Romney Continues To Embrace Trump Despite Birtherism
Mitt Romney continues to keep Donald Trump close. It makes no sense, but it isn't likely to matter in the end.
Mitt Romney is staying with his bizarre decision to associate with Donald Trump and use him as a campaign surrogate, notwithstanding all of the bizarre things that Trump says and the not inconsiderable amount of personal, business, and political baggage that “The Donald” brings along with him:
Mitt Romney did not distance himself from Donald Trump today, despite the reality TV and real estate mogul’s continued skepticism about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
A top Romney adviser said recently that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee believes Obama was born in the United States and the validity of his birth certificate, which has been released by the White House, should not be a campaign issue.
When asked about Trump’s remarks last week questioning whether Obama was born in the United States, Romney said he doesn’t agree with everything his supporters believe, but in the coming election he’ll need their support.
“You know I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney told reporters on an airplane before taking off for a campaign appearances Tuesday in Colorado and Las Vegas. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I”m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
The Obama campaign has started to hit the Romney campaign for the association with Trump:
In the latest surrogate-centered attack, the Obama campaign went after Mitt Romney’s relationship with Donald Trump, the outspoken television personality who is apparently not sold on the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate.
On Monday, the Obama campaign released a video that slams Romney for not dismissing Trump’s comments on Obama’s citizenship, compiling a montage of his greatest hits on this issue. At one point, the video points out that Trump said Obama was born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia, and is possibly a Muslim.
The ad opens by commending Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for standing up to his supporters who thought Obama was dangerous or, by one woman’s account, “an Arab.” But on Trump, the ad says, Romney has been silent.
Romney on Monday said that his campaign was not responsible for what every supporter says. “You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he said. “But I need to get 50.1% or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
The Romney campaign is currently holding an online fundraising drive to win a chance to “Dine with The Donald” at Trump’s home in New York. Romney is also holding a fundraiser with Trump and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday night in Las Vegas.
And it doesn’t look as if Trump is switching his position on this issue. “I’ve never really changed,” he said on Tuesday on CNBC. “Nobody’s ever changed my mind.”
Here’s the Obama Campaign’s web ad:
As I’ve noted before, Romney’s decision to closely associate with Trump like this doesn’t really make much sense, at least not to me. Several people pointed out over the weekend that Trump has helped raise money for Romney, campaigned via robocalls for Romney in Michigan, and hosted several fundraisers for the campaign including the one coming up today in Las Vegas. Even taking all of this as fact, though, I have to wonder whether it’s all worth the headaches that a surrogate like Trump creates for the campaign. After all, whenever Donald Trump appears anywhere he’s there for one reason and one reason alone, to promote Donald Trump. I’m not even sure he actually believes this birther nonsense that he has been spouting for the better part of a year. It gets him media attention, though, and he knows it. Since the job of a campaign surrogate is supposed to be to speak for the campaign, why would the Romney campaign get in bed with a guy who goes off-message the second he opens his mouth? Like I said, it makes no sense at all.
At the same time, though, I’m not sure how much all of this is going to matter in the end. Like many of the irrelevant distractions we’ve seen over the past several months — from the “Mommy Wars,” to the Seamus story, to the fact that Obama once ate a dog, to something that Mitt Romney may have done some 50 years ago in High School — it strikes me that this is just another example of the political “silly season” nonsense that we are likely to see from now until Labor Day. People are no more likely to base their vote in the election on Donald Trump than they are on some silly story about a Romney family road trip with the dog. Partisans on each side will, of course, react to such stories in the manner that they are expected to, because that’s what partisans do. In the end, much like most of what comes out of Trump’s mouth, it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing.
@ Doug,
Instead of focusing on the stale “Birther” controversy why don’t you spend some time on Mitt Romney’s “Wifer” problem. Where is the long form Marriage Certificate?
Wifer
h/t Andrew Sullivan
It may not matter in the end, but Romney’s already facing an uphill climb. Not only are there a lot of Republicans wishing they could vote for someone else, but he’s going up against an incumbent. The odds are stacked against him.
If given the choice between an inspirational candidate and a cynical one trying to skate on technicalities*, Americans tend to go with inspirational.
* I’m biased, it’s true, but the “50.1%” comment really does come off as cynical, especially in the context of milking the Trump cow. Translation: I’ll do whatever it takes to barely win.
That’s fine, but this is America. We don’t do “barely win,” and if you’re really going to do whatever it takes, you better crush em.
Doug
I akin “political silly season” to silly folks focusing on silly matters to sway voters. Here, you have Romney, who wants to be the President of the United States linking himself up with the Donald and Newt.
:Romney is also holding a fundraiser with Trump and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday night in Las Vegas.”
I don’t equate this to a case of the “silly season”. This IS silly!!!
The only impact is that it adds to the image of Romney as an un-serious candidate. It eats away at his credibility. And it shows his lack of charachter (read spinelessness). It’s not a big deal in itself…but image is a cummulative property.
This comes on top of the Etch-a-Sketch image.
And the bullying story and his reaction to it.
And the dog story.
It’s death by bunch of paper cuts.
And as a cummulative image…he certainly does not look like someone who has been running for President for 7 years.
I am not a wifer, just a smart person who uses logic and reason and doesn’t believe anything that contradicts some existing conclusions based on emails I get from my Uncle Dave, and I just don’t understand why Romney cannot provide the same documentation that every single presidential candidate since always has provided. What is he hiding, and what do we really know about this guy anyway? Nothing. He appeared out of nowhere like a phantom. A phantom with five wives. Probably. Marriage certificates and kindergarten records and DNA samples are all we are asking for. It would be easy to provide this and end the questions now.
If Romney can’t even stand up to the birthers, how is he going to stand up to Putin?
Good blog post.
With the twin and related caveats that Republicans in general tend to be quite inept at politics and the Romney campaign in particular appears to be run by folks who need to get out and about more often, I have to presume what’s going on here is that Team Romney considers Trump to be an asset on the fundraising circuit, that they realize nobody on Main Street is yet paying much if any attention to the campaign, and that when we hit the actual campaign season, in September and October, that they’ll drop Trump like a bad habit but happily make use of whatever money he’s brought to the table.
Just saying, guys….
“Wifer” is a great comedy bit. But it sucks as a meme.
I think it’s great that Romney and Trump are moving ahead together on the Bither crap It can only benefit Obama.
“Romney Continues to Embrace Trump
DespiteBecause of Birtherism”FTFY. This is a way of rallying the Republican base through a dog whistle without explicitly commenting on the President’s birth status.
Tsar, I really can’t believe that someone with Romney’s background is having trouble raising money. I know that the cost of presidential campaigns is ridiculously high with the big spending still to come but still…
And surely Romney has backers with way more credibility in various business sectors than Trump. Trump is a business joke. He’s been bankrupt how many times now? Has a marital record that rivals Newt’s, albeit his third wife is better looking.
Also…
Romney doesn’t need 50.1%…(hasn’t his staff told him this?)…he needs 270 electoral votes.
Can someone explain exactly how Trump widens Romney’s incredibly narrow path to victory?
I think I hear voter’s in swing states rolling their eyes…again.
@ DRS…
forget the wives…it’s all about the daughter.
http://news.instyle.com/2011/01/04/ivanka-trump-shoe-collection/
That “something” is called assault, or gay bashing, and he admitted to it with a non-apology apology.
It’s cute that you try to diminish it to the point of reducing it to “something” — not even the slightest reference to what that something might be. Just brush it under the rug.
@Gustopher:
You do realize that the voters don’t care about this, right?
@Doug Mataconis: the voters don’t care about dog eating either, but you don’t refer to that as “something that happened in Indonesia 40 years ago”
Do you really believe that assault is so unimportant that it doesn’t bear mentioning? You’ll change your tune when Romney gets his preppy gang after you!
So only things that polls tell us voters care about are important?
Who gets to decide?
@Loviarar: Has Excitable Andy Sullivan yet figured out who the real birth parents of Trig Palin are?
I understand his “Trig Birther” insanity makes him a great go-to guy for crazy conspiracies, but for God’s sake don’t take him seriously…
Here are two explanations for why Romney hasn’t thrown Trump under the bus:
1) Romney remembers LBJ’s observations about Hubert Humphrey and tents.
2) Most of the people who are all excited about the “birther” idiocy are Obama supporters who want to keep it alive, and Romney knows that appeasing them won’t do a damned bit of good anyway.
Pylon,
The voters, and each individual.
It’s still relatively early in the election season. Romney has primarily been a candidate, then the presumptive nominee, and today it is assumed he will finally garner enough delegates to officially cinch the nomination.
So, unlike the current democratic incumbent, Romney has been preoccupied with putting pieces of his candidacy together, rather than focusing on general election ground work and fundraising, something Obama has been steadily doing more than any other president in history or on the planet.
Therefore, the tidbits talked about in this thread — birthers, Trump, dogs enjoying rooftop travel, high school pranks — are nothing more than opening shots of colorful, noisy, political static exciting those who want nothing more than to relish a 2nd Obama term in office. The real grist of Obama’s record, though, is yet to come, and that will provide more serious fodder in which people can base their decision on who is best equipped to handle the next four years.
Also, while many here scoff at ‘birthers,’ leading to Trump put-downs because of his public inquires into this matter, IMO, it is not such a ludicrous consideration. Certainly nothing will come of it. However, Obama, himself has contributed to such rumors by not handily dispensing with them at the very beginning. And, more recently, a closer look at his book cover bio saying he was born in Kenya, adds more fuel to the speculation that there is something amiss in this man’s background. I also think it has further dinged Obama’s credibility, as it gives the appearances of his partnering in a misinformation ruse in order to reap some kind of secondary benefits (bigger book sales) from citing (more importantly, not correcting) a fantasy birthplace.
I think Romney, however, is showing an interesting character trait by not being unduly influenced by the peanut gallery of people calling for him to do this or that. For instance, Conservatives wanted him to denounce his MA healthcare. He refused, and continued to differentiate it from Obamacare, saying it proved to be a good policy for the state of MA, but not for the country. The same thing goes for Trump. Trump is a fundraising asset. He is also a blunt surrogate on various conservative stances, and therefore can positively intervene here and there. Leftist partisans will make fun of him on the sidelines. But, there is also a constituency out there who admires his gruffness, his tendency to poke at Obama’s foreign policy and personal weaknesses, as well as his own success in business. Romney appears to understand that, and gingerly uses these strengths, dispite the cat-calls to throw Trump under the bus, like Obama is so inclined to do with his people.
As I see it, It’s going to be a close election. The winner is going to have to have confidence in himself, utilize all available resources, and have the balls to take on the myriad of cheap shots that will litter the path to the WH, from not only Obama but by the MSM and social progressive who desperately want him to win. So far, Romney has demonstrated he is willing and able to this.
Romney pals around with noted Birther Donald Trump for a simple reason — Romney is a horrible human being.
Oh, there’s doubtless more to it than that, some calculation of advantage, perhaps a belief that Americans are so stupid that they will confuse flash for substance (two qualities that Romney is lacking in, having managed to take both sides of every issue, and been kind of milquetoast toast the entire time), or appealing to his base, or keeping Trump from indulging in an ego driven third party run, or maybe he just thinks Trump smells nice.
But, underneath all of that, Romney is a man who is happy to pal about with racists if he thinks it will help him.
Also, which one of them is a worse model for American business?
Trump’s businesses go bankrupt. Romney picked apart troubled companies and sucked the remaining life out of them.
@jan: oh good god, what do you mean “Obama, himself has contributed to such rumors by not handily dispensing with them at the very beginning.? He put out the COLB, which was a hell of a lot more than any other candidate had ever done. The fact that a bunch of brain-damaged twits absolutely won’t accept any form of evidence presented is not the President’s problem. The fact that far too many people on the right have snatched at this issue to “embarrass” the POTUS rather than doing what they should have done, which is yell “Full Faith Clause, now STFU!” is not the Presidents’s problem–it’s theres.
There is no clause in the Constitution stating that you don’t get to run for president until you produce evidence that satisfies every single flippin’ conspiracy-cult whacko believer. And the Republicans should be ashamed of pandering to these nitwits.
In Jenosland an op-ed columnist asking questions about why a VP candidate won’t provide information that she herself said she would provide… is the equivilant of a campaign surrogate and major fundraiser repeatedly asking questions about information that has already been provided ad-nauseum.
Also in Jenosland all the unicorns are pink.
And Cheetos don’t leave orange stains on his/her onesies.
…also, I think some of you need to circulate outside your partisan perimeters more, as the meme that Romney is a poor candidate has less traction than it used to have. The republican party seems to be coalescing around his candidacy, with non-Romney voters actually thowing him some kudos, saying that they are becoming more impressed with him.
There is still lots more ground to cover. But the polls are tightening, some of Obama’s caustic, distorted rhetoric is either falling flat, or simply not sticking. It’s going to be a competitive race, and it’s not going to be won by the clucking of trivia, but more on the meritis and strengths of each man.
Pylon,
The voters, and each individual.
So, it’s only about politics, in other words. Anything’s OK as long as it doesn’t hurt you at the polls?
hahahaha
Jan…one of the most hackneyed partisan hacks to ever appear on OTB…and last seen at right wing nut-job website extraordinaire The Strata-Spere…say’s to circulate outside your partisan parameter’s more…as she bloviates over how dreamy Mitt Romney is.
You can’t make this crap up.
doug:
You do realize that the poll you cited is worthless, right? In your usual manner of ignoring all inconvenient facts, you’re glossing over the problems with that poll.
And your evidence for calling the poll worthless would be what? That you disagree with it?
I posted three comments explaining why the poll is worthless. I know you have no substantive response, but you don’t have to make it so obvious.
jenos:
Naturally. When “Obama supporters” like Doug point out that “47% Of Republicans Are Birthers,” it’s because they “want to keep it alive.”
But look on the bright side. If half the GOP are idiots, the cup is still half full, right?
Another week, another post where Doug claims that the motivations of conservative politicians and voters are absolutely opaque to him. You can rotate through “bizarre”, “insane”, “absurd” from now until doomsday, it will make you none the wiser.
When an honest person sees that their premises are useless at predicting reality, they stop talking, and start listening, and eventually, they learn enough so that what was once incomprehensible is explicable. One might think that Doug’s common sense would warn him not to bother commenting on political developments that he knows he does not understand, but the evidence forces us to reject that premise.
The economy, illustrated by spots like this “Not even half” ad should be the focus of debate between Obama and Romney.
Sigh @jan… playing loose with the “facts” as usual…
It wasn’t a book cover bio. It never appeared on a book. It was not approved by Obama (by the very admission of the woman who wrote it). His “book cover bio” clearly stated born in Hawaii. It was an agency bio.
Uh huh… How quickly Richard Grenell is forgotten.
The larger issue is that Jan and Jenos represent exactly the bind that Romney is in. Should he abandon Trump, this will be a sign that Romney is exactly what Conservative talkers have accused him of — namely not a true conservative and not willing to fight for the *right* type of people (see Richard Grenell as the “wrong type”).
The base is driving the clown car, hopped up on all the red meat that Conservative Inc has been feeding them. What the Romney campaign has to do — at a minimum — is keep them ok enough with him that they’ll show up and vote against Obama (not necessarily for Romney).
And ultimately the way to do that is to play everything safe, embrace everyone, and continue to ally with anyone who is FOX Friendly.
@jan:
Then why is the Republican Party going out of its way to emphasize its continuing disbelief of Obama’s birth certificate and citizenship, or its hostility to womens reproductive health choices, or hostility to gay marriage/civil unions?
Mittens couldn’t stand up to a neutered squirrel. Why should his embrace of Trump surprise him?
Jenos –
Since you and I agree that Trig is Palin’s daughter, can I assume that you and I agree that Sarah Palin was negligent to the point that if she wasn’t governor of a state, her kids would have been taken away from her?
She flies down to Dallas to give a speech on energy, and her water breaks. Instead of telling the attendees “Sorry, but my water just broke, I have to deliver my handicapped child”, she gave the speech anyway (I joke about Republican heartlessness all the time, but even they’re not so evil as to not let her deliver her kid). Then she jumps on a plane, against the advice of any sane GP and against the policy of the airlines, transfers in Seattle, leaving behind two cities with excellent medical facilities. After her second plane ride, she lands in the state capitol, which likely has the best medical facilities in the state, and takes YET ANOTHER flight to Wasilla to give birth to her kid in a facility that is likely a shack with a weed whacker and a shovel. Keep in mind, this is her version of events. Do we agree on this, then? The woman you wanted to be one then-72 year old heartbeat away from leader of the free world 3 ½ years ago? This is why Sullivan isn’t treated like the 9/11 Truthers. Sarah’s story is so crazy, that nothing is impossible.
@Hey Norm: There is no ass that Willard won’t kiss to be President, after all, it’s his turn.
What is not in the propaganda that Jan linked to…
An independent review of the DOE program by Herb Allison, former national finance chairman for John McCain, which was requested by the White House showed that concerns over SOlyndra and the like are blown all out of proportion.
The DOE loan guarantees, which were committed to green energy companies not in yet in a position to get private funding, are expected to cost about $3 billion instead of the $5B quoted in the propaganda. This is because most are being re-paid early.
But Slolyndra…oooooh….a shiney object for un-informed idiots. Solyndra was about 1% of the entire DOE portfolio.
Let’s compare that to Romney’s investment record at Bain…where the WSJ found that 22% of the companies invested in either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the 8th year after Bain invested, often with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. Among the winners…just 10 deals provided 70% of the gains..and of those 10, four ended up in bankruptcy.
Also not mentioned in the propaganda…taxpayers subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of $70B from ’02 to ’08…and that is direct subsidies only…the costs of infrastructure, pollution, and health care effects are indirect sunsidies and they dwarf the direct amount.
It’s just sad when the facts don’t line up with your ideology, eh Jan?
jan:
What’s mostly illustrated by that spot is Mitt’s dishonesty. How shocking to discover that Mitt can’t get through a 78-second ad without telling at least one lie. At 0:52, the narrator says this:
Uh, no. That’s not what the inspector general said. What he actually said was this (pdf, p. 7):
So he’s not telling us that “contracts were steered to friends and family.” He’s telling us that this allegation is one of many that are currently part of “open investigations.” If Republicans (or anyone) allege that something is wrong, he’s going to investigate it. Do you know what you call an inspector general with no “open investigations?” Unemployed.
Friedman made that statement 439 days ago. Did you ever notice the actual report he actually issued, where he actually said that he had actually found actual evidence actually showing that actual contracts were actually steered to actual “friends & family?” No, I haven’t seen that report either. Wake me up on the day it appears, because that’s the day that Mitt’s lie will become something other than a lie.
By the way, Mitt and the GOP are telling this exact lie in a bunch of other places, too. And they’ve been doing this for at least 6 months, and I can’t find a single instance of any media fact-checker calling them on this. That darn liberal media.
And speaking of liberal media: in a bunch of the places where Mitt makes this phony claim (example), he cites a Newsweek article. Why? Because this phony claim appears in a Newsweek article. Why? Because Newsweek decided to run a column by a right-wing hack who works for the right-wing Hoover Institution, without bothering to inform readers about this affiliation. Yup, Newsweek sure is liberal.
Anyway, the last thing we needed was more proof that Mitt’s a liar, but it’s still nice to have, so thanks for that.
@mattb: It wasn’t a book cover bio. It never appeared on a book. It was not approved by Obama (by the very admission of the woman who wrote it). His “book cover bio” clearly stated born in Hawaii. It was an agency bio.
What you don’t mention is how the agencies get their info — from the authors.
There’s an even more explicit mention in the book about Obama’s birth place — he refers to going past the hospital where he was born — but the bio was revised and updated and corrected several times over about a dozen years.
But it wasn’t until 2007 that the “born in Kenya” error was corrected.
You really wanna argue that someone as self-centered as Obama is didn’t read and re-read the bio, and never noticed that error? Or did he leave it alone because it was a hell of a selling point?
It should also be noted that she has said that she released the BC, even though she didn’t. This is a sign of a pathological liar: someone who tells a obvious lie when they would be better off saying nothing at all.
@ Jan
Let me repeat the question you ducked the other day.
If you could magically turn back the economy to where it was on Bush’s last day in office, would you? The alternative is to leave the economy as it is today, after years of Obama. So would you turn back the clock? Yes or no?
@Ian: Since you and I agree that Trig is Palin’s daughter, can I assume that you and I agree that Sarah Palin was negligent to the point that if she wasn’t governor of a state, her kids would have been taken away from her?
No, you can’t assume that. You can do all you like to rationalize your Palin-hatred, but I ain’t playing your games. You’re on your own with your particular pathology.
You can’t separate Trump from birtherism. And Romney has publicly embraced Trump.
The bottom line is that birtherism is now part of the GOP mainstream, and Orly Taitz is now a Republican though leader.
jenos:
Baloney. Prove it. You made that same phony claim a couple of days ago, here (“while other aspects of that bio were updated”). And just below that comment of yours there is a comment of mine, where I challenged you to support that claim. But you were never seen again in that thread, and now you’re popping up in a new thread repeating the same bogus claim.
We already had plenty of proof that you couldn’t be trusted. What made you think we needed more?
Yes, he thought “it was a hell of a selling point.” That’s why he told the NYT he was born in Hawaii. Allahpundit at Hotair has explained why your theory doesn’t work. Just more inconvenient facts that you’re going to continue to ignore, even though I’ve already explained this to you.
@jan:
Classic right-wing projection.
birthers, Trump, dogs enjoying rooftop travel, high school pranks
Sure, the dog loved it. And assaulting someone & cutting off their hair is a “prank?” Woulda been real funny if the victim had lost an eye from Mitt’s scissors, wouldn’t it?
@jukeboxgrad: Bite me, jackwagon. Here are four different versions of Obama’s biography from his agent’s firm that all say “born in Kenya.”
I think I’ve finally gotten a handle on you. You demand absolute literal precision from those who disagree with you, and insist that they only cite sources whose biases you share, or they’re “lying.” But I don’t recall you EVER challenging those who spout complete BS who happen to share your beliefs.
@jukeboxgrad: And here’s another client of the same literary agent showing that said agent required authors to write their own bios.
Of course Jenos has often been proven to have a tenuous relationship with facts and/or the truth, and has been shown repeatedly to be incapable of admitting it when called out.
is amongst his/her more intelligent retorts.
@Hey Norm: Hey, the Norm-bait worked! I tossed in that one line just before a link that proved my point, fairly confident that he’d latch on to it and ignore the actual response that shows juke is, once again, bloviating.
Note that the actual link following the “jackwagon” line shows four distinct versions of Obama’s bio from his agency, changing over the years, but always having the “born in Kenya” line. The more observant among you will notice that this is exactly what juke said didn’t exist.
jenos:
Are you a liar, or do you just have exceptionally poor reading comprehension? Probably both.
That article you cited contains at least 20 links, and I checked every one of them, and those pages are mostly just a bunch of different people saying the same thing. In aggregate, they reference only two “versions of Obama’s biography from his agent’s firm.” And they are the same two that I discussed in detail here.
So if you have two others, you should tell us exactly where they can be found. If they are buried among the dozens of links on that page, you should end the guessing game and tell us where they’re hidden.
@jukeboxgrad: Dammit, I hate it when I make a very simple, very avoidable mistake that actually gives you the slightest bit of credence.
Here is the actual link I intended to post.
Note the screen shots from 1998, 2005, and 2007 that show the “born in Kenya” line from the original 1991 bio was still there.
Shorter Jenos…
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…and Jenos clearly can’t…baffle them with total bullshit.
@Hey Norm: The link is there. The screen shots are there. The links to archive.org are there.
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. And I’m not really that interested in persuading the rabidly stupid.
hahahaha…I’m not a big fan of the “helpful/not helpful” votes…but as of this posting the Ivanka Trump link has more “helpful” votes than all of Jenos’ and Jan’s comments combined….one.
hahahaha
Jenos…
I stopped concerning myself with what you post long ago…much less follow your ridiculous links to who knows what partisan BS…my only concern is to issue the caveat that you are a proven liar, and lack the spine to admit it when you are caught.
@Hey Norm: There’s the link, sweetheart, with the screen shots. Lick it up, moron.
Jenos…
Thanks – but I’ll just wait for the next “actual link” you “intended to post” when someone calls you on the last link that you actually posted.
@Jenos Idanian: Again, the initial version was created in 1991. Byt 1995, earlier in fact, the ACTUAL author bio had been written for “Dream of My Father” which correctly listed his birthplace as Hawaii. That book also correctly listed the facts of his birth.
It is entirely possible that Obama did write the initial bio. It is also entirely possible that the entire born in Kenya thing was an editing mistake that was overlooked. BTW, it is important to note that no one has been able to prove otherwise (every site has repeatedly used the same phrase — “I cannot speak for what happened, all I can do is share my experience.”
I will note two more things — and I have a bit of experience with this as I’ve just had a work go through a couple rounds of professional editing on it’s slow way to being publicized. First is that the bio for the agency is far different thing than the actual publication and quite frankly after it’s submitted, it’s not something that the writer typically revisits. Second is that editors (and their assistants) make mistakes — some that even the author doesn’t catch.
As far as the entire 5 versions thing, as far as I can tell, there were few if any revision between versions. And those sorts of revisions are typically not something that the author is necessarily involved with — especially when the author’s previous work tanked (which “Dreams of my father” did in its first printing).
But here’s the biggest thing — and the point I was making — you are a true conservative and/or Tea Party believer. Which means that like “true believers” on either side, you ultimately look for conspiracies where none necessarily exists.
And that’s the challenge for Romney — because he needs to keep you on board until the election. Because McCain proved that you can’t win if you only get the moderate wing of the party to vote. And while simply casting a vote against Obama (and your patriotic duty) may be enough of a reason to turn out for you, that may not be enough for others (especially if things start to appear to go south).
And I suspect that if Romney was actually to try to distance himself from Trump, chances are his stock would go down a bit in your eyes. Not necessarily because you agree with Trump, but because you like the way that he tweaks Obama. And if Romney alientates you one too many times… then there’s an outside chance you might just stay home.
Jenos,
I have two questions. I wonder if you can answer them.
Do you have any evidence that shows the line in the bio was anything other than a publisher’s error?
If this was some scheme by Obama to lie about his birthplace (I believe the conspiracy theorists claim this makes for a more interesting bio), why did he only do so in one place, and why would he choose an author bio for a publisher that directly contradicts the book it would be used to promote?
Nobody is talking about his interview with Halperin the other day, which puts him squarely against Tea Party economic theory.
Trump is living proof that turds can be shiny objects.
The comments on this thread from people like Jan and Jenos just show how the attitude on the right is “never assume an honest mistake when you can presume a conspiracy.”
I wonder if they would appreciate it if they were treated the same way for all mistakes found in their tax forms, and statements, etc. Intent? We don’t need no stinkin’ intent. Off with his/her head!
The whole Andrew Sullivan thing with Trig’s birth is good as a perfect example of a conspiracies theorist inability to let go. Just like jan and jenos’ “Obama’s author’s bio saying he was born in Kenya must be true and the whole book he wrote talking about being born in Hawaii and promoted and updated and re-issued and that became a best seller and he discussed endlessly, well that must be false. After all some words were changed in the 2005 edition of the author’s bio but it still said “born in Kenya.”
Bringing us back to the dawn of the whole Trig thing, there was actually a good thread of mystery in the beginning. Sarah shows up with a baby. No one knew she was pregnant until very late in her pregnancy. In the meantime her daughter Bristol showed some signs of being pregnant and then disappeared from public sight. Of course, the theory should have completely fallen apart when Bristol re-emerged with a baby of her own. But once conspiracists have a theory in their head, knocking out the original basis has no effect. It becomes an exercise in coming up with ever more wild ways that the original could have happened. So you end up with Andrew’s latching onto Palin’s admittedly far fetched story about her water breaking and her heroic/stupid/epic journey to give birth in Wasilla and deciding that there must be something more to it than Palin spinning yarns to make herself sound amazing, or perhaps a woman in the throes of childbirth who didn’t make the world’s best decisions. Or you get jan and jenos obsessing over the fact that Obama’s publisher reissued a biographical blurb in 2005 that had some words changed from the one in 1992 and still said “born in Kenya” and, as we all know, THE AUTHOR’S WRITE THEIR OWN BIOGRAPHICAL BLURBS!
BTW, what exactly is the conspiracy here? That Obama sent out a small cry to the truth in his author’s bio because he was wracked by the guilt of lying in his biography and torn by his Grandparent’s flying surreptitiously to Hawaii after his secret birth in Kenya in order to break into two newspaper offices and alter the next mornings typeset (they still set type back then I believe) to show, falsely, that their Grandson was born in the US because someday they knew he would be running for President of the USA? Sorry if I’m laughing but the image of these two Kansas farmers dressed in black, faces smudged with charcoal, rappelling down through a broken skylight into the printer’s lair, one creating a distraction while the other frantically worked the type machine, reading the next mornings paper backward and mirror imaged (typeset, remember) until they could find a spot to insert the fateful lie, well, it’s too rich.
The reality is the same as I said when he released the COLB. It won’t make a difference to the birthers. There is literally no amount of evidence that could change their minds. And Sully is in the same boat with Trig. Something, something might have happened, somewhere. And he’s just saying…
@MarkedMan:
How did all this make it’s way over to Sarah Palin! Spinning must have been your major.
BTW, if Romney, or any other member of the opposition party, had a book jacket conveying an incorrect life history, especially being born out of the country, and made no effort to correct it until it became politically expedient to do so, you guys would be all over it like flies on honey. The double standard is awesome to behold!
Jan….
Why do you feel you have to keep repeating lies in order to make your point?
Is it that the point is non-existent without the lie you keep repeating?
Exactly.
Liar.
@mantis: OK, I’ll take on those two questions.
Do you have any evidence that shows the line in the bio was anything other than a publisher’s error?
Hell, no. But I have two big pieces of circumstantial evidence that indicates Obama himself was the source of the info. First up, the literary agent required authors to write their own bios. Second, Obama is so narcissistic that I can’t imagine him having that in print for almost 20 years without him having read it at least once. Further, he’s intelligent enough that such a mistake should leap out at him.
If this was some scheme by Obama to lie about his birthplace (I believe the conspiracy theorists claim this makes for a more interesting bio), why did he only do so in one place, and why would he choose an author bio for a publisher that directly contradicts the book it would be used to promote?
Damned if I know, but it seems pretty clear he did.
I’ve read one theory that I like, though. Short version: Obama, like Elizabeth Warren, figured they could exploit the left’s obsession with identity politics and gain an advantage by tying themselves to some exotic, minority group. And in both cases, it was just a matter of fudging some minor details — in Obama’s case, being born in his father’s homeland rather than his mother’s; in Warren’s, taking an old family legend and formalizing it.
As to it being contradicted by the book… we’re finding out now that the book wasn’t fully “vetted,” especially by all those people who praised it so thoroughly. For example, it’s only getting general attention now that Obama was a major pothead/cokehead who drove under the influence, got into fights, and praised his drug dealer in his high school yearbook.
And let’s not even bring up the “eating dog” story.
Which brings up the big point once again: all this info was available in 2008, but nobody brought it up.
And for the record… I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, and the Kenyan thing is… well, as fictional as Obama’s girlfriend cited in the book.
@mattb: No, you’re a bit off on quite a few points.
Yeah, I do like how Trump gets under Obama’s (exceptionally thin) skin. And I got no problems admitting that.
Romney doesn’t “alienate” me. I liked several other candidates more, but I’ve had a generally favorable opinion of Romney for… hell, well over a decade. He was never my first choice, but I never ruled him out.
If Obama did not write his bio, he’d be pretty much unique among his agent’s clients. And all those years it was printed, even though it was directly contradicted by the text… that says that either someone wanted it that way, or didn’t think it was that big a deal to bother fixing.
Oddly enough, it was fixed right around the time when the location of Obama’s birth suddenly became critical. Senators can be foreign-born, but not presidents. So when Obama started thinking about running for president, that was a very good time to fix that error.
I think that this is a very trivial “conspiracy.” My personal hunch is that Obama tossed in the “Kenyan-born” in hopes it would make him seem a bit more exotic and appealing to would-be readers, then let it ride because it was easier than fixing it. He might have been encouraged to do so by others, or it might even have been someone else’s idea, but I think he was aware of it and let it slide. After all, he fictionalized a lot of the book anyway — why not that, too?
But back to Trump — he says and does a lot of things that “tweak” Obama. And I know they hit home — that’s why, I suspect, Trump became the first “guest” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner that supplanted the president as the traditional target, among other things. And Trump got Obama to release the document, so that’s more proof how much he bugs Obama.
And I think that’s a grand thing.
Jenos, this is what you said a couple of days ago:
Here are a few things you’ve said in this thread:
Let’s take a look at the actual text from those four instances. Here they are, labeled in the same way that Breitbart did in the page you cited:
The next thing that’s important to understand is the context. Item #1 is from a printed brochure where the Obama blurb is just one blurb among blurbs for about 90 other authors. However, items 2, 3 and 4 are part of something quite different (and of course this is something Breitbart never really explains). Items 2, 3 and 4 come from a web page which contains blurbs for a much larger number of authors. I haven’t bothered coming up with a count for #2 or #3, but as of #4, the page contained blurbs for about 500 authors. That’s about 33,000 words on that page.
The next thing that’s important to notice is that 2, 3, and 4 are quite similar. In all those three, the “Kenya” sentence is exactly the same. #3 and #4 are almost perfectly identical; there is a slight change in the last sentence. In #3, they added some news that had occurred since #2. It’s a stretch to call this “four different versions,” because 2, 3 and 4 are so similar.
Who do you think made these edits? It would not be done by someone in a senior position. Some assistant would have the tedious job of going through these hundreds of blurbs and making minor changes to reflect new information about the author. And the person making those edits in 1998, 2005 and 2007 would be someone who never heard of Obama (or barely heard of him), and would not notice the words “born in Kenya” and know that they are wrong. They would just be following instructions they were given, that probably looked something like this: ‘Obama’s a Senator now; put that in his blurb.’
And who would be reading this page? Probably no one. Obama had lots of other things on his mind. He did not wake up in the morning and say to himself ‘Dystel has a page listing 500 blurbs, and I better make sure that my blurb is correct.’ He just would not know or care, and no one else would, either.
And even though I’ve mentioned it several times, you still haven’t lifted a finger to try to explain why Obama told the NYT in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii. That inconvenient fact totally contradicts the lame narrative you’re peddling. And your failure to deal with this issue, even though I’ve mentioned it several times, is yet more proof that you’re a worthless hack.
jan:
Thanks for providing such an excellent illustration of how this kind of story works: people like you make shit up.
Yes, if this error had ever appeared on “a book jacket,” that would be a big deal. Why? Because a book jacket is seen by many thousands of people, if the book is a big seller. Trouble is, this error was never on “a book jacket.” Rather, it was in a place where it would be seen by almost no one. And that’s precisely why it took until 2012 for this information to come out, even though there have been people like you looking for information like this since 2008. This information was buried in an inconsequential place, and that’s why Obama never noticed or cared, and that’s also why the birthers never noticed this before. And that’s why the story is inconsequential. And that’s why you have to invent fiction: that it was on “a book jacket.”
jenos:
Bullshit. The page you cited didn’t say that. Maybe this is another instance where the link you provided was not the link you meant to provide. So try again, and this time show us a page that actually says what you’re claiming.
I have already reminded you that 1991 to 2007 is not “almost 20 years.” Also, text buried on a very long and inconsequential web page is not exactly “in print.”
You are once again pretending to not notice that Obama told the NYT in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii.
Naturally. Which is why he told the NYT he was born in Hawaii.
What a nice example of paralipsis.
Because it was hidden in an inconsequential place. As I have explained.
Oddly enough, it was fixed right around the time that the clerk responsible for maintaining that page would have heard enough about him to be able to notice the error.
@jukeboxgrad: And even though I’ve mentioned it several times, you still haven’t lifted a finger to try to explain why Obama told the NYT in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii. That inconvenient fact totally contradicts the lame narrative you’re peddling. And your failure to deal with this issue, even though I’ve mentioned it several times, is yet more proof that you’re a worthless hack.
You’re absolutely right. You cited an instance where Obama spoke the truth, and I have absolutely no explanation for why he’d actually speak the truth. I’m totally blown away by your citing a time Obama spoke the truth. I suppose that’s why it stuck in your mind.
And as hard as I can try, I can’t come up with an explanation why someone would tell two different stories, especially someone as intelligent as Obama who would know that in just eight short years, a company called Google would revolutionize the burgeoning search-engine market. And some time after that, the New York Times would put all its back issues online where people can search them freely, and not have to go through moldy back issues or microfiche to see what they published. Why, it’s absolutely inconceivable that Obama would not foresee the whole online revolution and how it would put everything at everyone’s fingertips.
So, your argument that of all of the agency’s author clients, Obama was pretty much the only one who did NOT write their own biography? That Obama, as notoriously self-interested as he is, did NOT review that biography numerous times?
Oh, that’s right. You don’t make arguments. You wait for others to make them, demand 100% perfection in their theories, then call them liars and hacks when their theories aren’t fully substantiated to your satisfaction.
But do you ever offer your own thoughts? Do you propose alternate explanations, and back them up with your own citations?
Nah. Too much like work. Too risky; someone might pull a “juke” on you and apply your own standards to you, and that would be too embarrassing.
Yeah, I offered a theory. And I supported it. No, I didn’t prove it; if I could prove it, it wouldn’t be a theory. And I still stand behind it.
Feel free to offer your own. Just make sure you live up to your own standards and document it all thoroughly.
I ain’t holding my breath, though.
@Jenos Idanian: “Hey, the Norm-bait worked! I tossed in that one line just before a link that proved my point, fairly confident that he’d latch on to it and ignore the actual response that shows juke is, once again, bloviating.”
In case future generations wonder, this is the definition of a “troll.” Of course, most trolls are smart enough not to admit they’re trolling, let alone brag about it. But no one has ever claimed Jenos was smart. Except Jenos, of course. He also seems to believe people admire him.
@Jenos Idanian: “But I have two big pieces of circumstantial evidence that indicates Obama himself was the source of the info. First up, the literary agent required authors to write their own bios. Second, Obama is so narcissistic that I can’t imagine him ”
Yes, dearheart, your opinion of Obama’s character is absolutely evidence. In fact, I’m surprised you haven’t taken this to court yet.
“You honor, here’s my evidence: I think Obama is a snob, so I can’t imagine it’s not true.” “Well, then, he’s guilty!”
The hilarious thing is how many people around here you call stupid. “That moron thinks two plus two equals four, when Wizbang told me it’s five. Haw haw haw.”
Next up: Jenos explains how he called this “circumstantial evidence,” which in Jenos-land means “something someone said on TV once.”
jenos:
That should be a big clue to you that it didn’t happen: he didn’t tell two different stories. What you’re essentially saying is that you’re going to stick with your existing narrative even though you “can’t come up with” a way to reconcile your narrative with the available evidence. In other words, you’re doing what you always do: ignoring all inconvenient facts.
It was 1990, not 1890. LEXIS was founded in 1973, and NEXIS was added in 1980. I guess this must have been before your time, but that was when it became possible to search for news articles on a computer. The computer was probably in a library, not your house, but it was still quite easy, long before 1990. In 1990, no one was still searching newspapers via “moldy back issues or microfiche” (unless it was a newspaper that was quite old and/or obscure).
You’re essentially saying he said “Hawaii” to NYT in 1990 because he figured that this would be invisible to anyone not willing “to go through moldy back issues or microfiche,” but he said “Kenya” to his publisher in 1991 because he figured that a brochure printed by his publisher was going to be more broadly accessible than an article in the NYT? Huh? That’s beyond absurd, even for you. And that’s saying a lot.
According to your crazy narrative, he had no reason whatsoever to say “Hawaii” to NYT, even if he was crazy enough to think that articles in NYT can only be seen via “moldy back issues or microfiche.” In 1990, “the whole online revolution” was already well-underway, to the extent that anyone could walk into a library and do a computer search of a newspaper database. But even if that was not true, he still had no reason to say “Hawaii” to NYT (according to your narrative).
You haven’t shown that anyone else wrote their own bio.
He would care about a bio that was going on a book jacket, or into a newspaper article. He would not care about a bio getting listed on an obscure webpage buried among 500 other bios. For all we know, he didn’t even know that this web page existed.
No, I’m not demanding “100% perfection.” I’m just waiting for you to come up with a theory that is not blatantly contradicted by simple facts, like this one: he said “Hawaii” to NYT.
Are you paying any attention at all? Yes, of course I proposed an alternate explanation: a clerk made a mistake, and then some other clerks never noticed it.
No, it’s not just that you failed to prove your theory. It’s that you failed to explain how your theory could possibly make sense, given the available evidence. Those two things are quite different.
I did offer my theory, and I don’t have to prove it. I just have to explain how it’s congruent with all the available evidence, and I did. What you’re doing, on the other hand, is hiding from evidence that’s incongruent with your theory.
And as hard as I can try, I can’t come up with an explanation why someone would tell two different stories
Occam’s razor, dumbass. It didn’t happen.
So, your argument that of all of the agency’s author clients, Obama was pretty much the only one who did NOT write their own biography?
You have in no way shown that “all of the agency’s author clients wrote their own biography.” Even if you had, an employee at the publisher already took credit for the error. But I’m sure in your mind everyone is in on the conspiracy.
@jukeboxgrad:
It’s that you failed to explain how your theory could possibly make sense, given the available evidence.
Exactly. If your theory has no evidence to support it, is contradicted by available evidence, and doesn’t make any sense anyway, it’s a stupid theory you should immediately dismiss. If you have half a brain.
That’s a perfect way to summarize the many, many words I’ve addressed to Jenos.
Not bad 🙂
Let’s back this dialogue up just a little here, jukie. Let’s go to the instant replay:
It isn’t baloney. I did prove it. (I fumbled at first with cutting and pasting from the wrong tab, but I did prove it.) I made the claim then, I repeated it now, and have proven it.
And when I did so, you (with the able assistance of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber) tried to move the goalposts, demanding that I show who changed it and why. Sorry, ain’t gonna play that game.
I don’t want to hear anything from you but an apology. I’d almost settle for a simple acknowledgement that I was correct, but I know you don’t have the character for either.
Jenos…a proven liar, links to the Breitbart site…a proven liar.
You really can’t make it up.
@Hey Norm: …and Breitbart goes to archive.org, with links and screen caps.
You wanna toss them under the bus, too?
I know it’s painful for you to admit I was right and you were wrong, but you’d think you’d be used to it by now.
jenos:
No, it’s not just that you “fumbled at first.” I asked you the same question on Sunday, when you made the same claim. And you never responded in that thread. Instead, you showed up in this thread and made that claim again (actually, you did something worse: you made a claim that was even stronger, as I will demonstrate). What makes you think it was OK for you to repeat that claim again, without acknowledging that I had challenged you about it days ago? Even aside from your egregious record here, that was enough basis for me to conclude that you were completely making it up. Someone with a shred of integrity would have said something like this: ‘I’m going to say again what I said a couple of days ago. And I realize that you challenged me to show proof, when I did that, but I didn’t have time to do that in that thread, when you asked. So now when I repeat that claim, I’m going to also provide the link that you challenged me to provide, days ago.‘
Why do I have to explain this to you? You didn’t do that. You did something quite different, which made it reasonable for me to conclude that you were presenting a complete fib, as usual. That conclusion of mine was wrong (it was a partial fib, not a complete fib), but I’m not going to apologize for this mistake I made. Do you know why? Because this particular mistake I made is your responsibility, not mine. I just explained why.
And guess what: you still haven’t shown that your claim is completely true. In this thread, your original statement that I called “baloney” is this:
I highlighted an important word. Do you know why it’s important? Because it’s both wrong and material. No, the bio was not “corrected.” None of the changes are corrections. The bio was “revised and updated,” slightly, but it was never “corrected.” (Until it finally was, later in 2007.) That word you threw in (“corrected”) is important, because it creates the impression that someone was checking the bio to make sure it was ‘correct.’ The importance of that word is reflected in the fact that you used it twice. Trouble is, there is no evidence that anyone was ever trying to make sure the bio was correct. All we know is that someone made an effort to update it. In particular, what we see in both 2005 (#3) and April 2007 (#4) is that information was added, for the the purpose of keeping the bio up-to-date.
As usual, you were making a claim that went beyond what your evidence could support. Just like you did when you said “almost 20 years” (“Obama’s biography put out by his literary agent stated he was born in Kenya for almost 20 years”) and then were forced to backpedal to what you said later: “over about a dozen years.”
So you want to start with apologies? Fine. We can begin with you apologizing for not responding when I asked the question on Sunday. And then you can also apologize for repeating the claim here while still ignoring my question. And then you can apologize for saying “corrected” even though you have no evidence to support that claim. And then you can apologize for saying “almost 20 years.” You have plenty of other things to apologize for, but we can start with those.
Yes, let’s back up, indeed. Get busy with your apologies.
@jukeboxgrad: You are the king of nit-picking. I revised “almost 20 years” to “over a dozen years” because the actual number was 16 — and both are close enough for most causes.
The crux of the matter: Was the bio revisited at least three times without the “born in Kenya” error being corrected? Indisputably.
Everything else you toss up is smoke. I’m not trying to make a legal argument here, I’m not engaging in any kind of formal debate. This is conversation.
Have you EVER turned your scrutiny on anyone who agreed with you? Or do you impose your impossible standards only on those who say things you don’t care for?
You “revised” your bogus claim only after I challenged you and pointed out it was bogus. Where is your apology for making that bogus claim?
You said the bio was corrected even though it was never corrected. You said “the bio was revised and updated and corrected several times over about a dozen years.” If the word “corrected” isn’t important, why did you use it?
These are both examples of what you do repeatedly: make claims that go beyond what your evidence can support. And yes, it would indeed be “nit-picking” if I made a big deal about you doing something like this once. Trouble is, this is what you do constantly. I could spend all day showing you dozens of other examples.
And you really think that doing this is OK. Which is one of the many ways we know that you’re a worthless hack.
Here’s my standard: make claims that you can support, and don’t make claims that you can’t support. This is not “impossible.” It’s what honest people do, all the time. The fact that you find this “impossible” is one of the many ways we know that you’re a worthless hack.
Shorter juke: No, I just make my demands of those I don’t like. Those who agree with me, I give passes to. Because I’m cool with that.
jenos:
You’re like clockwork. Shortly after I remind you of your egregious practice of making claims you can’t support, you make yet another claim you can’t support. Where’s your proof to support this latest lovely nugget of bullshit?
@jan if you continue to wonder why people here think you are either (a) stupid or (b) fundamentally intellectually dishonest its because you write crap like this over and over again despite being corrected:
Jan, this is FLAT OUT WRONG. It will never be correct no matter how many times you write it.
For the record, again here is the truth:
(1) No book authored or co-authored by Barack Obama contains a bio for him that states he was born anywhere but Hawaii.
(2) A bio does exist in a listing of authors published by his literary agent. This was a low circulation pamphlet (and later website listing) that is used within the industry to shop existing authors.
(3) At the same time that the bio listed in #2 was circulating within the industry, Obama published “Dreams of My Father” which explicitly lists Hawaii as his birth place in BOTH the content of the text and the book jacket bio blurb.
Note again, conspiracy theorists that despite that fact the Agency never updated the bio. That shows you how much agency people (and in fact Authors) revisit these sorts of bios (i.e. not very much).
Anyway, back to you Jan, it’s not a lie to say Obama’s agency bio listed him as in Kenya. But to continue repeatedly using the phrase “book jacket bio” is continuing to spread a lie.
You’ve been corrected twice now in a thread that you are continuing to contribute to. So either you are (a) failing read or (b) reading how your are wrong and intentionally choosing to continue to propagate that lie.
Either case doesn’t make you look good.
Thank you for mentioning this highly relevant fact, which I have neglected to mention.
@jukeboxgrad: Please, prove me wrong. Show me an example of you chastising a liberal commenter here for making bullcrap claims.
For example, when Norm said that Dick Cheney “turned his back on his daughter” over gay marriage. I did your work there for you.
Looking back, you were on that thread — repeating the crock that “the gay soldier (who) was booed by a Republican debate audience while Romney stood by silently.”
In a crowd of thousands, I heard THREE distinct voices booing. Why should such a tiny element get ANY attention?
@Jenos Idanian:
Fair point. I shouldn’t have claimed to know what you thought. I was sort of using you as a proxy for a specific sort of member of the right’s base.
And I remember that you had said you had other primary choices you preferred. Which reminds me of the fact that you said that you thought any of the republican primary candidates would have been preferable to Obama — which marked you as a pretty strong Partisan, someone who can be counted on to pull the lever for “R” regardless of who they stand up.
That isn’t a knock btw…
Jenos, to be clear, I made two points:
1. No one can say for sure whether or not Obama did or did not write that bio.
2. You continually ignore the fact that even after a bio is submitted, they are often edited for content and length. And if that was done by an assistant (or an intern) it’s entirely possible that it got incorrectly edited and everyone missed it.
Further, once written, these are typically not revisited by the Author — especially an author who wasn’t looking to publish another book after the failure of his first book.
There is a second, similar explanation. Namely that as he began to plan for his presidential run, the Obama team (because there is a far larger team involved with this process) began to review everything with a fine toothed comb and then discovered the error and corrected it.
In other words, since I don’t like the President, I have come up with a reading of the situation that reinforces my negative view and makes him appear even more dishonest.
Its an understandable reading, but I hope you can at least admit that you’re choosing to read it in the worst possible light.
I think you’re right, to the degree that Obama did finally have enough. That said, by this logic does this mean that I have to always support WR because he tweaks you?
Jenos,
Michael Renyolds would be the one to ask about this as he’s a working author.
I can say on the academic side, Jukebox is largely correct. I was contracted to write an article four years ago. The article is finally being published in a collected volume this year. When I submitted the article (three years ago) I submitted an author bio. The bio, and the article, was returned to me edited half a year later (two an a half years ago). I reviewed the article, and quickly glanced at the bio. Fast forward to today, I have realized that no only is the submitted bio out of date, but there was a small (nothing like Kenya) editorial error which incorrectly names one on the places that I worked.
I was able to fix the bio, but it almost went to the first printing with the wrong info. And this was for a general release, not an agency bio.
I think the broader problem — and again, I think this is a problem with people on both sides — is the inability to believe in coincidences. So in other words, Obama has always been orchestrating everything (in the same way that G.W. always orchestrated everything, in the same way that Clinton always orchestrated everything).
The irony of course, is that many of the same people who claim that Obama is completely incompetent also see him as this master manipulator who is constantly pulling every string with an eye to the far future.
I am always struck by this. Obama is both a ineffectual empty suit who is in way over his head AND a demigod who is remolding America into a socialist hellhole as if it were so much putty in his hands.
jenos:
See, this is another basic thing you still don’t understand, even though most of us learned this in kindergarten. No, it is not my job to prove you wrong. You made the claim. Therefore it is up to you to prove that the claim is true. One more time: honest people do not make claims they can’t support.
Maybe this exercise will help you understand. Jenos, everyone knows that you rape nuns and torture kittens. “Please, prove me wrong.”
Yes. Also, he wants everyone to have a gay Islamic abortion.
Brazen contradictions are no problem for these people. It has to do with faith versus reason.
damn… juke destroys jenos again. LOL as GA would say.
GA is at least funny sometimes.
Jukebox and jenos. You’re twelve years old right? Because if you’re not, you really need to give this up.
Solid analysis (and not just because it backs up what I say… though that’s a good sign) on Romney/Trump at TMP:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/why-mitt-romney-keeps-donald-trump-around.php?ref=fpb
The ultimate problem with coozying up to Trump is that Romney is making the calculated risk that Trump will stay under control. The problem, as with hitching one’s wagon to Conservative Inc, is that Trump is always in it for himself first and foremost. Which means he’s not going to stop.
Hence, though the specifics are different, Trump risks becoming Romney’s Reverend Wright. Which means that chances are Romney will be forced to eventually distance himself as Trump continues to produce more media ammunition* (video clips and soundbites) for the Obama campaign.
The problem, I suspect, is that the majority of the Dem base didn’t embrace Rev. Wright’s point of view, the majority of the Republican base have a positive view of Trump. And that could create an exponentially larger amount of fallout when it happens.
—-
* – This is going to be the most re-medated/mashed up campaign yet. Granted there was a bunch of this going on in 2008, but it was largely being done by amateurs and fringe folks. I fully expect that this time we’re going to see a lot more add using recent footage from the Republican Debates and stuff like Trump being produced by Obama’s campaign. It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has on independents.
This is the whole story in a nutshell.
Why did Mitt get into bed with Trump? Because the base loves him. But why does the base love him? Because he can be counted on to say outrageous, offensive things. To protect his ‘brand,’ Trump needs to keep doing that. And he will. And the press will love it, because Trump is entertaining. And this is the question that’s going to get asked, over and over again: ‘how far can Trump go before Mitt finally has his Sister Souljah moment.’
This will be a great drama. It will be fun to watch. It will be great for ratings. It will be great for Trump. It will also be great for Obama, because there will be a giant spotlight shining on Mitt’s cowardice.
@jukeboxgrad: Let’s see. I said I don’t recall you ever challenging a misstatement from someone on your political side. You said “prove it.”
Wouldn’t that be asking me to prove a negative?
Instead, I showed an example of a thread where you not only passed on a chance to correct an egregious claim by Hey Norm, but also made your own pointless point.
As I said… you have a very unusual sense of balance.
No, that’s not what you said. What you actually said was this:
Consider these two statements:
A) You have never done X
B) I don’t recall you ever doing X
A corresponds with your earlier statement. B corresponds with your later statement. B is a weaker claim; what you’re doing is called backpedaling.
If you’re making a factual claim that can only be proven by proving a negative, then it’s probably a factual claim you shouldn’t be making. One of many simple things you should have been able to figure out on your own.
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why I might have allegedly “passed on a chance,” so your so-called example is worthless.
This latest unsubstantiated claim of yours, one more in a very long series, is an example of something else that’s worthless.
@jukeboxgrad: You get an A in evasive parsing, an F in actual discussion. You keep fixating on the precise wording to the total exclusion of actually addressing the point I raised.
Still, you had your chance to address a major misstatement… and you passed. You seem to have an exceptionally selective sense of fact-checking.
Just own up to it.
And your disagreeing with my interpretation, you mentioned the booing incident, I linked to an actual video of it.
“So, who you gonna believe — me or your lying ears?”
Wow, how exciting. Grabbing an issue from one dead thread and sticking it into another dead thread. I can’t wait for your next thrilling stunt.