4um: Book on Obama Hopes to Repeat Anti-Kerry Feat (NY Times article on Corsi's book and Corsi supports Chuck Baldwin)

Title: Book on Obama Hopes to Repeat Anti-Kerry Feat (NY Times article on Corsi's book and Corsi supports Chuck Baldwin)
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/u ... s/13book.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Published: Aug 13, 2008
Author: Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman
Post Date: 2008-08-13 15:36:01 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 458
Comments: 41

In the summer of 2004 the conservative gadfly Jerome R. Corsi shot to the top of the best-seller lists as co-author of “Unfit for Command,” the book attacking Senator John Kerry’s record on a Vietnam War Swift boat that began the larger damaging campaign against Mr. Kerry’s war credentials as he sought the presidency.

Almost exactly four years after that campaign began, Mr. Corsi has released a new attack book painting Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presumed presidential nominee, as a stealth radical liberal who has tried to cover up “extensive connections to Islam” — Mr. Obama is Christian — and questioning whether his admitted experimentation with drugs in high school and college ever ceased.

Significant parts of the book, whose subtitle is “Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality,” have already been challenged as misleading or false in the days since its debut on Aug. 1. Nonetheless, it is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday — at No. 1.

The book is being pushed along by a large volume of bulk sales, intense voter interest in Mr. Obama and a broad marketing campaign that has already included 100 author interviews with talk radio hosts across the country, like Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy, Mr. Corsi said on Tuesday.

The publisher is Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster whose chief editor is Mary Matalin, the former Republican operative turned publisher-pundit. And it is a significant, early success for Ms. Matalin’s three-year-old imprint, which is also planning to publish the memoirs of Karl Rove, President Bush’s longtime political guru. Threshold says it has undertaken an extensive printing effort for anticipated demand, with 475,000 copies of “The Obama Nation” produced so far.

“The goal is to defeat Obama,” Mr. Corsi said in a telephone interview. “I don’t want Obama to be in office.”

He said he was planning to aid several conservative groups that intend to run advertisements against Mr. Obama this fall, though he would not name them.

Mr. Corsi, who has over the years also written critically about Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s probable Republican opponent, said he supported the Constitution Party presidential nominee, Chuck Baldwin, and had not been in touch with McCain aides. He called his reporting on Mr. Obama, which he stands by, “investigative,” not prosecutorial.

Ms. Matalin said in an interview that the book “was not designed to be, and does not set out to be, a political book,” calling it, rather, “a piece of scholarship, and a good one at that.” She said she was unaware of efforts to link it to any anti-Obama advertising.

In its timing, authorship and style of reporting, the book is strikingly reminiscent of the one Mr. Corsi wrote with John O’Neill about Mr. Kerry, “Unfit for Command,” which included various accusations that were ultimately undermined by news reports pointing out the contradictions. (Some critics of Mr. Kerry quoted in the book had earlier praised his bravery in incidents they were now asserting he had fabricated; one had earned a medal for bravery in a gun battle he accused Mr. Kerry of concocting.)

But books like “Unfit for Command,” which remained for some 12 weeks on the Times best-seller list, and, now, “The Obama Nation,” have become an effective and favored delivery system for political attacks. There have been anti-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and anti-Bush books too numerous to name. The sensational findings in these books, true or dubious, can quickly come to dominate the larger political discussion in the news media, especially on cable television and the less readily detectible confines of talk radio and partisan Web sites.

Fact-checking the books can require extensive labor and time from independent journalists, whose work often trails behind the media echo chamber.

Web sites on the left have begun poring over Mr. Corsi’s latest book. Media Matters, which is run by David Brock, a former right-wing journalist who wrote a classic of the attack genre, “The Real Anita Hill,” has been particularly aggressive in fact-checking the book, and its press releases on inaccuracies in the book have gotten some attention on cable television.

Several of the book’s accusations, in fact, are unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate.

For instance, Mr. Corsi writes that Mr. Obama had “yet to answer” whether he “stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug usage extended to his law school days or beyond.” “How about in the U.S. Senate?” Mr. Corsi asks.

But Mr. Obama, who admitted to occasional marijuana and cocaine use in his high school and early college years, wrote in his memoir that he had “stopped getting high” when he moved to New York in the early 1980s. And in 2003 The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Ill., quoted him responding to a question of his drug use by saying, “I haven’t done anything since I was 20 years old.”

In an interview, Mr. Corsi said “self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable.”

In exploring Mr. Obama’s denials that he had been present for the more incendiary sermons of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Corsi cites a report on the conservative Web site NewsMax.com that Mr. Obama had attended a sermon on July 22, 2007, in which Mr. Wright blamed “the ‘white arrogance’ of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.”

Mr. Obama, however, was giving a speech in Florida that afternoon, and his campaign reported he had not attended Mr. Wright’s church that day.

William Kristol, a columnist for The New York Times, had cited the same report in a column, and issued a correction. “There is a dispute about the date, and Kristol chose to side with Obama,” Mr. Corsi said. “We can nitpick the date to death,” he added, saying his “fundamental point” was Mr. Obama’s close association with someone ascribing to “black liberation theology.”

Mr. Corsi described most of the critiques of his book as “nitpicking,” like a contradiction of his claim that Mr. Obama had failed to dedicate his book “Dreams of My Father” to his family; Mr. Obama dedicated the book to several family members, in the introduction.

Mr. Corsi called the Media Matters critique inconsequential because it was advancing a liberal, political agenda.

Media Matters was created in part to answer a conservative “echo chamber” — one that liberal activists say they have still yet to match — that gives books like Mr. Corsi’s extra bounce.

“There’s just no doubt that in terms of longer-term infrastructure, there’s more out there on the right than there is on the left,” said Cliff Schecter, author of a liberal attack book on Mr. McCain, “The Real McCain,” which, with 35,000 copies in print, did not make the Times bestseller list.

Mr. Obama’s campaign has yet to weigh in heavily on Mr. Corsi’s accusations. It appears to face the classic decision between the risk of publicizing the book’s claims by addressing them and the risk of letting them sink into the public debate with no response.

“This book is nothing but a series of lies that were long ago discredited, written by an individual who was discredited after he wrote a similar book to help George Bush and Dick Cheney get re-elected four years ago,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Mr. Obama. “The reality is that there are many lie-filled books like this in the works cobbled together from the Internet to make money off of a presidential campaign.” He added, “We will respond to these smears forcefully.”

Several Democrats associated with Mr. Kerry’s campaign in 2004 said in interviews Tuesday that they were comfortable so far with Mr. Obama’s more muted response to the book, which has not showed up yet in television advertisements.

Even Mr. Corsi said this book did not have what “Unfit for Command” had: a built-in interest group, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to run advertisements against its target.

While he said he thought it was a certainty that he would be “assisting in the creation of ads in the fall,” he did not say what he believed their content would be.

Obama is such an amateur: he doesn't have squads of Clintonesque-goons to go about terrorizing those who reveal his skeletons. Dogpile on Obama!!!

“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

The party of Wall Street, perpetual war, anti-sovereignty, lies and fear, and Rovian dirty politics.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

Chuck Baldwin was on AJ's show today and mentioned the article and Corsi's support of him, NOT mcCain. That's the reason I posted this. That and I thought it interesting that Corsi's book is #1 on NY Times list.

You do realize that in terms of some of major the corporate donors for Hillary and now Obama - the list does include Wall Street ( banks investment brokerage houses) in addition to tried and true labor unions, National Association of Trial Lawyers ( or whatever they call themselves), NEA, insurance companies etc.

And in terms of perpetual war, most Dems voted for continued funding of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. In fact, many Dems voted for the Iraq invasion themselves.

As for anti-sovereignity, I think the Dems even more so than GOP are definitely pushing shamnesty and the open borders mindset got into high gear under BillyJeff's reign.

Lies and fear - Dems have been on board with 9/11 official gov't theory - the Commission to investigate 9/11 was bi-partisan, in fact. The Dems went along enthusiastically with the Patriot Act and the establishment of Fatherland Security and they confirmed Cherkoff with resounding approval ( except for Hillary). And some Dems are worse than the GOP for fear - they always try to push the ADL's hate crime leg - the GOP have fought it. Also Jane Harmon's new bill on domestic turrurism is definitely one that should make every American fearful.

Gimme a break ....... the whole Iraq debacle was based on lies, fear and foolish dreams of a world empire.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

you honestly believe that the republicans alone are responsible for the war in Iraq? last time i looked, congress is comprised of both republicans and democrats.

Correct, and all of which could have been defunded by the Ds once Ms Pelosi seized power two years ago. But alas, she crapped the bed and maintained the status quo the same as all the other phony Speakers we've had, seemingly forever. Ds, Rs, two sides of the same coin.

I see the R's and the D's as both sharing blame and in fact cooperating with one another in the anti-American events that have occurred in the past 8 years and also in "the prelude, the set up" that was done in the 8 years prior to King George's ascension to the WH.

Now King George has done his bit to pave the way for the next phase of anti-American events and measures, that the Anointed Beltway Oligarch Sun King who follows George, will no doubt implement.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

What are the political party affiliations of the members of AIPAC?. PNAC? Bush, et al, are doing their bidding.

America is responsible. No dodging that, no crawdaddying by saying you didn't vote for Bush.

Only a handful Pubbies or Dims would have had the guts to take the lead in de-funding troops in the field.

One the things I at least half expect and desperately pray for is a change in the leadership of both houses if Obama is elected. A bigger pair of wienies does not exist.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902

Begin your novena now, Ico. Be it Barack McCain, or John Obama I'm absolutely positive nothing will change *except* for domestic policy, where both are awful with Obama getting the edge thanks to his marriage to diversity/multiculturalism.

PNAC, at a glance, is all neo-con and predominately Republican (what the hell do you think I have been screaming about all these months?)

AIPAC is all Jew, of course, and would appear to have tremendous influence over establishment Dims.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

The Bush administration, worst in history, is in no way American and the low IQ and war fevered McCain is 100% continuation of same.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

both are awful with Obama getting the edge thanks to his marriage to diversity/multiculturalism.

Obama has announced that his stance on affirmative action is to base it on class, not race. Have any of your lily white pols suggested such?

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

America Invaded Iraq. Get that thru yer head. I can't believe I even have to type this. What part of President of the USA passes over your woozy head. Good God, Man,

Get over it. The Dems you support are the most craven bunch of shitheads. They should dissolve themselves as a party. They have offered NOTHING to counter Dubya for 7 years and they call him STOOPID.

Obama knocks McCain's affirmative action stance.(Front)

By William Douglas

McClatchy News Service

CHICAGO

Presidential challengers John McCain and Barack Obama sparred over affirmative action Sunday, with McCain backing an effort to end state and locally run minority preferences and Obama saying policies that consider race need to continue.

McCain, speaking on ABC's "This Week," said he backs a proposed ballot initiative in his home state of Arizona that would prohibit affirmative action policies by state and local governments.

The initiative is part of a nationwide attempt by Ward Connerly to have governmental affirmative action policies eliminated. Connerly, a conservative African American businessman from Sacramento, Calif., who led a successful drive to ban affirmative action in California, has been trying to do the same thing in other states.

Asked Sunday whether he supported Connerly's efforts in Arizona, McCain said, "Yes, I do," adding that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."

McCain's endorsement was an apparent shift on affirmative action. The Republican senator has spoken out against quota systems but he has also backed affirmative action in certain cases. He opposed a 1998 resolution in the Arizona legislature that asked voters to eliminate most preferences based on race, gender or ethnic origin.

"Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide every child in America to fulfill their expectations," he said at the time.

Obama, speaking at the Unity minority journalism convention in Chicago, accused McCain of flip-flopping and reminded convention attendees about McCain's 1998 remarks.

"And I think he's right," he said. "You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people."

The Illinois Democratic senator said America has made progress on race relations but argued that there is still a need for affirmative action policies in the country.

"I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so there it is not a quota, but it is acknowledging and taking into account some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced, continue to experience, and it also speaks to the value of diversity in all walks of American life," he said.

"I've also said that affirmative action is not going to be the long- term solution to the problems of race in America, because, frankly, if you've got 50 percent of African American or Latino kids dropping out of high school, it doesn't really matter what you do in terms of affirmative action. Those kids aren't going to college."

Obama said he would like to see affirmative action policies altered in a way so "some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who's struggled more."

On another matter regarding race and ethnicity, Obama rejected any notion that he would back reparations or offer a formal apology on behalf of the United States for the enslavement of Africans or the mistreatment of Native Americans, should he be elected president.

The Canadian government last month apologized for the treatment that aboriginal children received in that country's residential schools. The Australian government issued a similar apology in February.

In 2006, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "deep sorrow" over Britain's role in the African slave trade but stopped short of a full apology.

So how does that position make Obama's mindset any less offensive to constitutionally minded Americans?

a. affirmative action is morally and constitutionally wrong no matter what that internationalist intellectual light weight SC justice Sandy Dimwit O'Connor might claim

Latest population estimates put the Whites of America in minority status in a couple of decades.

Neither did Obama. Nor will he. Obama is establishment Democrat, just like Clinton, Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy.

Remind me of how the Democrats presented valid, cogent and detailed cases for not invading Iraq or challenging Bush's formulation of a war on a tactic.

September October 2002 when the Dems gave Bush his war resolution so they could campaign on domestic issues for the upcoming election was the day the Dems absolutely lost any credibility and any claim to be a viable, functioning political party.

What effing whiners they are. They rubberstamped Bush's policies and then have the temerity to whine about what they themselves approved - and this applies to everything - the enhanced interrogation techniques, the wiretapping, the war etc. etc.

Well, you coulda held hearings so we coulda had some entertainment, at least, but then, oh Nancy, your culpability with Bush woulda been out in the open.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

Financial aid given by government in the way of welfare food stamps and subsidized rent in low cost housing is one thing. That's a philosophy that has been a part of America for quite some time, particularly after FDR's administration put gov't administered social welfare programs in place - to look after those who cannot look after themselves. Americans supporting private charities and foundations is the long established tradition you are thinking of, I believe.

But it is quite another philosophy for gov't to give a leg up to individuals - who have no merit for this leg up - in college admissions or in job placement, and at the expense of individuals who demonstrate merit for advancement but have no economic need. Affirmative action as promoted by your hero, Obama, is a Marxist principle. Re-distribution of wealth - ie. a meritless individual's economic advancement on the back of an merited individual with means and mandated by unfair direct intervention by BigBrother. That's very un-American, in fact, Mr. Bolshevik iconoclast, to penalize an individual for his economic independence.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

Just like the Liberals of Lloyd George in England's Parliament on the eve of the Great War, they were afraid of not voting for a war that the population was convinced was necessary.

The war, as almost a hundred years ago, was supposed to be "short, glorious and victorious".

So, Democrats voted for expediency, hoping to focus on domestic affairs in the 2002 Congressional elections.

Errr...so what's your point? Do you provide those statistics in a misguided belief that they demonstrate that Democrats did not support the Iraq War?

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I bet that wouldn't be the first lie that has ever come from his mouth. He is an establishment politician to the core and you can't believe them.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

I think you omitted part of the equation in your truncated statistical representation above.

I believe the following shows the full equation, the complete picture as it were, of how both parties contributed to Junior's War Powers being passed.

I hear you and for the life of me I can't understand people we know, having gained so much afa a political education, suddenly believing Obama. Either they were never honest with us and themselves, or they have changed, doing a political 180 to the hard left.