What Drives Republicans Insane About the Media

This sort of nonsense:

But the most telling moment of the whole event was not that rehearsed display of unity—it came when Chief Justice John Roberts accidentally rearranged Obama’s oath of office by putting the word “faithfully” in a different spot. Obama smiled broadly at this display of judicial privilege, even as his eyes flashed with some newfound—and very telling—presidential steel.

You can almost smell the fanboy, and this is the sort of silliness that drives Republicans INSANE. This just isn’t what happened. Let’s roll the tape, compliments of High Command at the Great Orange Satan:

Transcript via First Read:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

It is pretty clear what happened, and anyone who has ever been nervous can understand. Obama jumped in early, interrupting the first part. Roberts was then thrown off, and misplaced the word faithfully. Obama then started to recite the portion, got to the part where faithfully should have been, smiled at Roberts, Roberts corrected, and then they kind of just said to hell with it and went forward.

It was nice. It was charming. It was a very human moment. I wouldn’t even be surprised if one of the things Roberts and Obama talked about last week in their private meeting was a quick discussion of how they would do the oath, and then when they screwed it up, they both knew it immediately, hence the smiles on the stage.

But to pretend it was some sort of super-human Presidential moment on the part of Obama is as silly as the earlier comments on PUMA websites that ZOMG OBAMA MESSED UP THE OATH HE AIN’T REALLY PREZNIT! There really is no fault on the part of either one, and the smiles on both of their faces show that they know what happened. They both sort of goofed, and that really should be the end of that. Fortunately, Obama is an adult, and had the following to say:

Robin Roberts: During the taking the oath of office, Chief Justice Roberts inadvertently switched some words up. You were trying to help him out there a little bit, it seemed, with your look.

Pres. Obama: Oh, listen, I think we’re, uh, we’re up there, we’ve got a lot of stuff on our minds, and he actually I think helped me out on a couple of, uh, stanzas there. So overall I think it went relatively smoothly and I’m very grateful to him.

That is how I saw it, too- two guys were nervous and mudded their way through it.






142 replies
  1. 1
    Karen says:

    I heard yesterday it was Robert’s first & I’m sure the man was nervous. They both had to have been. But the nuts will start in about how it isn’t "legal".

  2. 2
    dmsilev says:

    Well, if nothing else, it’ll give the "he was born in *KENYA*" crowd something else to scream about. Which keeps them off the street and makes them easily identifiable, and is thus a good thing.

    -dms

  3. 3
    Moody Deep Thinker says:

    If you see some "hopey/changey" projection by the reporter in this simple incident, then imagine the projection going on for all the people who bought wholesale lots of "hopey/changey" in the platitudes Obama spilled out during the election. These will be the first people to become completely disenchanted with Obama as his term unfolds. Only time will tell how they might express that disenchantment.

  4. 4
    justcorbly says:

    The byline in that Trib piece includes the word "critic". If righties, or anyone, are going to go nuts about alleged media bias by pointing to opinion pieces, reviews, and other obviously non-reportorial pieces, then they bring on their own anguish.

  5. 5
    ChrisS says:

    It ain’t just republicans that get annoyed at the media for nonsense like that Comrade Cole. They often gave Bush the same steely-eyed treatment. They love a celebrity and when they latch on to one, they find it hard to let go.

    During the NCAA BCS championship game, I thought one of the announcers was going to rush the field to fellate Tim Tebow ("You spend five minutes with that young man and he’ll change your life" was one of many fawning compliments paid to Tebow).

    It’s the same mindset that spawns the 200 hours a week coverage to missing white girls, the Brangelina babies, latest celebrity death (I’m at the gym and Headline news is running a ticker that says "Breaking: The Death of Jet Travolta" with various experts chiming in).

  6. 6
    Greg VA says:

    It certainly will drive Republicans crazy during the Obama administration, but it’s not a phenomenon limited to Obama by any stretch. It will take years of daily ass-kissing by the media to balance out the fanboy silliness we had to endure about George W. Bush during the runup to the Iraq war. Particularly since Bush was a fool and anybody with two grains of sense could see it as plainly as the nose on your face.

  7. 7
    Stooleo says:

    I heard yesterday it was Robert’s first & I’m sure the man was nervous. They both had to have been. But the nuts will start in about how it isn’t "legal".

    My thoughts exactly. How long before some wackjob at RedState starts claiming that flubbing the oath invalidates the presidency.

  8. 8
    The Other Steve says:

    When Bush stood up there next to Obama, he was clearly steely eyed. It brought one back to that moment on the rubble of the World Trade Center where he used the bullhorn to order pizza for all the men out there.

    A true leader. It’s no wonder he leaves office with the highest approval ratings ever.

  9. 9

    .
    Republicans. So 2001.
    .

  10. 10
    cleek says:

    OH NOES! Obama’s hometown newspaper is biased in his favor!

    and i’d say their description was perfectly accurate, except for the "judicial privilege" thing – which is really just a bit of editorial frippery.

  11. 11
    Comrade Jake says:

    It’s just sad that folks will take what was fundamentally a human reaction by both men, at an historical moment, and smear either one of these fellows.

    OTOH, I read somewhere that Alito didn’t attend the Inauguration because he holds some kind of grudge over Obama. Any truth to that?

  12. 12
    cleek says:

    How long before some wackjob at RedState starts claiming that flubbing the oath invalidates the presidency.

    who cares.

    if it does matter, they would have re-done the oath some time later. it’s not like this is the kind of thing that would go unnoticed or unconsidered – the entire Federal government was standing right there when it happened. more than a couple of them should know the relevant statutes and could say what’s required.

  13. 13
    Robin G. says:

    Watching media personalities masturbate on national television is revolting to anyone with a brain — regardless of the political affiliations of the personalities, the viewers, or the politicians.

  14. 14
    kid bitzer says:

    "this is the sort of silliness that drives Republicans INSANE"

    well,it’s the sort of silliness that has been driving non-republicans insane for the last eight years, after all.

    there is a tendency in all human beings to hero-worship.

    like the tendency to pick one’s nose and scratch one’s crotch, it is universal and ineradicable, but neither hygienic nor pleasant to watch.

    the press does a pretty good job of training its mannequins not to pick their noses on the air.

    in that regard, they pretend to be better than the average run of humanity. it’s a facade, but a good, useful, public fiction.

    now if the media could just train itself to think of hero-worship in the same light. it is undignified; more than that: it is undemocratic.

    and it is loathesome.

    although it is not an easy call, on the whole i think i would even rather watch matthews pick his nose on the air than to have to listen to him fawning all over bush’s manliness during the ‘mission accomplished’ moment.

    what you quote above, john, is nothing compared to that.

  15. 15
    TR says:

    Time to put away childish things, indeed.

  16. 16
    Napoleon says:

    OTOH, I read somewhere that Alito didn’t attend the Inauguration because he holds some kind of grudge over Obama. Any truth to that

    I hadn’t heard that, but alledgedly he did not attend the meeting at the Supreme Court last week with Obama for that reason, so its entirely possible. If so he is a small man.

  17. 17
    bh says:

    sorry dude, that’s a ridiculous headline.
    there’s nothing democrat or republican about that – actually power worship has usually been reserved for republicans, but right now they are loving them some obama.

    (though it is understandable. after a week of the nauseating preliminaries i guess you had to lash out)

  18. 18
    harlana pepper says:

    Nothing different from how the media covered Bush’s ass 24/7 for 8 years. Hee, I hope it drives ’em batshit crazy, alright.

  19. 19
    TheFountainHead says:

    Heh. As if they would have to drive to get to insane.

  20. 20
    John Cole says:

    Time to put away childish things, indeed.

    I don’t care what you say, I am not shutting down this blog.

  21. 21
    TR says:

    No idea if Alito skipped the inauguration, but judging by his third-grader approach to last week’s meeting with Obama and Biden, he might as well have.

    Wednesday’s meeting was described as a relaxed, get-acquainted session. It included Roberts, seven associate justices and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

    The absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was at the court Wednesday morning for arguments in two cases, was a mystery. He has, however, voiced lingering anger over Senate Democrats, including Obama and Biden, who voted against his confirmation three years ago. When walking on Capitol Hill, Alito has said, he crosses to the far side of the street whenever he nears the Senate Office Building.

    What a fucking child.

  22. 22
    Raenelle says:

    You described what happened perfectly.

    The idiot media doesn’t just drive Repubs nuts with that kind of crap. I’m as pro-Obama as they come. I see my role over the next few years as "having his back," protect and defend. But the media description was so typical–finding conflict where there was none; seeing politics in a personal moment. In their praise, they aren’t helping. They’re setting up a narrative about Obama that is untrue, unreal, then they’ll be confused or disappointed or worse, not even notice, when he acts outside their story.

    I really, really want them just to report the world as it presents itself to them. They make up stories, interpret everything inside them, and utterly fail to ever see that the real world is so much larger and complex and interesting that their dreams and nightmares and insider "insights."

  23. 23
    TR says:

    Link for the above.

  24. 24
    Faux News says:

    Before Paul L. makes his obligatory monkey like "flinging his feces" on this thread then running away (and never posting on this thread again) I offer this:

    the words spoken by Obama don’t matter. Amendment XX, Section 1 to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part: "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January… and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

    As noted in another blog. BTW did the Antana-whats-its name Troll finally stop posting on BJ?

  25. 25
    dbrown says:

    @Napoleon: Is there really any question that any repub-a-thug isn’t a small person? Of course, thinking about it, add petty, lying and racist and I think you have an accurate description.

  26. 26
    gnomedad says:

    Fanboy? No so sure. Strikes me more as reportorial grandstanding: Look at me! I can wring an long article’s worth of insight from this subtle clue!

  27. 27
    DougJ says:

    I don’t know, John. It is the Chicago Tribune. Cities like it when hometowners become president.

  28. 28
    The Moar You Know says:

    As noted in another blog. BTW did the Antana-whats-its name Troll finally stop posting on BJ?

    @Faux News: Erm, I’m pretty sure he’s a front-pager here these days.

  29. 29
    Face says:

    According to the wingers, it’s more like Obama displayed "presidential steal"

  30. 30
    Dusty says:

    It is pretty clear what happened, and anyone who has ever been nervous can understand. Obama jumped in early, interrupting the first part.

    I could be wrong, but I think Roberts was supposed to pause after the name. "I, Barack Hussein Obama, [pause] do solemnly swear."

  31. 31
    Napoleon says:

    @DougJ:

    I was in Chicago in May and had to buy something at a drugstore and they had Obama’s books for sale right on the checkout counter at the front of the store. That tells you something about how popular he is there. Its not hard to believe it will be good for business for a paper in that city to give him the red carpet treatment.

  32. 32
    Colonel Danite says:

    Chris Jones at the Trib is not a reporter and this was not a news story. He is a critic and this is his critique of the inaugural ceremonies. It’s way over the top but it’s not like this was on the front page or written by a political reporter.

  33. 33
    MikeJ says:

    The article really should have said, "He came in here and trashed the oath and it’s not his oath." It’s so much better when the villagers are letting Democrats know that they are social inferiors.

  34. 34
    Tim in SF says:

    Assume for a second the rightards have a point and somehow are able to drag Obama into court to try this whole theory. Wouldn’t the case eventually end up on Robert’s desk anyway?

    What a colossal waste of time.

    Still, I love this argument just as much as I love the birth certificate insanity – it keeps them off in the corner screaming to each other.

  35. 35
    PK says:

    What Drives Republicans Insane About the Media

    Republicans insane? Excuse me? Where have you been for the last eight years? Remember mission accomplished? Peggy Noonan’s fawning columns? The only thing missing from the media coverage of Bush during the early years were the graphic sex scenes. The media has always been completely in the tank for Bush and the republicans. There is an entire news channel devoted to the GOP. Fox news would give on-air massages to republicans if they could get away with it.
    The media gushes over Obama right now, because that is what they do. It seems to be run by a bunch of high strung teenage girls ( and that is an insult to teenage girls).
    But the bottom line is -the media at its core, with very few exceptions is a GOP animal. Give it a few weeks and watch them turn on Obama and the Democrats.

  36. 36
    Shalimar says:

    I also thought Roberts was supposed to pause after the name and that is the way I remember previous presidents doing it, but my memory may be faulty in that regard. I don’t think it matters either way though, this is pretty much the definition of trivial nonsense.

    The only thing missing from the media coverage of Bush during the early years were the graphic sex scenes.

    Thank God. I’m pretty sure I would have committed suicide if subjected to Bush porn. Even that pathetic administration didn’t have the guts to implement torture so heinous.

  37. 37
    Punchy says:

    I don’t know, John. It is the Chicago Tribune. Cities like it when hometowners become president.

    Except it’s the ChiTrib, one of the most conservative papers in the Midwest. John Kass is one of the most partisan newspaper writers ever to grace a major paper, IMO, and he’s Page 2 in the Trib. Hometown or not, they’ll spend the rest of their not-yet-bankrupt days trashing everything President Negro does.

  38. 38
    sid says:

    As a couple people have mentioned there is an an important FACT missing completely here.

    Roberts didn’t stop after the name like he was supposed to (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2o3Q-eX9pOI see here for Bush) and that started it all.

    Let me repeat since John seems to have some Republican wax left in his ears, Roberts pooched it on the first sentence, Obama spoke when he was supposed to and Roberts muffed it.

    I’d like to make a prediction, it seems Mr. Cole is slip-sliding into his old republican way, repeating as fact things that just aren’t true, I am betting within Year 3 of this admin Cole flips back to his old self and turns into a "Bush was a liberal" republican.

  39. 39
    Mazacote Yorquest says:

    I basically agree with John. I went back and looked at the 2001 swearing-in, to see how Rehnquist did the opening. Obama should have known it was going to be the whole phrase (I B.H.O do solemnly swear) at first. On the other hand, I think Roberts could have said that phrase more smoothly– he paused just long enough after "Obama" to make Obama’s mistake more likely. Rehnquist doesn’t skip a beat after "George Walker Bush," so there was no temptation to start in with the name. Again, not Roberts’ fault really– it was understandable.

    It was Roberts’ fault about "faithfully" though. And I could give a shit about what drives Republicans insane– the only thing that matters is what drives reasonable people insane. And fanboyism is bad for our side, because our side is trying to be more reasonable.

  40. 40
    Mazacote Yorquest says:

    Well, sid, damned if Rehnquist didn’t pause in 2005 (after not pausing in 2001). Sorry, John, this was not so clearly "rushing" by Obama– he was following the immediate precedent.

  41. 41
    Stooleo says:

    who cares.

    if it does matter, they would have re-done the oath some time later. it’s not like this is the kind of thing that would go unnoticed or unconsidered – the entire Federal government was standing right there when it happened. more than a couple of them should know the relevant statutes and could say what’s required.

    Yes, exactly. Maybe I wasn’t being obvious enough.

  42. 42
    Shalimar says:

    I doubt Cole slips back, at least not to the current Gingrich/Limbaugh inspired Republican leadership. It’s not like he became a liberal, or ever will become one. He finally saw the Republican party for the clown car it has become, and once you see beneath the facade to the childishness beneath I don’t think you ever go back. The Republican party as it currently exists isn’t an option that seriously addresses the problems facing our country, it’s as simple as that.

  43. 43
    MNPundit says:

    No. The traditional formula is

    Name of President, STOP.
    Do solemnly swear, STOP.

    It’s not fanboyism. Obama was doing it right, Roberts screwed it up. Roberts then really screwed it up, then Obama screwed up then figured he’s just follow what ever Roberts said and the hell with it.

  44. 44
    DrDave says:

    I think you have it exactly right: two guys, a little nervous, flubbed the lines and muddled through it together.

    That said, I think he fact that Obama doesn’t get hung up on inconsequential bullshit is going to be very frustrating to some folks (some on the right, some on the left) over the next four (and hopefully eight) years.

    I find it refreshing to have someone grounded in common sensibilities occupying the Oval Office.

  45. 45
    John Cole says:

    As a couple people have mentioned there is an an important FACT missing completely here.

    Roberts didn’t stop after the name like he was supposed to (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2o3Q-eX9pOI see here for Bush) and that started it all.

    Let me repeat since John seems to have some Republican wax left in his ears, Roberts pooched it on the first sentence, Obama spoke when he was supposed to and Roberts muffed it.

    I’d like to make a prediction, it seems Mr. Cole is slip-sliding into his old republican way, repeating as fact things that just aren’t true, I am betting within Year 3 of this admin Cole flips back to his old self and turns into a “Bush was a liberal” republican.

    First, you are a douchebag.

    Now that I have that out of the way, let me point out that you are WRONG:

    What we have here is not evidence of me “slipping back into Bush was a liberal” Republicanism, or me having “Republican wax left in my ear,” but proof that sid is a much of partisan nutjob as I was back in the day, and that only the party affiliation is different. Your obsessive need to deify Obama and to make sure that everyone believes this was the fault of Roberts and Roberts only is quite clear for what it is, and the fact that you insist that ONLY you have it right and that all of us are seeing things incorrectly, despite a transcript, the actual video of the oath, and an admission by Obama about the event, says far more about your blinders than it does about what my future political beliefs will be.

    TLDR version: GFY, sid.

  46. 46
    Mike in NC says:

    Looking at the calendar, today is Wednesday. Obama’s media honeymoon should expire by about noon on Monday.

  47. 47
    TheHatOnMyCat says:

    I don’t know for sure what drives Republicans crazy.

    But I know what drives me crazy. It’s the idea that how the media narrates a story is somehow going to have sway over what the people take away from the story.

    The people largely ignore the foibles and idiosyncracies of the media. The media soft-pedaled the Bush administration and its stupid war, and the people turned against Bush and the war anyway. The media tried to run Bill Clinton out of office and his approval rating went up (he finished his second term at about 65%).

    Who gives a flying fuck what the media "says" about any particular thing? The people can make up their own minds about what they see. And, they do. This is a good thing.

  48. 48
    gopher2b says:

    Idiots on all sides. I’ve seen super-liberals saying Roberts did it on purpose. That’s falling on the sword for the cause.

    BTW, does anyone know if that was Roberts’ first swearing in? I can recall whether he did Bush Jr.’s second swearing in (do two termers even get sworn in again?)

  49. 49
    Rick Taylor says:

    Yup, I’d say that makes sense. After suffering through the media’s adulation of Bush wearing a flight suit and standing in front of a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" I can’t get worked up about this incident, but the same shallow stupidity of the media that the Bush administration took advantage of can favor a Democrat as well as a Republican.

  50. 50
    sus says:

    Yeah, I read it was Roberts first swearing in.

    ===

    Also, I read China censored the speech.

    http://www.americablog.com/200.....ation.html

  51. 51
    Bender says:

    Is there really a healthy chunk of commenters on this blog who believe that the media is biased toward the Republicans? How much crack must one smoke to achieve that level of enlightenment? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a group that self-reports 85% liberal isn’t biased toward conservatives, and when the media itself publishes reports of how biased it was in favor of Obama w/r/t McCain…well, it makes some of these commenters seem like absurdists. Not to mention Dan Rather and the NYT leaks and the Palin Inquisition, etc. etc. etc.

  52. 52
    drinkof says:

    Annoying, of course. But driving them INSANE? A grip needs to be gotten.

  53. 53
    MikeJ says:

    can favor a Democrat as well as a Republican.

    In theory that could happen. One review by a media critic isn’t gonna convince me the media is in the tank for any Dem though. They’ve got the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Reagan administration, and the Carter administration to live down before I believe they could ever have anything negative to say about a Republican or anything positive to say about a Democrat.

  54. 54
    kay says:

    @gopher2b:

    The liberals were responding to the fact that it was first mentioned as "Obama flubs the oath". Only Toobin got it right. That they perhaps OVER responded isn’t surprising. They saw another myth taking shape.
    Add to that to my admitted dislike of John Roberts, not because we disagree, but because he sold himself as someone who would seek consensus, and hasn’t, and I wanted Roberts to take responsibility for his part in it.
    Not a big deal, certainly, but I wanted them to get it right.

  55. 55
    TheHatOnMyCat says:

    the same shallow stupidity of the media that the Bush administration took advantage of can favor a Democrat as well as a Republican.

    Yes, this is a point that the media-obsessed just don’t get.

    The media, by its construction and via its mission — to attract attention to itself — is topically stupid.

    The people figured this out a long time ago, and listen and read with large grains of salt. So the media adores Obama today? If I am Obama, I take that as a warning …. the sooner and harder public opinion can turn on him if he screws up.

    I’m heartened by the recent election, I think it proves that America is capable of thinking for itself on the large scale. Otherwise, we’d have seen a Clinton-Romney presidential contest and the world would be much different today. The media don’t run the country, we do.

  56. 56
    Mazacote Yorquest says:

    The 2005 inauguration is different from the 2001 inauguration, which is where that video comes from.

    But you know what? Obama will make more consequential mistakes, and quite soon I’m sure. So let’s agree to fight the fanboy phenomenon, or what I will heretofore call F.S.S. (Flight Suit Syndrome, as classically exhibited by Chris Matthews).

  57. 57
    Comrade Darkness says:

    Eh, let ’em rant. The more time they waste worrying about the wording of things, the farther behind they will be in finding and building up a candidate of their own for 2012. Unless they really are sticking with Palin, in which case, no worries.

  58. 58
    itsbenj says:

    um, this is just a bit ridiculous. Republicans have been going around saying that Obama is invalid or something because of this oath-flubbing by Roberts, but what we should really worry about is someone pointing out that Roberts flubbed and the fact that such a thing "drives Republicans crazy" about the media?? ok. you’re saying Obama ‘jumped in early’, which seems to be clearly not the case. Biden’s oath has a separate line for "I Joseph etc etc Biden" and "do solemnly swear…", but Roberts just starts talking even though Obama has quite obviously only had the time to get his own first name out of his mouth.

    this weird bending over backwards to ‘protect’ Republicans from things they consider unpleasant (read: being proven wrong, yet again) is silly and unnecessary. people like Chris Wallace are suggesting, seriously and out loud, that the matter "may end up in court" or whatever, and we’re worried about hurting Republicans’ feelings? can I get a "who cares?" amen.

  59. 59
    sus says:

    Newsmax slams Bush. Amazing, but true.

    "In his closing days in office, after long betraying conservative principles, Bush had the temerity to blame the economic disaster on the free market and cast himself as some sort of hero."

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlin.....73445.html

  60. 60
    Jon H says:

    John, it only drives Republicans crazy when the media does this about Democrats.

    When the media did the same thing about Bush, the Republicans ate it up.

  61. 61
    KRK says:

    Your post would make a lot more sense if you’d replaced "Republicans" in your title with something more…inclusive. Yes, this type of writing is off-putting to folks who’re not all caught up in the moment, but that’s not about being Republican.

    Today’s self-styled "Republicans" are too busy being driven insane by the media’s casual reference to things like climate change, evolution, civil "rights" for homosexuals, and there being room for improvement in how the US conducts itself around the globe. There’s no room left on Republican partisans’ insane plate for things like fawning reporting about Democratic politicians. That’s background noise.

    As for this particular passage, eh. It was the Inauguration. And there was no loving reference to the presidential crotch. So there’s a long way to go to match the more nauseating reporting about our most recent former president.

  62. 62
    sus says:

    Part I of that Newsmax is just as damning to Bush.

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlin.....73041.html

    "During Bush’s tenure, his administration pushed the Federal Reserve for easy money as his administration turned a blind eye to far out banking practices, such as zero percent equity mortgages and Wall Street financial practices that were motivated by greed, not good business sense."

    also…

    "But by failing to modify his desire for long-term democracy in Iraq and to offer a clear exit strategy, Bush not only hurt his own party but also helped his strongest political adversaries, paving the way for Democrats to gain almost complete hegemony over Congress and putting a strident critic of the Iraq war in White House. Obama, while moderating on issues since his election, has stated that he will seek a pullout of all U.S. forces within the first 16 months of taking office.

    In the end, the result of the Iraq war will likely be no democracy in Iraq, virulently liberal control of all three branches of the federal government, and the threatened extinction of the Republican Party itself.

    Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq and issues abroad also turned his attention away from pressing domestic issues and contributed to several major problems, including the financial meltdown."

    =======

    The whole of Parts I and II may be an indication of how Bush will be written. No matter what talking points the Republican party tries to put out there. I mean, this is NewMax.

  63. 63
    Svensker says:

    @PK:

    What PK said.

    Even Britt effing Hume was nice to Obama yesterday. Don’t worry, it won’t last.

    Stop backsliding.

  64. 64
    kay says:

    @itsbenj:

    Not to mention the absolutely insane, over the top swooning that we were subject to when Justice Roberts was chosen.
    I thought Roberts was the smartest lawyer ever in the history of the world, to listen to both conservatives and media, until…Samuel Alito, who was MORE BRILLIANT STILL.

  65. 65
    Jeff says:

    If this is all it takes to drive Republicans insane, then it’s not much of a drive; more like a short putt.

  66. 66
    kay says:

    We could find common ground, I guess. If they’re going to report on something (and they were going to report on this) simply do so accurately. Because FOX exists, and a lot of us are wary of FOX-generated myths that become "truth" we’re a little touchy.

  67. 67
    Napoleon says:

    If you thought that Red State’s Strike Force was over the top, check out wolverines!

  68. 68
    Ed in NJ says:

    Perhaps John you didn’t notice all the fanboy swooning in the early years of W because you were on the other side of the aisle. But there sure were a lot of boners for the southern cowboy everyman who in reality was a Connecticut-born private schooled Yale/Harvard grad.

  69. 69
    gwangung says:

    Well, no need to re-do the oath.

    All the Constitution says is that it must be administered. Doesn’t say a thing about being verbal or out loud.

    Obama signed the oath before he stepped on the platform.

  70. 70
    kay says:

    @gwangung:

    It’s happened before. Taft mangled it when administering it to Hoover.

  71. 71

    […] oath of office, continued Filed under: Humor, Obama, Politics — Luke @ 10:33 am Another reaction to the botched oath: It is pretty clear what happened, and anyone who has ever been nervous can […]

  72. 72
    Not My Fault says:

    @Bender:

    Ummmm… The last administration purposely infiltrated the MSM to spread propaganda.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04.....nerals.htm
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/.....-uspo.html

    The MSM was firmly on the tire swing with McCain right up to the point where he told them to get off. The AP was posting pro-McCain editorials as news stories and local media outlets were mindlessly regurgitating them.

    Granted, when McCain went into his "Get off my lawn!" shtick with the media, they stopped giving him a free pass, and surprise surprise, the hopeful young politician got better coverage than the grumpy old man.

    Would the media be doing a better job if they didn’t let how abrasive a person is slant how they were reporting on them? Sure. Does this tendency to say nice things about people who are being nice to you and say abrasive things to folks who are being abrasive to you constitute a vast left wing conspiracy? Not a chance.

    As far as the whole Palin thing, If you include Sullivan in the MSM, then there is no doubt that there were some creepy questions. If you exclude Sullivan (who isn’t even a liberal himself), the National Enquirer, and a few self-important bloggers, then the media didn’t persecute her. It didn’t even do its job in covering her.

  73. 73
    Joshua Norton says:

    Taft mangled it when administering it to Hoover.

    If I was a more superstitious person, and given the POS that the Hoover Administration devolved into, I’d say that wasn’t really a good portent of things to come.

  74. 74
    cleek says:

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a group that self-reports 85% liberal isn’t biased toward conservatives

    IIRC, that 85% is from one study. other studies find much lower percentages.

    and, regardless of the percentage, it doesn’t prove bias one way or the other. you need to actually look at the coverage to determine that.

    and if you look back, from 2001 through roughly 2006, the media was head over heels in love with the GOP. it wasn’t until 2006 that they started asking questions.

    up until very recently, it was very difficult to find a liberal TV news show. it’s almost impossible to find one on the radio. Sunday morning TV talk shows invariably have more GOP guests than liberals. in print, even so-called liberal papers like NYT and LAT give prime editorial real estate to conservatives. the NYT pushed Whitewater like no other paper, and agreed to cover-up information about Bush’s warrent-less wiretapping scheme.

    the only TV channel with a definite slant in any direction is Fox News, which is laughably, embarrassingly biased.

    this "liberal media" charge you clowns keep pushing has become a national joke.

  75. 75
    Nick says:

    John, your old colors are bleeding through. Of course the media was over the top … it’s what they do. And Roberts screwed it up. "President TO the United States … faithfully …" And anyway, who gives a shit about why Republicans hate the press?

  76. 76
    Klyde says:

    The president did not jump in early. Roberts was so nervous he screwed up and that messed up the president. It should have gone:

    R: I Barack Hussein Obama
    O: I BHO
    Roberts: Do solemnly swear
    O: Do solemnly swear

    etc…

    Roberts then flubbed at least twice more during the oath and that’s Obama’s fault. Sheesh.

  77. 77
    John Cole says:

    Woah, woah, woah. I am fully aware that the media was over the top during the early Bush years- in retrospect, I was one of the ones pushing the shit. And, as a general point of order, I did not buy into liberal media stuff when I was a Republican and frequently posted about it. There were times I would point out specific instances of things that I thought were biased (and I still do, now, when things are obviously biased against Democrats), but on balance, I have never thought the msm was wholly biased. I just thought most of them were stupid as hell.

    Having said that, it doesn’t make it right when they write over the top bullshit like this “presidential steel” HoYay. That was my point.

    John, your old colors are bleeding through.

    I really can not take four years of every time I disagree with Obama (or the Democrats or the conventional wisdom among “teh left”) that my Republican colors are “bleeding” through. I pretty clearly didn’t like the groupthink and the bullying to get me back in line with the Republican pack back in the day, and I find it no more appealing now.

    If I am wrong, I am wrong. Fine. But enough with the badgering about me “going back to my old ways” or my true colors “bleeding through” or the rest of the sanctimonious bullshit.

  78. 78
    kay says:

    @Joshua Norton:

    If I was a more superstitious person, and given the POS that the Hoover Administration devolved into, I’d say that wasn’t really a good portent of things to come.

    Oh, sure. I’m not superstitious. Personally, I thought it was sort of amusing: these two big powerhouse figures tripping over a 37 word oath. I got (slightly) pissed though, at the lightening-fast FOX reaction, because I think Roberts is worshiped on the Serious Right, as one of the few real benefits they garnered from Bush. They LOVE Roberts, thus he can do no wrong, ever.

    That’s what THAT was about.

  79. 79
    Gwendy says:

    Roberts totally should have brought a cheat sheet with him. Mr. Fancy "I-don’t-need-no-motherfuckin’-notes-for-my-first-swearing-in" needs to step up his game when he swears Obama in again in 4 years.

  80. 80
    Michael D. says:

    What bugs me most about this is that:

    “…will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully.”

    is more gramatically correct than the “correct” line, which splits the infinitive.

    “…will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States.”

    So maybe the grins on their faces were those of a subversive Chief Justice and new President who decided to take on history and kick some grammar ass at the most watched inauguration in history.

  81. 81
    John Cole says:

    @Klyde: Klyde, just curious. In this post, I had the complete video, the complete transcript, and a long discussion. But for some reason, you come in, reprint a partial transcript, and think that magically I will simply change my mind about what I have seen. Why?

  82. 82
    Tsulagi says:

    What Drives Republicans Insane About the Media

    As if they need a reason. Or that the media is the sole source of their tardness. As a datapoint of proof, this characterization…

    …the Palin Inquisition

    Always cracks me up the serious adults who think they’re Jack Bauer’s tougher twin whine their lipsticked pit bull moose slayer was beat up by Katie Couric. They’re victims! Yeah, no doubt Winky could stare down Putin, but that Katie is really tough and mean.

    Now that I have that out of the way, let me point out that you are WRONG:

    Nope, not only can you not believe your lying eyes, a transcript, and direct observation and thoughts from one of the participants, you can’t believe your ears.

    If you have learned nothing in the past eight years, the message is the reality. Your brain and senses can betray that reality. Once you absorb that and have your drool cup in place, all will be better.

  83. 83
    TenguPhule says:

    but on balance, I have never thought the msm was wholly biased. I just thought most of them were stupid as hell.

    One does not preclude the other.

  84. 84

    The CJ Roberts was at the Congressional luncheon immediately following the swearing in ceremony. The MSNBC camera showed Obama walking over to Roberts to shake hands, whereby they exchanged a few words and both appeared to be having a good laugh. If nothing else they both apparently have a pretty good sense of humor.

    But what drives R’s crazy about the establishment media is exactly why most non-R’s don’t watch Fox. The fan boy shit can be overwhelming. I’ve gotten to the point I "watch" a lot of cable news with the volume muted. (Not unlike how I watch many sporting events. Call me an elitist, but these people are intellectually inferior to my friends and colleagues so I generally feel as though I am wasting my time listening to the tripe coming from their mouths.)

    I can only imagine what the Next Big Deal is going to be in the media. Nothing like a shiny objects to get them distracted.

  85. 85
    TR says:

    is more gramatically correct than the “correct” line, which splits the infinitive.

    Actually, no. There’s no infinitive there to split.

    "To faithfully execute" splits the infinitive. "Will faithfully execute" does not.

  86. 86
    Michael D. says:

    @TR: Doh, correct. But what was said WAS more grammatically correct.

    Picky!

  87. 87
    cleek says:

    according to Wiki, the earliest English proscription against splitting an infinitive was in 1834. presumably the Oath predates this.

    (though if there’s no infinitive to split, it doesn’t matter, of course)

  88. 88
    Chinn Romney says:

    I think we, and the media, should reserve judgement for the moment. I mean really now, until we can check out CIC’s cod piece in a Flight Suit how can anyone (‘cept Mrs CIC of course) possibly know if we want to have a beer with him? I guess we can dismiss the Chief Justice right now though. He’s obviously got something to hide, why else does he wear nothing but mumu’s when he’s out in the public eye?

  89. 89
    Michael D. says:

    Ok, I just looked it up, and there is no rule against splitting verbs. :-)

    Never mind.

  90. 90
    kay says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum:

    I realized what I like about C-Span: the background noise. All that clanking and off-camera conversational muttering and revving engines. It’s like you’re there.
    You get a real feel for how Big Ceremonies actually transpire: you wait around a lot, all dressed up. I had some sympathy for Sasha Obama. All layered up, for hours.

  91. 91
    Not My Fault says:

    OK. THAT’S it.

    This administration hopeless. We will have to try again in 4 years.

  92. 92
    LA Confidential Pantload says:

    I thought what drove Republicans insane about the media was its refusal to properly appreciate George W. Bush: "A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

  93. 93
    Svensker says:

    @John Cole:

    But enough with the badgering about me “going back to my old ways” or my true colors “bleeding through” or the rest of the sanctimonious bullshit.

    It wasn’t sanctimonious. It was cranky. Bad night last night and I feel like spreadin’ it around….

  94. 94
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Thanks for the audio clip, John. It’s odd, because when I’ve repeated oaths (though not that of the president), they have generally been in Animal House, "I, state your name [pause] . . ." fashion. This shows it’s not always done that way.

    Chalk it down to miscommunication or someone missing a cue, or perhaps even the president wanting to flip the bird to the 101st chairborne by emphasizing his name. Doesn’t really matter. Your summary seems otherwise dead on.

    The talking heads are generally stupid more than they are ideological, but they tend to be conservative at a deeper, non-ideological level.

  95. 95
    PK says:

    The real problem with the media is the central idea that it has to cover the news 24/7. Anyone, or any organization which has to talk 24 hours a day is going to talk rubbish. The media is like the dollar store. Its got a ton of stuff, but all poor quality. The only difference is that someone in China is not writing the crap that the media is spouting.

  96. 96
    Not My Fault says:

    Obama was obviously so nervous that he would accidentally blurt out:

    "I B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein SuperAllah Obama … "

    That he jumped the gun. Nothing more to see here.

  97. 97
    gwangung says:

    If conservatives bash the media repeatedly for being liberal for over 20 years…do you really expect the media to become NOT liberal?

  98. 98
    Joshua Norton says:

    "I B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein SuperAllah Obama … "

    That wasn’t bad, but when he high-fived everyone and yelled "In da HOUSE MoFo!", it got to be a bit much. Story at 11 on you local Fox affiliate.

  99. 99
    harlana pepper says:

    Indeed, however, much ado about nothing. Expect more of same.

  100. 100
    DJShay says:

    John, if it had been a Republican president up there instead of Obama and the press had reported it the exact same way, they would be hailing the press report as "fair". It’s hypocritical to say it’s only the Republicans have a grievance with the press. It’s equal on both sides. I still remember the adjectives used to describe Bush. "Cowboy", "Swagger", "Man’s Man". It made us democrats sick. So cut the bull.

  101. 101
    Gwendy says:

    What drives this libtard insane about the media are the wingnut net driven stories that percolate up into Fox, some papers, and eventually into the so-called MSM…see also, the spate of stories making the rounds this morning questioning whether Obama is legally President due to the screw-up.

    Maybe the case can be taken to the Justice Roberts Supreme Court for review.

  102. 102
    J Royce says:

    As others have pointed out, it is not only Republicans that are driven insane by the media.

    And since when do Republicans actually give a fuck about fluffing Dear Leader. Oh, yeah, NOW. WhatTheFuckEver. Please be less of the occasional toolbag, Cole, so many of your insights are valuable and it would be shame to lose you to the next fascistic wave.

  103. 103
    John Cole says:

    @DJShay: DO you honestly think it is some deep insight that they would act hypocritically? Does anyone here think these guys would have complained if every press report blamed Obama? Of course not. The point is there is no reason for the media to act like knobs in either direction. This “presidential steel” nonsense is the same sort of crap that they oozed all over Bush that you even mentioned. The only thing that is different is the target of the fawning adoration

  104. 104
    rawshark says:

    The Grand Panjandrum

    The CJ Roberts was at the Congressional luncheon immediately following the swearing in ceremony. The MSNBC camera showed Obama walking over to Roberts to shake hands, whereby they exchanged a few words and both appeared to be having a good laugh. If nothing else they both apparently have a pretty good sense of humor.

    Like I said in a previous thread, Jay-Z’s ‘Dirt Off My Shoulder’, should be Obama’s theme song. He won’t let petty shit affect him. He either lets it roll off or he confronts it and defuses it.

    Now tune into the motherf%$#in greatest

  105. 105
    Rick Taylor says:

    I appreciate you writing a post like this, John. I would like to understand right-wingers better; I’m not happy thinking they’re just crazy. It’s actually a small relief saying, ok they have a point here, I can see why they’d be a little unhappy about this. I just wish there was more like this; it’s pretty then gruel. Seeing the media become unquestionable lap dogs as the administration launches the country into a disastrous war, or give cover to it’s bogus pronouncements on the likely effect of tax cuts that will be disastrous over the long term are things I can imagine driving someone "INSANE" with capital letters. Tittering like school children in this instance? Annoying, but if this is the sort of thing that drives Republicans INSANE about the media then they have a low threshold; they ought to try being Democrats for a while and see what it’s like.

  106. 106
    John Cole says:

    @J Royce: What on earth are you talking about?

  107. 107
    Ella in NM says:

    @Not My Fault:

    Obama was obviously so nervous that he would accidentally blurt out:
    "I B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein SuperAllah Obama … "
    That he jumped the gun. Nothing more to see here.

    Oh, yeah. Best post of the day.

  108. 108
    John Cole says:

    @Rick Taylor: You have to understand who we are dealing with- they have convinced themselves over the past few decades that they are victims. This sort of thing really is small and stupid, but it does in fact drive them insane.

    Hell- scroll down a couple posts and watch Tim Graham lose his shit because there is not a (d) next to the name of the Seattle mayor. Seriously- that was enough to make him mental.

  109. 109
    demimondian says:

    @John Cole: It’s worth pointing out that the Seattle mayoral position, like most such positions in Washington State, is non-partisan. So they’re factually in error in complaining.

  110. 110
    Rick Taylor says:

    On a similar topic, I never had a clue as to what drove the Republicans crazy about the Clintons until the primaries. I still don’t understand it and think most of it was crazy (especially when you consider fantasies of Vince Foster being murdered), but that was then I finally saw, oh maybe they’re reaction isn’t entirely without foundation; maybe there are some things about the Clintons that might drive someone a little nuts.

  111. 111
    demimondian says:

    @Rick Taylor: The Clintons are unapologetic politicians — they’re in it to win it. The Right demands that be OKIYAR — and utterly unforgivable IYAD. It’s actually the same problem that the village has with them: the don’t bow and scrape to their betters.

    Of course, there’s also the question of whether David Broder is fit to scrape dog shit off Bill Clinton’s shoes…

  112. 112
    John Cole says:

    @Rick Taylor: I think there were a number of things that drove them crazy. First and foremost, I think, is the perception that he was just white trash.

    Second, this was after twelve years of Republican rule, and they were not used to not being in charge.

    Thirdw as that he was good at the game. Every time they thought they had him beat, he ended out coming ahead, and there was nothing they could do to bring him down.

    Fourth, he took away so many of their issues and just neutered them. Welfare reform? Fine, signed and done. Shut up about it. Sister Souljah? Under the bus. You name it, he did it.

    I am sure there were other reasons, but I think that is a nice starting point.

  113. 113
    TenguPhule says:

    What Drives Republicans Americans Insane About the Media

    Title needed fixing.

    Republicans have no monopoly on despising shitty media coverage. Especially considering they benefited from it for 20 years or so.

  114. 114
    DJShay says:

    @JohnCole Then a better post title would have been "What drives people insane….." instead of implying it’s only republicans that get hot under the collar about these types of things. Remember when Tom Delay was all front and center? I thought Chris Matthews was going to ask him if he could bear his child at one point it was so bad. So, I’m disagreeing with your point about the media, just the fact that it implies only Republicans get upset about it.

  115. 115
    Rick Taylor says:

    It’s @John Cole:

    I suspect it’s useless to ask this question, but how on earth did they convince themselves they were victims? They controlled the executive and legislative branches for six years. They got almost everything they wanted: war with Iraq, tax cuts, deregulation. The only things they didn’t get were social security privatization, a fence to keep out foreigners, and outlawing abortion and gay marriage; none of those have much to do with the horrifying mess we are now in. And of those, only the first was because the Democrats showed any backbone.

    I guess I just have to treat conservatives like a crazy paranoid uncle. Be gentle and understanding with them, be careful what I say, and keep in mind they live in a strange fantasy land.

  116. 116
    cleek says:

    I think there were a number of things that drove them crazy.

    the GOP media network that ruthlessly, continuously and generally baselessly, attacked them for eight solid years helped, too. (and oh sure, Rush et al are just "entertainers". winkwink) they’d perfected the means of spreading Clinton Derangement Syndrome long before there was anything worth being deranged about.

    it doesn’t really matter what the Clintons actually did when the GOP base was already incited and inclined to believe the worst.

    ex, from 1994:

    Though he did not produce either, Falwell aggressively has promoted two videotapes that have become the best-known and probably most controversial Clinton-bashing products to date: Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Circle of Power and its follow-up, The Clinton Chronicles. Both come from Citizens for Honest Government, a California-based operation. The first tape features Arkansas-based detractors, prominent among them former Clinton associate Larry Nichols, accusing the president of being party to a series of murders. The second, now being hyped on Falwell’s Old-Time Gospel Hour and other conservative-oriented broadcasts, links Clinton to a purported international drug-smuggling operation being run out of the tiny town of Mena in the remote Ouachita Mountains of western Arkansas. The first lady takes a caning in the video, accused of sleeping with the late Vincent W. Foster Jr. and manipulating financial markets for personal gain.

  117. 117
    demimondian says:

    @Rick Taylor: It’s not useless to ask the question. In fact, it’s critical.

    They had all the levers of power — and they couldn’t (apparently) make a difference. Worse, on issues like Schiavo, they were repudiated by the folks who’d just voted for them. Something had to be wrong! What could it be?

    It’s a lot easier to talk about a press-driven conspiracy than it is to talk about demographic shifts and policy failures. The former doesn’t require that you really *change* anything. The latter, though — that’s the kind of thing which takes a generation or more to figure out.

  118. 118
    rawshark says:

    I think it’s possible but not likely that Roberts did it on purpose. Pettiness is a virtue for right wingers. But even if Obama thought he did it purposely I would expect him to handle it the way he did, by talking to Roberts and blowing it all off. It’s not a story if Obama doesn’t give a rat’s ass right?

    I really can not take four years of every time I disagree with Obama (or the Democrats or the conventional wisdom among “teh left”) that my Republican colors are “bleeding” through.

    Sometimes it seems you are a more of a Bush hating republican than a democrat (which is fine). It’ll take time for the change to appear completely genuine. Hold fast and be patient.

  119. 119
    rawshark says:

    @Rick Taylor:

    Projection. It’s also part of the permanent republican majority strategy.
    It’s funny that they know playing the beaten and oppressed victim will bring solidarity to their base but they also put forth that bombing the shit out of oppressed people will break their spirit and make them surrender.

  120. 120
    Rick Taylor says:

    This is hitting on something that has bugged me: why hasn’t been more re-evaluation and soul searching among conservatives? It’s human nature to hold onto what we believe for security even when events in the world don’t fit. But I honestly believe that for example, if things had gone differently Iraq, if our occupation had been been followed by a peaceful change of power in Iraq, if the example of freedom and democracy they set galvanized the world, threatening dictators and somehow helping the Mideast process, if Saddam had turned out to have piles of fresh chemical weapons and a nuclear program and active ties to Al Qeada, if in short what conservatives said would happen really did happen, I would have been floored. And disturbed. I would have had to conclude, wow, I’m really out of touch with reality! All these things I thought were crazy fantasies turned out to be true, while my own conviction that are intervention would lead to chaos, carnage, and a seemingly never-ending occupation turns out to have been some crazy fantasy. I’ve got to be more careful when I take a position on these matters, because I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about, and if the policies I advocated had been put in place, people would have suffered as a result.

    Just as John once wondered how liberals would respond when we found the weapons of mass destruction, I wondered how conservatives would respond when we didn’t. And with a few exceptions, they didn’t respond. This surprised me; I expected that when the causus belli for war was completely discredited, it would at least slow them down and get them thinking. But no. First there was a period of gloating, oh you liberals are going to be embarrassed when David Kay finds all those weapons. Then time passed. Finally, he said unequivocally there were no weapons. The stated causus belli for war had been an unambiguous falsehood, as stated by the Republican charged by the administration to investigate. Then, for conservatives, the matter was no longer important. They acted annoyed if you brought it up, like it was some trick we liberals played that there were no weapons, and a completely irrelevant point you were being unreasonable about if you brought it up. I still don’t understand. If you advocate a position as important as starting a war based on a conviction, and then conviction turns out to be utterly without foundation, as attested by people on your own side of the debate, and if the war results in millions of refugees and doesn’t at all go the way you said it would . . . that should slow you down, and make you think. . .maybe things aren’t the way I thought. Maybe I need to be a lot more careful. I don’t understand why this has been so rare.

  121. 121
    Maus says:

    It will take years of daily ass-kissing by the media to balance out the fanboy silliness we had to endure about George W. Bush during the runup to the Iraq war

    What makes me angry is that we don’t get a constructive media, we get fanboy fluff bullshit which the Righties rightfully criticize, but the greater media also just as vainly attack Obama instead of focusing on what really matters, and independent of the merits of the attack.

    One constant with the "two sides to every story" media is that the both sides that they choose are equally as uninformed, and regardless of truth are promoted as "equal" in truth.

  122. 122
    Joshua Norton says:

    Seeing the media become unquestionable lap dogs

    They were more like lap dancers for Chimpy & Co. – David "MTP" Gregory included.

  123. 123
    Rick Taylor says:

    This is bringing back memories and getting off topic, but I’m remembering an article in some magazine or paper before the Iraq war. I wish I could remember the source. It was saying how, privately, Iraqi officials were frantically asking us how do we avoid a war? And we were telling, surrender your weapons of mass destruction. The tone of the article was how paradoxical it was, the Iraqi government didn’t want war, but wouldn’t do the one thing they could easily do to avoid it. Of course by that point it was becoming clear they couldn’t comply with our demands, because there were no weapons of mass destruction to surrender. We’d sent the UN inspectors on a number of wild goose chases by that point, turning up nothing. They were doing everything they could, even dismantling missiles the UN told them to dismantle. Can you imagine a nation willingly taking apart their weapons when they know they’re very like to be invaded? It was a Catch 22 if ever there was one.

  124. 124
    Raoul says:

    Not to make a big deal, but I did not see O stepping over the CJ. The CJ paused to let O say his name, and then he started before O finished. Why does one think he stepped over his words? Is there any objective evidence of this? The evidence seems to indicate the opposite. As a point of comparison W’s 1st inaguration had him say his name and "solemnly swear" before the CJ continued; but W’s 2d inaguration had him say the his name only before the first pause.

  125. 125
    Mnemosyne says:

    The talking heads are generally stupid more than they are ideological, but they tend to be conservative at a deeper, non-ideological level.

    Someone (damned if I can remember who) had a good point about how the Washington establishment — the Villagers — are mostly Republicans, because they’re people who were appointed by Reagan or Bush I and continued along in their civil service jobs. They do resent it when an "outsider" like Clinton or Obama comes along, and they’ll mutter and complain about it.

    These are the people who are the friends and sources for reporters in DC. They go to the same barbecues and cocktail parties. The reporters have known these people for so long that not only do they not realize they have a bias, they start to adopt those biases because, hey, if this person who’s been in government for 20 years thinks Obama is wrong, Obama must be wrong.

    If anyone hasn’t read Sally Quinn’s unintentionally revealing column about the "village" of Washington DC, you really need to. It explains why people who don’t consider themselves either conservatives or Republicans nonetheless end up spouting the Republican Party’s line as fact.

    (Also note the former Clinton staffer now on Obama’s staff whose name appears prominently in the column. That Obama is a smart guy who understands how to manipulate the Village.)

  126. 126

    This drives even me insane about the media, period. It was a neat moment, when you got to see that these guys were nervous too, and that it all got flubbed.

    If I want Hollywood production, I’ll watch a Michael Bay film.

    I think shit like this should be universally panned, and maybe the media will get a clue.

  127. 127
    PK says:

    This is hitting on something that has bugged me: why hasn’t been more re-evaluation and soul searching among conservatives? It’s human nature to hold onto what we believe for security even when events in the world don’t fit.

    I thought about this question and the only conclusion I reached was that the underlying assumption is flawed. We think that just because we will do things differently if we make a mistake other people will too. I think there are some humans who will keep doing the same things, or following the same path despite being shown evidence of their failures. Their ideas seem to be fixed and not subject to change.
    Conservatives (or the current lot of republicans) don’t even accept obvious truths. They don’t believe in man made global climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. They believed Terry Schivo was alive, even though she was considered brain dead by her doctors. Look at the high approval ratings Sarah Palin has. They honestly think she is their savior for 2012, and that she got a bad rap from the media. I had republican friends tell me that they could not vote for Obama because only republicans were fiscally conservative. And this, after the country is in a shit hole because of republican financial mismanagement. Its impossible to argue with republicans because its exhausting and its like arguing with my 5 yr old. There is something really different about these people. The only people who come close to republicans in my personal experience were some feminist friends I once had. They had only one idea i.e. the woman is always right and the man is always wrong. No argument would convince them otherwise.
    I don’t consider myself a democrat, in fact honestly I don’t even know what that means. All I know is that I can’t be with those idiots! So right now I am a democrat by default.
    There is something completely wrong with the republicans that I doubt even an army of shrinks can fix.

  128. 128
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Faux News:

    Well, there is a difference between designating the beginning of a term and being authorized to "enter on the Execution of his Office"…per Sec. 2, Art. II, the oath must be taken before the latter.

  129. 129
    kay says:

    This is the way to handle it:

    "The vice president pokes fun at the Chief Justice for mangling Obama’s oath of office.

    Says before swearing in White House staffers Wednesday: "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts’."

  130. 130
    tammanycall says:

    What the hell are you people blathering about? About the article: the writer was attempting to convey Obama’s reaction to an unforseen bump in his inauguration. Covering both men equally (as John seems to suggest) ignores the desires and the expectations of the reader. This is Obama’s moment. No one cares about Roberts. It’s called "narrative shaping", and it’s practiced across the political spectrum. (Check out any recent profile of Bobby Jindal for a GOP example.)
    About the incident itself: 1.) "Roberts did it on PURPOSE!!" is shatbit insane. 2.) Deconstructing the pausing seems overly obsessive.

  131. 131
    Mike in NC says:

    There is something really different about these people.

    Soon after it became obvious there were no hidden WMDs to be discovered in Iraq, virtually every neocon and right-wing pundit (Krauthammer is only one example) was able to neatly pivot and declare in their writing that the whole purpose of the invasion all along was the glorious spreading of democracy to the enslaved Arab world. No ‘mea culpa’ of any sort. Maybe they all got the memo to reference Plan B and don’t look back.

    The only people who come close to republicans in my personal experience were some feminist friends I once had. They had only one idea i.e. the woman is always right and the man is always wrong. No argument would convince them otherwise.

    PUMAs anyone? Seems a lot of them decided if they couldn’t have Hillary as their leader, Palin was the default.

  132. 132

    I saw a Freeper thread on this last night where no matter HOW they argued it, Obama came out in the wrong.

    Can we finally be done with this shit now? I’ve never seen any situation so beaten to death and so utterly ridiculous in my entire life.

  133. 133
    Surreal American says:

    Gotta love the formula for Birther and PUMA political success:

    Phase 1: Invalidate Obama’s presidency
    Phase 2: ???
    Phase 3: President Palin!

  134. 134
    We Need New Govt says:

    Holy Crap –

    Before seeing this post, I’d just sent an email to one of the senior guys at the Trib, a friend who I graduated from high school with…

    The email was about the NY Mag post (my buddy is friends w.Axelrod: thought he’d get a chuckle out of it).

    THIS post is criticizing The TRIB – LOL! – maybe the 2nd most conservative paper in the whole dang country after the WSJ…

    Their endorsement of Obama over McCain constituted the FIRST endorsement of a Democrat in that paper’s Entire 165 Yr. History!

    How ironic it is that the clown who wrote that ridiculous stream of nonsense works for that particular paper, LOL! (And I don’t care What town the paper’s based in.)

    Thnx, John. (Think I gotta send THIS post to my friend too [but later: don’t want to be a pest].)

  135. 135
    different church-lady says:

    That drives Democrats insane about the media too.

    Honest Democrats (like you John, even though you’re a newbie) get insane about it whether the veneration is aimed at a D or an R.

    Less-than-honest Democrats get insane when an R is the subject (Bush lands on aircraft carrier, tingle goes up media legs) and overlook D treatment.

    BS is BS, and you call it — that’s why I read your stuff.

  136. 136
    JWW says:

    John,

    I do 100% agree with you. Shit happens, and I don’t know anyone who has ever been on such a stage.. They both knew what was supposed to happen, but jitters got to them. Even Michelle knew what took place, you can see it in hers eyes and her smile when it took place. No harm done, he is the President.

  137. 137
    JWW says:

    John,

    I read all the current responses. Why am I the Red Headed Step Child. I may have had some serious issues with some of you blogs, but at least I gave you my honest opinion. You accept some real freaks here, but I guess as long as they agree with you, that’s okay.

    New Dialog:

    Is it possible to be permitted too speak without moderation? I don’t promise to behave but I will consider my words.

  138. 138

    @Not My Fault

    Obama was obviously so nervous that he would accidentally blurt out:

    "I B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein SuperAllah Obama … "

    That he jumped the gun. Nothing more to see here.

    I wish that he had given Roberts a "terrorist fist bump" and then, once the oath had been administered, turned to the audience and said, ala Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles "Where are the white women?". That would have been so great, it would have made the wingtards shit themselves inside out.

  139. 139
    Wolfdaughter says:

    Re conservatives thinking differently than we do:

    A study was conducted a while back, maybe a year or so ago. College students were the guinea pigs, so take it with a grain of salt. A questionnaire was administered to the students to ascertain political leanings. The testees were then divided into conservative, centrist, and liberal according to their responses.

    They were then given a number of "facts" and told to learn them to the best of their ability. They were tested to see how well they retained these "facts". A few days later, they were given a new set of information, with some of the same "facts", and some other "facts" which contradicted some of the first "facts". They were told that the first "facts" were incorrect and that the new "facts" were correct.

    They were tested again. The liberals and the centrists did reasonable well in incorporating the new "facts", and were about equal in this endeavor, but the conservatives had a great deal of trouble with this, and responded as if the first set of "facts" were the truth. They did not seem able to incorporate the new "facts" into their worldviews.

    As I said, take the study with a grain of salt. But in hanging out on blogs and seeing conservatives post, I’ve noticed how often they hark back to old history when circumstances were different, to justify opinions held today. An example is bringing up that Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK for a while back in the 30s or 40s. The fact that he repudiated the KKK and went on to work towards civil rights, is totally ignored. Somehow, he cannot be believed today because he was at one time a member of the KKK.

    Last fall I had a HUGE argument with an old friend, a lifelong Republican. His particular issue is taxes and he kept saying that he wouldn’t vote for Obama because O would raise his taxes, despite what O said on the campaign trail. To my friend’s mind, Democrats raise taxes and Republicans don’t, and don’t confuse him with the facts.

    My father, also a lifelong Republican, whose politics are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun’s, is incapable of reason when it comes to politics. Both my father and friend are reasonable people in other areas, but not politics.

  140. 140
    Doug Woodard says:

    The oath has had a do-over so this is irrelevant, but –

    Roberts did not correctly state the oath even after Barack paused – "faithfully" precedes "execute" and Roberts on his second go around still had "faithfully" after "execute."

  141. 141
    shep says:

    "But the most telling moment of the whole event was not that rehearsed display of unity—it came when Chief Justice John Roberts accidentally rearranged Obama’s oath of office by putting the word “faithfully” in a different spot. Obama smiled broadly at this display of judicial privilege, even as his eyes flashed with some newfound—and very telling—presidential steel."
    .
    "It is pretty clear what [really] happened, and anyone who has ever been nervous can understand. Obama jumped in early, interrupting the first part. Roberts was then thrown off, and misplaced the word faithfully. Obama then started to recite the portion, got to the part where faithfully should have been, smiled at Roberts, Roberts corrected, and then they kind of just said to hell with it and went forward."
    .
    What Drives Republicans Insane About the Media
    .
    Proving once again that it’s always a very short trip.

  142. 142
    dp says:

    No one seems to care that "so help me god" is NOT a part of the POoO. So, if I said "so help me satan" or "so help me Clapton" because the writing on the wall is that Clapton is god, would my oath count?
    Or if I added (as Bush seems to have done) "if I feel like it."

    In addition, JC, via Matthew’s report of the sermon on the mount, says not to swear oaths and that to swear by god is to do the work of the evil one.

    Oh, exposing the scriptural cherry picking xians is fun.

    Every president has, according to that most misused of books, been a satanist.

    E Pleb Neesta, Middle Class, Inc.
    GODISNOWHERE
    Blessed are the cheese makers.
    If sex-ed and HPV vaccination lead to promiscuity then confession must lead to sin.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] oath of office, continued Filed under: Humor, Obama, Politics — Luke @ 10:33 am Another reaction to the botched oath: It is pretty clear what happened, and anyone who has ever been nervous can […]

Comments are closed.