Rueters (Ames, Iowa) Republican moderates have assembled outside Oscar's Feed & Grain, a popular restaurant in Ames, Iowa, to back a surprising candidate: Barack Obama circa 2007. Frustrated in their search for the appropriate candidate to run against Barack Obama in 2012, GOP moderates have come up with the novel idea of running Barack Obama of 2007 against the popular incumbent President. "I know this is highly unusual, but we think there is a real contrast that we can use to differentiate our candidate from theirs, and there are lots of other good reasons" said organizer Wesley Smollis. While supporters admit there may be a constitutional issue and expect attacks by Democrats, they believe they are on solid legal ground. "There is documented proof that the 2007 Obama took the oath of office in public, and no, it wasn't botched as some twelvers claim", said Roy Beamish, attorney for the group.
"Twelvers" is the term 2007 Obama supporters use to describe people who claim that only one version of Obama can run for office in a given election cycle. "Anyone who says there is some kind of Constitutional rule that the 2007 version of Obama can't be President is relying on a technicality that, frankly, smacks of racism. " said Mr. Beamish.
Republicans for Our Obama 2007, or ROO7 was formed by Wesley Smollis who realized that each GOP potential candidate came up short on one or more crucial qualities; some were too conservative, others had personal baggage, others weren't charismatic or inspirational, or else just simply couldn't win. Smollis decided to do something about it, "Looking back, the 2007 Obama made some great promises that I think are real winners, I called up some friends and we decided he's the candidate we want running on our side of the ticket."
The constitutional question isn't the only obstacle, supporters concede. "We recognize this is certainly outside-the-box, and the 2007 Obama has been away from politics for the last two years might be a bit rusty", said rally organizer Martin Billings, "but we think he can use those great oratory skills and run rings around the the guy who's in there now, he certainly beats him on all the issues."
Most here agree it's Obama 2007's strong and unwavering stands on the issues that's the driving force behind the growing support. "He's against bailing out banks, he's for lower gas prices, won't raise taxes on the middle-class guys like me, and he's for jobs, he's saying all the right things" said one supporter. "And if you compare Obama of 2007 to the one we know today, he sure seems like a Republican."
In order to differentiate their candidate, who happens to share the same name with the presumptive Democratic nominee, some of Obama 2007 supporters refer to him as '007'. Others prefer the term Our Obama. George Mauvy, vice-chairman of ROO7, "Look, Our Obama polls well, he's a great speaker and we prefer him on the issues to Obama 2012. We believe independents and Republicans will vote for Our Obama overwhelmingly. He is much more forceful and believable and he doesn't have the horrible record that Obama 2012 has. I guarantee he'll win all three debates."
Even some Democrats are on board; "I like his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan", said Democrat Beth Weesley, "and 007 would never have gotten us into Libya, and don't even bring up Guantanamo" she said.
But many conservatives don't share the enthusiasm for this Obama 007. "It's just like the GOP to nominate another liberal. First it was Bush, next McCain, and now Obama 007." said Jess Murfree "Just because he's not John McCain and he's a little more conservative than the other guy, they expect me to vote for him? I might as well just give up." said Murfree shaking his head.
But others are more circumspect. Fred Boortz, a wholesale grain salesman, told us, "If it's between Obama 2007 and Obama 2012 I'll have to go with 007, if only because of the Supreme Court picks."
An official from Republican National Committee, speaking off the record said, "We need to get the moderate and the independent vote, and this time it will be Our Obama not their Obama. Obama with an "R" after his name has a nice look to it. We'll have the second black President, so Democrats can't call us racists anymore, and most important, he can win. Our Obama is against gay marriage, which should motivate some of our conservative friends, even though I personally don't agree. We all have to make compromises, see?"
Republican strategist and pollster Patrick Murphy sees Obama 2007 as the best alternative, "You can't beat something with nothing, and 007 is a fiscal conservative, he's got a plan for Iraq and Afghanistan and he's going to stop bombing Libya. America is going to be more respected in the world, and he's promising unemployment won't go above 8% when he's in office."
Polls show Republicans like Obama 2007 for his relative fiscal sanity, and that many who once cheered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have soured on nation building and the mismanagement of the current administration. "Now that we see how Obama 2012 has been handling these wars 007's ideas of getting out make a lot more sense". Many Republicans also prefer the 2007 Obama's approach to racial harmony. Said another attendee at the rally, "The 2007 Obama distanced himself from that Reverend Wright character, and would never have associated with the likes of Al Sharpton."
Republican strategists expect blacks will vote Republican in unprecedented numbers considering Obama 2007 is also black. However many African-Americans remain skeptical. "Our Obama be They Obama" is a common bumper-sticker found in urban communities. Vasser East, prominent African-American studies professor in Princeton does not approve, "This is another example of the white establishment trying to buy the black man like a slave, and since 007 is half-white they're trying to pay half price."
In order to placate conservatives in the party, GOP insiders are considering two big names to balance the ticket. John F. Kennedy circa 1960 a hawkish tax-cutter and social conservative and Harry S Truman circa 1944 a throwback to the age of responsibility and honesty. Both are said to have practical problems running on a 2012 ticket, however.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Real Estate Salesman vs. New York Times Columnist - Neither Writes Too Good
Okay, I know the headline is wrong but I just finished reading Gail Collins' column, Donald Trump Strikes Back, along with Trump's original letter and, well, I thought I'd join in the fun of writing poorly and I had to get kinda radical since I'm supposed to be, with my credentials, worse than both of them. (was that a run-on sentence? )
Anyway, I can excuse Trump because he doesn't write for a living, and no one is expecting him to be anything more than blunt and efficient in his communications. You might get a rushed memo with a typo on it, too. Deal with it. Still, he should have had someone proofread and edit his most recent letter, especially since he called into question the columnist's writing ability.
I don't read the New York Times much anymore, but I thought you had to be a pretty good writer to work there. Trump, of all people, calling out a New York Times columnist on her word-choices and storytelling ability seems pretty outlandish, but maybe Gail and The Donald are colluding to drive up both New York real estate prices and the Times' circulation figures, who knows?
Not since Trump took on Rosie O'Donnell has there been so much back-and-forth nastiness. Then, it was two shameless self-promoters piling up enough Manhattan mud to make the NYC Sanitation Department consider another work-slowdown.
This time we have two writers of dubious ability against each other:
In this corner, wearing the black- and-white-and-red-all-over trunks, New York Times editorial page writer and editor Gail Collins.
In that corner, wearing the gold lame EverTrumps, real estate mogul and bestselling author Donald Trump. The judges will be High School English teachers, and as the promoters say, This time it's personal.
Gail Collins:
The crowd is restless (Judges take off 1 point for sentence without a verb, take off 2 points for the misuse of a word - further instead of farther, which should be used when conveying the concept of distance - but award one point to Collins for employing French word faux in a New York publication that's not the Post or the Daily News)
Let's move on to the second sentence. What is "alleged evidence"? Is this something that purports to be evidence but isn't actually evidence? I have never read this in any other context in the New York Times. I don't remember reading about the "alleged evidence" regarding speculations about Bush freely bandied about in New York Times editorial pages, so I googled Bush alleged evidence New York Times And found nothing but evidence of the non-existence of alleged evidence citations. It's all evidence plain and simple. But my understanding is that evidence doesn't mean guilt. There can be faulty evidence, circumstantial evidence, or even fraudulent evidence. I wonder if a lawyer can get away with calling the prosecutions bloody glove, "alleged evidence"? Somehow Johnny Cochran didn't even deign to go there.
The first sentence: "Trump does not actually seem..." How does one actually seem? It doesn't sound right to me. Does she mean, Trump does not seem to actually have... this would be better, but it's still awkward. There is an internal conflict, since actual and seem have two opposing meanings. This confuses the reader. How about omitting either the actually, or the seem? Trump does not seem... Or, if the columnist wishes to make a stronger statement, Trump does not actually....
Perhaps Ms. Collins wants to have the strength of actually hide behind the protection of seems. (That's what it actually seems like to me anyway.)
On the positive side, I like the phrase, "a profession in which it is vital to be able to say imaginary things with total certainty" True enough. Real estate mogul, meet New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and this is Gail Collins...you guys have a few things in common...
Next:
Trump must have read Deconstructing Obama, which lays out a pretty compelling case. Collins continues:
I'm beginning to see Trump's point about this writer's word-choices. Reading this is made quite difficult by the word-order and awkward construction.
(Judges take off one point for ambiguous wording
"...he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate" Who was running for the state senate Obama or Ayers?)
We have to start early and work our way through this one; "is the former" is how she chooses to represent "was". This is a bit strange. Perhaps the writer uses this formulation to convey the idea that he has given up his silly hippy-dippy ways, as so many of us have (sorta). But it is still inaccurate. A simple Google search turns up evidence, or perhaps alleged evidence, since it comes from Collins' own New York Times, that Ayers actually pulled off his biggest bombing stunts in the 1970's. And the linked article is entitled No Regrets and was published September 11, 2001. While this isn't the date you want the New York Times to promote your "no regrets" treatise on bombing the Pentagon, it remains evidence that Ayers isn't a "former (insert decade) radical" at all.
But back to the sentence, "who became a huge Republican talking point". Reading sequentially, as most of us do, I was jolted by this confusing word-order. This is the thought process, in micro-seconds of a not-so-average New York Times reader like me:
Since I am a former, um, sixties "radical" also, I had a little flashback, please forgive me. I'm back now with more sober analysis:
What's noteworthy about Ayers , isn't that he set off bombs in the Pentagon, or that he claims responsibility for bombing New York City Police Headquarters, not even that he's an author of his own book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September 2001) which chronicles his run from the FBI as a leader of the Weather Underground in the 1970's, or even that he is a "distinguished" professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago according to Collins' own publication, Bill Ayers is a "huge Republican talking point". That's all we need to know. And New York Times readers know that huge Republican talking points are all fictions to be summarily dismissed.
Now, let's read this sentence again. "a former '60s radical who became a huge Republican talking point in 2008 because (italics mine) he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate."
Interesting construction. (oops, forgot the verb - take away one point)
Yes, that's a pretty big jump, alright, if you leave out facts like Ayers is a published author and a prolific writer. If you leave out circumstantial evidence of motives like Obama had a sizable cash advance with a deadline fast approaching and Ayers had time on his hands, and leave out Jack Cashill's analysis of the different writing level between Obama's two published tomes, along with Cashill's detailed comparisons of words, phrases and sentences between the book in question with examples from Ayer's works noting similar word-choices and parallel construction of distinctive complex sentences. Leaving all that out, it's a pretty big leap.
Maybe Gail Collins isn't such a bad writer after all, once you realize she may be taking liberties with facts and readable sentence structure in order to lead her followers away from certain relevant issues, then it makes more sense that her writing is so convoluted. That's where those journalism degrees come in so handy! Perhaps there is method behind Collins' clunky prose if the real goal is to throw the average New York Times reader off the scent.
Collins concludes with another jolt for us readers. Here we are reading all about Trump and birthers and out of nowhere, she clumsily invokes Mitt Romney:
Huh?
Well, since Collins is the editor of the editorial page, perhaps she's editing herself.
(Judges give the first round to Trump.)
Anyway, I can excuse Trump because he doesn't write for a living, and no one is expecting him to be anything more than blunt and efficient in his communications. You might get a rushed memo with a typo on it, too. Deal with it. Still, he should have had someone proofread and edit his most recent letter, especially since he called into question the columnist's writing ability.
I don't read the New York Times much anymore, but I thought you had to be a pretty good writer to work there. Trump, of all people, calling out a New York Times columnist on her word-choices and storytelling ability seems pretty outlandish, but maybe Gail and The Donald are colluding to drive up both New York real estate prices and the Times' circulation figures, who knows?
Not since Trump took on Rosie O'Donnell has there been so much back-and-forth nastiness. Then, it was two shameless self-promoters piling up enough Manhattan mud to make the NYC Sanitation Department consider another work-slowdown.
This time we have two writers of dubious ability against each other:
In this corner, wearing the black- and-white-and-red-all-over trunks, New York Times editorial page writer and editor Gail Collins.
In that corner, wearing the gold lame EverTrumps, real estate mogul and bestselling author Donald Trump. The judges will be High School English teachers, and as the promoters say, This time it's personal.
Gail Collins:
Although Trump and I have had our differences in the past, I never felt it was personal. In fact, until now, I have refrained from noting that I once got an aggrieved message from him in which he misspelled the word “too.”Ringside crowd boos this one. (Judges take a half point off Trump, but take five points off Collins for trying this feeble ploy as her opening attack.)
But about the letter. Mainly, it’s a list of alleged evidence that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Trump has made this the centerpiece of his faux presidential campaign, falling further and further into the land of the lunatic fringe.
The crowd is restless (Judges take off 1 point for sentence without a verb, take off 2 points for the misuse of a word - further instead of farther, which should be used when conveying the concept of distance - but award one point to Collins for employing French word faux in a New York publication that's not the Post or the Daily News)
Okay, now to the color commentary
Let's move on to the second sentence. What is "alleged evidence"? Is this something that purports to be evidence but isn't actually evidence? I have never read this in any other context in the New York Times. I don't remember reading about the "alleged evidence" regarding speculations about Bush freely bandied about in New York Times editorial pages, so I googled Bush alleged evidence New York Times And found nothing but evidence of the non-existence of alleged evidence citations. It's all evidence plain and simple. But my understanding is that evidence doesn't mean guilt. There can be faulty evidence, circumstantial evidence, or even fraudulent evidence. I wonder if a lawyer can get away with calling the prosecutions bloody glove, "alleged evidence"? Somehow Johnny Cochran didn't even deign to go there.
Trump does not actually seem to have people studying, or even Googling. Still, he sounds very self-assured. This is because before he was a reality-show host, he was in the New York real estate business, a profession in which it is vital to be able to say imaginary things with total certainty. (“I have five other people who are begging me to sell them this property. Begging.”)
The first sentence: "Trump does not actually seem..." How does one actually seem? It doesn't sound right to me. Does she mean, Trump does not seem to actually have... this would be better, but it's still awkward. There is an internal conflict, since actual and seem have two opposing meanings. This confuses the reader. How about omitting either the actually, or the seem? Trump does not seem... Or, if the columnist wishes to make a stronger statement, Trump does not actually....
Perhaps Ms. Collins wants to have the strength of actually hide behind the protection of seems. (That's what it actually seems like to me anyway.)
On the positive side, I like the phrase, "a profession in which it is vital to be able to say imaginary things with total certainty" True enough. Real estate mogul, meet New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and this is Gail Collins...you guys have a few things in common...
Next:
“Bill Ayers wrote ‘Dreams From My Father,’ I have no doubt about it,” Trump told Joe Scarborough...
Trump must have read Deconstructing Obama, which lays out a pretty compelling case. Collins continues:
Ayers is the former '60s radical who became a huge Republican talking point in 2008 because he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate. It’s a pretty big jump from coffee and cookies to writing an entire book, but I guess that’s what neighbors are for.
I'm beginning to see Trump's point about this writer's word-choices. Reading this is made quite difficult by the word-order and awkward construction.
(Judges take off one point for ambiguous wording
"...he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate" Who was running for the state senate Obama or Ayers?)
We have to start early and work our way through this one; "is the former" is how she chooses to represent "was". This is a bit strange. Perhaps the writer uses this formulation to convey the idea that he has given up his silly hippy-dippy ways, as so many of us have (sorta). But it is still inaccurate. A simple Google search turns up evidence, or perhaps alleged evidence, since it comes from Collins' own New York Times, that Ayers actually pulled off his biggest bombing stunts in the 1970's. And the linked article is entitled No Regrets and was published September 11, 2001. While this isn't the date you want the New York Times to promote your "no regrets" treatise on bombing the Pentagon, it remains evidence that Ayers isn't a "former (insert decade) radical" at all.
But back to the sentence, "who became a huge Republican talking point". Reading sequentially, as most of us do, I was jolted by this confusing word-order. This is the thought process, in micro-seconds of a not-so-average New York Times reader like me:
Sixties-radical-who-became-a-huge-Republican
Oh, like David Horowitz?
no... Republican-talking-point,
But how does a person go from being a sixties radical to a huge talking point, Republican or otherwise? That sounds.. strange, maybe the ultimate bad trip for any 60's type." I went to Woodstock, dropped some bad blotter-acid, now I'm a huge Republican talking point" (that could make for an effective Public Service Announcement, by the way)
He went to become a huge talking point because he served tea and cookies to Obama once.
Ya mean, he slipped them hash cookies or some-such hippie prank ?
No, he's a former sixties radical.
But what's so bad about that? The guy's reformed, he had them over for non-hallucinogenic cookies, perfectly OK.
Yes, that's the point. You are reading the New York Times, and the idea is that Republicans and Donald Trump are so ridiculous to believe that since Ayers had Obama over for cookies as a neighborly gesture, that Ayers wrote Obama's book.
Wow, that's pretty ridiculous. Wait. Who's being ridiculous?
Since I am a former, um, sixties "radical" also, I had a little flashback, please forgive me. I'm back now with more sober analysis:
What's noteworthy about Ayers , isn't that he set off bombs in the Pentagon, or that he claims responsibility for bombing New York City Police Headquarters, not even that he's an author of his own book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September 2001) which chronicles his run from the FBI as a leader of the Weather Underground in the 1970's, or even that he is a "distinguished" professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago according to Collins' own publication, Bill Ayers is a "huge Republican talking point". That's all we need to know. And New York Times readers know that huge Republican talking points are all fictions to be summarily dismissed.
Now, let's read this sentence again. "a former '60s radical who became a huge Republican talking point in 2008 because (italics mine) he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate."
Interesting construction. (oops, forgot the verb - take away one point)
It’s a pretty big jump from coffee and cookies to writing an entire book, but I guess that’s what neighbors are for.
Yes, that's a pretty big jump, alright, if you leave out facts like Ayers is a published author and a prolific writer. If you leave out circumstantial evidence of motives like Obama had a sizable cash advance with a deadline fast approaching and Ayers had time on his hands, and leave out Jack Cashill's analysis of the different writing level between Obama's two published tomes, along with Cashill's detailed comparisons of words, phrases and sentences between the book in question with examples from Ayer's works noting similar word-choices and parallel construction of distinctive complex sentences. Leaving all that out, it's a pretty big leap.
Maybe Gail Collins isn't such a bad writer after all, once you realize she may be taking liberties with facts and readable sentence structure in order to lead her followers away from certain relevant issues, then it makes more sense that her writing is so convoluted. That's where those journalism degrees come in so handy! Perhaps there is method behind Collins' clunky prose if the real goal is to throw the average New York Times reader off the scent.
Collins concludes with another jolt for us readers. Here we are reading all about Trump and birthers and out of nowhere, she clumsily invokes Mitt Romney:
Recent polls have shown Trump running second among potential Republican primary voters. I believe this is not so much an indication of popularity as a desperate plea to be delivered from Mitt Romney.
Huh?
Well, since Collins is the editor of the editorial page, perhaps she's editing herself.
(Judges give the first round to Trump.)
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
This Is Getting Ridiculous
I fail to see how bringing the actual bill, however many pages long it may be, to a meeting debating said bills' merits constitutes political theater as Obama claims, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt:
One week later:
The only kind of medical personnel who wear their whites outside a clinical setting are mental health professionals, worn to communicate to the patient and public their qualifications for whatever intervention they are making. Knowing Obama's open contempt for using props and political gimmickry, they certainly can't be regular physicians wearing white coats, right?
I have to conclude that either Obama is a brazen hypocrite or has managed to alert the psychiatric community perhaps based on this diagnosis:
To be fair, Obama isn't trying to do exactly the same thing, but he may still be insane. Perhaps some of the "blue dogs" covertly called up St. Elizabeth's to take him for an evaluation.
This time, our president wants to use a parliamentary trick, "reconciliation" or the "nuclear option". Obama and fellow Democrats are on record denouncing this in no uncertain terms.
One election, and 5 years later:
Is this Dementia? Early onset of Alzheimer's? If Obama has a clean bill of mental health after his checkup, then I'm not sure if Barack Obama knows what he is doing to his credibility and the credibility of his fellow Democrats.
One week later:
I have to conclude that either Obama is a brazen hypocrite or has managed to alert the psychiatric community perhaps based on this diagnosis:
"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
- the popular definition of insanity.
To be fair, Obama isn't trying to do exactly the same thing, but he may still be insane. Perhaps some of the "blue dogs" covertly called up St. Elizabeth's to take him for an evaluation.
This time, our president wants to use a parliamentary trick, "reconciliation" or the "nuclear option". Obama and fellow Democrats are on record denouncing this in no uncertain terms.
One election, and 5 years later:
Is this Dementia? Early onset of Alzheimer's? If Obama has a clean bill of mental health after his checkup, then I'm not sure if Barack Obama knows what he is doing to his credibility and the credibility of his fellow Democrats.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)