<p>“No worse than most of the things the liberal media prints about our current President. Get over it.”</p>
<p>No, the equivalent would be if the National Review published a cover showing McCain and Bush standing on the dead bodies of U.S. soldiers with blood dripping from their hands, big smiles on their faces, and their pockets stuffed with money. Would that bug you?</p>
<p>I suppose I should have said:</p>
<p>“Liberal News Organizations that helped sell the war for Dick Cheney…that have learned how to have their bread buttered on both sides”</p>
<p>…those that like to start fights with bullies --but than complain when the bully behaves like bullies always must; the type that responds to having sand kicked in their face at the beach by suing their tormentors for years to come.</p>
<p>As they say, ‘it’s complicated.’</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Please don’t repeal my Dem credentials, but I don’t have a problem at all with the cover. I love satire. I do wish, however, there had been a way to have some of the McCain nutty stereotypes satirized as well. Maybe a second story is in the works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? I was only trying to stick by the rule of not directly attacking someone on the boards here. For the record, I wasn’t saying anything about your post at all, if that’s what you thought.</p>
<p>Apparently, I wasn’t direct enough for you, because this is essentially what I was trying to say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And so, I was saying, I found it funny ipso facto, but on the other hand, a sad reminder that there are stupid people who will believe this stuff. Maybe I should have added there are contemptuous – and stupid – people who will be happy that the New Yorker printed a cover like this because they believe that it will lend credence to these rumors and they would like to see as much disinformation as possible help decide people’s votes.</p>
<p>“There has been much worse published about our current President.”</p>
<p>I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of some bad stuff published about Bush that wasn’t true. It’s hard.</p>
<p>Abraham Lincoln was called a “long armed ape,” “baboon,” and various other labels. This is nothing new - name calling during elections was happening over 100 years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Feel free to count me as contemptuous and stupid. Anyone hoping for a Democratic loss in November likely counts the New Yorker cover and the “news” coverage it perpetuates as a net plus.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Ha, well at least you own it, your contemptuousness. If that’s all you can win on, is slime and slurring, that’s a sad commentary on the Republican candidate, the nature of our politics, and the bankruptcy of your position.</p>
<p>Bandit TX, I have no idea of what point you’re trying to make. Nor do I understand your “Get over it” comment. Please explain yourself.</p>
<p>You cry about the media when it’s your candidate and laugh when it’s their’s. It works both ways. Get over it, quit your crying about poor Obama. He’s in politics now, more to come I’m sure.</p>
<p>This cover proves that editorial staff of The New Yorker is totally out of touch, and don’t actually live in America. Sure, most educated people know of The New Yorker’s penchant for satire, both on their covers and in their cartoons, but the average Joe, who merely glances at the cover as they pass the newstand won’t necessarily know that. What the average Joe knows, is that he’s heard persistent rumors that Obama actually is a Muslim (perhaps a terrorist sleeper), and that he won’t place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and that his wife wrote a radical and racist term paper in college. Joe often won’t be sure what he should believe, but will probably be most inclined to lean on the side of safety and vote for the war hero—just in case, you know…</p>
<p>So Joe, who normally just glances at the cover and continues on his merry way, will be stopped in his tracks by this cover, whereupon he’ll furrow his brow and think, “So, it’s true…!” Joe will not think, “How clever of the New Yorker to confront us on our ignorant gullibility. Bravo!”:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I agree with tega. This is a prime example of “blue on blue crime”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you mean Cond</p>
<p>Who said anything about Republican? I’m actually leaning towards a vote for Ralph Nadar at this point. There would be a certain delicious irony in Nader playing a role in the Democratics throwing away two elections they should have had in the bag: 2000 and 2008.</p>
<p>I’ll make up my mind closer to election day. I am pretty impressed with McCain. He’s a stand up guy who sticks to his principles even when it hurts him politically. I like that he has record of working across the aisle with the McCain/Feingold campaign finanace reform bill, the McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill, and the Gang of 14 judicial compromise. I like a politician who has an actual track record of principle instead of flip-flopping for political expedience.</p>
<p>It’s a long way 'til November. First I’ve got to cast a vote against “Liveshot” in the Democratic Senate primary race in September. That’s one vote I will cast with real pleasure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. Safer to go with the war hero with a track record. Hard to argue with that when you get right down to it. Maybe ol’ Joe Public ain’t so dumb after all.</p>
<p>I agree with the point that there are many people out there who will not get that this is satire. Heck there are people who do not get that The Onion is satire. I remember a few years ago a magazine had published an article about J K Rowling and the next month printed a letter from an irate lady saying she was cancelling her subscription because didn’t they know that J K Rowling admitted to having recruited x million kids to witchcraft which could be proved by reading the interview with her in The Onion. The publication printed the letter and politely pointed out that the Onion is all satire.</p>
<p>There are many out there who will see this as ‘proof’ of something.</p>
<p>I think many people are missing the big picture on how this does effect Obama. You may believe that people are stupid or contemptuous to believe this rhetoric, but the plain fact is that the world is filled with stupid people. Obama has been running for President since Feb 07, 18 mos and counting and he still cannot get away from these accusations.</p>
<p>Look at the latest polls they are still neck and neck. Rasmussens last 2 have not changed. Pollsters are even stating that they feel the poll numbers are most likely skewed b/c nobody wants to feel if they say as a dem that they are voting McCain, than they are a racists or has bought into the Manchurian Candidate theory. My In-Laws don’t fit that mold, they flat out say he is a Muslim and Iran and Hezzebollah supporting Obama proves it! They will vote McCain, the 1st time since Eisenhower that they are voting for a Repub.</p>
<p>As far as the republicans winning on these falsehoods alone I think you are wrong. Obama also has problems now b/c he said he was for changing politics as usual, but since becoming the presumptive candidate he has already flip flopped on issues and now has the left wingers upset, more importantly I have heard from friends who believed he was going to change DC and now see him as another politician willing to say anything to win the vote. These were people who believed he would get us out of Iraq and was against McCain when he said we will stay there as long as it takes. Now Obama is saying well I am going to listen to the military and not pull out unless the military says so, isn’t that what McCain was saying. They are also against Obama saying I will only take fed funding, never mind I am not. The whole I don’t think the govt should pay, doesn’t play well with them b/c they realize that it was he wouldn’t be able to buy as much air time since his coffers are filled.</p>
<p>Nope…if you go to New Yorker on the web at the very bottom it says Conde Net…I thought it should have been Conde Nast too!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That reminds me of the old adage you only hear what you want to hear. I am sure many people will see it as proof because they want it to be proof!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt. And if it serves as “tums” for your longstanding heartburn Idad, well then, I guess that’s something…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, the point here is not that that they have a right to print whatever tasteless, insulting garbage that they want to. The point is that the same tasteless, insulting garbage does not become satire because it’s on the cover of the New Yorker. It is and will be seen to be commentary on Obama, not on those who hold these stereotypes. It is manna to people who oppose him, and anathema to supporters. Thus, for the New Yorker to say “but that’s how we meant it” proves they are, simply, clueless.</p>
<p>“When right wing proles read the New Yorker and think he’s Muslim?”</p>
<p>If they would read, it might be OK. I’m afraid that they will only look at the pictures.</p>