01 August 2008

Jerome Corsi Kicks Off the Official Swiftboatin' Season!

I’ve just returned from Costco, where, of course, I took a brief gander at the books on display. To my surprise, a new title, Obama Nation, by WND columnist Jerome Corsi, was sitting in the place of honor on the aisle. The book's jacket promises to disclose Obama's relationship to Islam, William Ayres, Black liberation theology, and his Kenyan relatives, & c.

Breaking news, then?

So, you might ask, why was I surprised? After all, Corsi is a known sleazemeister—who can forget the part he played in the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth media coverage in the 2004 elections? Recall that he co-wrote the book, Unfit for Command—except John O’Neill, the books other’s author, later claimed that Corsi only acted as the book’s editor (the cover of The Obama Nation does state that Corsi was O'Neill's co-author). Oh--he’s also been accused of plagiarism by Debbie Schlussel. Moreover, Corsi was exposed in 2006 for posting potentially offensive materials on Free Republic. His contributions included several anti-Muslism, potentially racist, comments in his criticism of John Kerry. If you're interested in further information on Corsi's background and some of his past statements, please see this page at Media Matters.

This is why I was surprised:

1) I simply didn’t have a clue he had an anti-Obama book in production (I'm not keeping abreast of the polisleaze, clearly).

2) I would think that the anti-Obama groups would have hooked a more credible writer to produce this text. Methinks this will accomplish nothing more than preaching to the choir. Some independents might pick it up and be swayed, but the country's mood has changed since 2004; people are no longer attracted to extreme "anti" arguments (um, unless they tend to be "extreme" themselves).

3) I would think that the anti-Obamites would at least try to find new information. From the published sneak peeks, it appears that Corsi only manages to recite already current Obama-related rumors and innuendo, many of which have already been debunked on Obama's FighttheSmears site, Snopes.com, and other sources.

Further evidence that Corsi’s a whackjob: just yesterday, in an appearance on Hannity and Colmes, the following exchange took place:

HANNITY: You -- you go into Obama's far-left domestic policies, income redistribution, his Global Poverty Act.

CORSI: His support of abortion, even late term.

HANNITY: After a child was born.

CORSI: A child was born...

HANNITY: In Chicago.

CORSI: Obama, in the state senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion.

So Obama approved of killing a child after it had been born if the mother didn't want it? Something tells me we won't be hearing any evidence in support of that claim.

Back to Costco: after I spotted the book, I held it up to my beloved and said “I don’t believe this!” A male senior walked right up to me, pointed at the book, and said “you knew they’d start, and you can’t believe any of it.”


Update: And the reviews are in! Corsi's work bears some serious scrutiny, which doesn't reflect well on his research.


Brutarius said...

You write, "So Obama approved of killing a child after it had been born if the mother didn't want it? Something tells me we won't be hearing any evidence in support of that claim."

That's because the boobs on TV botched the facts.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions (and yes, that happens). That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote 98-0.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

That's what they were trying to say.

mpandgs said...

Thank you for clarifying this issue.
Your comments are certainly more thought provoking than the hash job presented on television. I'll look into this Act (and Obama's vote).

mpandgs said...

From Illinois General Assembly:

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth. Provides that damages shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child. Provides that, if the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund, a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that the Fund shall be used by the Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal hospice.


Anonymous said...

Even these claims have been debunked.
And Freddoso's book even changes the wording in a letter that would have put these rumors to rest. There already were laws in place in Illinois, and a new one wasn't needed.