29 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jessie // Dec 14, 2006 at 12:42 pm

  Wow you think he isn’t going to tinker with the press when he’s in office? You think over something that actually matters like foreign policy he isn’t going to try and manipulate the way the press report it? It shows these people for who they really were, and for more stray microphones in our public figures rooms I would be very grateful.

• 2 S Quinney // Dec 14, 2006 at 12:49 pm

  Jessie I wholeheartedly agree. This shows him up as a guy who would use whatever power he has (and as president he would have more than any man anywhere) to intimidate people around him to get what he wants. We should be very wary of people like this and unfortunately it’s not rare.

• 3 Mark ( Georgia) // Dec 15, 2006 at 10:39 am

  I’m not sure that taking a guy’s sentence itself is proof of anything in particular or that John is right to make him seem any different from any other politician, really what is the significance of this whole story? The guy seems very nice.

• 4 S Quinney // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:15 am

  Mark the point is that Obama has used his position as a senator and his influence as a presidential candidate to try and manipulate the press. This gives me no confidence in his respect for freedom of the press nor of his attitude to others. The language he used was not the language of a man who usually respects other people enough to treat them as individuals with their own rights. And his politics is exactly the same, when you look at it. If he were elected president, he would be the most freedom-crunching president in American history, virtually. John’s article is right to point this out, and by the way I don’t see this story elsewhere in the media very much… why not?

• 5 Mark (georgia) // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:34 am

  I think it’s good that he stood up for himself against criticism, most people won’t challenge the press which is rife with sensationalism and crazy headlines and they think they’re all powerful. What if he simply stood upp for himself?

• 6 Anonymous // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:47 pm

  This is only proof that while you may be libertarian, you are totally lacking in reason. Or humor. Do a little research, moron. Obama refers to himself as the skinny kid with big ears and a funny name.

  I suggest you change the name of your blog to reflect the reality of what you have to offer.

• 7 John Wright // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:56 pm

  Anonymous- (Or should I refer to you as ‘moron’ as you did me, since you don’t have balls enough to identify yourself?) Next time you leave a disparaging comment, try and have an argument handy. My post was about a specific incident in which Obama himself contradicted your comment. But thanks for your contribution.

• 8 Anonymous // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:57 pm

  Research it, moron. Get pissed with me, or learn something…better yourself.

• 9 Anonymous // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:59 pm

  Anyone who takes Limbaugh or Hannity at face value is by definition a moron. I don’t make the rules. Don’t be so thin skinned when your lying about people being thin skinned.

• 10 John Wright // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:07 pm

  You started name-calling, not me. I didn’t “put you on notice”, kid. That’s Obama’s language. For a guy who’s good for so much self-teasing revelry as you suggest, Obama sure doesn’t like the sound of anyone else doing so. I don’t make the rules, either.

• 11 Anonymous // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:13 pm

  You obviously have no sense of humor and take your news from Rush. He was kidding Dowd. He jokes about his ears all the time. I’ll make it easy for you since your to lazy to seek the truth:

  http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050411-remarks_of_senator_barack_obama_at_the_herblock_foundation_annual_lecture/index.html

• 12 Anonymous // Dec 15, 2006 at 10:59 pm

  reasonable AND a sense of humor. now that’s funny!

• 13 John Wright // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:13 pm

  “You obviously have no sense of humor and take your news from Rush…”

  Obviously.

• 14 Billy // Dec 16, 2006 at 5:43 pm

  “now children stop the bitching”
  1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

• 15 S Quinney // Dec 17, 2006 at 10:46 am

  Anonymous comes here to assert that Obama was kidding when he “put” Dowd “on notice”. Yet every indication is that he was pissed off about it, and there was no indication that he was joking. For a guy looking for humor, he’s fairly humorless himself.

• 16 Anonymous // Dec 17, 2006 at 2:39 pm

  Maybe this blog should be call “Dittohead Central”. Rush tells you what to think. You’re helpless without him. Obama routinely jokes about his big ears, on his website and in speeches:

  http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050411-rema…ture/index.html

  So did his publisher when it announced his book in 2004:

  http://www.randomhouse.biz/media/pdfs/BarackObama.pdf

  If Dowd didn’t think he was joking, she would have written about it by now. This is much ado about nothing.

  Jessie think this is evidence that Obama would manipulate the press. Right. That’s Bushco, Inc.

  http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/

• 17 S Quinney // Dec 17, 2006 at 4:20 pm

  Anonymous, first, perhaps you have some connection to or link with John Wright that I am not aware of. Otherwise, you’re making assumptions that have no basis in reality. You say John is “helpless” without Rush. Yet Rush is a conservative, John is a libertarian. They’re two totally different worldviews, based on completely different principles, and maybe you should do some reading if you don’t understand that. Maybe the reason you don’t, or the reason you don’t have a decent comprehension of politics in America, is because you read websites like thinkprogress.org! If that’s where you get your news, then you’re no better than dittoheads. I’m a regular reader of this blog and I hate Rush Limbaugh’s guts. Oh, that’s right - I’m probably a dittohead.

  Second, the fact of the matter is that Obama, although he has of course made fun of himself, definitely did not like another person doing so. Did you actually see and hear this happen? Or are you just reading the transcript? The guy wasn’t joking.

  Third, I’m not sure that John Wright was MAKING a big deal out of this as you suggest. Nothing in the article above is dogmatic, and you’re saying it’s much ado about nothing yet YOU are the one making such an ado! If it’s so inconsequential then why are you on here arguing about it?

• 18 John Wright // Dec 17, 2006 at 4:52 pm

  Okay, guys. Quinney, thanks for your defence of my article.

  There is a small-time burgeoning debate on this, represented by the blog entry HERE, concentrating on whether or not Obama was being serious or not. Is there a possibility that he was kidding? Yes, of course that’s a possibility. Contrary to what the commenter posting as ‘Anonymous’ says, I don’t rely on Rush Limbaugh for my information. I hear his show on occasion because I’m on the radio daily, 90 minutes after his show finishes on my station. On this occasion I had the radio on while driving to lunch, and heard a soundbite Rush played. I came back to the office and Googled the story, and this post came about.

  It stands or falls on whether or not Obama was kidding. The reason for the comments section is that people like you folks can agree or disagree. The readers aren’t stupid, Anonymous, and can decide for themselves. Quinney is also right to say that I wasn’t placing any great stake in Obama being at fault; I wish I could like him, actually, but his politics are horrendous.

  Thanks all, for your comments.

• 19 Anonymous // Dec 17, 2006 at 5:07 pm

  Hey, Quinney! I do understand the difference between so-called conservatives and libertarians. Unfortunately I often find most self-claimed libertarians don’t. Also, my use of “conservative” was shorthand for people who claim that designation. The term has been rendered virtually meaningless. If you knew anything about American politics, you would know that already.

  John falsely claims the column was written last week. It wasn’t. She wrote it over a month ago. He didn’t cite it, nor does it appear that he had read it at the time of his post. He certainly didn’t link to it, nor did he link to the quote he provided. If he had, it would have almost certainly been Limbaugh’s site or another site that got it from Limbaugh. We’ll see if he’s at least man enough to admit it, regardless of what political label he choses. How ’bout it, John? Man enough to tell us?

• 20 S Quinney // Dec 17, 2006 at 10:01 pm

  The comment by John timestamped 3:52pm, which had existed for 15 minutes before you posted yours, and in which he gives the source of his post, should give you your answer about whether he’s “man enough” to admit it, though I’m not sure what masculinity has to do with it.

• 21 Anonymous // Dec 17, 2006 at 10:39 pm

  Hey Quinney and John! This is a Rush Limbaugh generated story. It has no real basis. John didn’t even know what Dowd had written or when she had written it. He made that part up. Now he’s quoted by other blogs. This is how the Right Wing noise machine works. It usually starts with Rush or Hannity and then bloggers, columnist and Fox News runs with it and repeats it enough to try to create a narrative that defines someone they fear. Look at this case, John only knows Rush’s spin on this exchange, and echoes it again in his comments. Where’s the “reason” here? Not in Quinney’s comments. He uses this as a launching pad to broadly indict Obama: “If he were elected president, he would be the most freedom-crunching president in American history…”

  What a nut job. Hey, John? How about employing a little “reason” on your friend and defender?

  Ever watch the Colbert Report. He puts people “on notice”, too. I guess you take him seriously as well. Stephen Colbert is a threat to freedom and democracy. He and Obama must be stopped!!!

  The fact is, Obama routinely jokes about his ears. If either of you had read that column you would see that the comment on his ears was one of the less critical things she mentioned. Which is kind of the joke. If you question my manhood, etc. and after slamming me mention that my ears stick out, and thats the one thing I bring up when we meet, I’m dismissing what you wrote. Since this blog claims to have a sense of humor, I’m at a loss as to why folks here find it so hard to recognize humor.

  Frankly, I have no idea if I will support Obama. I just find this kind of manufactured crap ridiculous.

  And, seriously, with your freedoms as endangered as they are right now, THIS is what you have found fit to put out there over the last few days? Are you really a libertarian? Where’s that stuff?

• 22 Brian // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:17 am

  Anonymous what I think you patently fail to understand is that John Wright’s rhetoric on this issue was, as Quinney said, not dogmatic in the slightest and merely raising the issue which — yes — was first raised by Rush Limbaugh although why that actually matters I’m at a loss, and you are completely free to disagree, as you have. And what you said about it being a launching pad for other criticism of Obama is ridiculous — if you have read anything else in this blog you realize that such criticism is forthcoming from John Wright or Stephen Graham on any issue which is not pro-liberty be it a typically conservative or a typically liberal stance, regardless of any other facts. There’s plenty here that Rush would not be in particular agreement with. But one only needs to check Obama’s record to see that any libertarian would not be happy with him as President of the US. Some of your other criticism which is that he may have been joking is perfectly valid and that’s why your comments are being welcomed here even from the person you are disagreeing with. You’ll notice nobody has called YOU a nut job or a moron yet, which must be nice for you. And you’ll also notice that John Wright responded to you with a very reasonable answer which you have yet to acknowledge. Tell me why we’re still talking about this?

• 23 Brian // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:48 am

  In fact Anonymous, this is NOT a “Rush Limbaugh generated story” as you assert. The fact that only Rush covered it in the mainstream media at first only means that he got the exclusive - you’ll now find it in a lot of the other media. The story was about microphones picking up this exchange. Rush Limbaugh was merely the first to cover it.

• 24 John Wright // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:59 am

  Anonymous- I wonder if you’d have responded as quickly defending George W. Bush in his open-mic incident, had there been even the slightest suggestion that he was only ‘kidding’.

  Anyway, I’ve updated the post above to reflect your criticism, something I’ve done very rarely. I’ll expect a nice Christmas card from you in the next week.

• 25 Anonymous // Dec 18, 2006 at 8:15 pm

  “Anonymous what I think you patently fail to understand is that John Wright’s rhetoric on this issue was, as Quinney said, not dogmatic in the slightest and merely raising the issue…”

  Brian, I won’t insult your reading ability, or tell you what you “patently fail to understand,” but I do encourage you to read it again. I was going to quote excerpts, but it ended up being a large chunk of the piece. John reached strong, condemning conclusions of Obama based on his and Rush’s conclusion that this was not a joke. He has since moderated that premise somewhat, which I will give him credit for, but his article and comments like Quinney’s that follow it are over-the-top and unreasonable by any objective standard.

  “And what you said about it being a launching pad for other criticism of Obama is ridiculous… “

  We may not be reading the same article. I was reading the one above all these comments.

  “ But one only needs to check Obama’s record to see that any libertarian would not be happy with him as President of the US. “

  Fine. Outline that actual record, accurately, and have at it. Wouldn’t that be more useful and substantive than this?

  “You’ll notice nobody has called YOU a nut job or a moron yet, which must be nice for you.”

  Brian, if I ever say something as insane as this based on so little:

  “If he were elected president, he would be the most freedom-crunching president in American history…”

  … please call me a nut job. In fact, have me committed, do an intervention, just stop me before I utter such nonsense again! After all, it was not like Obama said this: “there ought to be limits to freedom,” when someone posted a satirical website about him he didn’t like. Granted, all of us should have taken the man at his word back in 1999, but he was outright explicit about it.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/29/002r-112999-idx.html

  “In fact Anonymous, this is NOT a “Rush Limbaugh generated story” as you assert. The fact that only Rush covered it in the mainstream media at first only means that he got the exclusive - you’ll now find it in a lot of the other media.”

  In fact, it is. Google it and you will see to what I am referring. You don’t have to look any further than this blog. Rush’s spin didn’t motivate John to look more into the matter, i.e. read the actual Dowd article, look for other evidence of Obama using or responding to similar characterizations. He took Limbaugh’s spin at face value. Look at all the Right Wing blogs that immediately ran with the narrative that Obama was too thin skinned to be President. Imagine that becoming the narrative on you based on so little.

  Thanks for your comments.

• 26 S Quinney // Dec 18, 2006 at 8:54 pm

  Anonymous you have a very fair point about a lot of the blogs that take Rush at face value and run with it. I told you before I hate Rush Limbaugh, I think the guy is dogmatic, closed-minded and filled with prejudice. But this blog isn’t one of them and I honestly don’t think John Wright falls into the category you’re trying to portray him as. I’m saying this as a longterm reader of this blog and there’s plenty here that Rush wouldn’t agree with.

  The fact is that John’s attention was not captured by anything Rush SAID about it, but about the microphone incident itself, which seemed very self-explanatory. There was no complex narrative by Rush that needed to be heard along with the audio from the event in order to take it as John did: Obama’s own words were the catalyst for discussion. If he was joking, it was only considered that that was a possibility after the fact. You make it sound like it was the SPIN that made news, but in fact it was Obama’s own words that made news on their own.

  I think John’s been more than accommodating of your criticism and for someone who questioned if he was ‘man enough’ you sure aren’t as quick to retract some of your own brand of bitter recrimination.

• 27 Anonymous // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:27 pm

  Well, Quinney, we obviously have some different perspectives on things. In many respects, this seems like a fairly typically Right Wing blog– many of the same assumptions, characterizations, etc. That said, it is certainly far from the “worst” or most extreme.

  My comments about Rush pertain to this particular article and I haven’t been shown a good reason to retract them. You say you “hate Rush.” Fine. I don’t hate the guy, but rather just see him for what he is.

  Think what you will about Rush’s influence on John and this article, I personally think you are fooling yourself. He heard the radio show and that same day, took the quote from Rush’s website without attribution and spun a very similar narrative about what it “meant.” Even referred to him, mockingly, as “rock star”, just as Rush had on the website the day before. Further, the article reflected no further inquiry than Rush’s website or something derived from it.

  Granted, my intial posts were made hastily when I didn’t have much time to find the links which supported my point or to craft my argument. I was intially goading him to look a little deeper himself. Was my language over-the-top? Yeah. When I blogged, I took it as a responsibility to get my facts straight and supported with links if I was going to express strong conclusions about somebody. I think it is unethical to do otherwise. So while I will certainly recognize that some of my goading and phrasing was a bit much, I don’t retract my basic arguments. I think they’re sound and nothing has shown otherwise.

  We listen to the audio and hear very different things. You hear evidence of this:

  “If he were elected president, he would be the most freedom-crunching president in American history…”

  John hears evidence of this:

  “Clearly this man is used to giving orders and getting exactly what he wants, much as he desires to come across as the humble, affectionate candidate who holds empathy with the common man. His attitude here is distinctly one which seeks to control Dowd’s future commentary; he’s putting her “on notice” that she should not mention his ears again. This certainly does not give me the impression of a man who would intentionally avoid manipulating the press, or who respects the freedom of the media to criticise him in whichever way they like. “

  I think you are both being over-the-top in your conclusions. I think you are both being irrational. Be irrational about football, or something like it, if you wish, but when presenting an image of a man to the world, even when that man is a politician, it is grossly unfair to be so irrational and to leap to broad conclusions on such limited evidence. It isn’t reasonable, as this blog purports to be. It also reflects arrogance and hubris and when I perceive those things, I can be pretty rude. Even to the point of having you easily perceive the same things about me.

• 28 John Wright // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:40 pm

  (Duplicate posts deleted.) Ok, listen Anonymous, I accept some of your criticism on this piece. It wasn’t crafted as carefully as usual, and it shows. The comments from you here (once you began to actually make arguments instead of shoot your mouth off) balanced the original post and I think people are left with an informative view of the incident, which really wasn’t intended to be a big deal. To be honest I never fail to be surprised at which posts end up being controversial.

  If Obama was being serious, my piece is entirely reasonable. If Obama was joking as you suggest, then my criticism obviously doesn’t apply. What I did earlier was to update the post to reflect that possibility, which I think is a neat way of acknowledging that I may be wrong. I do thank you for stopping by, and you seem like a nice guy. I hope that you check back sometime and find that your same criticism need not apply.

  Best regards,
  John

• 29 Anonymous // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:56 pm

  John:

  I’ll say this– your ultimate response is far more reasonable than I would expect of most bloggers of any political persuasion.

  If Obama was serious and runs for President, I’m sure we will see ample evidence that supports your original thesis.

  In regard to Bush’s open mic moment, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. If he was “kidding” that Hezbollah needed to “stop that shit,” I’m not sure his base would have understood, nor anyone else. Surely, they do need to “stop that shit.” I was neither surprised nor particularly bothered by his statement. Any of us can get caught off-guard being casual and perhaps profane. At the same time I’m not sure I totally agree with the premise of your argument in that post. Yes, I think Bush has benefitted from being seen as “folksy”– especially in comparison to Bore and Lurch. But I’m not sure most Americans want to see their President act like Larry the Cable Guy at a G-8 Summit.

  Oh yes, and I apologize for my rudeness, but I’m glad I could liven things up over here.

Leave a Comment