Drudge Continues Right-Wing Distortion of Obama's Record on Israel by Claiming Obama Hasn't Visited Israel

Drudge Continues Right-Wing Distortion of Obama’s Record on Israel by Claiming Obama Hasn’t Visited Israel

Wingnuts • 7/04/12 9:09:54 am • Views: 1,530

The Drudge Report continued the false right-wing narrative that Obama is hostile to Israel by claiming that President Obama hasn’t visited Israel. In fact, as a presidential candidate, Obama visited Israel in 2008.

Since as far back as 2008, right-wing media have waged a years-long campaign to make the President seem out of step with or even hostile to Israel. These ludicrously false attacks have included claims that Obama and members of his administration are anti-Semitic, claims that Obama had sympathies toward terrorist groups, and claims that Obama would actually use military force against Israel.

Recent Pages by Thanos:
World Health Organization: Bad Guy or Fall Guy? Trump's Disregard for Human Life Has Resulted in 200K Deaths and CDC Guidance That Can't Be Trust... ON the Agency of Objects -- Protagony One: Joi Facebook's Climate of Denial Majority of Americans, Including Many Republicans, Say Wait for Election to Replace Ginsburg - Reuters Poll

Jump to bottom

60 comments

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:27:26am

President Obama hasn't visited Israel. Presidential candidate, Obama has.

Maybe you don't see the difference?

Gus Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:33:07am

re: #1 Buck

President Obama hasn't visited Israel. Presidential candidate, Obama has.

Maybe you don't see the difference?

George W. Bush didn't visit Israel until the 7th year of his office in 2007. Much like a Obama, he did visit prior to becoming president which was in the year 1998. Ronald Reagan never set foot in Israel his entire life.

Instead, the right wing continues to fabricate outrage over this when Obama is exhibiting much the same behavior as past presidents such as George W. Bush. However, not in the case of Ronald Reagan who never visited Israel.

There are no differences except through the eyes of the American far-right and troublemakers.

Decatur Deb Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:36:29am

Anyone who cares about our relationship with Israel, and its value to both countries, should be very uneasy about any sign of encroachment on our 2012 election. The best modeler out there, Nate Silver, has the President re-elected at the moment.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:43:56am

Buck......still a dumbass.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:54:19am

re: #2 Gus

George W. Bush didn't visit Israel until the 7th year of his office in 2007. Much like a Obama, he did visit prior to becoming president which was in the year 1998. Ronald Reagan never set foot in Israel his entire life.

So what? When did it become ok to do what George W. Bush did?

I mean if that is the standard, then Obama should stop beating up Republicans for the "same failed policies".

There ARE very measurable differences between how the US is perceived in the region now and when GWB (or even Ronald Reagan) were President. Measurable with regards to both President Obama's words and actions.

Now you and MediaMatters can try and make this seem like a big conspiracy and make it seem like the President is doing nothing to deserve any criticism on this matter, BUT I don't think that is working.

----------------
MediaMatters has been criticised for being unfairly biased against Israel in the past. So I don't expect a really unbiased opinion from them now.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:55:14am

James, still only semi literate.

Gus Wed, Jul 4, 2012 10:57:20am

re: #5 Buck

So what? When did it become ok to do what George W. Bush did?

So what? Frankly, I think that it wasn't until 2007 that President George W. Bush is perfectly acceptable. The same holds true for Ronald W. Reagan's history. These things happen.

The rest of your post is a classic case of moving the goal posts and near hyperbole. The former comments of course are just more weak excuses clearly making you a hypocrite in this matter.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:03:51am

re: #7 Gus

So what? Frankly, I think that it wasn't until 2007 that President George W. Bush is perfectly acceptable. The same holds true for Ronald W. Reagan's history. These things happen.

The rest of your post is a classic case of moving the goal posts and near hyperbole. The former comments of course are just more weak excuses clearly making you a hypocrite in this matter.

Very good, you join James in thinking that name calling is a proper reply.

Guess what, I didn't slavishly support GWB in everything he did either. For example, I was very critical of his weakness for everything Saudi.

However, it seems that simple name calling has replaced actual dialog for now.

Gus Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:04:46am

re: #8 Buck

Very good, you join James in thinking that name calling is a proper reply.

Guess what, I didn't slavishly support GWB in everything he did either. For example, I was very critical of his weakness for everything Saudi.

However, it seems that simple name calling has replaced actual dialog for now.

That's not name calling. That's an observation. You're a hypocrite.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:10:40am

re: #9 Gus

That's not name calling. That's an observation. You're a hypocrite.

Really nothing more than a pretentious version of calling me a dumbass.

Very productive.

Gus Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:14:38am

re: #10 Buck

Really nothing more than a pretentious version of calling me a dumbass.

Very productive.

That's your interpretation and not mine. This really isn't about you anyway and it's about Drudge, other far-right American media outlets, and President Obama. It's about a double standard and if you refuse to see the hypocrisy when they don't compare Obama's record to past presidents then there's nothing much else I can say. Obama has yet to visit Israel as president and that's just fine. Others presidents have done the same. End of story.

gwangung Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:20:36am

re: #10 Buck

Really nothing more than a pretentious version of calling me a dumbass.

Very productive.

More productive than calling someone semi-literate?

Whatever. You're not answering the original point: what makes it mandatory for a President to visit Israel in person (particularly given the security problems). I don't think you can.

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:22:57am

It never fails: point out to a conservative that their heroes did the same thing they're all butt hurt over Obama doing, and suddenly it's "THAT'S DIFFERENT! HOW DARE YOU?"

Gus Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:24:26am

re: #13 Mattand

It never fails: point out to a conservative that their heroes did the same thing they're all butt hurt over Obama doing, and suddenly it's "THAT'S DIFFERENT! HOW DARE YOU?"

"Well George W. Bush didn't visit Israel until 2007."

"Oh yeah! I never liked George W. Bush anyway."

"What about Ronald Reagan who never visited Israel?"

[Crickets]

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:24:34am

re: #12 gwangung

More productive than calling someone semi-literate?

That was a reply to being called a dumbass

Whatever. You're not answering the original point: what makes it mandatory for a President to visit Israel in person (particularly given the security problems). I don't think you can.

Nice strawman. No one said it was mandatory.

However it is fair to point out who the president has chosen to visit, and who he hasn't.

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:24:53am

Also: who gives a fuck?

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:26:03am

re: #14 Gus

"Well George W. Bush didn't visit Israel until 2007."

"Oh yeah! I never liked George W. Bush anyway."

"What about Ronald Reagan who never visited Israel?"

[Crickets]

Not crickets... I thought one example would be enough. You can copy and paste the description of my feelings towards RR in the same way. I didn't slavishly agree with everything he said and did either. (specific example Lebanon)

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:26:37am

re: #13 Mattand

It never fails: point out to a conservative that their heroes did the same thing they're all butt hurt over Obama doing, and suddenly it's "THAT'S DIFFERENT! HOW DARE YOU?"

And who said that?

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:27:20am

You know what Israel gives a shit about? All the money we give them. As long as the cash rolls in, they don't give two yamakas about Obama's itinerary.

EDIT: butchered "yamaka"

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:28:41am

re: #19 Mattand

You know what Israel gives a shit about? All the money we give them. As long as the cash rolls in, they don't give two yakimas about Obama's itinerary.

Nice left wing summary. It is not true, but hey as long as it makes you feel good.

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:28:45am

re: #1 Buck

President Obama hasn't visited Israel. Presidential candidate, Obama has.

Maybe you don't see the difference?

There is a difference, and I'd like Obama to visit as president, but as pointed out above, his not having been in an official capacity yet is hardly unusual. Bush did a single trip toward the end of his term. Bush Sr. never went, neither did Reagan.

Bill Clinton went four times during his presidency, and, I believe, far and away holds the record, but he was genuinely interested in the region.

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:30:29am

re: #3 Decatur Deb

Anyone who cares about our relationship with Israel, and its value to both countries, should be very uneasy about any sign of encroachment on our 2012 election. The best modeler out there, Nate Silver, has the President re-elected at the moment.

That's my call too.

Of course, Nate has figures. I have gut instinct.

But there will be ongoing attempts to play up Obama's supposedly unique and scary record on Israel, as there were attempts to play up Bush's supposedly unique and wonderful record. I buy neither one, but hope springs eternal that these tropes can be used to pry off a couple extra voters here and there.

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:31:52am

re: #20 Buck

Nice left wing summary. It is not true, but hey as long as it makes you feel good.

No, that's called reality. I'm sure they'd like for him to visit, but our financial support is more important.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:33:00am

re: #23 Mattand

No, that's called reality. I'm sure they'd like for him to visit, but our financial support is more important.

I see, you think it is a one OR the other proposition.

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:33:44am

re: #15 Buck

That was a reply to being called a dumbass

Nice strawman. No one said it was mandatory.

However it is fair to point out who the president has chosen to visit, and who he hasn't.

Sure, it's 'fair to point out'. It's also fair to point out that whether he's been or not yet means very little. As an American Jew, when this message "OMG! Obama hasn't been to Israel as president yet!" is hammered on, I'm aware that there is an agenda here involving my vote and some misinformation and misdirection about U.S. foreign policy toward Israel going on.

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:33:56am

re: #24 Buck

I see, you think it is a one OR the other proposition.

Easy with the strawman, Scarecrow.

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:35:44am

re: #19 Mattand

You know what Israel gives a shit about? All the money we give them. As long as the cash rolls in, they don't give two yakimas about Obama's itinerary.

Would 'yakima' in this sense be the bike, or the city in Washington State, she said slightly stiffly?

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:36:57am

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

Would 'yakima' in this sense be the bike, or the city in Washington State, she said slightly stiffly?

No, that was a spelling and trying-to-be-clever fail on my end.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:39:40am

re: #26 Mattand

Easy with the strawman, Scarecrow.

That is what "I'm sure they'd like for him to visit, but our financial support is more important." means to me. That you see this as a one OR the other proposition.

bratwurst Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:44:48am

I wonder how many times BUCK has visited.

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:44:53am

re: #29 Buck

That is what "I'm sure they'd like for him to visit, but our financial support is more important." means to me. That you see this as a one OR the other proposition.

Well, you're wrong. The Israeli people know we support them and I'd be willing to bet a visit from Obama, while nice, isn't something they're bent out of shape over.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:47:35am

re: #30 bratwurst

I wonder how many times BUCK has visited.

I have visited four times and I lived there for two years.

The Government has actually added up all my time spent in Israel, even though it was not contiguous, and has decided I am a citizen. Although I have not been there since they told me that. Not for any reason except that I have not had the time.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:50:26am

re: #31 Mattand

Well, you're wrong. The Israeli people know we support them and I'd be willing to bet a visit from Obama, while nice, isn't something they're bent out of shape over.

Not something they will be bent out of shape over, because of all the money they get.

Is that a better way to describe how you feel?

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:53:56am

re: #33 Buck

Not something they will be bent out of shape over, because of the the money they get.

Is that a better way to describe how you feel?

Try "The Israeli people are smart enough to know that a lack of Obama visits isn't something to get worked up over, especially in light of US financial and military support."

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:56:01am

re: #34 Mattand

Try "The Israeli people are smart enough to know that a lack of Obama visits isn't something to get worked up over, especially in light of US financial and military support."

Much better than: "As long as the cash rolls in, they don't give two yakimas about Obama's itinerary." Don't you think?

Mattand Wed, Jul 4, 2012 11:57:11am

re: #35 Buck

Much better than: "As long as the cash rolls in, they don't give two yakimas about Obama's itinerary." Don't you think?

Says the same. If version 2 makes you feel better, have at it.

bratwurst Wed, Jul 4, 2012 12:00:19pm

re: #32 Buck

I have visited four times and I lived there for two years.

The Government has actually added up all my time spent in Israel, even though it was not contiguous, and has decided I am a citizen. Although I have not been there since they told me that. Not for any reason except that I have not had the time.

Well I salute you. I have found that a shocking number of Israel's most vociferous defenders online don't actually spend any of their time and money there...something which shows a bit more actual support than flaming people on the internets.

I have been going there every few years my entire life, but unfortunately not since 2009. I hope to correct this next year!

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 12:04:16pm

re: #37 bratwurst

I don't like to do the one-two week visits any more. I like to rent an apartment (swap sometimes) in Tel Aviv and spend a 5-6 weeks.

For the past 5 years I have started two new businesses and have not been able to get away for that sort of time.

I do miss it.

Sophia77 Wed, Jul 4, 2012 12:54:24pm

Mattand, with respect I think Israel would survive just fine without the money we send them. Relative to their economy it's not much and in fact most of it, I believe, is in the form of loan guarantees which are spent here, mostly on defense products.

What they need is our support.

You're completely off the mark here.

As to those who claim his opinion is "left wing," I think it's just ignorant. It actually sounds more like claims I've seen on Free Republic which love to harp on the notion that Israel isn't really our friend, which is totally bogus.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 12:55:40pm

re: #6 Buck

James, still only semi literate.

Still waiting for those "real" numbers you said were going to come out. You know...the ones that would show Tom Barrett and the unions spent anywhere near as much money as Walker and his PACs, even though all the other reports showed Walker's side spending at least 8 times as much.

Still waiting on that. Because we all know that it couldn't have been just another example of you being an ultra-partisan hack, lying your ass off to further your side. Right?

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:06:54pm

re: #40 JamesWI

Still waiting for those "real" numbers you said were going to come out. You know...the ones that would show Tom Barrett and the unions spent anywhere near as much money as Walker and his PACs, even though all the other reports showed Walker's side spending at least 8 times as much.

Still waiting on that. Because we all know that it couldn't have been just another example of you being an ultra-partisan hack lying your ass off to further your side. Right?

Quite stalkerish of you to carry that from all those weeks ago.

Fact is that no one is doing the research. And the unions don't have to report how much they spent, not even to their members.

I feel very confident that if you were able to add up what the unions spent on creating the protests, gathering up the signatures for multiple recalls and attempting to get their people in place for the big payoff (multiple candidates two different elections), it would be a lot more than has been reported.

But like I said then, and repeat now, the unions don't have to report how much they spend.

Which is what I said at the time. No lying.

It is in fact a demonstration of YOUR ultra-partisan stand to ignore that.

If you are not seeing the backlash against the unions for wasting all those millions you are being purposely blind to it.

Now, that is not your excuse for using the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common form name calling here is it? Because I gave my opinion all those weeks ago and it wasn't in line with yours? Really?

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:13:11pm

re: #41 Buck

Quite stalkerish of you to carry that from all those weeks ago.

Fact is that no one is doing the research. And the unions don't have to report how much they spent, not even to their members.

I feel very confident that if you were able to add up what the unions spent on creating the protests, gathering up the signatures for multiple recalls and attempting to get their people in place for the big payoff (multiple candidates two different elections), it would be a lot more than has been reported.

But like I said then, and repeat now, the unions don't have to report how much they spend.

Which is what I said at the time. No lying.

It is in fact a demonstration of YOUR ultra-partisan stand to ignore that.

If you are not seeing the backlash against the unions for wasting all those millions you are being purposely blind to it.

Now, that is not your excuse for using the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common form name calling here is it? Because I gave my opinion all those weeks ago and it wasn't in line with yours? Really?

That's an awfully round-about way to say you still have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.

And apparently it's "stalkerish" to remember some of your bullshit lies from a few weeks ago, as opposed to just forgetting them all as you spew more bullshit every day.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:23:17pm

re: #6 Buck

James, still only semi literate.

Also, when calling someone "semi literate," it would help if you actually use proper grammar. While most would use a hyphenated form ("semi-literate"), one can also find many instances, including dictionary entries, where it is written as one word ("semiliterate").

However, you will not be able to find any literate person separating it into two words ("semi literate") as you have.

Helpful hint for a dumbass.

Randall Gross Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:28:08pm

What's Drudge's purpose here? It's very easy to cut to the chase: the wingnut who's allied with anti-semitic Alex Jones wants to drive a wedge and create a schism in one of President Obama's voting blocs, Jewish Americans. He wants to create some infighting between the conservative Zionists and the moderate to left wing Jews. Enough angst and perhaps both sides get disgusted over time and don't turn out come election day. If all Jewish Americans (conservative and liberal) did not vote then the advantage would clearly be towards Romney.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:30:32pm

re: #42 JamesWI

That's an awfully round-about way to say you still have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.

And apparently it's "stalkerish" to remember some of your bullshit lies from a few weeks ago, as opposed to just forgetting them all as you spew more bullshit every day.

Fine, According to the government watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Democratic groups -- including those funded by unions, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee -- poured in about $14 million to the election. That is outside of the $4.1 million that Barrett has claimed to have raised directly.

I don't remember specifically what your "I am a big poor sport" claim was, but I think it was that Walker out raised Barrett 9 to 1. I think you got it from that guy on CNN who was crying that "democracy died tonight", and that is what he said.

So at the time you were using how much Barrett spent on his own, and not what the unions, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee spent on their own. You also failed to distinguish between what was spent and what was raised.

Going back to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign figures Walker SPENT only $29 million, and Barrett SPENT very close to $4 million. Add to that $14 million spent on his behalf? That is $18 million.

Not really 9 to 1 is it? And that is not taking into consideration the millions spent leading up to the two recalls.

Nope. Now the difference is really just a testament to his popularity (which is backed up by the voters), and not buying an election.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:37:47pm

re: #45 Buck

Fine, According to the government watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Democratic groups -- including those funded by unions, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee -- poured in about $14 million to the election. That is outside of the $4.1 million that Barrett has claimed to have raised directly.

I don't remember specifically what your "I am a big poor sport" claim was, but I think it was that Walker out raised Barrett 9 to 1. I think you got it from that guy on CNN who was crying that "democracy died tonight", and that is what he said.

So at the time you were using how much Barrett spent on his own, and not what the unions, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee spent on their own. You also failed to distinguish between what was spent and what was raised.

Going back to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign figures Walker SPENT only $29 million, and Barrett SPENT very close to $4 million. Add to that $14 million spent on his behalf? That is $18 million.

Not really 9 to 1 is it? And that is not taking into consideration the millions spent leading up to the two recalls.

Nope. Now the difference is really just a testament to his popularity (which is backed up by the voters), and not buying an election.

Actually, most of the 8-to-1 (or 9-to-1, 10-to-1) numbers that most of us were posting that night were not simply Walker and Barrett's spending alone, but also the reported spending by those supporters who were required to report, as well as estimates of the spending on their behalf by groups that were not required to report.

But of course, in typical dishonest-Buck fashion, you decide to add the numbers spent by Democratic supporters on behalf of Barrett to Barrett's count, while not adding the substantial amount spent by the RGA and right-wing PACS to Walker's count.

In other words, your typical bullshit. Again.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:43:35pm

re: #46 JamesWI

Actually, most of the 8-to-1 (or 9-to-1, 10-to-1) numbers that most of us were posting that night were not simply Walker and Barrett's spending alone, but also the reported spending by those supporters who were required to report, as well as estimates of the spending on their behalf by groups that were not required to report.

But of course, in typical dishonest-Buck fashion, you decide to add the numbers spent by Democratic supporters on behalf of Barrett to Barrett's count, while not adding the substantial amount spent by the RGA and right-wing PACS to Walker's count.

In other words, your typical bullshit. Again.

Not bull shit, I took the figures from the database.

However if 9-1 were true then $18 million times 9 = $162 million. Do you think there is anyway possible that Walker and all of his supporters combined SPENT $162 million?

Of course not.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:45:32pm

Examples of spending that good ol' dishonest Buck left out of Walker's count, from the same website where he got his numbers on Democratic supporters:

Americans for Prosperity was created in 2003 to back conservative issue like small government and lower taxes. The group refuses to disclose how much it spends on outside electioneering activities in Wisconsin and elsewhere, but the Democracy Campaign estimates Americans for Prosperity has doled out $825,000 on negative ads, mailings and other activities in past Wisconsin elections, including an estimated $800,000 during the first round of recall elections involving nine state senators in the summer of 2011.....

...During the last several weeks of 2011, Americans for Prosperity and the Madison-based MacIver Institute, another organization that backs conservative issues, spent a reported $1.2 million on three television ads....

During the first three months of 2012, Americans for Prosperity spent an additional $1.54 million in the Eau Claire/ La Crosse, Madison, Milwaukee, Wausau and Green Bay television markets

That's over $3 million, from just one of the groups....that Buck decided to leave out of the equation.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:46:45pm

re: #48 JamesWI

Examples of spending that good ol' dishonest Buck left out of Walker's count, from the same website where he got his numbers on Democratic supporters:

That's over $3 million, from just one of the groups...that Buck decided to leave out of the equation.

It doesn't change the ratio is any serious way.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 1:51:57pm

You want more pro-Walker spending that dishonest Buck left out? You got it!

Center for Union Facts.

The group reportedly spent $1 million on a statewide television ad buy in Wisconsin that featured issue ads like this one that slammed the way unions operate. The ad campaign started in March and coincided with a months-long union backed effort to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker for his plan last year to severely restrict public employee collective bargaining rights.

Here's one that doesn't have the numbers for the 2012 recall, but considering the substantial amount of money they spent in the 2011 recall, you've got to figure they chipped in:

Club for Growth Wisconsin

The Club for Growth Wisconsin is the state arm of the national Club for Growth which supports conservative Republican candidates for federal office. The state group refuses to disclose how much it spends on negative electioneering activities, but the Democracy Campaign estimates it has doled out more than $10 million on Wisconsin elections since 2007, including $9 million in the first round of recall races involving nine state senators in summer 2011. (emphasis added)

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce:

a WMC executive said shortly before the May 8 primary that the group planned to spend $2 million (emphasis added) on television ads around the state to support the governor. Two of the ads - here and here - via WisPolitics.com - said Walker balanced the state budget, and Wisconsin's economy and employment picture have begun to improve.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 2:00:57pm

There was a lot of unreported spending on both sides. You are now adding in monies "reportedly" spent and "you got to figure".

If we are trying only to eliminate the 9 to 1 ratio, we can take what we do know (that Barrett is known to have $18 million spent on his behalf) and what anyone is estimating on the high end could have been spent by both sides you can't justify the 9 to 1 ratio. We will never know the exact number in the end, but it can't be 8-to-1 (or 9-to-1, 10-to-1).

Now I Have tried to be reasonable and civil about this. I could characterise your 8-to-1 (or 9-to-1, 10-to-1) claims as lying, as dishonest, or worse. After all you have been characterising my estimates in that way, calling me all kinds of names, and that is completely unwarranted.

We had a political disagreement in a thread. You want to carry it forward and bring it up until I start agreeing with you?

Disagreeing with you is not dishonest, it is not lying, and it certainly is not being a dumbass.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 2:02:00pm

re: #49 Buck

It doesn't change the ratio is any serious way.

Then why did you decide to completely leave out all the pro-Walker money?

Oh, that's right. Because that way you could claim Walker's side didn't even spend twice as much as Barrett's, when the final estimates put it at about 3-to-1.

So you were right on one thing. Walker and his allies didn't outspend Barrett's side by a 8-to-1 margin. They "only" spent three times as much money.

According to you, this is proof that Walkers victory was simply "just a testament to his popularity (which is backed up by the voters), and not buying an election."

More typical Buck-shit.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 2:04:22pm

re: #51 Buck

There was a lot of unreported spending on both sides. You are now adding in monies "reportedly" spent and "you got to figure".

If we are trying only to eliminate the 9 to 1 ratio, we can take what we do know (that Barrett is known to have $18 million spent on his behalf) and what anyone is estimating on the high end could have been spent by both sides you can't justify the 9 to 1 ratio. We will never know the exact number in the end, but it can't be 8-to-1 (or 9-to-1, 10-to-1).

Now I Have tried to be reasonable and civil about this. I could characterise your 8-to-1 (or 9-to-1, 10-to-1) claims as lying, as dishonest, or worse. After all you have been characterising my estimates in that way, calling me all kinds of names, and that is completely unwarranted.

We had a political disagreement in a thread. You want to carry it forward and bring it up until I start agreeing with you?

Disagreeing with you is not dishonest, it is not lying, and it certainly is not being a dumbass.

Guess what? Your figure of $14 million spent on Barrett's behalf is also largely made up of money "reportedly" spent.

Funny that you didn't have a problem using "reported" money to back up your side, but you will ridicule me for using the same reports from the same website when it hurts your argument.

More typical Buck-shit.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 2:08:31pm

re: #52 JamesWI

According to you, this is proof that Walkers victory was simply "just a testament to his popularity (which is backed up by the voters), and not buying an election."

Correct, that is my opinion. The difference between your revised estimate from 9 to 1 to the lower (I dispute even this figure) 3 to 1 is a lot of millions of dollars.

And no the $14 million from unions, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee is solid.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 2:14:12pm

re: #54 Buck

According to you, this is proof that Walkers victory was simply "just a testament to his popularity (which is backed up by the voters), and not buying an election."

Correct, that is my opinion. The difference between your revised estimate from 9 to 1 to the lower (I dispute even this figure) 3 to 1 is a lot of millions of dollars.

And no the $14 million from unions, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee is solid.

Can you provide a link to this $14 million number that is all officially reported money? Because I'm on the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign website (where you said you got this air-tight number), and I'm not seeing it.

And, why exactly do you dispute the (almost)3-to-1 number? The NYT agrees with you on how much Barrett's side spent (about 18 million), and lists the estimates on Walker's side at about $46

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 2:31:37pm

As for the recall result being "just a testament to Walker's popularity," I'd like to see how many examples there are in recent American electoral history, where one side has spent about three times as much money and wound up on the losing end.

I'm guessing that would be a very short list of examples. Simply put, when one side is flooding the TV and radio airwaves while the other side is relatively silent, it's usually pretty easy to tell who the winner is going to be. I'm not faulting Walker here. He took advantage of the laws and worked it better than Barrett could. The Democrats just couldn't keep up, and got beat.

But to pretend that the result is an indication of his (or his ideas) "popularity," and act like the money wasn't a major factor, is incredibly disingenuous.

Buck Wed, Jul 4, 2012 3:18:09pm

re: #55 JamesWI

You have to go into the database and do queries. I did a whole bunch and it added up to the number I saw else where.

The NYT agrees with you on how much Barrett's side spent (about 18 million), and lists the estimates on Walker's side at about $46

Look, you want to play with decimal points, go ahead. It is not 9 to 1. That is where we started.

I am pretty sure that what I argued originally was that as the story gets better known we would discover that Barrett had more than the $4 million you were putting forward. Was that bullshit? Was that a lie? Was I wrong? Nope.

You want to characterize the voters as idiots that could be bought with tv commercials? Fine with me. Personally I think that attitude makes you and your side look real bad with voters. I don't think your neighbours like being called idiots. You understand that signing the recall petition was not a secret ballot. Protesting the state house is not a secret ballot. The unions know that there is a big difference between what people will say and do when they are exposed and feel like they have to go along VS when they pull the curtain and lever in private.

Looking at the actual run, everyone can see that the issues kept falling away. Was Walker trying to bust unions or really just adjusting the Public Sector unions? Just like what was done to the Federal Public Sector unions. (and just like other states including a few Democrat lead states are going to have to do) Was there any evidence that the Koch brothers were going to get a bunch of no bid business? Nope. Was Walker guilty of actual wrong doing? Nope. Was the budget better? Did the schools have more money letting them do more? Yes and yes.

That is why the unions and Barrett lost. They were not allowed to dominate the story with a bunch of twisted stories. They couldn't defend the stuff they protested about. Don't worry about it. There will be another election soon enough. That is the best part of democracy.

Everything I had to say, I have. You want to continue this, I will ignore you. You can call me names, downding me and make shit up all you want. Enjoy.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 3:58:19pm

re: #57 Buck

LOL....so now you're alleging that people who were protesting and signed the recall petition secretly supported Walker and his ideas, only they were just too scared to cross the evil all-powerful unions (even though those unions aren't so powerful or big anymore), so they went along with it until the actual vote.

Gotcha. You're not necessarily a dumbass, just insanely deluded.

JamesWI Wed, Jul 4, 2012 4:19:59pm

re: #57 Buck

You have to go into the database and do queries. I did a whole bunch and it added up to the number I saw else where.

And I went into the "database." The only place where you get a number around $14 million is in the section on the money the PACs spent concerning Scott Walker (money going both for AND against Walker). About 8 million of that is anti-Walker, with about 6 million pro-Walker.

Close to $6 million was spent on Tom Barrett (once again, both for and against him). Less than $2 million of that was in favor of Barrett, with over $4 million spent on anti-Barrett activity.

So in terms of officially reported PAC expenditures, it's true....the spending was nearly even, at 10 to 10. Which would put the officially reported spending at about $40 million for Walker/against Barrett, and $15 million for Barrett/against Walker.

However, it is also a simple matter of fact that there were more pro-Walker groups taking advantage of the "issue ad" exception that allows those groups to spend on the campaign without reporting the money. The WDC found 8 such groups at work in the recall. One of those 8 was anti-Walker, and in terms of their best estimates, the spending of that one anti-Walker "issue ad" group (at most, around $3 million, which would bring the total up to your number of $18 million) was dwarfed by the pro-Walker groups (some of which I listed in those earlier posts).

But you've taken your ball and gone home. I get it....you don't like to be called dishonest. Based on the way you conduct yourself on this site, you must get it a lot in your life.

Buck Thu, Jul 5, 2012 6:03:36pm

Let me get this straight: