Obama’s “Skeetgate,” Explained

An official White House photo of the moment Obama decided to hatch a plan to fool the world with a story about habitual skeet shooting.Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8341899156/in/photostream">Pete Souza</a>/The White House

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


For the past week, you’ve probably heard a lot about President Obama and skeet shooting. Basically, what began as one offhanded remark in an interview with The New Republic has transmogrified into a billow of conspiracy theories, parody, and upsetting political discussion. Here is your guide to Skeetgate 2013:

Wait, what?

Good question.

This all started when Obama told The New Republic in an exclusive interview published online on Sunday, January 27 that he has “a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations,” and that:

[U]p at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

(In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, the president has been pushing initiatives and legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in America.)

This statement—a bold claim that Barack Obama has looked at, and has even touched, a firearm at any point in his liberal-left lifetime—kicked off a wave of strained credulity on the part of the American right.

What did the backlash look like?

At a press briefing on the day after TNR ran the story, White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to a question regarding why there aren’t any publicly available photos of Obama skeet shooting at Camp David. (Carney addressed related skepticism yet again when he spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One exactly one week after.)

Unsurprisingly, Matt Drudge went ahead and did his thing:

People on Fox News got their snarky and skeptical two cents in: “We all know he’s a bullshooter, but evidently he’s also a big skeetshooter!” The Five host Eric Bolling said with great triumph. OutFront‘s Erin Burnet followed suit on CNN: “Obama: The skeet shooter…I’m not making this up. I mean, if someone is, it isn’t me.” Later in the same program, a doubtful Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)—who opposes the president’s gun proposals because hammers, automobiles, and hatchets exist—challenged Obama to a skeet-shooting tournament.

The growing school of pundits who believed that Obama flat-out lied and never did anything skeet-related in his life were quickly dubbed “Skeeters,” a play on the term “truther.”

So… did the White House produce any proof of Obama’s skeet shooting?

Yes. On Saturday, the White House released this photo of the president shooting clay targets on the range at Camp David on August 4, 2012:

Obama skeet shooting camp david

Pete Souza/The White House

The White House claims it released the photo in order to quell the rumors and the Skeeter conspiracy theories.

Did the photographic evidence make the issue go away?

skeet shooting

TSGT Rick Sforza/U.S. Air Force

No, never, not at all. If anything, it only inflamed passions: Extreme elements within the conservative online community began analyzing every inch of the otherwise innocuous photograph in an attempt to prove it was somehow doctored or fake. Popular observations target the gun’s smoke pattern, the allegedly awkward manner in which Obama is brandishing the weapon, and the angle at which the gun is being held. (Observe the image on the right for a more acceptable angle.) Critics also took exception with Obama’s claim that he shoots “all the time.”

So…is that it?

Hardly. Right-wingers with internet access also had fun commenting on the president’s “beer gut” in the picture, along with enthusiastically highlighting his “mom jeans.” (This is the latest incarnation of the a mild internet fixation on Obama’s “mom jeans“—a meme dating back to the 2008 election.)

The image was also used to paint the president as pandering and out-of-touch with the law-abiding gun owners of America. Here’s Sean Hannity, with guest Ann Coulter, using it as a gigantic banner image on Fox News on Monday night:

ann coulter sean hannity skeetgate

Did people with Photoshop go to town on this White House photo?

Most definitely. The photo was (as is standard with official White House photos) released with a note forbidding online users from manipulating the image. The warning was perceived as an empty threat by everybody who read it, and here’s an example of the tongue-in-cheek parody:

barack obama skeet shooting photoshop drone

Okay, we get it—Obama fired a gun at least once in his life. Just out of curiosity, what does the National Rifle Association have to say about that?

They could not be less impressed. “One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun-control scheme imaginable,” Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the NRA, said on Saturday, the day of the photo’s release.

What do White House staff, past and present, have to say about Skeetgate?

Former senior Obama adviser David Axelrod was disappointed that the White House didn’t release the photo sooner: “They should have put the picture out earlier. I don’t know why they waited five days to put that out,” he said on an episode of MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday. “You know Washington…this thing was cascading, conspiracy theories…I just think they should have shut it down earlier.”

Speaking anonymously to Mother Jones, a current White House staffer simply rolled his eyes and said, “Let me know when Donald Trump demands to see his skeet score sheet.”

Did this whole affair at increase public awareness of skeet?

Yes, if this Google Trends graph for “skeet” is any indication:

obama skeet shooting google trends

I’m just gonna ask: What exactly is “skeet,” anyway?

There are a lot of alternative definitions of the word “skeet.” Among other things, the term refers to a non-standard poker hand “consisting of a nine, five, two, and two other cards of denominations below nine but not of the same denomination.” Skeet is also a key component in a certain type of cluster bomb manufactured by Textron Defense Systems. It’s the name of a 7-mile long river in the Tasman Region of New Zealand.

But the relevant definition here is “trapshooting in which clay pigeons are thrown in such a way as to simulate the angles of flight of birds.” Skeet shooting is a competitive sport in which participants wield shotguns and try to shoot disks or clay pigeons that are mechanically launched into the sky at high velocity. It’s a perfectly respectable recreational activity; other American presidents, such as JFK and Dwight D. Eisenhower, have shot their fair share of skeet while in office and at Camp David.

Well, this has all been pretty nuts. Is Skeetgate the craziest Obama conspiracy theory floating out on the internet today?

Are you kidding?

barack obama conspiracy theories chart venn diagram

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate