Active Users:1047 Time:13/11/2024 06:21:57 AM
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact. Tashmere Send a noteboard - 22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM
a very large number of people in this world are not fair minded and would give Obama the benefit of the doubt; either out of:
1) genuine different political opinions
2) genuine hatred
3) genuine misunderstanding of Obama in general

In that understanding it is very much up to Obama to couch his language on the lowest common denominator and make sure he is crystal clear.

So he wasn't crystal clear there are two possible explanations:
1) He messed up (this is possible but I find unlikely)
2) He was purposefully two faced (for political reasons which are now biting him in the ass for he messed up).


3) He knows that it isn't wise to use a sledge hammer to make a point. It is humiliating, creates enemies and makes the person you used it on dig in their heels even harder. He said what he meant but did it with tact. He left the fig leaf there that the people building the mosque could have used to say "Thank you for understanding and sticking up for us but we aren't blind to the point that you made in the first part of your speech that the decision to build there would create hard and painful feelings for many people so we have decided to do something different with that land. But thank you again for standing up for our religious freedom."

I don't know about you, but for me the best way to get me to see sense is to put it the way he did. A direct attack just puts my back up. He tactfully implied that it wasn't a wise decision with out being completely insulting. But the main focus of the speech was that the government had no business or right to tell them they couldn't do it, that they have the same right to worship as anyone else as long as they are complying with the laws and ordinances in place. That was the question he was really addressing.

As for me, it was clear from the start. I just think that other people are too intent on reading something else into it or not understanding the issue he was addressing.

I still think that you,Damookster and Legolas are way smarter than I am. Just not on this point. I am almost suspecting that you are feigning obtuseness just to egg me on for your entertainment. :P
Reply to message
An amusing column on the NYC mosque by Maureen Dowd.... - 20/08/2010 12:33:27 AM 1422 Views
wow, that was an interesting read - 20/08/2010 02:03:52 AM 788 Views
Gingrich thinks he is a deep thinker? - 20/08/2010 09:42:15 AM 635 Views
We've been through this, too, haven't we? - 20/08/2010 10:12:15 AM 927 Views
He makes historical references as often as possible, or at least in pretty much everything I've seen - 20/08/2010 12:37:02 PM 741 Views
As he was a history professor and writes histories and alternate histories, this is not surprising - 20/08/2010 05:33:48 PM 931 Views
I'm aware of that - 20/08/2010 11:47:32 PM 661 Views
Re: I'm aware of that - 21/08/2010 12:40:29 AM 947 Views
Re: I'm aware of that - 21/08/2010 01:19:37 AM 801 Views
Re: I'm aware of that - 21/08/2010 01:59:48 AM 688 Views
Conservatives love Rome. I don't know why. - 21/08/2010 01:20:27 AM 742 Views
Rome was more often than not governed by aristocrats and did, after all, invent the republic. - 21/08/2010 04:50:53 PM 1059 Views
"One man, one vote" always reminds me of Pratchett - 21/08/2010 05:03:35 PM 717 Views
Me too *NM* - 21/08/2010 06:53:22 PM 464 Views
Except there doesn't seem to be any conflict between either position. - 20/08/2010 10:06:20 AM 878 Views
When has logical consistency trumped politics? *NM* - 20/08/2010 01:50:55 PM 369 Views
True, but it does mean there's no "there" there. - 20/08/2010 02:41:49 PM 705 Views
He has to learn he needs to be crystal clear on sensitive issues - 20/08/2010 02:03:43 PM 944 Views
In Washington, one must always present the APPEARANCE of integrity... - 20/08/2010 02:40:24 PM 808 Views
Clinton lied about the BJ but what is your airtight proof that Bush lied? - 20/08/2010 07:44:53 PM 873 Views
Ask and ye shall receive: - 21/08/2010 06:42:50 PM 1063 Views
This is a bit along the lines of what I have been thinking. - 20/08/2010 07:49:15 PM 915 Views
that sort of illustrates the problem - 20/08/2010 08:56:42 PM 762 Views
It does - 22/08/2010 04:56:54 PM 679 Views
Can't find anything now on the context of the second statement. - 21/08/2010 05:05:51 PM 805 Views
I didn't see the problem either. He was simply stating the obvious. - 21/08/2010 01:39:44 AM 653 Views
maybe - 21/08/2010 02:49:40 AM 893 Views
Wow that is probably the best Dowd column I have ever read - 21/08/2010 01:35:36 AM 682 Views
Yes, his backtracking was quite pussy-ish. *NM* - 21/08/2010 04:00:31 AM 327 Views
How did he "backtrack" exactly? - 21/08/2010 04:35:33 PM 957 Views
c'mon Joel. are you being intentionally thick? - 21/08/2010 05:02:27 PM 984 Views
Having read those quotes I don't think he was backtracking on anything. (With link to speech) - 22/08/2010 06:27:06 AM 932 Views
*NM* - 22/08/2010 01:37:23 PM 371 Views
did you take into your consideration - 22/08/2010 03:50:59 PM 676 Views
I can't imagine why they would express concern over it. It wasn't controversial. That is on them - 22/08/2010 03:58:32 PM 873 Views
that would be - 22/08/2010 04:02:08 PM 967 Views
But quote B just reiterated what he said the first time. - 22/08/2010 04:13:21 PM 797 Views
I agree he is not backtracking - 22/08/2010 06:49:36 PM 786 Views
I agree with you, Joel and Tash on this one. - 22/08/2010 07:52:34 PM 838 Views
While we're picking sides, I'm with Mook and Roland. - 22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM 713 Views
I never fail to be impressed with your intelligence - 22/08/2010 08:25:11 PM 857 Views
I like how he's got rhetorical talents when it works - 22/08/2010 08:32:15 PM 730 Views
nope just human *NM* - 22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM 396 Views
that's not what Paul just said. - 22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM 789 Views
He couldn't stay out, no. - 22/08/2010 08:56:47 PM 835 Views
I don't want to argue with you on a Sunday, my religion says I have to relax. - 22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM 852 Views
key word: seem - 22/08/2010 09:06:40 PM 771 Views
I was only using that term for you guys. I don't feel like beating you with a rolling pin until you - 22/08/2010 09:14:39 PM 670 Views
good thing - 22/08/2010 09:39:52 PM 1074 Views
he could have and should have stayed out - 22/08/2010 09:57:57 PM 805 Views
I think he's certainly got rhetoric talents... - 22/08/2010 08:54:11 PM 1226 Views
You don't really seem like you're taking a side to me. - 22/08/2010 09:14:02 PM 890 Views
I'm not even taking the time to comment on something so obvious as what he did. *NM* - 22/08/2010 02:53:10 AM 452 Views
Except, of course, that you just did. - 22/08/2010 12:30:00 PM 806 Views
Joel - 22/08/2010 05:37:45 AM 977 Views
That last line was golden. *NM* - 22/08/2010 05:40:56 AM 423 Views
His phrasing in the first speech implied that it was a bad idea. But legally they have the right. - 22/08/2010 06:32:59 AM 902 Views
nonsense - 22/08/2010 03:39:30 PM 850 Views
I still don't see how it can be misinterpreted except by intent by the listener. - 22/08/2010 04:08:52 PM 824 Views
so we have reached the point of no return... - 22/08/2010 04:18:46 PM 832 Views
In your case it would have to be number 2. - 22/08/2010 07:38:20 PM 809 Views
ah, but I have no agenda here... - 22/08/2010 07:41:59 PM 635 Views
lol.<3 - 22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM 814 Views
that it is... - 22/08/2010 08:57:05 PM 770 Views
Tash you are very much a fair person in this world - 22/08/2010 08:34:38 PM 892 Views
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact. - 22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM 812 Views
On the off chance that this: - 23/08/2010 12:38:48 AM 1001 Views
I do remember your reply... - 23/08/2010 02:57:29 AM 1229 Views
Lies, prevarication and deceit again, eh? - 22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM 1282 Views
that was a decent explanation.... - 22/08/2010 05:18:18 PM 754 Views
Thanks. - 22/08/2010 05:41:28 PM 809 Views
I do feel bad for them - 22/08/2010 08:40:36 PM 704 Views
Re: Joel - 22/08/2010 07:53:51 PM 837 Views
Agreed. *NM* - 22/08/2010 08:25:38 PM 522 Views

Reply to Message