One of the – words temporarily fail – most cloying moments of the debate on Friday was Obama’s “I have a bracelet, too” moment. Not that there wasn’t a legitimate point – not all parents of troops killed in Iraq support the President or the war effort.
Although, as it happens, the parents Obama referred to weren’t two of them:
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family…Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” Jopek went on to say that “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.” Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son’s sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte.
Jopek’s mother has said that she wants Obama to stop using her son as a prop, and that she otherwise supports Obama.
Wouldn’t want to let a little human decency get in the way of his ambition, would we?
A different version appears in the Strib this morning.
Another swing, another miss.
“The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was “ecstatic” when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday’s debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.
. . .
Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.
“I don’t understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet,” she said”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_BRACELET?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Why would someone let decency get in the way of a hot internet post?
I imagine an Obama Truth Squad is on its way to St. Paul even as we speak to give Mitch a good thumpin’. Or maybe Obama’s lawyer is threatening to sue him. Or maybe the Obama campaign has issued an ‘action alert’ to swamp his board with angry callers next Saturday.
A fatwa is a distinct possibility.
Interesting….story goes unreported when it appears both parents oppose Barry using their son as a prop.
When story is more muddled, MSM reports support of mother for BHO (but strangly silient on the father).
Rick,
Stop commenting in this thread. You owe me a citation showing how campaign regulations allow presidential campaigns to threaten broadcast licenses.
Answer that before you distress yourself with yet more lies.
One has to wonder if this lady received a phone call from the BHO machine. Perhaps Barry’s men gave her an offer she couldn’t refuse.
Spin, spin, spin. Rick, you’ve got to have one incredible set of gyros built into that head because there’s no other way you could keep attached to your body.
Before talking about Ryan, Tracy Jopek asked Obama NOT TO MENTION HIM IN SPEECHES OR DEBATES. Yet Obama did so. What does that tell us about Obama’s character?
Note that in that article she ex-post facto approves of the mention, but that isn’t the issue.
Obama knew that BOTH parents didn’t approve of mentioning Ryan in speeches or debates, yet to score political points he went ahead and did so. It makes him look pretty sleazy.
The father disagrees with this. It’s very similar to the Cindy Sheehan situation. Since it looks like Obama will get by with it, the mother has changed her mind. The son of course is unavailable for comment.
Mitch:
Caught red handed, check.
Desperately trying to change the subject, check
Here is the citation for the FCC regulations that govern truth in advertising as applied to this case.
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/obama.pdf
Ah yes, the upload section of ‘www.thebitchgirls.us’, where we get all our important information.
Note that Obama’s lawyer is making a false claim that the NRA ad “knowingly” misleads. He has no evidence of this. How do I know? He doesn’t offer any.
What gas bag. You’d think that with the buddies he made at Harvard Obama would know a better lawyer.
“Here is the citation for the FCC regulations that govern truth in advertising as applied to this case.”
Pathetic. It’s not a citation, it’s a pdf of the Obama letter I linked earlier in this thread, which, if you haven’t read it, is a poorly annotated, deceptive form letter from some bum lawyer on Obama’s campaign staff. Rick can’t give you a specific cite because he can’t find one.
Lessee…Rick posts a link demonstrating that the Internet buzz did indeed get the story right, and we’re supposed to change our minds? Hello?
And then we’re supposed to take “the bitch girls” seriously as a source?
Somebody’s been going to one of those brain-shrinking vegan diets PETA advocates, I see.
Terry:
Don’t blame me, Mitch is the one too lazy to click through the original link.
Click through to what? The original PDF from Obama’s lawyer? That is not a cite. Obama’s lawyer does not determine FCC or FTC regs. For all you know the relevant statutes in Obama’s first-year-law-student letter refer to nothing at all.
On a purely ideological basis you jumped up in defense of Obama’s strongarm tactics to silence critics of his political positions. Fascist.
Bitch girls?
Must be a formal legal opinion from the noted firm of Hall & Oates.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means, RickDFL.
Rick’s next cite will be from Hamilton Joe Frank & Reynolds.
Terry:
“That is not a cite. Obama’s lawyer does not determine FCC or FTC regs.”
It contains citations of various items Obama’s lawyers think apply. Of course, they are not determinative, but it is perfectly ordinary for one lawyer to write another lawyer and say ‘I think the courts/admin body will decide X, so you ought to do X’.
No one says the letter is the Magna Carta, my point was that is was routine and boring. Mitch and the rest of you seem to think it is some all-powerful mighty weapon.
If you guys are going to squeal this much, the next eight years are going to be fun.
RickDFL said:
“my point was that is was routine and boring”
Sure, I always yawn when I see letters from lawyers threatening my license to do business. If that is your point, RickDFL, it is a bit dull.
Troy:
Sure, but then you are a wuss. You can’t expect the rest of us to live at your level of cowardice.
No Rick. You’re routine and boring. And not very good at insults, either. A wuss? Really? Wow, middle school comedy gold!
Dixie Riddle Cups called, Rick. They want their jokes back.
Your guy is afraid of having his politics questioned and you call other folks “cowards”.
It is to laugh.
The letter is either an incomsequential threat or a consequential threat, but it is a threat. Tell, me, RickDFL, do you think that is proper for a presidential candidate to threaten broadcasters who air opposition political ads?
Cuz I don’t.
Terry:
“The letter is either an incomsequential threat or a consequential threat, but it is a threat.”
No. A threat requires a realistic consequence. Your girlfriend can not threaten to divorce you and your co-worker can not threaten to fire you, only your wife or boss can do that. To the degree the Obama letter is not backed by law, it is not a threat. To the degree that it is backed by law, it is good. To the degree that it falls somewhere in between, it is the routine ordinary skirmish to work out exactly what the law says.
Calling it a threat and pretending it is the first step to the gulag is pathetic.
Now RickDFL defines what a threat is? Please. You take yourself far more seriously than I do.