This is the second week in a row that Commando Kelly's pushed this particular rhetorical button.
Let's start with the headline of the piece:
Actually, Quayle himself has a slightly different take on it. Paul Mickle of the Trentonian writes:Dan Quayle was just 41 and looked younger when George H. W. Bush plucked him from relative obscurity to be his running mate. Journalists portrayed Mr. Quayle as inexperienced and not too bright, an image cemented on June 15, 1992, when, while officiating at a spelling bee in Trenton, N.J., he corrected a 12-year-old's spelling of "potato," telling the boy there was an "e" on the end.
Mr. Quayle was wrong, but not terribly. "Potatoe" was an accepted spelling through the 19th century, and the error was on a cue card provided by school authorities. But journalists needed no further proof that Dan Quayle was a dunce.
Quayle ruefully reported on a Washington Post article that suggested the Trenton flub got such wide media play because "it seemed like a perfect illustration of what people thought about me anyway.’’So it didn't start with the potato(e) gaffe.
In any event, Kelly's apologia for Quayle's gaffe doesn't ring true for two reasons; 1) Quayle wasn't born in the 19th century and 2) if he indeed knew how to spell "potato" why didn't he just go with what he knew to be true? Blaming it on the cue cards he was handed is no help.
To refresh everyone's memories let's take a look at some of Dan Quayle's most famous verbal gaffes:
- What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.
- I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.
- The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century.
And so on. By the way Mickle also writes:
The media’s "obsession with my small verbal blunders went beyond the bounds of fairness,’’ Quayle wrote in his book.
So perhaps I am being unfair. But in the spirit of Vice-President Quayle's assertion that media obsession on "small verbal blunders" is beyond the bounds of fairness, let's return to Jack Kelly's column. He summed up last week's column with this:
In last week's column, I twitted Mr. Obama for saying he'd campaigned in 57 states, for not knowing that his home state of Illinois borders on Kentucky and for claiming the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962) was defused by President Kennedy's summit meeting with Nikita Khruschchev (June 1961). Earlier, Mr. Obama said 10,000 people were killed when a tornado struck Greensburg, Kansas, last year (the death toll was 12), and assumed Afghans speak Arabic (they don't).
Last week I took apart the Khruschev/Castro thing. When you look at what Obama actually said:
This whole notion of not talking to people, it didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s, it didn't hold in the '80s, it didn't hold in the '90s against much more powerful adversaries, much more dangerous adversaries. I mean, when Kennedy met with Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war. When Nixon met with Mao, that was with the knowledge that Mao had exterminated millions of people.
you're left with the question, "Where on God's Own Earth did Jack Kelly get that Obama said that the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 was diffused by the Kennedy Khrushchev Summit of June 1961?"
Can anyone at the P-G answer me that? I know you guys read this blog down there.
Let's take a look at the "gaffe" about Kentucky. Jack chides Senator Obama:
...for not knowing that his home state of Illinois borders on Kentucky...
But yet, when you take a look at what Obama actually said:
“What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known — not only because of her time in the White House with her husband — but also coming from a nearby state of Arkansas.”
In that quotation, Obama is saying that while he's not well known in and around Kentucky, Senator Clinton is better known for two reasons; 1) the years she spent as first lady when her husband was the President of the United States and 2) the years she spent as first lady when her husband was Governor of of the nearby state of Arkansas.
Where is the discussion on borders?
I'll ask it again - doesn't anyone fact-check Jack Kelly down there on the Boulevard of the Allies?
Next we get to the 57 states thing. Take a look at the actual event. You might have to turn up the volume a bit. Pay attention to what you hear after he mentions the "57 states." It's laughter. It was a joke. Does Jack Kelly really think that a sitting US Senator really thinks there are 57 states?
Let's move onto so some other gaffes. The Tornado - 10,000 deaths. Here's how the AP told the story:This overshadowed what was probably the point of the story, that the Kansas National guard had been depleted due to the Iraq war. And then in the same article, we find this:RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.
The death toll was 12.
A correction a few minutes later. Now about the translators in Afghanistan. ABC reported that:As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.
"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."
Curious that Jack didn't add that last part - probably because he'd have to point out that when Obama makes a gaffe, he corrects himself.Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic.
"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.
The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.
No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.
Next onto the Concentration Camp story. This is Jack Kelly at his most deceptive. As a reminder here's what he writes:
Sounds pretty cut and dried, don't it? But when dealing with the generally fact-free zone that usually occupies Jack Kelly's columns, it's never ever cut and dried.Speaking in New Mexico, Mr. Obama seemed not to understand Memorial Day honors those who died in war, and claimed his uncle was one of the soldiers who liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. Since Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, and Mr. Obama's mom was an only child, this is unlikely.
When this misstatement was spotted by bloggers, the Obama campaign said the senator had in mind his great uncle, Charles W. Payne, who, the campaign said, had served in the 89th Infantry Division, which liberated Ohrdruf, a slave labor camp that was a satellite of Buchenwald. This explanation has satisfied most journalists. But Charles W. Payne is not listed on the roster of the 89th Infantry Division, perhaps because the Kansas State Historical Society says Charles W. Payne entered the Navy on Nov. 10, 1942.
First off, notice now Jack phrases it:
...the Obama campaign said the senator had in mind his great uncle, Charles W. Payne, who, the campaign said, had served in the 89th Infantry Division...First, there's this from the Washington Post (from TUESDAY):
The Obama campaign now says that Obama was referring to his great-uncle on his mother's side, and the camp in question was not Auschwitz, but Ohrdruf, which was part of the Buchenwald camp system in Lower Saxony. Ohrdruf was the first camp to be liberated by the Americans on April 4, 1945, and it was visited a week later by Generals Eisenhower, Patton, and Bradley. Eisenhower later wrote to his wife that he "never dreamed that such cruelty, bestiality and savagery could really exist in this world."
The campaign declined to release the name of Obama's great-uncle, apparently because he is an elderly man who does not want to be disturbed by reporters. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that he served in the 89th Infantry Division which crossed the Rhine river in March 1945. [emphasis added]
As we'll see in a bit, by Thursday, this changes. There's this from Politifact.com:
The Obama campaign did not provide any documentation to confirm that Charles T. Payne, 83, served in the 89th Infantry Division in April 1945. And we wanted more than their word. [emphasis added]That's right, you know where I'm going here, don't you. Look at the middle initial of Mr Payne. Jack Kelly says it's a "W" and politifact says it's a "T".
So Jack Kelly would be absolutely correct if he were to say that Charles W. Payne wasn't among those who liberated Ohrdruf. Too bad he's not the right Charles Payne.
Jack Kelly's whole argument about Great Uncle Payne being in the Navy and not the Army collapses completely with that. He had to have known about it as the correct information was published on Thursday:
His name, according to the Obama campaign, was Charles T. Payne.I'll say it again, doesn't ANYONE FACT-CHECK JACK KELLY?
Especially in a column about how one presidential candidate is a "one-man gaffe machine."
One thing I wanted to point out here was that when Senator Obama makes a gaffe, the correction usually comes a short time later. Contrast this with a recent gaffe of Senator McCain's - one where he refuses to admit he's wrong.
One last time: DOESN'T ANYONE FACT-CHECK JACK KELLY AT THE P-G?
20 comments:
John K. Says: But Obama does make a lot of gaffes. 57 States and Auschwitz being liberated by Americans. So the question is; If you criticized Quayle for making similar errors with such vitrolic rancor, then shouldn't that also apply to Obama? Nah forget I even asked. Obama is a lefty. LOL LMAO at the usual hypocracy.
That's right. Turning "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" into "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." is exactly as idiotic as saying "Auchwitz" when you mean "Buchenwald."
It's exactly the same!!
AUSCHWITZ: Liberated by Soviet Forces. Site of 1.5 million deaths.
BUCHENWALD: Liberated by U.S. forces. Site of 57,000 deaths.
Oh, yes. Exactly the same.
I'm sure those extra 1.4 million Jews and their families could hardly tell the difference.
Chad, my friend;
You disappoint me greatly. Are you saying that the 57,000 deaths at Buchenwald are any less atrocious than the 1.5 million at Aushwitz?
From the Huffingtonpost:On April 4, 1945, Ohrdruf became the first Nazi concentration camp to be liberated by American forces. U.S. troops -- including the 89th Infantry Division -- found a scene that was vividly described by the Eisenhower Memorial Commission: "The scene was an indescribable horror even to the combat-hardened troops who captured the camp. Bodies were piled throughout the camp. There was evidence everywhere of systematic butchery. Many of the mounds of dead bodies were still smoldering from failed attempts by the departing SS guards to burn them."
Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley would tour the camp in the days ahead. Eisenhower was so moved by the atrocities at this "work camp," that he wrote to his wife Mamie that it was "beyond the American mind of comprehend."
He made both his own men and all of the citizens of the German town of Gotha tour the camp. He wanted the Americans to know the evil that they were fighting. He wanted German citizens to see what had been done in their name. After this tour, the Mayor of Gotha and his wife hanged themselves.
So I guess you're right. It WAS wrong to in anyway equate the atrocities at Buchenwald with those at Auchwitz.
What was Senator Obama thinking???
Obama is Bush of the left.. say anything.. do anything that's o.k. He is incompetent and inexperienced but the left loves him
There are some daft people in this world...
What kind of gaffe is the "57 states" thing? Honestly, have any of the morons holding that against Obama even thought about how stupid they sound when they attack him for that?
And let me second the point made by Anon 7:47...if you want to argue which camp was worse, Auschwitz or Buchenwald, be my guest. Have fun declaring yourself as a complete fucking ass-hat..."Fewer died at Buchenwald, ergo it was better than Auschwitz."
Really? Is that really an opinion you want to express publicly? Are you aware that that is a strategy used by Holocaust deniers, to trivialize the difference between a Nazi "death" camp and a Nazi "work" camp?
I guess they just had a poor work ethic at Buchenwald, right?
My grandmother was at Buchenwald as a member of the 107th Med Evac unit. I'm pretty sure the dead Jews, lying in a ditch having been shot in the back, in a photo labeled "Dead at Buchenwald" count just as much as all those who were murdered in the Auschwitz prison camp system.
Of course, Obama's great uncle was a member of the 89th Infantry division that liberated Ohrdruf, a satellite camp of Buchenwald. My guess is that most people don't know the difference. I'd even wager John K. didn't know until he heard it on some pathetic rightwing shock jock's daily self-abuse session.
Quayle was criticized because the fucking moron couldn't spell potato, let alone string together coherent thoughts for anything longer than a few seconds...the man was born stupid.
I suppose had Obama embellished a story about personally coming under sniper fire or repeatedly failing to show that he understands the difference between Shia and Sunni, then I'd probably be worried.
Fortunately, he's owned up to these "gaffes." He's not zealously unapologetic; nor does he need Joe Lieberman to whisper in his ear and remind him what day of the week it is.
At least Obama knows how many soldiers we have in Iraq, unlike McCain who is either confused or deliberately lying to the American people to create the impression that we have drawn down forces. He's either just stupid or a lying, ill-tempered s.o.b.
I suppose people can keep hammering for this pointless "gaffes" if they must, but they'll only be wasting their time because...NO ONE FUCKING CARES!!!
Honestly, this mentality that besets so many American voters, to be so consumed by the trivial...grow up already. Frankly, I think most Americans are sick and tired with the clowns and buffoons who waste our time with such irrelevent nonsense.
Thank you John K. and Chad...we're all a little dumber now.
Two favorite quotes from J. Danforth Quayle:
"The future will be better tomorrow."
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
John K. says: LMAO at Obama and his 57 States statement. We sound just as dumb as you lefties when you attacked VP Quayle. But when you are a lefty and make statements like American Division liberating Auschwitz, you don't become the worst person in the world. You get left wing kooks trying to defend it. LMAO LMAO Obama is one gaffe after another.
More evidence that John K doesn't know how to READ.
You're damned right I'm saying that. Because 57,000 deaths are about 1,443,000 deaths less atrocious than 1.5 million deaths.
Are you saying that all those extra lives don't matter, because, well, you know, once you get to 57,000, it's really all just death anyway?
No. Of course you're not. You're just trying to score a cheap, anti-intellectual point.
And Jaywillie is doing the same thing. Unless, of course, equating me with Holocaust deniers because I happen to think that 1.5 million deaths qualifies as more of an atrocity, and far more of a loss, than 57,000 deaths is somehow the height of intellectual insight.
I'm not diminishing what happened at Buchenwald. At all. And no one with a shred of intellectual honesty or integrity could possibly think that I am.
In your zeal to excuse Senator Obama -- really: if your uncle helped liberate a death camp, shouldn't you know which one it was? at least before you start pimping his efforts? -- and attack me, you come awfully close to diminishing what happened at Auschwitz.
Funny, once again, how supporters of a man who claims to stand for a New Kind of Politics are so eager to distort and/or demonize the view of anyone who disagrees with them -- truth or nuance or fairness be damned.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Chad;
There's an old saying in politics (and you should know it by now, now that you're Representative Tim Murphy's speech writer) that goes, "Once you're in a hole, stop digging."
My friend - STOP DIGGING.
You're proposing a multi-tiered criteria for atrocities. One that's labelled "bad" and the other "not that bad." While this might get you somewhere when sifting through the music of Creedence Clearwater Revival, it will get you no where when looking at the death camps/concentration camps/work camps of the Third Reich.
Isn't 57,000 deaths bad enough for you? Does it have to be 1.5 million to qualifiy for Chad's stamp of "justifiably bad enough"?
Let's do a thought experiment: You meet in your travels someone who survived Buchenwald are you REALLY going to say to that person,
"Whew, you lucked out. At least you weren't at Auchwitz where things were REALLY bad! You should count your lucky stars! I mean look at things objectively only 57,000 people were killed at Buchenwald. True they worked a lot of people to death, thousands starved and they performed medical experiments on others, but when you were there you maybe had the chance to meet Robert Clary who went on to star in Hogan's Heroes! Now if you survived Auchwitz, THEN you'd have more of my sympathy."
You're the one, Chad, who's playing "gotcha" with the deaths of millions of jews. You're the one looking to score cheap political points on the ashes of millions of human beings unlucky enough to find themselves in the Reich's crosshairs.
How does it feel, my friend?
I was not equating you with Holocaust deniers, Chad. I was warning you that the tenor of your argument was taking on the tone of arguments used by those who do deny the Holocaust, namely by trivializing what happened at the camps. In that same sense, you're saying that what happened at Auschwitz is worse than what happened at Buchenwald.
My point is that it is not worse; they are both part of the concerted effort by the Nazi's to systematically exterminate Jews and political prisoners. Both camps were the scenes of horrible atrocities.
And I will continue to defend vehemently a man that people are making the most scurrilous attacks against.
Fairness? People are accusing the man of "lying" about how many states we have...what sense does that even make? People have accused him of embellishing his great uncle's service by claiming that he deliberately said he was at Auschwitz. Knowing that his great uncle was a member of the 89nth Infantry that liberated Ohrdruf, a satellite camp of Buchenwald, what seems more likely - that he lied or made an error?
I think what we have are a lot of people who only know how to play the same ol' tit-for-tat, gotcha style of politics.
The man didn't contradict a written account of a visit to Bosnia repeatedly nor did he insist, against all the facts, that we have drawn down forces in Iraq to pre-surge levels. You tell me what "gaffes" are worse - embellishing a personal story to increase the perception of "wordly" experience or trying to hoodwink the American people into believing that we've brought some troops home?
John K. says: You lefties need to get a grip. We are not saying Hussein Obama is lying about the 57 States or Auschwitz. I am saying that if his name was Quayle and he had said that he would be the worst person in the world. Since there is no equal treatment, then I guess that makes you Obama people hypocrites. And that is what gripes you most. Can't handle the heat. LOL LOL LMAO This campaign has proved one thing. Democrats are the nothing bunch of political bigots. Ickes is right.
I can't describe it in words, but I can say that there is a difference between the Quayle gaffes and the Obama ones. And I say this as someone who voted for Bush-Quayle not just once but twice.
When I read the "57 states" and the "Auschwitz vs. Buchenwald" statements, I can dig where these mistakes came from. For f***'s sake, put me on some damn podium day after day after day for a full year, and see what kind of mistakes I would pull. They would be far worse that these, I assure you.
And I can see, with this empathy in mind, that they came about in an instant. Rest assured, my friends, that Sen. Obama did not run through some kind of aritmetic calculus on the relative weight of atrocities commited at Auswitcz or Buchenwald, and decided to make things sound better by mentioning the place that was "worst". It was just a brain fart.
Picking apart a brain fart by hurridly looking up facts -- after the mistake was made -- just to tear down another human being is just stupid.
But the Quayle gaffes really are different. I don't laugh out loud when I read the Obama mistakes. But, even 16-20 years later, and even after seeing many of them before, I still have to laugh at statements like "the future will be better tomorrow". They really are funny.
They are, just like Obama's mistakes, simply brain farts. But you don't have to running to wikipedia to see that they are wrong. And they are self-evidently funny. An irreversable trend that could change? That's a priceless bit of humor there!
Saying "57" when you meant "47"? Not all that funny.
Chad
So because Buchenwald was a "work" camp and not a "death" camp there is a difference in the horror of what was done there even though both were part of the "final solution?"
If you look at the camps as individual sites, independent of the third reichs systematic plan to exterminate the jewish people and others from the continent you are missing the point that the total of all the camps of a whole is what the goal was.
Following your line of logic you could also say that since the camp (Buchenwald) was also a major site for political prisoners (i.e. communists), homosexuals, gypsies (Roma people), Jehovah's Witnesses, Sinti, religious prisoners, criminals, and POW's we really shouldn't include the total in the the holocaust since the 57,000 were not just jews.
To look at the sites of the horrors as separate entities is missing the damn point of the totality of what was being done to all of them.
djh
John K. says: My point exactly. Thanks for confirming it. Of course there is a difference between a Quayle and and an Obama mistake. One is made by a conservative and therefore subject to ridicule. The other made by a liberal, hence not a mistake at all and subject to criticism of anyone pointing that out. LMAO I told you, I own you liberals. LOL
So the Admiral is saying that Quayle’s gaffe’s were funny, and Obama’s were kind of lame. I guess Quayle’s internal logic had a particular way of missing the quote but trying to get close that made his statements into parodies. I think the 57 states line for Obama was maybe supposed to be funny, but the rest of his gaffes seem to occur because he is getting tired (and probably irritable, having given up smoking).
So which would we rather have (since we are comparing Quayle to Obama, let’s go all the way, and compare them as candidates for President, based on their gaffes)? Would we want a candidate who may be smart, but utters parodies of intelligent quotes, and thus may be imprecise often or al the time? Or do we want a candidate whose academic record indicates he is smart, but utters imprecise statements when he is under stress, tired and has given up smoking (and often later catches himself)?
Meanwhile, in the real world, someone give Obama a pack. He can quit later, I want the old, “early campaign” Obama back.
John K. says: Why does anyone think Obama is smart?
compared to what we've had over th past 8 years, obama is friggin' mensa material!!!
First, yes, dayvoe, nobody fact checks Jackie Boy. It is now SOP at every paper that runs op-eds from right-wing lunatics: The lunatics can say whatever they want, regardless of whether any of it is actually true. If the crescendo in the blogosphere about said inaccuracies gets loud enough, then the paper will, on occasion, issue a correction (but not the columnist, oh no).
You have proven time and again that, for the sake of "balance," the PG will let J-Kel lie and distort to his heart's greatest desire, and do so proudly.
On a serious note, have you ever submitted an op-ed to the PG calling them out on their inability to fact check J-Kel? I, for one, think it would be worth the effort.
Of course, the entire J-Kel column has, as its goal, obfuscation. This is the primary goal of the entire conservative movement. Lie, distort, create "issues" that have little to no bearing on actual policies that affect peoples lives (which are dutifully reported on by the media) - anything to avoid an honest discussion about real policies based on fact.
It's the very reason you would never see somebody like John Bolton on CNN or some other show at the same time as somebody from the left. Because then Bolton couldn't make his baseless claims and engage in his fear mongering without being contradicted by multiple facts that refute his argument ('cause lord knows the likes of Wolfie or the Pixie Couric aren't going to do it).
So, in that sense, J-Kel has succeeded. He has managed to fuel a discussion about whether an inaccuracy muttered by a tired presidential candidate somehow means he is "gaffe prone" and unfit to be president. It's remarkable, isn't it?
Post a Comment