Obama security lapse

Posted by: garyW

Obama security lapse - 02/21/08 09:45 PM

Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena ... the orders coming from Federal officials.<br><br>http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html<br><br><br>unf*ckingbelievable<br><br><br>
Posted by: Mongol

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 12:07 AM

Wow! Shades of James E. Ray!<br><br>A government that is large enough to supply everything you need is large enough to take everything you have - Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: FSM

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 05:05 AM

when i saw him in Iowa, there was no security other than asking folks not to park in the lot next to the gym where we'd all be watching Obama. i suppose back then he wasn't near winning the nomination. i know when i saw Kerry in the summer before the election the security was tight. so yeah, i guess this seems pretty pathetic in this stage of the game. poor decision.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 06:00 AM

<br>*OUCH* <br><br>Yeah, I'd question that. <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 06:51 AM

I've been really worried about an assassination or assassination attempt on him and/or on Hillary ever since the whole primary season started. Let me put it this way . . . I wouldn't be surprised if there were an attempt, whether successful or not.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 07:59 AM

Early in the primary season, I heard a couple of my students parroting the bit about Sen. Obama and assassination and it really pissed me off because I thought it was a bunch of FUD. I still think so. Sure, I'm concerned about his security just as I would be for any political candidate with a somewhat populist message.<br><br>I just hate the idea that people had better play it safe and make sure they play ball with all the wrong people if they want a long and successful political career.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: electricron

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 08:02 AM

The police in Dallas are very sensitive, maybe over sensitive, for security at political gatherings. Reunion Arena in Dallas doesn't have huge concourses, nor much protection from the wind while waiting outside queued in a line to enter. It was a windy, cool, damp day in Dallas yesterday.<br>Maybe the federal authorities heard many complaints from the people outside, so made entering Reunion quicker. Maybe they had a very good podium and other security measures within Reunion in place, and didn't require as thorough a screening outside. Maybe there were no threats made for this event. Maybe Obama's staff suggested reducing the security requirements.<br><br>We don't know the whole story. <br><br>P.S. To add, the Dallas Morning News didn't even print that story. Instead, here's their news about the Obama visit yesterday:<br>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022108dnpolobama.ff11ed4.html<br><br>And breaking news today, really bad news:<br>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...h.196e2bd6.html<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 08:05 AM

Drudge has put the story up this morning ... so I can only hope that the public outcry will far offset the number of wackos with guns.<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 09:48 AM

I have 2 fears with Obama and one is also shared with Hillary:<br><br>(1) whoever the next President is (O or H) the hole that GW has dug is so bad and deep, they might fail to make significant improvements and you know the far right will blame them - not "the excavator" who set it up.<br><br>(2) the other I won't directly say - deals with this security lapse. read between the lines. I hope we don't go down that dammed road again like we did in the 60's ! <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 10:26 AM

I suppose people who remember the Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcom X have a right to be a little worried, but is it unreasonable to think that we have progressed a little bit? It's not like Sen. Preston Brooks unleashed an era of brutal Senatorial caning that we have yet to come out from under.<br><br>If there is anything to be afraid of, it's that we and the leaders that we select will be too afraid of standing up for what is right and our little whispering about dangers to people who inspire hope will do the real damage.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: DLC

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 11:01 AM

I fear that the far right hate radios... the Rush's, Hannity, O'Reillys, Coulters have produced some really distorted vicious people. I hear some ultra conservatives use all their buzz words and they talk about those with progressive views like the Nazis talked about Communists, and Jews.<br>It's more than just disagreement... it's a deep hatred - the same you often hear about Hillary- that makes them give you a scowling fave and blood vessels pop.<br><br>It'd only take a few distorted people who go over the edge and think they're being patriotic by removing people who threaten their untra conservative (read Fascist) views. Look at Tim McVeigh, and also don't forget the kook who shot George Wallace... I didn't like Wallace in the 60's,... but damm I didn't want him shot. Same with Reagan... thought he stunk, BUT I didn't want to see him hurt.<br><br>I think we're almost as polarized as we were in the 60's and a few of these "uber-righties" might cross the line. I really worry when I hear of security lapses like last night.<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 11:45 AM

Hey Dave .. hate to intrude on your paranoia here .. but it's leftwingers and the liberal media who keep pushing this assissination theme. <br><br><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0rju8nswws&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0rju8nswws&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br><br>And, as far as that goes, it's leftwingers and their warped "sense of humor" who wish to see bad things happen to politicians they don't like. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 11:54 AM

...Because there is nothing paranoid about believing in an all encompassing left wing media conspiracy with the power to turn the good and just 109th Congress into a corrupt cesspool, make President Bush look like he's smirking every once in a while, and force old Republican Senators get into indiscretions with telecommunications lobbyists or at least gets a representative to mess with a paige every once in a while.<br><br><br><br>But then it's just so hard to tell when you're being serious.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 11:59 AM

So you're saying the NYTimes can make you gay?<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 12:04 PM

If they can let Judy Miller swish pompoms for WMDs, they can certainly make somebody gay.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 12:15 PM

Its happened to some of my best friends. <br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Chew slowly - 02/22/08 12:43 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>it's leftwingers and their warped "sense of humor" who wish to see bad things happen<p><hr></blockquote><p>Your comment is about Dave's pretzel joke, really? A pretzel joke is the same as the worries of a bullet in a candidate's head?<br><br><br><br>From Jan 15, 2002 On Road Trip, Bush Offers Jokes on Pretzels<br><br>"It was unclear how much danger Mr. Bush was in during the choking incident. But this morning, aboard Air Force One, the president was clearly determined to defuse the reports with humor: he sent a bag of several pounds of pretzels to the reporters in the back of his plane, inscribed ''From Potus -- chew slowly.'' (Potus is the acronym for President of the United States.)<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Chew slowly - 02/22/08 12:46 PM

Sheesh, Gary, consider the source.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Chew slowly - 02/22/08 12:49 PM

I know, I'm on NetFlix right now looking to rent some showtunes.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

swallow as normal, Gar' - 02/22/08 01:02 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your comment is about Dave's pretzel joke, really?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wow, you catch on fast, GDubya.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>From Jan 15, 2002 On Road Trip, Bush Offers Jokes on Pretzels<br><br>"It was unclear how much danger Mr. Bush was in during the choking incident. But this morning, aboard Air Force One, the president was clearly determined to defuse the reports with humor: he sent a bag of several pounds of pretzels to the reporters in the back of his plane, inscribed ''From Potus -- chew slowly.'' (Potus is the acronym for President of the United States.)<p><hr></blockquote><p>President Bush, with a little self directed humor, has nothing to do with warped leftwing nuts and their deranged eight year long obsession and ill wills toward the man. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:11 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...Because there is nothing paranoid about believing in an all encompassing left wing media conspiracy with the power to turn the good and just 109th Congress into a corrupt cesspool, make President Bush look like he's smirking every once in a while, and force old Republican Senators get into indiscretions with telecommunications lobbyists or at least gets a representative to mess with a paige every once in a while.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Louisiana and New Orleans Democrat William Jefferson was handed a 16 count, 94 page indictment including bribery, money laundering, racketeering and obstruction of justice. And while Nancy Pelosi stripped him of his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, the national media barely noticed. Were Jefferson a Republican, the liberal media would've devoted hours and days and weeks of "top story" coverage. As it was, they barely sniffed at it. Gone almost the next day. William who? Jefferson? Who? He did what? We don't even know a ... William Jefferson? <br><br>Oh but MY GOD! We need 396 hours devoted to the crucial, vital Larry Craig story. And say, if the Mark Foley reporting was soooooooooooo important, why did the story just *poof* vanish right after the '06 election? Gosh dang it, you don't suppose that was an election year "October surprise" do you? Naaaaahhhhhhhhhh. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:21 PM

Yeah, I do know what you mean. I was tired of the Foley thing after about 12 minutes, and he didn't really do anything as egregious as some, such as your example of William Jefferson. But, man, that guy is always your fall back guy isn't he? I agree that his actions and the allegations against him didn't get as much press they should have, but can't you pimp somebody else for a while?<br><br>The problem for you is that he is just so hopelessly outnumbered by the Republicans who have equaled or exceeded his misdeeds. The Repubs need a big kick in the ass, and a good, lasting dose of humble pie, lose control of Congress for umpteen years and come back smelling baby fresh and take on the Dems who will have already started to rust and corrode from too many years in power.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:48 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yeah, I do know what you mean. I was tired of the Foley thing after about 12 minutes, and he didn't really do anything as egregious as some, such as your example of William Jefferson. But, man, that guy is always your fall back guy isn't he? I agree that his actions and the allegations against him didn't get as much press they should have, but can't you pimp somebody else for a while?<p><hr></blockquote><p>The reason I use Jefferson is because here's a Democrat involved in a scandal with some real teeth to it, and the liberal media barely covered it. And yet, in contrast, they will spend days and weeks on a Republican story that really deserved their William Jefferson treatment. <br><br>Another example is Hillary Clinton's connection to Norman Hsu. Once he was found out, and Clinton returned her nearly $1,000,000 campaign contribution from Hsu, the liberal media said "good enough!" No media frenzy. <br><br>Now, if Hsu had given $850,000 to McCain or Romney, can you imagine how the media would've kept that story floating for weeks and months .. constantly connecting the candidates name with Hsu? As it was, at least on the network news broadcasts, they gave plenty of space between Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:54 PM

I would think that are still allot of holdover Clintonista's in the fabric of federal employ. <br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:55 PM

sex is more sensational than storing cash in a freezer. the media is looking for sensational!!!11!!!!!<br><br>Bill Clinton's Lewinski stuff was HUGE headlines. Hillary and Norman Hsu . . . did they do it? no. oh then meh, boring. story would have died just as quickly with any politician running. this was a story more about Hsu than the candidate and that's another reason it faltered to generate interest. Hsu will get justice so that's that. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:56 PM

Yes, you have a point. At the same time, I, and maybe the media, doesn't feel like cutting Republicans any slack for a while. The things that went on under their watch are..unforgivable.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:57 PM

Norman Who? <br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 01:58 PM

I don't know what you mean by that, but at least there's good news out this afternoon from the Secret Service who stated that Obama's security was never compromised. Are these holdover Clintonista's aware of the deadly power of Pretzel Jokes?<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 02:02 PM

heh. here's a link to google news from 2007 showing the mainstream media covering the Hsu story . . . over 2000 stories about it: <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=norman+Hsu&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2007&as_hdate=2007&lnav=d0b&ldrange=1996,2006">http://news.google.com</a><br><br>Rep. Foley has <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Rep.+Foley&btnG=Search+Archives&um=1">76,000 total news hits</a><br><br>Rep. Jefferson has <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Rep.+Jefferson&um=1">144,000 total news hits</a><br><br>draw you own conclusions. <br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 02:16 PM

No surprise there. Jefferson has five years on Foley and is still a sitting House member. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 02:40 PM

And I wonder if all those hits are about Jefferson himself; it is a much more common name than Foley.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 03:02 PM

But, having checked through, I couldn't find one that wasn't about Rep. Jefferson, though admittedly they weren't all about his scandals, but the vast majority were.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: FSM

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 03:04 PM

that's because, as i noted above, the results are for Rep. Jefferson. not many people have Rep. in front of their last name. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 03:06 PM

Well, I am not much of an expert on who else might have that last name in Congress. Anyway, you seem good at getting just the right words for accurate hits. You could teach me a lesson or two.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: FSM

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 04:18 PM

I actually have one lesson where i teach searching to my students (it's really a part of a larger concept called Information Literacy). If you'd like to participate in one of my online sessions sometime, let me know. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 04:21 PM

sounds pretty keen. It could be a learning experience.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 05:24 PM

I'll see you one WIlliam Jefferson and raise you one Randy Cunningham. Add on top of that the suspicious political firings over Duke's case.<br><br>Even if I ignore your assertion that the media ignored Rep. Jefferson, or any other vague claim to be made, the point is not that the nightly newscasts are politically biased, but biased toward anything sexual.<br><br>Does sex not sell?<br><br>In terms of sheer volume though, during the 109th, the GOP didn't own corruption, but they certainly had a majority stake.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 05:29 PM

but biased toward anything sexual.<br><br>Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Gary Hart, Lewinsky, McCain and on and on. <br><br>Whitewater, preemptive strikes; who cares if there's no sex involved.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 06:46 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'll see you one WIlliam Jefferson and raise you one Randy Cunningham.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You make my case. Duke Cunningham was all over the news, constantly. With William Jefferson it was:<br><br>williamjeffersonwasindictedtodayon243charges IN OTHER NEWS ... <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 06:50 PM

Rep. Cunningham has only 43,000 hits. add foley and duke together and you won't get representative Jefferson's hits in the news. <br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 07:02 PM

Can you quantify that?<br><br>It's not that I have anything against you personally. You've said some things that upset me personally, but it's not a big deal because you have also sometimes been very kind. (I'm taking a long walk here, but stick with me.) But I would never just count on you to take my impression of news coverage for fact. We have different philosophies, vote very differently, and different things raise our respective hackles.<br><br>So we could argue about who we think got more coverage all day and let this thing come down to who can repeat themselves the most. I think we can safely disagree on whether or not Randy "Duke" Cunningham or William Jefferson got more or less coverage.<br><br>Given that though, I'm not entirely sure how you could credit "the media" for Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and now Rick Renzi. You haven't established that.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 07:40 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So we could argue about who we think got more coverage all day and let this thing come down to who can repeat themselves the most. I think we can safely disagree on whether or not Randy "Duke" Cunningham or William Jefferson got more or less coverage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not to be arrogant, but I'd win that argument. You see, I have a really interesting hobby centered around two TiVos. I record, daily (and often archive), the CBS Evening News, The NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight. That's how I can quickly post sound from either of the big three, like this from Bob Schieffer on .. well .. how I feel about the bias I see almost nightly in their newscasts:<br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/bob.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"> <br><br>So when I comment on how a particular network has covered one scandal vs. another, it's because I've actually, physically watched their coverage. All three networks. When I say ABC, CBS and NBC barely sniffed at the Jefferson indictment, yet hammered the Larry Craig or Duke Cunnignham story ad nauseam for weeks on end, it's because that's exactly what they did. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Given that though, I'm not entirely sure how you could credit "the media" for Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and now Rick Renzi. You haven't established that.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I have no idea what you mean by "credit the media for." The media, of course, aren't responsible (if that's what you mean) for Abramoff, Ney, Foley, Delay or Renzi. But they are responsible for having two very different standards for how they cover Democrat scandals vs. Republicans scandals. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 08:09 PM

Then why is it that you often bring up "the media" in response to that very same system of corruption set up by Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff?<br><br>Remember that you're dealing with some pretty skeptical people here. I don't doubt for a second that Democrats wouldn't be just as corrupt given the circumstances. (I'm from Chicago, home of Dan Rostenkowski. Look him up. It's entertaining.) But I'm saying that it was the Republicans' turn at the switch and they totally abused it. I don't see why we need to go over broadcast news because a party drunk with power had some indiscretions.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 08:15 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Remember that you're dealing with some pretty skeptical people here. I don't doubt for a second that Democrats wouldn't be just as corrupt given the circumstances. (I'm from Chicago, home of Dan Rostenkowski. Look him up. It's entertaining.) But I'm saying that it was the Republicans' turn at the switch and they totally abused it. I don't see why we need to go over broadcast news because a party drunk with power had some indiscretions.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't believe the media should give Democrats a pass and a wink when they aren't willing to do the same for Republicans. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 08:25 PM

Nobody disagrees with you there. I only believe that this does not excuse the behavior of the 109th leadership.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/22/08 08:33 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I only believe that this does not excuse the behavior of the 109th leadership.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And I never implied it should. <br><br>***********************<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Obama security lapse - 02/24/08 11:36 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You see, I have a really interesting hobby centered around two TiVos. I record, daily (and often archive), the CBS Evening News, The NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Truly an Oh Em Gee moment, why would you waste your time doing that? Does anyone watch the nightly news anymore? Does anyone give a whit what is on those news broadcasts? <br><br>Do you save all your MacWorld magazines too? They have a longer shelf life than words coming out of the abc/nbc/cbs news talking heads.<br><br>Learn something. Tivo some porn channels instead. <br><br>