tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/barringer//708 2008-09-18T13:28:06Z Movable Type Pro 4.21-en tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.217800 2008-09-18T13:28:06Z 2008-09-18T13:28:06Z

Barringer
Todd Domke's op-ed "Why Obama's not leading by a landslide" is full of baseless assertions.  Domke writes: "If Obama had agreed to weekly debates, this race would be more civil and constructive."  That's ludicrous.  Steve Schmidt and Karl Rove don't do civil.  "Obama didn't use his convention speech to propose specific solutions."  False. He did mention specifics on spending $150 billion dollars on renewable energy research.  And voters don't make their decisions on the basis of acceptance speeches.  "Obama rejected Hillary Clinton for vice president.  He should have at least put her on his short list and thus given her some public respect."  Which is it?  "Obama broke his pledge to abide by public financing limits for the fall campaign."  Given the large number of smaller individual contributions and the make-up of Obama's contributors, his financing is consistent with the idea of public financing.  And this criticism is laughable in the face of McCain's  decision to opt in to public matching funds and his subsequent reversal (a.k.a. flip-flop) after becoming the GOP front runner. "Some Obama supporters attacked Sarah Palin personally, falsely, and hatefully."  Examples?  None are provided.  Typical Republican projection.  

The reason Obama's not leading by a landslide is the misleading McCain ad campaigns and the endless parade of self-serving political mouthpieces like Mr. Domke spreading baseless smears, lies, distortions with insufficient illumination from the media.   With that said, the most gaping hole in Mr. Domke's piece is his failure to specify why Obama should be leading by a landslide.    The answer to that question can be found in any newspaper that takes the time to report on the economy or the War in Iraq or Afghanistan.

]]> tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2006:/talk/blogs//19.227208 2006-02-05T06:10:06Z 2008-10-13T00:56:16Z

Barringer After Robert Bork was kept out of the Supreme Court, the term "Borked" entered the political lexicon.  From today forward, we have a new term:  "Miered", as in "President Bush's choice for Supreme Court has been "Miered".  The distinction between being "Borked" and being "Miered" is that in Harriet Miers' case, the Democrats on the Hill just sat back, cracked open a beer, and watched the cannibalism.

]]>