Politics Daily More Links
Inside Politics Daily
Generation Obama Meets Bill Clinton- Queen Sarah? Palin Takes a Page From the Book of Esther
GOP 'Senate Doctors' to Cover Health Care Debate- Chinese Riots: Blame the Dame
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: I Am a Product of Affirmative Action
- Why We Should Listen to the Pope on the Economy
- Mr. McNamara Meets Mr. Maladroit
- Russians Share Michelle Obama's Love of Veggie Gardens
- From Sanford to Jackson: Our Fascination with Brokenness
- Why Running a Newspaper Means Having to Say You're Sorry
- Peter King's Overreaction to America's Mourning for Michael Jackson
- Empty Chair at the WaPo Salon
Kathleen HaydenAOL Straw Poll: May 27-June 3
Check here to comment or read other Straw Poll voters' thoughts.
Note From AOL: With this week's update of our weekly survey, done at Friday, Oct. 3 at 12PM ET, the latest version of our Straw Poll is finally here! It includes third-party voting options as well as two choices of "Undecided" and "Other" candidate.
Another change: You must have an AOL or AIM screenname to take the new poll. To get a free account, sign up quickly here.
-
PRINT
-
IM
-
E-mail
19478 comments
+ add your own
Comments (19478)
swamp
10:53AM May 27th 2008
Dr James Cone's Description of BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY, from his book "BLACK POWER AND BLACK THEOLOGY", used as the basis for the vision statement of Obama's Church, Trinity United:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Among the Obamas' charitable donations in 2007 was $26,270 to Trinity United Church of Christ.
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Among the Obamas' charitable donations in 2007 was $26,270 to Trinity United Church of Christ.
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(0)
(0) 
swamp
10:54AM May 27th 2008
The current US policy regarding Iran IS diplomacy. It is just not DIRECT diplomacy as Barack Obama intends to engage in. The entire world has decided that the best way to deal with Iran is to isolate the Mullah's and try and use international pressure to get them to comply. This is obviously not working fast enough for anyone. However, Obama's approach would undermine the current strategy completely and raise the status of the bearded boy from Tehran whereas the current strategy is making him less popular in his own country.
If you desire peace and your enemy desires your total destruction, you have nothing with which to bargain and nothing that needs discussing. Iran is killing American soldiers as we speak and Obama wants to lend the credibility of a top level meeting with a lunatic and holocaust denier. His meeting with this man without preconditions would make Achmadinejad look as if he had humbled the United States and it would send the wrong message to those who are assisting us now in an effort to put pressure on his regime.
Barack Obama is the most dangerous threat to our liberties, because he would use the power of the presidency to enact theory over sound policy. He would appoint activist judges to the courts and will nullify the second amendment, enforce the fairness doctrine, silencing REAL dissent. Have you ever heard him mention individual liberty? That idea is antithetical to his agenda and would not see a resurgence under his presidency.
If you desire peace and your enemy desires your total destruction, you have nothing with which to bargain and nothing that needs discussing. Iran is killing American soldiers as we speak and Obama wants to lend the credibility of a top level meeting with a lunatic and holocaust denier. His meeting with this man without preconditions would make Achmadinejad look as if he had humbled the United States and it would send the wrong message to those who are assisting us now in an effort to put pressure on his regime.
Barack Obama is the most dangerous threat to our liberties, because he would use the power of the presidency to enact theory over sound policy. He would appoint activist judges to the courts and will nullify the second amendment, enforce the fairness doctrine, silencing REAL dissent. Have you ever heard him mention individual liberty? That idea is antithetical to his agenda and would not see a resurgence under his presidency.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Clueless!
10:56AM May 27th 2008
The more I hear Obama talk ... the more I think Republican landslide!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) swamp
10:58AM May 27th 2008
Osama bin Ladin has famously described America as a "weak horse." His point, that what looks like a strong champion, in fact tires easily and gives up, is his conception of America. With good reason. Within America itself, modern Democrats have indelibly fixed their image as America's own weak horse, the political party for which appeasement and running up the white flag has become a historical reflex.
It's fair to ask for examples. Sadly, there are many:
* 1971: A young John Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He tells lawmakers of U.S. Vietnam policy: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" confidently asserting that "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."
* 1972: The Democrats' platform for their nominee, one-time Henry Wallace supporter Senator George McGovern, states: "The majority of the Democratic Senators have called for full U.S. withdrawal by October 1, 1972. We support that position. If the war is not ended before the next Democratic Administration takes office, we pledge, as the first order of business, an immediate and complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Indo-China. All U.S. military action in Southeast Asia will cease. After the end of U.S. direct combat participation, military aid to the Saigon Government, and elsewhere in Indo-China, will be terminated." Nixon defeats McGovern in a 49-state landslide.
* 1975: Democrats cut off all aid for Vietnam and Cambodia. The Communists overrun the two nations, murdering millions and setting up "re-education camps." Thousands of Vietnamese refugees flee to the South China Sea, many of the "boat people" drowning before they can be rescued.
* 1977: President Jimmy Carter tells Americans in a speech at Notre Dame that they have "an inordinate fear of Communism." Instead of calling for victory he proudly proclaims that "I believe in detente with the Soviet Union. To me it means progress toward peace....We hope to persuade the Soviet Union that one country cannot impose its system of society upon another, either through direct military intervention or through the use of a client state's military force, as was the case with Cuban intervention in Angola."
* 1979: Carter admits shock as the Soviets invade Afghanistan after he has negotiated a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev. At the signing ceremony in Vienna, Carter had famously kissed Brezhnev on the cheek.
* 1979: Carter looks on as a Soviet-backed government replaces the Somoza government in Nicaragua.
* 1979: Carter abandons the Shah of Iran as the Iranian Revolution is led to power by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The shah, appalled at Carter's abandonment of Iran as a once fierce U.S. ally, tells an aide, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?" Carter's UN Ambassador, Andrew Young, predicts, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint," while Carter's ambassador to Iran says, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Newsweek quotes another Carter aide as saying Khomeini possessed "impeccable integrity and honesty." In November, the American Embassy in Tehran is overrun by Iranian students with the approval of the Ayatollah. American embassy staff is seized as hostages. They are held for over a year, released literally the day Ronald Reagan is sworn in, having defeated Carter in a landslide.
* 1983: While Reagan sets out to rebuild the American military and win the Cold War outright, Democrats embrace the idea of a nuclear freeze. When Reagan installs Pershing Missiles in Europe to challenge the Soviet SS-II missiles, a furious Senator Edward Kennedy says of Reagan's strategy for victory: "I reject the absurd theory that we can have fewer nuclear bombs tomorrow only if we build more nuclear bombs today." Former JFK/LBJ Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War disaster and now a committed dove, calls Reagan's approach "madness."
* 1983: Reagan's decision to liberate Grenada from a takeover by murderous Cuban thugs loyal to Castro is opposed by future Democratic Party nominees Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry.
* 1984: The Democrats nominate Carter's Vice President, Walter Mondale, on a platform that insists America should "initiate and establish a Peace Academy," while demanding that "we can no longer afford simplistically to blame all of our troubles on a single 'focus of evil,'" a reference to Reagan's description of the Soviet Union. Mondale loses 49 states to Reagan.
* 1988: The Democrats nominate Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who says, "Balancing the budget would require hard choices mostly on the defense side. I don't see much room for cuts on the domestic side." Dukakis campaigns as the candidate who opposes the Midgetman missile, development of the cruise missile, deployment of the Pershing missile, building the Trident submarine, the establishment of a 600-ship Navy (a Reagan goal), the testing and deployment of anti-satellite weapons, construction of newer and faster aircraft carriers, and a refusal to order the Massachusetts National Guard to Central America for two weeks of training until ordered by a federal judge to do so. Says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "...his approach to foreign policy comes so close to renouncing the unilateral use of American power to protect national interests...that it sometimes sounds as if the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt had taken control of his body." Dukakis loses in a landslide to George H.W. Bush.
* 1991: 45 of the Senate's 54 Democrats, including future 2004 nominee John Kerry, vote against throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. According to Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the future 2000 nominee of the Democrats, Tennessee Senator Al Gore, votes in favor only in return for 20 minutes worth of television time to speak on the Senate floor. With the Cold War over, Gore is tapped as Clinton's running mate to send a message that the JFK Democrats have returned. Clinton wins with 43% of the vote.
* 1993: The World Trade Center in New York is bombed, killing six and injuring over a thousand. The Clinton administration decides this is a crime and not an act of war, prosecuting those jihadists it can catch.
One could go on, here. On and on, and on. All during this period, the Democrats' instinctive urge to appease prevailed. From the moment Clinton had America flee Somalia, to his decision not to respond seriously, as America's enemies attacked U.S. embassies throughout his term; Or, even after the attack on the USS Cole.Non-serious responses by the Democrats running the Clinton defense and foreign policy establishment in essence created the impression of America as perceived by bin Ladin: the weak horse.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the left-wing MoveOn.org -- a major backer these days of Obama -- even opposed the idea of an American invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government. This notion was even too much for Hillary Clinton -- which, in sum, is partly the reason she will not be the nominee of the Democrats. She's what passes for a hawk in the Democrats' circles these days, don't you know?
Now comes 2008. Right on cue, Barack Obama, following in the steps of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, steps up and says that he would "talk to America's enemies," from Iran to North Korea. Obama insists that he would have voted against removing Saddam Hussein from power had he been in the Senate at the time. Yet he's stunned that anybody would ever call him an appeaser. Shocked that a spokesman from the eternally violent Hamas would express the wish that Obama win the election.
Obama staunchly insists that he would never actually meet with terrorists. Oh, really?
Serve on the board of the Woods Foundation with a known, documented, domestic terrorist of Weather Underground infamy, perhaps, ... or have one host a campaign fundraiser maybe, but beyond that -- certainly not. You don't believe he's that naive, do you? (wink, wink)
As a matter of fact, yes. In the middle of a global war against Islamic fundamentalism with potential horrific consequences, Barack Hussein Obama, the ghost of Neville Chamberlain, is now riding herd for the Democrats and would be the heir to Jimmy Carter.
Make no mistake. There is a reason Barack Obama is going to be the nominee of the party of the weak horse.
He is one.
It's fair to ask for examples. Sadly, there are many:
* 1971: A young John Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He tells lawmakers of U.S. Vietnam policy: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" confidently asserting that "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."
* 1972: The Democrats' platform for their nominee, one-time Henry Wallace supporter Senator George McGovern, states: "The majority of the Democratic Senators have called for full U.S. withdrawal by October 1, 1972. We support that position. If the war is not ended before the next Democratic Administration takes office, we pledge, as the first order of business, an immediate and complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Indo-China. All U.S. military action in Southeast Asia will cease. After the end of U.S. direct combat participation, military aid to the Saigon Government, and elsewhere in Indo-China, will be terminated." Nixon defeats McGovern in a 49-state landslide.
* 1975: Democrats cut off all aid for Vietnam and Cambodia. The Communists overrun the two nations, murdering millions and setting up "re-education camps." Thousands of Vietnamese refugees flee to the South China Sea, many of the "boat people" drowning before they can be rescued.
* 1977: President Jimmy Carter tells Americans in a speech at Notre Dame that they have "an inordinate fear of Communism." Instead of calling for victory he proudly proclaims that "I believe in detente with the Soviet Union. To me it means progress toward peace....We hope to persuade the Soviet Union that one country cannot impose its system of society upon another, either through direct military intervention or through the use of a client state's military force, as was the case with Cuban intervention in Angola."
* 1979: Carter admits shock as the Soviets invade Afghanistan after he has negotiated a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev. At the signing ceremony in Vienna, Carter had famously kissed Brezhnev on the cheek.
* 1979: Carter looks on as a Soviet-backed government replaces the Somoza government in Nicaragua.
* 1979: Carter abandons the Shah of Iran as the Iranian Revolution is led to power by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The shah, appalled at Carter's abandonment of Iran as a once fierce U.S. ally, tells an aide, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?" Carter's UN Ambassador, Andrew Young, predicts, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint," while Carter's ambassador to Iran says, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Newsweek quotes another Carter aide as saying Khomeini possessed "impeccable integrity and honesty." In November, the American Embassy in Tehran is overrun by Iranian students with the approval of the Ayatollah. American embassy staff is seized as hostages. They are held for over a year, released literally the day Ronald Reagan is sworn in, having defeated Carter in a landslide.
* 1983: While Reagan sets out to rebuild the American military and win the Cold War outright, Democrats embrace the idea of a nuclear freeze. When Reagan installs Pershing Missiles in Europe to challenge the Soviet SS-II missiles, a furious Senator Edward Kennedy says of Reagan's strategy for victory: "I reject the absurd theory that we can have fewer nuclear bombs tomorrow only if we build more nuclear bombs today." Former JFK/LBJ Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War disaster and now a committed dove, calls Reagan's approach "madness."
* 1983: Reagan's decision to liberate Grenada from a takeover by murderous Cuban thugs loyal to Castro is opposed by future Democratic Party nominees Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry.
* 1984: The Democrats nominate Carter's Vice President, Walter Mondale, on a platform that insists America should "initiate and establish a Peace Academy," while demanding that "we can no longer afford simplistically to blame all of our troubles on a single 'focus of evil,'" a reference to Reagan's description of the Soviet Union. Mondale loses 49 states to Reagan.
* 1988: The Democrats nominate Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who says, "Balancing the budget would require hard choices mostly on the defense side. I don't see much room for cuts on the domestic side." Dukakis campaigns as the candidate who opposes the Midgetman missile, development of the cruise missile, deployment of the Pershing missile, building the Trident submarine, the establishment of a 600-ship Navy (a Reagan goal), the testing and deployment of anti-satellite weapons, construction of newer and faster aircraft carriers, and a refusal to order the Massachusetts National Guard to Central America for two weeks of training until ordered by a federal judge to do so. Says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "...his approach to foreign policy comes so close to renouncing the unilateral use of American power to protect national interests...that it sometimes sounds as if the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt had taken control of his body." Dukakis loses in a landslide to George H.W. Bush.
* 1991: 45 of the Senate's 54 Democrats, including future 2004 nominee John Kerry, vote against throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. According to Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the future 2000 nominee of the Democrats, Tennessee Senator Al Gore, votes in favor only in return for 20 minutes worth of television time to speak on the Senate floor. With the Cold War over, Gore is tapped as Clinton's running mate to send a message that the JFK Democrats have returned. Clinton wins with 43% of the vote.
* 1993: The World Trade Center in New York is bombed, killing six and injuring over a thousand. The Clinton administration decides this is a crime and not an act of war, prosecuting those jihadists it can catch.
One could go on, here. On and on, and on. All during this period, the Democrats' instinctive urge to appease prevailed. From the moment Clinton had America flee Somalia, to his decision not to respond seriously, as America's enemies attacked U.S. embassies throughout his term; Or, even after the attack on the USS Cole.Non-serious responses by the Democrats running the Clinton defense and foreign policy establishment in essence created the impression of America as perceived by bin Ladin: the weak horse.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the left-wing MoveOn.org -- a major backer these days of Obama -- even opposed the idea of an American invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government. This notion was even too much for Hillary Clinton -- which, in sum, is partly the reason she will not be the nominee of the Democrats. She's what passes for a hawk in the Democrats' circles these days, don't you know?
Now comes 2008. Right on cue, Barack Obama, following in the steps of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, steps up and says that he would "talk to America's enemies," from Iran to North Korea. Obama insists that he would have voted against removing Saddam Hussein from power had he been in the Senate at the time. Yet he's stunned that anybody would ever call him an appeaser. Shocked that a spokesman from the eternally violent Hamas would express the wish that Obama win the election.
Obama staunchly insists that he would never actually meet with terrorists. Oh, really?
Serve on the board of the Woods Foundation with a known, documented, domestic terrorist of Weather Underground infamy, perhaps, ... or have one host a campaign fundraiser maybe, but beyond that -- certainly not. You don't believe he's that naive, do you? (wink, wink)
As a matter of fact, yes. In the middle of a global war against Islamic fundamentalism with potential horrific consequences, Barack Hussein Obama, the ghost of Neville Chamberlain, is now riding herd for the Democrats and would be the heir to Jimmy Carter.
Make no mistake. There is a reason Barack Obama is going to be the nominee of the party of the weak horse.
He is one.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) betsyfromtexas
10:59AM May 27th 2008
KEEP FIGHTING, HILLARY!
WE BELIEVE IN YOU!
IF OBAMA STEALS/IS GIVEN THE NOMINATION, HE AND THE DNC WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT A PYRRHIC VICTORY IT WILL BE!
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL GO DOWN IN FLAMES AND ITS STAUNCHEST SUPPORTERS WILL SEPARATE FROM IT JUST LIKE OIL AND WATER DOES TO THE OTHER!
AND WE CAN LAY ALL OF THE BLAME AT THE FEET OF 'OBAMA THE PRETENDER' AND HIS FOOLISH FLOCK!
HILLARY (OR 'OTHER') WILL BE MY VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
WE BELIEVE IN YOU!
IF OBAMA STEALS/IS GIVEN THE NOMINATION, HE AND THE DNC WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT A PYRRHIC VICTORY IT WILL BE!
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL GO DOWN IN FLAMES AND ITS STAUNCHEST SUPPORTERS WILL SEPARATE FROM IT JUST LIKE OIL AND WATER DOES TO THE OTHER!
AND WE CAN LAY ALL OF THE BLAME AT THE FEET OF 'OBAMA THE PRETENDER' AND HIS FOOLISH FLOCK!
HILLARY (OR 'OTHER') WILL BE MY VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:00AM May 27th 2008
What Does RFK's Assassination Have to Do with It?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI
the time reference is not a good excuse...she could have used any other example or even qualified the reference when she said it...she is a professional...i think she just became too comfortable and spoke her mind...
her apology was not even to Obama...it was to the Kennedy family...
APOLOGY TO THE KENNEDY FAMILY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjWCM_RSIY0
Hillary Rejects, Denounces Self
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-rejects-denounces_b_103420.html
Many political observers had assumed Sen. Clinton would respond in some manner to the controversy she had created with her comments, but few expected her to throw herself under the bus.
At a rally today in South Dakota, the New York senator said that the comments she made were "totally unacceptable," adding, "I hereby reject and denounce myself."
Attempting to reassure her dwindling base of support, she said that her comments "have no place in a political campaign, and the person who made them will have no role in my administration."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI
the time reference is not a good excuse...she could have used any other example or even qualified the reference when she said it...she is a professional...i think she just became too comfortable and spoke her mind...
her apology was not even to Obama...it was to the Kennedy family...
APOLOGY TO THE KENNEDY FAMILY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjWCM_RSIY0
Hillary Rejects, Denounces Self
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-rejects-denounces_b_103420.html
Many political observers had assumed Sen. Clinton would respond in some manner to the controversy she had created with her comments, but few expected her to throw herself under the bus.
At a rally today in South Dakota, the New York senator said that the comments she made were "totally unacceptable," adding, "I hereby reject and denounce myself."
Attempting to reassure her dwindling base of support, she said that her comments "have no place in a political campaign, and the person who made them will have no role in my administration."
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:01AM May 27th 2008
Olbermann is the MAN
Hillary R. Clinton has had more than enough forgiveness. She has no more room....
unforgivable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF14V3px5hs
Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Hillary Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY
Olbermann - Clinton floated the RFK idea to TIME magazine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_zhVVRaMco
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:01AM May 27th 2008
Remembering RFK – this is truly beautiful…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8QIoQl8ao
Now do you understand what Obama means when he says he will CHANGE things?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Join the Movement
http://www.barackobama.com/mobilev2/
Join Obama Mobile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8QIoQl8ao
Now do you understand what Obama means when he says he will CHANGE things?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Join the Movement
http://www.barackobama.com/mobilev2/
Join Obama Mobile
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Roger Trew
11:01AM May 27th 2008
Ron Paul is a fraud,
He wants to bring every US soldier serving abroad back home. Europe,
Asia, Middle East, you name it. They all come home...meaning no bases
anywhere abroad.
-He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel.
-He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda.
-He can't bring himself to say the FBI and CIA should stay in
business.
-He supports his constituents receiving earmarks but votes against
bills containing earmarks whenever he can (which might be an extra
credit question in a college-level logic class).
-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be
decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other
adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase
for adults."
-He did not dispute he had previously called the Reagan
administration a "dramatic failure."
-He has a very unique take on the Civil War and his apparent belief
in President Lincoln's culpability for the conflict: "Absolutely. Six
hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No,
[Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to
enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic."
If those doesn't constitute "fighting words" in Republican circles
then nothing does. To be fair though, Paul already came very close to
such conflict by inciting the Republicans he supposedly agrees so much
with during his famous debate exchange with Rudy Giuliani regarding
9/11.
It all speaks to the fact that while libertarian-leaning Republicans
most definitely have a place in the GOP tent, the Ronulans who
embrace the Paul movement in full do not. And in all intellectual
honesty, Ron Paul's supporters have no business promoting their man
as an authentic Republican.
One question from Tim Russert during that Meet the Press appearance
sums things up:
MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron
Paul: "`Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue
of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about
the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul
says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000.
No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a
conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of
resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my
membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card."
If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush
41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the
Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for
president?
Good question. It sure isn't because he's the Republican his
supporters claim him to be.
He wants to bring every US soldier serving abroad back home. Europe,
Asia, Middle East, you name it. They all come home...meaning no bases
anywhere abroad.
-He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel.
-He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda.
-He can't bring himself to say the FBI and CIA should stay in
business.
-He supports his constituents receiving earmarks but votes against
bills containing earmarks whenever he can (which might be an extra
credit question in a college-level logic class).
-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be
decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other
adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase
for adults."
-He did not dispute he had previously called the Reagan
administration a "dramatic failure."
-He has a very unique take on the Civil War and his apparent belief
in President Lincoln's culpability for the conflict: "Absolutely. Six
hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No,
[Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to
enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic."
If those doesn't constitute "fighting words" in Republican circles
then nothing does. To be fair though, Paul already came very close to
such conflict by inciting the Republicans he supposedly agrees so much
with during his famous debate exchange with Rudy Giuliani regarding
9/11.
It all speaks to the fact that while libertarian-leaning Republicans
most definitely have a place in the GOP tent, the Ronulans who
embrace the Paul movement in full do not. And in all intellectual
honesty, Ron Paul's supporters have no business promoting their man
as an authentic Republican.
One question from Tim Russert during that Meet the Press appearance
sums things up:
MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron
Paul: "`Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue
of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about
the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul
says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000.
No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a
conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of
resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my
membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card."
If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush
41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the
Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for
president?
Good question. It sure isn't because he's the Republican his
supporters claim him to be.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:02AM May 27th 2008
what people are upset by is not that they thought she meant to say it the way that it came out, but that the Clintons are such word smiths that there must have been a sort of calculation involved because it was not the first time it had been said. it was 4th from her and 5th including a surrogate. it was just too low even for them to invoke the word assassination...intended to come out that way or not...
just like idiot boy did not get it why people were upset speaking from the Knesset. had he said the same thing in Arizona it would not have had an equally scalding effect...
these people are not fools... it did not turn out the way they intended...and if they really did not get it and still don't...neither is worthy of leading our great nation...
the people are listening and highly involved now...the day of politics as usual is already over...even for Obama...he seems to be one of the few that actually gets it
just like idiot boy did not get it why people were upset speaking from the Knesset. had he said the same thing in Arizona it would not have had an equally scalding effect...
these people are not fools... it did not turn out the way they intended...and if they really did not get it and still don't...neither is worthy of leading our great nation...
the people are listening and highly involved now...the day of politics as usual is already over...even for Obama...he seems to be one of the few that actually gets it
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:03AM May 27th 2008
i want to make an emphatic declaration today. i will not give up until Barack Obama is nominated and elected President of the United States of America taking office in January 2009.
we have been here before. many of us are reserved and quite willing to allow the process to follow its pure course, however if we have learned anything at all from the 2000 election is that there are some of us that will not necessarily break the rules to insure their outcome, but will flex them where possible to suit their selfish personal goal.
now i am not advocating becoming as unbecoming as our detractors, but i am suggesting that we remain vigilant & fight to make sure that we don't allow another instance of intimidation to force us to bend to the will of a sneering mob.
we must stand strong together and stare down the face of these cowards that will thwart the will of the people to suit their own interest. they have created and exploited a division between Americans. young & old. rich & poor. black & white. muslim & christian. male & female.
these divisions are not new, but the exploitation was exposed during the rise of the bush administration and being used now in its downfall in an effort for them to hand the future of our Republic to the administration of their choosing. we must stand against this and my promise to you grassroots support for Obama...i will make this my mission to assist in anyway possible to stare down this invalid Clinton claim for the nomination and then proceed to stare down the challenge to our Republic embodied in John McCain or whatever vessel they choose as his replacement as i believe they will because they are woefully aware of nominating a flawed candidate in John McCain (perhaps on purpose). enter his replacement.
for the Republic we must prevail.
we have been here before. many of us are reserved and quite willing to allow the process to follow its pure course, however if we have learned anything at all from the 2000 election is that there are some of us that will not necessarily break the rules to insure their outcome, but will flex them where possible to suit their selfish personal goal.
now i am not advocating becoming as unbecoming as our detractors, but i am suggesting that we remain vigilant & fight to make sure that we don't allow another instance of intimidation to force us to bend to the will of a sneering mob.
we must stand strong together and stare down the face of these cowards that will thwart the will of the people to suit their own interest. they have created and exploited a division between Americans. young & old. rich & poor. black & white. muslim & christian. male & female.
these divisions are not new, but the exploitation was exposed during the rise of the bush administration and being used now in its downfall in an effort for them to hand the future of our Republic to the administration of their choosing. we must stand against this and my promise to you grassroots support for Obama...i will make this my mission to assist in anyway possible to stare down this invalid Clinton claim for the nomination and then proceed to stare down the challenge to our Republic embodied in John McCain or whatever vessel they choose as his replacement as i believe they will because they are woefully aware of nominating a flawed candidate in John McCain (perhaps on purpose). enter his replacement.
for the Republic we must prevail.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:03AM May 27th 2008
How a Bill Becomes a Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
(pay attention to where the Lawmaker gets the idea for the bill)
Yes We Can
(just for fun... HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY)
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BARACK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY
Hilarious … this video is (Yoda's voice)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
(pay attention to where the Lawmaker gets the idea for the bill)
Yes We Can
(just for fun... HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY)
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BARACK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY
Hilarious … this video is (Yoda's voice)
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:04AM May 27th 2008
I am anxiously awaiting the outcome of the rules committee ….considering the Parties own their own nominating process...they could play a game of cards or throw darts to decide if they write it in the rules and as long as they don't discriminate against the participants. they make the rules and set the penalties....
The Clintons have presented the weakest argument ever imagined to usurp the delegate leader that has played faithfully by the DNC rules...twisted math and twisted logic...
i am very anxious to see the outcome...it is hard to lose, but perhaps harder when you feel as though you are entitled to position and someone else plays the game better…
oh ...and the historically the courts don't really like getting involved in general election arguments let alone nominating contests....you would think attorneys would think it thorough better than this...wouldn’t you?
i love it
just to be clear and to put my statements in context...
DNC rules are DNC rules and their rules are their rules...
NEWS FLASH --- a common fallacy is the belief that we are a two party system...
we in fact are not...we have multiple parties, but the people always gravitate to two of them....
if you don't like the way they do things at the DNC then you are able to choose another....Libertarians are on the rise since the poor prognosis of the RNC…
this is why i am so eager to see the court outcome...i am giddy…
you do have options....and with this that ends the argument that an outside influence can force a Party to bend to the will of an individual even if their name is Clinton…
the only fair outcome is the same penalty as the RNC…half…and it is over…they should have taken door number one…to bad…so sad…
The Clintons have presented the weakest argument ever imagined to usurp the delegate leader that has played faithfully by the DNC rules...twisted math and twisted logic...
i am very anxious to see the outcome...it is hard to lose, but perhaps harder when you feel as though you are entitled to position and someone else plays the game better…
oh ...and the historically the courts don't really like getting involved in general election arguments let alone nominating contests....you would think attorneys would think it thorough better than this...wouldn’t you?
i love it
just to be clear and to put my statements in context...
DNC rules are DNC rules and their rules are their rules...
NEWS FLASH --- a common fallacy is the belief that we are a two party system...
we in fact are not...we have multiple parties, but the people always gravitate to two of them....
if you don't like the way they do things at the DNC then you are able to choose another....Libertarians are on the rise since the poor prognosis of the RNC…
this is why i am so eager to see the court outcome...i am giddy…
you do have options....and with this that ends the argument that an outside influence can force a Party to bend to the will of an individual even if their name is Clinton…
the only fair outcome is the same penalty as the RNC…half…and it is over…they should have taken door number one…to bad…so sad…
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:04AM May 27th 2008
New Poll Finds Big Shift Toward Obama
Californians give Obama a significant edge over Clinton and McCain
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/22/new-poll-finds-big-shift-toward-obama.html
Obama, meanwhile, seems to be making strides across nearly every constituency. If the general election were held today, 54 percent of Californians say they would vote for him, compared with 37 percent for McCain. That gap has widened by 8 points since March. Obama enjoys the support of more than 80 percent of Democrats here, along with over half (55 percent) of independents. He leads McCain among men and women and is viewed favorably by nearly 70 percent of Latinos—a powerful political group, experts note, not just in California but in several other western states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
CALIFORNIA - MOVE THE PRIMARY BACK TO WHERE IT WAS
(so much for the early primary argument - LOL)
Californians give Obama a significant edge over Clinton and McCain
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/22/new-poll-finds-big-shift-toward-obama.html
Obama, meanwhile, seems to be making strides across nearly every constituency. If the general election were held today, 54 percent of Californians say they would vote for him, compared with 37 percent for McCain. That gap has widened by 8 points since March. Obama enjoys the support of more than 80 percent of Democrats here, along with over half (55 percent) of independents. He leads McCain among men and women and is viewed favorably by nearly 70 percent of Latinos—a powerful political group, experts note, not just in California but in several other western states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
CALIFORNIA - MOVE THE PRIMARY BACK TO WHERE IT WAS
(so much for the early primary argument - LOL)
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:05AM May 27th 2008
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.
He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.
He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:05AM May 27th 2008
i haven't heard the Obama campaign even use the word racism...i hear "Someone" claiming sexism and misogyny ...not all women...just not that woman...she has the highest negative rating of any Democrat even among democrats...she should not assume that reflects on all women...and she is making her rating worse
Winner in the Great State of Denial!
Guess who????
a President needs a VP that has a similar vision and adds to the ticket...she is not Change and only brings the lowest approval rating of any Democrat...she is establishment...i would not want a competing President in the White House married to my VP either if i were him...even with a role as Sec of State or something...his personality is too large to compete with
now they want to use the travesty in Florida and Michigan to cheat us all... rules don't apply to the "The King & Queen"...remember that...they don't want us to win if they are not at the top...remember that i said that
the DNC needs to think about the next generation of voters...the clear choice is...go with the "The King & Queen" and send a huge new group of voters home disheartened or go with the future and rally them into the general while there is still time.....
choosing the "The King & Queen" costs at least 10 years of rebuilding
yea...elect a Queen...they will groom the Princess to take over from another Bush
A Bush or a Clinton has been either President or Vice President since January 1981.
Winner in the Great State of Denial!
Guess who????
a President needs a VP that has a similar vision and adds to the ticket...she is not Change and only brings the lowest approval rating of any Democrat...she is establishment...i would not want a competing President in the White House married to my VP either if i were him...even with a role as Sec of State or something...his personality is too large to compete with
now they want to use the travesty in Florida and Michigan to cheat us all... rules don't apply to the "The King & Queen"...remember that...they don't want us to win if they are not at the top...remember that i said that
the DNC needs to think about the next generation of voters...the clear choice is...go with the "The King & Queen" and send a huge new group of voters home disheartened or go with the future and rally them into the general while there is still time.....
choosing the "The King & Queen" costs at least 10 years of rebuilding
yea...elect a Queen...they will groom the Princess to take over from another Bush
A Bush or a Clinton has been either President or Vice President since January 1981.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:06AM May 27th 2008
Insulting people's intelligence
by kos
Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:40:21 AM PDT
One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.
Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.
Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.
Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:
1.) You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
2.) You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
3.) You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.
In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.
by kos
Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:40:21 AM PDT
One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.
Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.
Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.
Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:
1.) You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
2.) You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
3.) You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.
In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Voice of Reason
11:07AM May 27th 2008
not filling the strategic reserve is saving us nothing? … in fact 70,000 barrels daily at the price of $127/barrel for a cost saving of $8,890,000/day...
that totals $3,244,850,000/annum
conservatively
Obama '08
today $135
that totals $3,244,850,000/annum
conservatively
Obama '08
today $135
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) swamp
11:07AM May 27th 2008
Peggy6:40PMMay 21st 2008
One thing most folks are right about is that Obama is a Christian. To prove it, he points to his membership of almost twenty years in the Trinity United Church. Of course, he isn't a very good Christian. He either wasn't there, didn't hear or didn't listen to what he heard when Rev Wright was making his racist, anti-American remarks or going into the rants about "God Damn America". Luckily for us, with Wright as his mentor and "slightly loony old uncle", he was paying attention to the message of love.
So now, he can go out into the world and carry that message to all our enemies. And I'm sure they will love us in return.
One thing most folks are right about is that Obama is a Christian. To prove it, he points to his membership of almost twenty years in the Trinity United Church. Of course, he isn't a very good Christian. He either wasn't there, didn't hear or didn't listen to what he heard when Rev Wright was making his racist, anti-American remarks or going into the rants about "God Damn America". Luckily for us, with Wright as his mentor and "slightly loony old uncle", he was paying attention to the message of love.
So now, he can go out into the world and carry that message to all our enemies. And I'm sure they will love us in return.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) nan
11:07AM May 27th 2008
barrak hussein obama will not get my vote. as a lifelong democrat if he is the nominee i will re-register as a republcian and vote for mccain.
i can't stand obama and don't trust him.
he's a muslim and i can't beleive the democrats are stupid enough to nominate him. what a dumb system.
especially since hillary won the popular vote.
oh well....
4 years of mccain isn't too bad - then hillary can run again and i'll vote for her again.
i can't stand obama and don't trust him.
he's a muslim and i can't beleive the democrats are stupid enough to nominate him. what a dumb system.
especially since hillary won the popular vote.
oh well....
4 years of mccain isn't too bad - then hillary can run again and i'll vote for her again.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) 
DAILY QUOTE
DAILY LINK
Now Commenting
- gigantosapiens on:
Yanqui, Don't Go Home! Race, Gender, Oil and Honduras - Alwayspissedoff@something on:
Another Bush, Another Push for Immigration Reform - eyecynical on:
Obama Approval Falls as Unemployment Rises - moderate on:
Sarah Palin Confused About White House 'Department of Law' - Bob on:
Obama Approval Falls as Unemployment Rises - Dennis on:
Why Americans Love to Hate Nancy Pelosi
Submit Your Favorite Links
No.
Props
Props
- 74
- 47
- 51
- 44
- 52
- 48
News From Trusted Politics Daily Partners
- Senate delays climate bill until September
- GOP hits Obama using his own words
- Leaders aim to finish trade talks by 2011
- Hoekstra: Obama looks to GOP on intel bill
- Agency funds Pelosi's mouse project
