Michelle Malkin makes some good points about what was said by Republicans at the convention about Obama’s community organizer experience.
Point 1: No one is mocking real community organisers, just pointing out that that job is hardly good experience to move into the White House on.
Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Barack Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan non-profits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.
Point 2: What Obama was doing was not a simple “helping the community” role.
What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies of a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people and shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.
As I’ve reported previously, Obama’s community organizing days revolved around training grievance-mongers from the far left group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub “direct actions”); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush of a government planning meeting on a landfill project opposed by Chicago minority lobbies.
With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state, undermine the free market, and perpetuate illegal immigration and voter fraud. Since I last detailed ACORN’s illicit activities in this column in June (see “The ACORN Obama knows,” June 19, 2008), the group continues to garner scrutiny of law enforcement:
Read the whole thing, then consider whether the illegal and corrupt activity described should be in the newspapers instead of what McCain’s VP nominee’s daughter’s fiance’s My Space page says.
Then think about how many months the MSM have had to get to the bottom of a real story like this, but in 4 days pulled up so much fluff about remotely connected to Palin.
…at Obama’s German rally – it seems it’s not quite what is being reported locally.
Barely five minutes before the speech was supposed to start, ZDF Berlin studio chief Peter Frey added, “We do estimate that 20,000 [literally, "a couple of ten thousand"] people have turned out.” Frey’s tone, like that of Gelhard, reflected the gap between the relatively modest number cited and the lofty predictions that had preceded the event. Moreover, while the ZDF live images showed that the “Fan Mile” was indeed populated from one end to the other, they also appeared to reveal patches of thinness and pedestrian traffic flowing easily on the half of the boulevard closer to the Brandenburg Gate (i.e. furthest from the “Victory Column”).
It’s not like they don’t know what they’re talking about.
As the Berlin-based writer Christian J. Heinrich notes: “During the big anti-Bush demonstration after the fall of Baghdad, there were 250,000 people. And it looked totally different from yesterday. Then, you couldn’t move all the way from the Brandenburg Gate to the Technical University [on the western side of Tiergarten park, another kilometer beyond the Siegessäule].”
I think people are going to come to quite a crash when they realise just how often Obama has lied to them. Far from being a new sort of politician, he is in fact one of the worst old sort.
I had a conversation with some non-political types a few weeks ago, and they wondered why there was no coverage of Republican candidates. I told them I though it’d get better after the Dems decided their candidate.
For years Chris Matthews has been proclaiming defeat in Iraq, on an almost nightly basis, on “Hardball” but on Tuesday night he finally admitted the success of the surge that John McCain supported. However, the MSNBC host claimed it would be Barack Obama that would get to enjoy the spoils.
After Newsweek’s Howard Fineman suggested, “We’re not losing,” and pointed out the surge success would make it easier for a troop pullout, Matthews admitted the following:
MATTHEWS: Senator McCain wanted the surge to work, it worked politically and Barack Obama is the beneficiary. Not exactly the right development, politically, for him.
Some of my more paranoid friends on the right see “liberal bias” in the decision of the New York Times to reject John McCain’s op-ed about Iraq. As their “evidence” they cite the fact that, just one week ago, the same paper published Barack Obama’s op-ed on the same topic.
But New York Times editor David Shipley has made it clear that the paper wasn’t rejecting any op-ed by McCain, just the one he wrote.]
In contrast, she pointed out, as if CBS News couldn’t have done anything about it, that “last night John McCain arrived in Manchester, New Hampshire” and was greeted by just “two journalists waiting on the tarmac.” She also noted that “his campaign has revealed a contest: Two videos featuring what they claim is a media love affair with Obama.” They “claim”? How about they “illustrate.”
Earlier in the newscast, she set up the second segment of the interview with Obama, which she traveled to Jordan to conduct: “Senator Obama hopes this trip will enhance his credibility as a world leader, something I asked him about in our exclusive interview earlier today.”
McCain’s three-minute interview, done via satellite from New Hampshire, delivered 18 times more coverage time than he received from the CBS Evening News during his trip to Iraq. When McCain visited Iraq the week of March 16, the MRC’s Kyle Drennen documented, the CBS Evening News allocated “only 31 words, a grand total of 10 seconds, to the Republican nominee’s Iraq visit during the entire week.”
I.
Oh, and did I mention that even after being proved wrong, he still thinks he was right to oppose the surge.
This guy has to be the king of idiots. First get your platform of anti-war and a campaign of hope, change, and pulling the troops out. After this, turn around and praise the success of a strategy you were against and change your position about troop withdrawal. After getting beaten with the backlash of your own base, go back to the original anti-war position and say something idiotic like calling a successful strategy a bad one. Don’t forget to throw in utter arrogance by stating that your plan of surrender might of, could of, should of, perhaps worked as well if certain imaginary factors might have played out differently. Also give credit for the success of the strategy you call bad to decisions made by the enemy, and belittle the U.S. military’s role as much as possible. If anything will get you elected as Commander in Chief, this will, especially if you act like an arrogant rock star on a world tour the whole time.
