An Apology

Maybe you were right to begin with. If he hits the campaign with Obama, that could bruise That One and we all know how easily he bruises.
It’s a sad day when journalists are so intimidated or infatuated by a candidate that they rush to apologize for a misplaced preposition.

Still applying for that Press Secretary job, eh?
So many things to apologize for…so little time.

oops I misblogged!!! I meant “give me a break” lmao

Oh yeah Jake??
I still remember the biased against Bill and Hillary Clinton!
The same biased now against Sarah Palin, even the title of the interview with Elizabeth Vargas for 20/20 was misleading and ABC finally apologized today.
You are all in the tank with the Messiah!

Big Jake I am impressed with your professionalism. You show some serious class in your reporting. Obama 08!

Wow, this gets its very own special post. Yesterday, Jake basically accuses McCain of being senile in his interview with Larry King and all it warrants is a title change and an “update” at the bottom of the post.
His colleague Elizabeth Vargas completely takes Palin out of context with an attention-grabbing headline to continue the media meme “Diva” storyline…and it takes ABC multiple times to “correct” the story…and they still don’t have it right.
But a simple preposition “mistake” gets its very own post. And, the media elite wonders why their unemployment numbers grow each day…..
Brilliant folks…just brilliant.

Thanks for the correction. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Tapper has actually been unfair to the McCain campaign either now because of this post or in the past has a serious screw loose.

len,
Why is it that you and some other McCain supporters are showing more and more spite against the TRUTH?
Yet the truth remains that Obama has run a superior and better organized campaign than John McCain, and he has also demonstrated better judgment in his reaction to the economic crisis and his VP pick, and this is why Obama is winning.
Actions speak louder than Robo Calls.

Did anyone catch OBAMA’s Lie last night????
He said that there will be a tax break on those that make under $200,000.
But on the Campaign Trail he said below $250,000.
Why isn’t the press calling him out on this. Next its $150,000 or $75,000 or $40,000.
:o (

To Joe V:
The official policy is this:
Anyone making under 250,000 will not see their taxes increased. Anyone making under 200,000 will see a tax CUT. Anyone making under 150,000 will see a significant tax cut.
So from here you can see that if you make between 200,000 and 250,000, you won’t get a cut, but you also won’t see your taxes increase a single dime.
Hope this makes sense. I am pro-Obama, but respect opposing views and I think misunderstanding and misconception is a big problem this election, on both sides, so I hope this helps clarify the numbers for many of you.

Thanks Alex

I echo jcarob. This post must be a joke. I beg to differ that you are a journalist.

… and Alex would be willing to mortgage his house, if he owned one, to guarantee that Obama will somehow fulfill his pledge to the American voter that they will see a tax cut as advertised. Never mind that his word isn’t worth spit as evidenced by numerous reversals, beginning with the big one, that he would accept public financing… in writing, no less.

The reason for the confusion on the tax breaks and whether it is 250, 200 or 150 is because the candidate himself frequently is not precise in how he describes it on the stump. And, I have to believe it’s on purpose. The broad ranging statement he makes is that he will cut taxes on 95% of America. Then he says no one making less than $250 will see any tax increases….it is purposely misleading..
Oh, and btw, if you think any of these people are getting a tax cut, I have some swamp land in Fla to sell you. Very soon after he gets elected he will determine that he can’t do it because of economic times and all the NEW spending he wants to do..don’t buy it, folks…

Jake,
You are a human being like any other. We all make mistakes!

The reason for the confusion on the tax breaks and whether it is 250, 200 or 150 is because the candidate himself frequently is not precise in how he describes it on the stump.
Posted by: KP | Oct 30, 2008 12:50:16 PM
====
KP,
You give 0bama too much credit. He is a smart man, Harvard smart. Of course, he knows what he is talking about. He knows exactly what he meant – perhaps, he does not want you to understand what he meant.
He is hiding his true colors of Marriage Tax Penalty under his plan.
He said he raises taxes on two singles with combined income of $400K, and he only increases taxes on couples making $250K and more. Two groups, two un-married people, and two married people, but 0bama will tax them differently. If you are married couples, he will increase taxes on the extra $150K difference.
0bama = Marriage Tax Penalty.

Props to Jake for showing us again that he’s a journalist with integrity and fairness. A welcome contrast to the blow-dried blowhards that populate some networks nowadays.

Now how about apologing for your endless bias?

I appreciate the honesty Jake. A lot of reporters will not do this. You should be commended:) Good job, my friend (and I’m usually a critic of yours).

Good you said sorry now tell your collegues to do the same thing. Bill and Hillary especially have done more than should be expected of them, especially when you consider McCain has had basically no help from huckabee, little help from Romney. Just like Obama supporters were saying that just because she got 18 million votes didnt mean Obama owed her vp. The same holds for Hillary she doesnt have to campaign till she’s blue in the face for Obama even though she has.

sorry jake now I see you just posted my other post , guess you get the last laugh.

@john doe:
When reporting the facts becomes spiteful, the campaign has become a death march to the sea.
The angry ones are the Obama supporters who spew invective at anyone who questions them, their candidate, or their platform.
And after the election, those who have asked the right questions will be treated to a fantastic spectacle of the Democratic coalitions fighting each other at the door to the Oval Office. Obama set the example by running a campaign of deceit, misdirection and intimidation. If you think that is smart, well, then keep doing it. Let’s see how that works out for you.
It’s one thing to campaign. Governing is quite another. Means matter.
Good luck. You’ll need all you can get.

a cut-and-paster… cp… why don’t you have Palin call you ourt on the stage Jake?.. Jake the Paste, since Joe the plumber missed his gig they probably could use you as a fill in.

Thanks – but when do we get the apology about the Haaretz story on Obama, France and Iran? I like Haaretz too, but that was an international whopper. If you already apologized and I missed it – I’m sorry. If you didn’t – it’s time.

OH THAT JAKE!!! (NO. 1 IN A SERIES).
Pathetic, all you have to do is give 30 secons worth of prepared remarks and you can’t even get your facts straight. Yet you mock and mock Joe Biden, who speaks for hours each day, when he makes an off-the-cuff comment.

Good for you JAKE!!
To the Obama haters, let me explain; racism can come in many different ways and it usually will surface with hatred and ignorance. If you disagree with his views and ideas I can completely and respectfully understand. It’s when we get into the name calling and trashing someone’s family and character is when in my opinion you cross the line. A key question is to ask yourself are you one of those people that when asked if you are racist you respond “No I Have a lot of Black Friends” knowing that the last person of color you have spoken to was at the line in the grocery store. If that’s you, then it would not matter if you agreed with every idea Obama had you would never vote for him. You would find every other reason to justify it, but his skin color would be the bottom line. So really why spread your hatred. Thankfully there are Americans that judge their friends, politicians and people they meet by the character of that person not by skin color.

“It’s when we get into the name calling and trashing someone’s family and character is when in my opinion you cross the line.”
So I guess the insults hurled at Palin’s daughter, the baby, moron, all of those things upset you, yes?
That would make you unique among the Obama supporters who rage when anything remotely critical is said about their candidate but fail to notice the gaslight treatment of Hillary’s supporters, and the trashing of Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain.
They talk a line about racism but no one in the McCain campaign has come close to that. Sexism? That has been a dominant theme in the Obama campaign.
If you are the exception, then say something quick because this is the year American journalism died.
Some say a loss for Obama would mean civil war. From reading the comments here, the Huffington Post and Jon Taplin’s blog, one thing is certain: it won’t be civil.

A prompt, direct, and sincere apology. We all make mistakes, but not everyone takes responsibility for them.
Thank you, Mr. Tapper.

Name calling in America at my country of origin the TRAPOS a lingo for traditional politician they called it “Character Assasination”. When the opponent of the other had nothing to bring in the table of course this is the only avenue to take to heck with it! Anyway, what do you expect from a graduate from his class of 899 and the fifth from the bottom, he-he-he automatic! We called it “Pumpkin Award”!

Does anyone know what a Civilian Security force is and why Obama thinks we need one? Why will it be equally funded? Posted by: Michelle | Oct 30, 2008 3:23:26 PM
***********
Michelle! That means the press would have to actually ask him something meaningful and follow up for an answer, as opposed to just using .txt messages they get directly from the campaign!!!!!
Jees!