “we never tapped any phones,” “we need to tap phones to fight terrorism,” “John Kerry was not a hero,” sure we’ll allow DDT to be used against malaria,” “I want to spend $1 billion to fight AIDS in Africa” Bush in the lead? You want consistency?

    I’d settle for a lie that doesn’t kill anyone. Consistent dishonesty is not more honorable than an occasional whopper, especially one that is just misspeaking.

    My point on Clinton was that he told the whole truth as Starr asked for it. He even asked if Starr didn’t want to change the question to get a different answer. He answered truthfully, and the matter was insignificant.

    And you know, Joe, that’s a key problem with Republicans that last 20 years. They were certain it was more important to get Bill Clinton, even just for a small sex act, than they thought it was important to chase al Quaeda and protect the nation. Clinton held al Quaeda off for 8 years. Bush couldn’t do it for 8 months.

    Give me an occasionally lyin’ about extra-marital affairs, America-first, save the lives of thousands Democrat over a consistently lyin’, “alQueada’s no threat” flag lapel-pin-wearing Republican any day.

    Like

  15. lowerleavell says:

    Ah, the trap of semantics. I remember something about swearing to tell the “whole truth” on top of everything else. The whole truth being that he did indeed have an affair. Also, perhaps he did not commit perjury in the court of law (they don’t call him “slick Willey” for nothing), but he did give a bold face lie to the American people. “I did not have sex with that woman…Miss Lewinsky.” So, where does that rate “by Biblical standards”?

    Basically, all I’m saying (and I really hate re-living something that happened that long ago) is that you are being inconsistent of accusing the Republicans of doing something that Democrats are famous for. Consistency is all I’m looking for.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Not just lying by mis-leading, but straight up purgering himself and directly lying to the American people to save his own skin.

    Let’s be careful not to fall victim to the spinmeisters. Clinton committed perjury?

    No. Perjury would be knowing false testimony on a relevant subject in a case at trial. Clinton’s testimony was determined to be accurate, but he was held to a higher standard — the court said that he should have corrected Ken Starr’s errors. Clinton noted that he did try to correct the errors, but Starr objected. The trial court said Clinton, as an attorney, had an obligation to correct Starr despite Starr’s refusal to be corrected. (This is where we get the famous quote, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Starr argued that “is” should necessarily imply all past tenses. During the deposition, Clinton even asked Starr’s people to clarify what they meant, whether “is” means “currently” or “in the past.” They chose “currently.” Then they complained that the testimony was in error when Clinton answered “no” to a direct question about whether he had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, “Is there a sexual relationship . . .” Lewinsky had been gone from the White House for several months. Anything that might have been colorable under “is” was no longer operative.

    But, the court also ruled that the testimony in question was not relevant at all to the case, and it was never admitted as evidence.

    No perjury. By Biblical standards, not false. Only objectionable if we apply the higher standards of the legal profession.

    Like

  17. lowerleavell says:

    Oh, I watched the video. Wish he could have made a reference to God, but besides that, great speech! :-) No one should doubt the power of a great presentation, that’s for sure. Again, it can be really positive, or used for something really negative.

    Like

  18. lowerleavell says:

    Yeah, I’m interested in seeing Palin without a script too. I’m sure all eyes will be on the vice-presidential debate.

    You don’t think politicians either lie by omition or by commission? Clinton is the most recent president who made lying a work of art. Not just lying by mis-leading, but straight up purgering himself and directly lying to the American people to save his own skin.

    The jury (at least my own) is still out on Bush. Let’s not get into a debate on the Iraq war or whether or not it was necessary. Neither of us has time. :-)

    Yeah, I’ve read many excerpts from Obama’s books. I have watched at least 4-5 hours worth of speeches, watched his debates with Hilary, watched the Saddleback debate. I only got watch about 1/2 of his acceptance speech, but I read most of the transcripts. I’m very familiar with Obama and what he stands for, based on what he has said…and it scares me to death what he would do to this country if he got behind the reigns. Between destroying our healthcare (which needs help, not exterminated), raising all our taxes (either directly or through increases costs at the pump, grocery store, and every small business that we go to), destroying the economy by cutting jobs, by making it impossible for small businesses to afford more labor, making it extremely difficult for people like my grandparents (who are already having a hard time with the current tax burden) who worked a life time to build their own apartment complex (and countless other small business owners) make ends meet. I’ll tell you what, they’re scared of an Obama presidency because it would equal financial ruin! I’m telling you, based solely on his policy propositions (which are hard to find through all the rhetoric and fluff), this guy is the worst Democratic nominee I’ve ever seen. Between Bill Clinton and Obama, I’d vote for Clinton any day, and that’s saying a lot.

    But I like Obama as a person. I’d love to sit down and chat with him. I’d love to have an afternoon to just hang out. He seems very personable and easy to talk with. His appeal is unquestionable. I enjoy listening to him and could do so for a long time. No one questions his amazing personality and abilities. Those abilities can be used in a positive way, or in a real negative way. From his policy positions, I would see him taking this country in a real, tangible, declining direction that I don’t know what would take to recover from.

    You want to talk about a loose cannon? We have no idea what Obama would do with the presidency besides bringing socialism and redistribution. No real experience to draw from anything different. Just prepared speeches and a couple of books. People have been attacking Palin for not having experience and not being ready to step into the #1 place if something happens to McCain, but the Dems have someone with the same, if not less experience going straight for that #1 place at the get go. It’s not consistent.

    You are saying that we can make a genuine separation between candidates on accuracy? How does Obama measure up to that standard? How about how he said one day that Iran wasn’t a threat and then a couple days later they are? Regarding his Selma speech, wasn’t that an innacurate statement? Perhaps he was born as a “result” of civil rights, but NOT as a result of his father marching with Dr. King. Was that just a gaffe, or was it purposefully scripted to motivate people march with him into the pit of Hell, as you have said of others.

    How many horrible policies are well scripted and dressed up to make them look appealing and beneficial? – To illustrate, I know of a pastor who had a very charsmatic personality and would draw people in and hold their attention for long periods of time. One message, he really started raising his voice and getting passionate, and people were saying “Amen” and “Praise the Lord!” etc. He kept getting more passionate and louder for about five minutes and the response from his audience was incredible. Then he stopped. He then told his congregation that he had been speeking blatent heresy for about five minutes and no one noticed. Why? Because it was all in the presentation. He warned them not to follow someone based on their presentation, but on the content of their words. That’s exactly what I see in Obama. No one seems to notice just how horrible his policies, simply because of his party affiliation, his great presentation, and his great ability to take something that is harmful and make it look like the best plan in the world. Oh, and his ability to speek for 20 minutes and never really say anything. :-)

    And it seems to be working. How far will you take your loyalty to Obama?

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    We’ve not seen Palin without a script. Loose cannon.

    I think it’s a sad commentary that you think politicians are good at lying. I think they make gross errors in history and economics, but that, with the exception of those things I’ve noted above, they don’t intentionally prevaricate.

    So we can make a genuine separation between candidates on accuracy. Those who are not accurate will tend to lead us into unnecessary wars, deep recessions, unnecessary recessions, and other destructive paths.

    To distinguish, one needs to pay attention.

    Have you read either of Obama’s books?

    [And, by the way, have you watched this speech, from a prepared script? It’s well worth the nine minutes.]

    Like

  20. lowerleavell says:

    That’s really cool that you used to be a speech writer! Boy Ed, you just seem like the kind of guy that I’d love to sit down over a cup of hot chocolate and just get your life story! You’ve done a lot!

    I’m sure every president had their share of gaffes, including Clinton and Bush 1. The more a president speaks, the more they are subject to making mistakes. I’m learning as a pastor that I’m definitely subject to gaffes too! :-) It’s interesting that we’re having this discussion since I am speaking on how to edify and give grace in our speech tomorrow night at church. :-) Also, how to understand when someone makes a mistake in their speech, and give them grace to make mistakes. In this cuthroat society of politics, the slightest miscalculation in speech could be devestating, as Howard Dean well knows too.

    I do think though that you are on the wrong side of this discussion if you want to talk about speeches “intended to get people to follow the speaker into hell…” There’s only one crafty speech-giver (although Palin did a good job too) who holds an almost cult-like following simply because of their good speech-writers and good delivery. Obama is dead in the water when he doesn’t have a script, which is evident by all the hums and haws and calculating what to say that won’t get him in trouble with voters or his base during debates (which yes, I’ve been watching), instead of just stating what he believes.

    Again, as far as “intentional falsehoods go”, neither party is particularly good. “Read my lips…”, “I did not have sex with that woman…I did not inhale (ad infintum).” You name it…politicians are good at lying. I make no exception with Obama or John McCain, (but especially Obama – the guy really freaks me out!). Both are trying to get elected and I think both would do whatever it took to accomplish that goal (though one would like to see us lose a war to make sure he is politically safe). But you try and pin this one on Republicans and not be fair to pin it on the Democrats and I’ll start thinking that you’ve got a couple of biases and aren’t really as much of an independant thinker as I took you for.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    Malkin has no room to talk. And Joe, I used to be a speechwriter. You could fill a library with Ronald Reagan’s gaffes — the ones that were noted. Two libraries would be required for his gaffes that went unremarked upon. Malkin’s whole premise is a crock. Republicans don’t get hammered any more than Democrats. Biden got chased out of a presidential some years ago because of a rather manufactured gaffe — he failed to offer the citation for a quote he gave, and he was accused of plagiarism. Nevermind the three previous occasions when he’d offered the quote with proper and careful attribution.

    I don’t read Obama’s line on being a product of the civil rights movement as inaccurate. His birth certainly wasn’t the product of the famous march in Selma, but if you’ve read the story of his mother’s romance with his father, you’d see that the gist is right. One could claim that it’s a gaffe, but only with a lot of malicious manufacturing.

    I think there’s a difference between on-the-fly conversation, slips of the tongue, and a manufactured speech where every word is crafted for months. Those inaccuracies were there purposely, intentional falsehoods. It’s crafty, and one has to admire it, the way one admires a speech delivered by Lenin. It’s a crafty speech, intended to get people to follow the speaker into hell, which is exactly where the speaker intends to lead them.

    You do realize, of course, that the speech was not the work of Palin at all, and that it was carefully worked on for a very long time before the convention, right? See this one: “Putting words in Palin’s mouth.

    Like

  22. lowerleavell says:

    Ed, did you check out the other “mistakes”? How about saying that he was the result of the civil right’s march when he was born several years before the march? Is this just a “mistake” as well.

    I’m not defending the Republicans here. I think there is a higher road that they could have pursued, even though you’re making much ado about nothing. But, that being said, if you’re being consistent, you can’t single out the Republicans for being wrong in the little things when it is the Democrats who made this form of politics famous.

    Like

  23. Ed Darrell says:

    Obama said “57,” but he meant 47. He either made an error of mathematics in his head as he was calculating (when was the last time anyone saw George Bush or John McCain do math in public?), or his tongue went a different way than his thoughts. It’s a problem common to very creative people, to very smart people, to people in a hurry to get things done.

    That’s different from inventing false claims for a laugh in a speech.

    Like

  24. donstuff says:

    Wouldn’t it be interesting to have Palin compete against Obama on Jeopardy?
    Maybe Dan Quayle could host.

    Like

  25. lowerleavell says:

    Paul said, “There is a big difference between a gaffe and an outright lie.”

    Again, do you really want to go there?

    Not saying the Republicans are perfect. I’m overall disgusted with both. That being said, I recommend that you should check your own party’s eye and remove the telephone pole before taking the toothpick out of the other party’s eye.

    Like

  26. […] to Millard Filmore’s Bathtub for the quote from the speech. He offers an alternative, less black helicopter explanation of the […]

    Like

  27. […] 6, 2008 · No Comments Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub gives a good rundown of the falsehoods embedded in those snarky one liners from the RNC.  Go give […]

    Like

  28. Paul says:

    There is a big difference between a gaffe and an outright lie.

    Like

  29. lowerleavell says:

    Did you know that there’s 57 states?! I heard it from a very reliable source!

    These barbs can go both ways and are worthless.

    Like

  30. Lisa says:

    The Republicans aren’t too stupid. They just know that most of their constituency isn’t all that smart.

    I heard an old guy telling a woman at the farmer’s market today about Palin getting more votes than Biden. I told him that is completely untrue. He gave me a dirty look. Stupid frigging people. They are being lied to, and they don’t even care. They like their ideas spoon-fed to them, so they can regurgitate the party lines at cocktail parties and weiner roasts. I hope they get their asses handed to them in November.

    Like

  31. Postman says:

    Well-said. I think you may have shown the entire Republican party to be true Mavericks.

    Kate,
    Hear, hear.

    Like

  32. heydave says:

    Did we give up after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

    (And a resounding “brava” to Kate!)

    Like

  33. Kate says:

    Not to mention that the question to Palin implied a question of the “under God” phrase, which wasn’t even added until about 50 years ago.

    I don’t think the Republicans (for the most part) are stupid, nor do I think they are unaware of history. I think they’re liars, and consciously trying to re-write history. I don’t think they have the faintest care about what’s true and what isn’t, so long as they can hold on to power.

    Palin, now Palin I think is ignorant, not stupid. I don’t think she has the facts straight, and I think that stems from the same sort of arrogance that leads other Republicans to believe that history and truth don’t matter, only their goals and tainted view of American Patriotism and Superiority. Republicans seem to think that “truth” is made by the majority view rather than something that stands aside of their desires and opinions, and that history can be re-written as a matter of convenience. Americans swallow that hook line and sinker if it’s made appealing enough for them. Look how quickly a few days has made so many people forget about the last 8 years.

    Now, shall I tell you what I really think?

    Like

  34. Mike says:

    Ed, it’s not that the Republicans are stupid. As they have proven since the Contract on America in 1994, it’s that they think we are stupid. And for the most part, Americans have been reluctant to prove them wrong.

    Thanks for the corrections.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: