O-Me-O-Mi-O! Misspelling OHIO!

I understand that The First Gay President is on a big education kick right now.

That’s right.

During a trip to a college campus in Ohio, he and some supporters spelled out the name of the hosting state:

Unless, of course, they were going to “moon” Ohioans behind them.

Had a Republican done this, the media frenzy would be relentless.  Since it was Obama, you probably will not hear much about it.

November 2012!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to O-Me-O-Mi-O! Misspelling OHIO!

  1. frjim4321 says:

    If the story has any legs FoxNews (“FauxNews”) will probably pick it up. Or if their controllers at the RNC tell them to do so they will run it.

    I could not find this story on the FN website but it might be hidden there amidst all the other RNC propaganda.

    Personally, I would caption this picture “Why is this man smiling?” and suggest that his current numbers are looking pretty darn good.

    Plus it’s not like he wrote “potatoe” on a blackboard . . .

  2. ray from mn says:

    Unless, of course, the pose was set up for a photo to be taken from the backsides, showing what they really thought of Ohio.

  3. lydia says:

    FRJIM4321 Do you get your talking points from the Daily Kos or DU?

  4. frjim4321 says:

    ahh, USA today posts this picture as well, but O-H-I-O is spelled correctly. I won’t encourage the auto-moderator by inserting the link, but it’s easy enough to find.

    The pic above is a still taken out of context, while the President was moving his hands into or out of the “I.”

    Happy dance here, dear Judy Collins PBS special here now.

  5. Random Friar says:

    I cannot make “Ohio” out of that. For one thing, only one guy seems to be doing what could pass as “O.”

  6. wmeyer says:

    Fr jim… “RNC propaganda”??? Really? Romney quotes Obama in an ad, properly, and it is called a misquote. And all you see is RNC propaganda. Unbelievable. Even for you.

  7. Tradster says:

    I don’t understand this “Village People” sign language (re: “YMCA”) but even I can tell the two positions for the first and second O do not match. Ergo: misspelled.

    P.S. Someone should have noticed the sweat marks before going through with this bright idea.

  8. wmeyer says:

    Tradster, someone should have been bright enough to veto the concept before anyone began to execute.

  9. Tradster says:

    wmeyer:
    Anything that makes BHO look foolish is okay in my book!

  10. wmeyer says:

    Tradster, I can’t argue against that, but the liberals will call it propaganda and unfair.

  11. frjim4321 says:

    Lydia, I am not sure what “DU” is? And no, I don’t follow the KOS . . . he lacked balance I thought. I also don’t watch much MSNBC because it’s just like FauxNews but phased at 180 degrees. The evening people on MSNBC, although ideological more palatable to me, are just too angry, and I don’t like ending the day getting riled up.

    I do, however, recommend Real Clear Politics, because it seems to offer quite a range of input and seems well balanced and has a great metapoll.

    wmeyer, yes pretty much see FN as being 100% in the tank for the RNC.

    That being said, if I turn on FN, CNN or MSNBC chances are what I’m gonna get is a commercial, so I pretty much stay away from them all most of the time. Wonder what the proportion of “content” (such as it is) on those channels to commercials.

  12. lydia says:

    FRJIM4321 I’m sorry I forgot you get much of your news from the PARTY OF DEATH mouthpiece NPR.

  13. dans0622 says:

    The photo is “taken out of context”? That’s funny.

  14. frjim4321 says:

    The photo is “taken out of context”? That’s funny.

    The President was raising or lowering his arms when the still was snapped and then the still was presented as if it was a misspelling . . . USA Today posted a picture of the completed pose.

    If purposely misrepresenting what happened by posting a still a second before or after “O-H-I-O” is not the definition of “out of context” I don’t know what is.

    PARTY OF DEATH

    I don’t see either party as having earned a genuine “pro-life” mantle, that being said, with regard to the abortion topic to me the actual abortion rate matters more rhetoric. I don’t see the abortion rate going down under a prospective Ryan/Romney administration.

  15. Supertradmum says:

    Looks like fans at a Chicago Cubs game trying to do YMCA to the Chicken Dance.

  16. Indulgentiam says:

    frjim4321: “I don’t see the abortion rate going down under a prospective Ryan/Romney administration.” Romney does not want to subsidize abortion obama does. it is common knowledge that when you subsidize something you get more of it. Surely you can see that

  17. PA mom says:

    Frjim4321-regarding “I don’t think either party has earned a genuine pro-life mantle…” what are the number of self affirmed pro-life candidates in federal level positions (congress, executive,even judiciary) in each party? Do you have the sense that the numbers are fairly even?

  18. Facta Non Verba says:

    That’s one of the 57 states, right?
    Are there any navy “corspe-man” there?

  19. lydia says:

    FRJIM4321 I expect not funding planned parenthood and not using taxpayer money for abortions might bring the abortion rate down some. So if you don’t care much about the abortion issue than what do you think of your parties support of gay marriage, euthanasia and religious intolerance?

  20. oakdiocesegirl says:

    frjim4321: Neither party has earned a genuine pro-life mantle? Well, it’s certain that, with pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-IPAB [death panel] platform stands, the Democratic [Damnocratic?] Party is proudly wearing The Pro-Death Mantle. With sequins & bells on it.

  21. Random Friar says:

    I do not expect anyone who has reporters in front of him 23 hours a day to never spout some stupidity or do something foolish. I couldn’t last 1 hour.

    I’m more worried about when they mean what they say.

  22. dans0622 says:

    The photo “misrepresents what happened”? That’s funny, too. The photo shows what it shows. It is not altered. For however long, the people were messed up. It’s a good representation of college-age silliness.

  23. frjim4321 says:

    Lydia, hi. I don’t know if restricting some sources of funding for abortion will bring down the ultimate number of abortions. It could reduce the number somewhat, it’s hard to know for sure. Personally I predict an economic catastrophe of monumental proportion – worse even that the Bush Recession – if we go back to the failed policies of that era. Widespread poverty, joblessness, homelessness and hunger will result. Nothing drives abortion numbers like poverty. Actually I do care about the abortion issue, however for me the bottom line is the number of abortions. We know that Romney was pro-choice before he was anti-choice, [And most of us here are not Donatists.] and we know that Romney and Ryan differ on exceptions; so their rhetoric on the subject is not to be believed. At least the President says what he means on this. [?!? For my part, I think that every word he says is a lie, including "and" and "the".]

    Regarding “gay marriage,” I don’t expect nor would I even desire that the Church would sanction it. On the other hand, with respect to the civil rights issue [HUH?!? This is NOT a civil rights issue! You have fallen into a trap. I pray you are not telling others that this is a civil rights issue. That would be scandalous.] I believe in equal protection under the law and that the resources that the hierarchy are expending against this civil rights issue are misdirected.

    I do not favor euthanasia any more than I favor abortion, unjust war or capital punishment, etc. With advances in medicine and palliative care there should be no euthanasia. [If there were no good palliative care, euthanasia would be okay?]

    I don’t agree with religious intolerance either, but religious freedom is a relative right (e.g., if someone’s religion calls them to kill “heathens” that’s not covered) and where one draws the line is a matter of prudential judgment.

  24. A. Jones says:

    First thing I thought when I saw this was: “Someone made a mirror image of the real picture.” Ohio is spelled correctly, just backwards. I’ll give you that the guy on the right makes a pretty terrible O.

  25. frjim4321 says:

    First thing I thought when I saw this was: “Someone made a mirror image of the real picture.” Ohio is spelled correctly, just backwards. I’ll give you that the guy on the right makes a pretty terrible O.

    Anyone with the remotest interest in knowing the truth of the matter is that this shot was snapped either a split second before or after the pose. This is all over the web – just search for it. A typical and obvious distortion of reality by the right.

  26. lydia says:

    What policies exactly has Obama enacted that has moved this economy forward? We are not much better off now than in 2009. His prolific spending and foolish jihad against the business sector has not helped the unemployed. His stimulus spending put money in the pockets of his benefactors and left our children and grandchildren responsible for a debt that will lower their standard of living. His socialized medicine legislation will lead to fewer doctors, poor care, long waiting for procedures, less innovation, rationing and death panels. Like the democrats have ruined our public schools with teacher unions and dumbing down the curriculum his healthcare plan will bring down the quality of medicine. People all over the world come here for advanced care. The rich will find a place to seek superior care they can afford it but the rest of us will be left with this hideous plan. You can squeal all you want about Romney/Ryan but at least they love this country and don’t seek to destroy it in order to reform it.

  27. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    If the story has any legs FoxNews (“FauxNews”) will probably pick it up. Or if their controllers at the RNC tell them to do so they will run it.

    Interesting that you back a party and candidate devoted to destroying the Church you serve.

    Plus it’s not like he wrote “potatoe” on a blackboard . . .

    How about 57 states?

  28. Indulgentiam says:

    frjim4321 says: “that the hierarchy are expending against this civil rights issue are misdirected.”

    excuse me but how is homosexuality a civil rights issue? please explain your criteria for this judgement. people who like to flaunt their deviant sexual proclivities in public currently enjoy GREATER protection in the judicial system than do Catholics. If any ones civil rights are constantly being eroded its Catholics. I thought Priests were first and foremost Catholics.

  29. RichR says:

    While I abhor this President’s policies as a Catholic businessman, I have to say that the media would do better to focus less on “potatoe” and “OIHO” goofs and focus more on issues (like forcing us businessmen to choose between violating our consciences or having our employees shoulder the burden of health insurance costs while we employers get a crippling tax). Why is it that when your political opponent does someone stupid, it’s okay to laugh and point at the guy, but when it’s your political favorite, you do a 180 and say, “C’mon, let’s focus on the issues here.”

    Report real news and let politicians make silly mistakes on edit own time. Lord knows I goof up.

  30. RichR says:

    BTW, one of the “O” guys needs to put on some de-O-dorant.

  31. frjim4321 says:

    … yuppo and he was a bit untucked!

  32. Jordanes says:

    frjim4321 said: “Nothing drives abortion numbers like poverty.”

    Wrong. Nothing drives abortion numbers like abortion being legal, and unchastity being encouraged and celebrated. We’re the wealthiest nation in history, such that our poorest are rich compared to most of the rest of the world, and yet we’ve butchered 50 million babies in the past 40 years.

    If there’s any correlation between poverty and abortion, it’s the inverse of what you claim — the wealthier, the more given over to luxury and idleness, a nation is, the more of its babies it will murder in the womb.

    “Actually I do care about the abortion issue, however for me the bottom line is the number of abortions.”

    Translation: I don’t really care about the abortion issue. The bottom line is not some statistic without context — the bottom line is that abortion is the horrifying and violent ending of a baby’ life and the scarring of the souls and bodies of the mother, father, grandparents, and relatives of the innocent victim. Catholic social doctrine is clear that all nations must proscribe infanticide, including the prenatal kind. Period. A just society is not one in which abortion is “safe, legal, and rare” (something that is impossible), but one in which abortion is treated as the abominable crime against humanity that it is. Similarly, we Christians don’t want to merely reduce the number of incidents of cannibalism — we want to create a culture in which that number is as close to zero as possible and in which cannibalism is punished appropriately every time it might occur.

    “At least the President says what he means on this.”

    No, he doesn’t. He said he wants to make it so that abortion will not be “necessary” as often as he claims it is. But sin is never necessary. What he means is that abortion must be legal and easily accessible and paid for by everyone and regarded as a matter of no moral significance or consequence.

    What he means is that killing babies is not intrinsically evil and should be both permitted and approved. He’s the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had, and from the Christian pro-life perspective the only good thing about him being in office is that it has spurred the pro-life civil rights movement to fight harder against the pro-death policies and laws he forcefully promotes and enacts.

    “On the other hand, with respect to the civil rights issue I believe in equal protection under the law and that the resources that the hierarchy are expending against this civil rights issue are misdirected.”

    There is and can be no civil right to engage in sodomy, nor is there a civil right to have one’s sodomitic activity and relationships approved and falsely called marriage. What you’re saying is that you approve of sodomitic relationships being erroneously given the name of marriage and being sanctioned and encouraged by society. That is contrary to Catholic social doctrine.

    “With advances in medicine and palliative care there should be no euthanasia.”

    No, there should be no euthanasia, period, even if there aren’t any advances in medicine and palliative care.

  33. Southern Catholic says:

    frjim- Why are you even a priest if you are against the moral teachings of the Church?

  34. robtbrown says:

    Southern Catholic says:

    frjim- Why are you even a priest if you are against the moral teachings of the Church?

    My guess is that he is a sympathetic minister of the Sacraments and avoids any controversial moral/political conversations. He has written here that his parishioners are not aware of his politics. This is more or less a social worker approach to the priesthood (cf. Cardinal Bernardin).

    From what I’ve seen, many priests of this bent don’t realize that the laity sees right through them. This is esp. true of diocesan priests who didn’t study outside of the US and went to a free standing seminary straight out of school. They are friendly, likeable, and non controversial–they will readily agree to have breakfast or a burger with anyone. They have been trained to make listening noises, so it appears that they are actually interested in what someone is saying. It is a very pastoral approach that often is without content, more oriented toward going along than going up or down. If asked for a Latin mass, they will give one of many possible excuses.

    Most lay people are polite to priests. Some want a priest who keeps quiet about moral issues Others might want more of an advocate but opt to stay in their same parish for social reasons. Others might move to another parish. In fact, some years ago there was in KC, Mo a monsignor, a very good man who was attracting people from all over the diocese. He was doing nothing extraordinary, no Latin, just decent music and good preaching. His bishop, a liberal, replaced him because so many other priests complained that their parishioners were attending his church.

  35. dominic1955 says:

    KCMO used to be such an ecclesiastical pit under Bolan, it was like having a Mahoney in our backyard, in fact, he out-Mahoney’d Mahoney in bravely pioneering the way towards the Futurechurch priestless diocese, roundly impressing His Eminence. Now, however, they have plenty of seminarians. Hmm…who would think that all you had to do was believe in Church doctrine and try and your diocese wouldn’t die?

  36. Darren says:

    tradster: Anything that makes BHO look foolish is okay in my book!

    Well… BHO tends to make himself look foolish most of the time, but I don’t think he is ok ;)

  37. Darren says:

    If you it straight, it looks like OAHA. Can’t even spell one of the islands of his “home state” correctly!

    Or… maybe BHO is trying to make an M… OAMA, but the ‘B’ guy was camera shy.

  38. A colleague of mine was introducing himself at a newcomers party to a faculty wife who asked him where he was from. From IOWA, he said. She replied, “Oh, my dear, here in Boston we pronounce it OHIO.”

  39. Andkaras says:

    Perhaps Frjim would do well to be assigned to a room full of “silent no more” women to hear how much damage Priests like himself have caused and continue to cause to the integrity of the flock.Speaking for myself,as a woman who believes and embraces the churches teaching about artificial contraception….well ,Imagine being nosed out by the other sheep ,kicked in the jowls,bitten ,trampled etc all on the sheperds watch because the ewes are so much more subtle than the rams.I know the teaching is complicated .If a priest just can’t seem to deliver the message effectivly he should have the humility to bring someone else in who can. Talk about” marginalised”,Sheesh! And about Ohio,It’s been a little backwards anyway for about 40 years.

  40. robtbrown says:

    dominic1955 says:

    KCMO used to be such an ecclesiastical pit under Bolan, it was like having a Mahoney in our backyard, in fact, he out-Mahoney’d Mahoney in bravely pioneering the way towards the Futurechurch priestless diocese, roundly impressing His Eminence.

    I was not referring to Bishop Boland.

  41. Theodore says:

    Looks like a Neil Young moment for the President, especially in light of the most recent poll showing Romney leading in the Buckeye state.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/barack-obama-swing-states-poll-mitt-romney-florida-ohio/1#.UDZOCqAbD_c

  42. Banjo pickin girl says:

    henry Edwards, the first time i heard that one i laughed so hard i kicked the slats out of my crib.

  43. Peggy R says:

    These things are amusing but not a big deal in the end. I have wondered maybe they were spelling from our right to left. Obama is okay as the “H” in that instance. Oh, well. O’s made more serious “mistakes.”

    frjim,
    I think Fr Z attended to the moral matters. I’d like to observe, in charity, that I find your understanding of economics to be lacking. I don’t think the W years were “failed policies.” We avoided a massive economic collapse after 9-11; unemployment remained under 6%. The mortgage meltdown was the source of the Sept 08 “crisis.” The govt insisted that banks lend to risky people; now banks are being sued for treating risky borrowers differently. Decreasing taxes never hurt the economy. Sigh.

    There are more than enough social welfare programs for unwed pregnant women to avail themselves of. The women ought to find the fathers and make them accountable to relieve the public burden and meet their own moral duties as well. I think it is more cultural as to whether women obtain abortions. I had also looked at abortion stats about 5-10 years back. (A lag in public data) What was quite clear was that most abortions were obtained by women over 25, unmarried women, and white women. So, I’d say abortions are primarily obtained by adult, probably financially independent or on the road to success, white women. Abortion is for affluent white women to enable them to maintain their status and position. Poor women are already poor and can get public aid. They have nothing to lose by having a baby. More recently, I recall data shows that Latino abortions are up in raw numbers as well as percent of all abortions. I chalk that up to increased moral acceptance in those communities. It is the moral acceptability that makes abortion possible in a culture, not the cost of having a baby.

    That said, I have to wonder of the moral thinking of a priest who uses the term “anti-choice.”

  44. lucy says:

    Two things:

    robtbrown – you’re spot on! Wishy-washy priests – straighten up or be gone.

    Any way you look at this post, Mr. Obama looks ridiculous! There should always be dignity from the highest office in the land. He’s not our “best bud,” he’s our president.

    Hoping and praying for a change in Nov 2012!

  45. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Let’s ease off a little on Fr. Jim. He’s only one guy, he’s not to blame for all the sorrows of the world, and he hasn’t said anything more snappish than is usual for polite political bloggers.

    This is a lighthearted post. Don’t make it such a big deal to defend every single thing, or you’ll have no energy left for fighting the big things.

  46. PostCatholic says:

    All politicians are liars, in my experience, to some degree or another. It’s possible that Obama is a particularly egregious example. Romney certainly has been of late, too. I won’t defend the personal integrity of either.

    But to say “I think that every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the,” is as unattractive a hyperbole in a clergyman as it was on Mary McCarthy. Surely you recognize ignoratio elenchi fallacies when you see them?

  47. Sissy says:

    Fr. Jim said: “Regarding “gay marriage,” …I believe in equal protection under the law” and

    “I don’t agree with religious intolerance either, but religious freedom is a relative right ….and where one draws the line is a matter of prudential judgment.”

    So, with regard to same-sex marriage, which is not protected by the Constitution, you believe non-existenct “civil rights” should be recognized, but in the case of religious freedom which IS protected by the Constitution, you think rights are relative and can be limited by “prudential judgement”. To whose prudential judgement are you willing to submit our religious freedom for limitation, Fr. Jim?

  48. Irene says:

    Well……if you read it from right to left, as in (ahem) Arabic…. Somehow I don’t think they’ll use that excuse. Or if you take the folded hands for “hi” (see how high they are) and Obama’s arms for an unfinished O, and allow that they forgot they would be seen as mirror image, they could be saying: Hi! O-hi-o.

  49. lethargic says:

    Potatoe

  50. Sissy says:

    lethargic said: “Potatoe”

    Yes, indeed, lethargic, and may the outcome be the same for the man who can’t spell the name of a state he must win

  51. Kathleen10 says:

    Um, I agree with Fr. Jim. It makes sense some of them were in “mid-pose” and the shutter snapped. But I don’t think it’s unfair or anything else. More under the category of “amusing nothings”. Speaking as the one who always has the toilet paper under my shoe, I can’t say much about this. I have the worst cosmic timing. Just today, a fine example. I got introduced at my new position to an auditorium half-filled with new colleagues. The girl before me was the child of a legend, and even though they called my name people continued to shout to this young lady, hence, my name and intro got completely lost in the shuffle, and I sat down. It’s fine with me, I hate spectacle, but I’m just sayin….I would make a fool out of myself daily. Maybe hourly.

  52. Kathleen10 says:

    Oh, and RobtBrown. Your wise words have the ring of absolute truth in them. Thank you.
    It is a tragedy that the popular priest was removed. It’s a bit like schools isn’t it. When a district creates a popular program that effectively addresses some problem or situation, everybody hears about it and moves into the district, all but collapsing the program under the weight. One way or another, people will find a way to ruin a good thing.

  53. Sissy says:

    Kathleen10, I would agree with you that making a big fuss over small gaffes would ordinarily be unfair if it weren’t for the fact that there is such a ludicrous double-standard. When a Republican candidate makes a mistake, it’s blown out of proportion and and mocked for years (remember the athletic and graceful Gerald Ford being rebranded as a klutz?). Turn about is fair play, and the current administration is all about “fairness”. So, let Mr. Obama be judged by the measure meted out by his own party and media pets. Perhaps if enough of his small missteps are mocked, they will get the point and stop attacking people over trivia. [Incidentally, there was a series of photos released which demonstrate that there was a mistake which was noticed and then corrected in subsequent shots]

  54. eulogos says:

    Fr. Jim-If gay marriage is a civil rights issue, then why won’t the Church do them? Why shouldn’t she? You seem to be thinking as if Catholic morality were some sort of special set of rules just for Catholics, with no foundation in the truth. Homosexuals have a right to get married, but they usually don’t want to, as they are not attracted to people of the opposite sex, and a union of two people of the opposite sex is what marriage IS. IS, as in truth, real being. They cannot have a right to call something what it is not, and make other people and the government call it that too.
    Now there may be some civil rights issues associated with this issue, such as the right to will one’s property to whomsoever one chooses, the right to have whoever one wants visit one in the hospital, and so forth. I agree that some sort of legal forms should be set in place to ensure those rights. But that should not be done by making all of society pretend that two men can be married to each other! Either that will result in all of society going around soberly pretending that they believe nonesense, or worse, it will create a complete inability to understand what marriage actually is.

    And I seriously think you are wrong when you tell yourself that voting for Obama will make for fewer abortions than voting for a Republican. First of all, I think you are wrong about the economics, but that is a prudential judgment. But I think you are wrong about what makes for more or fewer abortions, as other people here have said. There are so many reasons to have an abortion and money solves only a few of them. There has to be an attitude that to do that is unthinkable, and thus an attitude of supporting women throught the difficulties of pregnancy; also a more serious attitude about that which causes pregnancy. The law is a teacher, and it has by now taught people that abortion is a acceptable thing to do for almost any reason. We have to push back against that any way we can. I agree the Republicans haven’t been great in this regard, but the Democrats have been horrendous, and Obama is the worst of them in that regard.

    I don’t want to go so far as to say that Catholics can have only one set of political opinions.
    But it does seem that you are not really “thinking with the Church” on some of these issues.

    Susan Peterson

  55. Sissy says:

    eulogos, you’re right. There simply are no “civil rights” arguments to be made for unnatural marriage. All the property rights you mentioned (naming a friend in a will, hospital visits) are already protected in contract law. These are red herrings. If the 14th Amendment guaranteed homosexuals a right to marry each other, 30 states wouldn’t have been able to pass laws saying they can’t. It’s possible some Supreme Court decision someday will decide that the 14th Amendment does, indeed, grant that guarantee. But it hasn’t happened yet, and until it does, that “civil right” does not exist. And, as you observe, since it doesn’t exist in the natural law, it doesn’t exist outside the Constitution, either.