WE Blog

I think we talked about our agreement on Richardson in the past, Ben.

I agree his endorsement “speaks to” another part of the people. I hope in whatever way he wants to serve that is made available to him. America gains.

P.S. The future Wen Ho Lee crap notwithstanding, I liked the long-haired congressman from New Mexico! :)

The most well qualified of the Democratic Party candidates and he didn’t even get a second look by the majority of the Leftists.

It shows that the Leftists Libs in the Democratic Party don’t want someone well qualified to be President, they want some one who is ‘popular’ or ’speaks well.’

The leftist libs direction for a Hollywood President will be the doom of them.

And time runs out for Obama to out run the story of his radical affiliations. At some point, we have to begin to consider the future of the party.

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,”
-Richardson

So did Richardson wait for the primary/caucus results before deciding that Obama is a “once in a lifetime leader”? What makes Obama a leader other than the fact people are currently voting for him?

Hmm, For once I would like to hear an endorsement for Obama that is definitive.

Such as, I believe Barack Obama has the best plan to:

End the Iraq war or
Correct our faltering economy or
Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels or
Give healthcare to more people or
Reduce the deficit or Fight crime,
or ANYTHING?

Instead, Obama is a great leader. Whoop-di-wooo. No specifics required, Thanks Bill, I’ll vote for him. NOT!

You would not vote for Obama RFL, even if the Republicans dug up Richard Nixon and ran him as their candidate.

Your “point” is meaningless.

WSClark, I’ll break it down for you once again so that you understand what “my point” is.

My point is:

Obama’s candidacy has no substance.

Richardson’s nebulous accolade along with all the other definitive-challenged endorsements of Obama is further evidence of that fact.

Hey your pic up there doesn’t look a thing like Richardson does now.

Geez he’s really let himself go.

Saw a bumper sticker earlier.

Obama 08

Republicans for Obama.

That’s all I need to know.

“Visit his website - all of [Obama's] positions are CLEARLY spelled out.”

Doesn’t seem like anybody knows what his positions are or what he plans to do. Either that, they just like talking about it.

Is it so hard for Obama’s endorsers/supporters to tell us what specific policy ideal or plan impresses them the most? I’m sure you have read Obama’s website, just wondering, what position do you think will help the country the most?

There have been many great leaders in history, unfortunately, many of them have used their power to created havoc.

If Obama is such a great leader, why can’t he articulate specifically what it is he wants to accomplish? Is he afraid people will not like his plans?

rfl - Obama tried that approach and was criticized for being too much of a ‘wonk’ for the public. But, that’s OK, the Obama-haters will hate him no matter what he does.

Ben,

I don’t have anything to hate Obama for.

Just trying to figure out the love thats all.

He will bring our troops home and end bush’s war of choice, restore our civil rights, go through every signing statement of the current idiot in charge and restore law and order to America, do away with leaving many children behind, respect science, improve trade, ensure that health care is available to all Americans, work to heal relationships with foreign countries, restore respect to the name America…

If you were really interested in anything more than an argument you would find details at his website. Now that you’ve invoked a response you will want someone else to bring the details to you so you may ignore them all the while repeating the “you’ve got nothing” meme.

If you would ever consider voting for Obama it might be worthwhile to attempt to educate you.

You won’t.

It isn’t worthwhile.

Actually, Obama DID need help with the Latino vote, prior to the Wright story.

Now?

Obama needs big help with the Jewish vote:

http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/local_news/comment_obamas_disturbing_link_to_pastor/

Well linda and WS?

There’s paulie. Work with him.

J R - the Republicans I see us working with are those Paul dismisses as idiots.

J R,

I’ve explained before their are posts and posters I don’t dignify with a response. When you wallow with pigs you get dirty. And you’ve read Paul often enough to know he isn’t going to change one single iota — he is firmly possessed of his ideas. Futile.

Linda
You are “possessed” as well.
However, I have not heard very many real ideas.

You just don’t like Bush.

That is wearing thin.

Paul, you could never find words strong enough to describe what I think and feel about bush.

Legislators are law makers, the president gets to sign the law or veto the law.

The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

linda
Where, in that simplistic quote, did it say that the President did NOT have the power to interpret an Act of Congress?
Bush has the absolute power and the absolute RIGHT to explain himself.
There is nothing you can do to change that fact.

Remember Bernie Nussbaum, who served under President Clinton?

Argue with HIM on signing statements, this is one of his briefs, written back in 1993, by HIS Justice Department:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Paul - the branch of government charged by the US constitution to interpret law is the COURTS.

CF2K–

Agreed. Remember what the “liberal media” did to Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic Convention — “crazy Negro!”

Nothing scares white CONs like an angry black man, because they know in their hearts, he’s right.

Ben
You are WRONG!
The Constitution does NOT give sole responsibility to the Courts to interpret laws.
Also, as Bernie Nussbuam/Clinton’s DOJ makes clear, the INTENT of the executive is just as important as tne INTENT of the Legislative, when a Bill is signed into law.

Actually, it was a Supreme Court decision which GAVE the Supreme Court the power you speak of.

I do not deny that the Courts have such power, I simply reject the idea that the Courts, alone, have such power.

Also, Ben, the Congress has the RIGHT to restrict the jurisdiction of the Courts, by simple majority vote, at ANY time, on ANY issue.

I rather doubt that Capn.

It’s Obama wants to pander to the right remember?

But yet its Hillary that been the Repuke’s enabler

Bentley,

I tend to agree. Obama rose to the occasion by refusing to play another man’s game, and by shifting the argument to a level where his rhetorical and communicative abilities could come to the fore.

Will it be enough to satisfy the Wingnut zombies? Of course not. They’ll continue to invent newer and more hateful racist attacks; it’s all they know how to do.

But I’d say the speech was the reason for Richardson swinging into line behind Obama. And it may well have that effect on other grey eminences within the party.

McCain 2008: if you liked George, you’ll LOVE John!

Cap’N,

Indeed. What else do the Repukes have at this point, other than to throw mud at Obama for being “uppity?”

Not only is it all they know how to do, their anointed one has been showing his lack of depth on every conceivable issue with such regularity that it’s up to his handlers (Joe LIEberman and Huckleberry Graham) to do damage control every time he opens his mouth.

Notice how the liberals on this Blog refuse to call Pastor Wright a bigot?

But, if you say Obama should nto associate with Wright?

Well, that is another matter!

HYPOCRITES!

Thank you for your honesty on that one.
And, yes, there are some other Pastors that deserve the same label.

Econ101,

Upon what comment, specifically, by Pastor Wright, do you base your accusation of “bigotry?”

As for your “much of the Left in this country hates Jews” remark, watch your mouth, Econ101: I’m as Jewish as you are, and I can use identity politics to attack you just as readily.

Given that John McCain has yoked himself to John Haggee, who blames the Jews for causing their own persecution, you and your ilk are in no position to say a THING about anybody else and their “anti-Semitism.”

If you want things to get really ugly ’round these parts, Econ101, keep trying to play the anti-Semitic card.

econ101 posted March 21, 2008 at 5:39 pm

“Well, since MUCH of the Left, in this country, AGREES with Pastor Wright, and is as crazy as Pastor Wright,…

econ101 again misspeaks for the “Left”, and mischaracterizes what Obama said in his speech.

I disagree strongly with Wright’s comments in those selected video clips — but the help, service, etc that he provided for his congregation, and other people in the area, is admirable.

So?

Who cares what the LOSER thinks?

CF2K:

The bottom line for some Republicans on this blog–though they’ll never admit it–is they know good and well that McCain’s zeal for an unpopular war which connects him to none other than a hugely unpopular president, in addition to the resultant high prices at the pump and all the other consequent economic realities are going to drag their side all the way down to the abyss. So what you’re seeing are these weird racial accusations flying around. Anyone with half a brain who really listened to Obama talk the other day gained a full understanding of the situation. Polls are already showing that Obama got his message across. You know what Republicans are missing in all this? Americans are largely ready to move on and take the next step. The more Republicans try to use race in the campaign, the more it’s going to backfire on them in the end. Obama proved the other day that no matter how nasty it gets, he will always have the ability to step to the microphone and articulate a message that people recognize as truth.

Bently,

Oh, agreed: the toxicity of Republican attacks exists in direct proportion to the weakness of their candidate. I expect things to get nastier and nastier, and I expect that Obama will be able to ju-jitsu their own attacks against them.

In a weird sort of way, in fact, the ability to shift grounds and retake the argument is Obama’s parallel to Bill Clinton’s ability to triangulate. And though I hope it is not the case, in fact, it may well be Obama’s greatest weakness, just as triangulation ultimately proved to be Clinton’s failing. For Clinton, his incredible political genius was mainly tactical; if anything, his tenure as President harmed the Democratic Party more than it helped. This was because his large-scale, strategic vision wasn’t ever such that he could realize it.

I think the hopes that many people have invested in Obama rest largely on the belief that he is potentially a strategic leader, rather than a merely tactical one. That remains to be seen. But he certainly has demonstrated some incredible political virtuosity, such that the Republicans are well-advised to throw everything they’ve got at him, and to make the campaign as nasty as possible in the hopes of depressing voter turnout. And as we’ve seen, they aren’t above illegality when it comes to forcing things to go their way.

There will be more attacks to come. The Rezko thing, in particular, while not substantive, is the sort of story that the media LOVES to report about Democrats; all smoke and no fire, with lots of implied and unprovable wrongdoing. It will be quite something to see how Obama plays all of it.

wrgheheth

That’s it??? There is nothing wrong with Hagee’s statement. It is Biblical. And it is not anti-Jewish.

outlander,

I’ll be frank: you don’t have a clue what you are saying.

If affirming that “Jews are responsible for their own persecution” ISN’T anti-Semitic, outlander, then what is? That is the same rationale for calling Jews “Christ killers,” and for saying that their misdeeds, real or imagined, justified their persecution and murder, through the inquisition in Spain, the pogroms in Russia, and finally, in the Nazi Holocaust.

“Blaming the victim” is the perennial strategy of anti-Semites, which, by dehumanizing Jews, licenses their abuse and murder. Do you really not get this?

And furthermore, I suspect that there isn’t a Jew alive who will unproblematically affirm Hagee’s New Testament, Christian interpretation of the meaning of Jewish existence as “biblical” and therefore as authoritative.

Seriously, outlander: have you thought this through at all?

If you want to continue to defend Hagee, be my guest. But know that in doing so, you’ve deeming as acceptable various ideas that are absolutely fundamental to the last 1000 years of anti-Semitism.

So offense is in the eyes of the alleged offended. True or not. Of course. Victimology 101.

Sorry CF, I don’t see your point. Hagee gives no pass to persecutors of the Jews. He states his opinion as to why God may have withdrawn his hand of protection. He is entitled to that opinion. And it certainly isn’t an anti-semitic opinion.

The key to ask yourself when you talk about anti-Semitism is; what are your attitudes today? If you express love for the Jewish people and support Israel as does Hagee, it makes allegations of anti-Semitism seem what they are. Absurd.

outlander,

So, the judgment that some doctrine is or isn’t anti-Semitic is really just a bunch of Jews playing the victim: “the alleged offended,” as you put it. Right. Got it. 6 million murdered souls, in the twentieth century, and countless others before that, are now your “alleged” offended. Right.

So, saying that the actions of the Jews called down God’s judgment upon them, which took the the form of persecution, doesn’t amount to “giving a pass to the persecutors?” Really, outlander? Read it again:

“Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come…. it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people.”

The passage does two things:

-It blames the Jews for rebelling and bringing God’s judgment against them;
-It asserts that this judgment will take the form of anti-Semitic persecution.

And if one persecutes the Jews, outlander, by the theological argument Hagee makes that you yourself affirm, one can plead innocent because one is doing God’s will. Doesn’t that argument strike you as, well, a bit anti-Semitic?

Can you give me a definition, outlander, of anti-Semitism? Wait, let me guess: “anti-Semitism = anti-Israel.” Is that it, outlander? Or is it like Justice Potter’s definition of pornography–you just “know it when you see it?”

Hagee’s support for Israel in no way abrogates his vicious hatred for the Jews. If he has his way, all Jews will cease to exist; they’ll have become Christians, after all. Hence the mention of Christian eschatology above: one can find the Jews useful, while still detesting them insofar as they are Jews.

You throw the word “absurd” at me without having dealt at all with my historically-grounded argument, and you throw in a couple of informal fallacies (appeal to authority and non sequitir) for good measure: ‘Hagee supports Israel, therefore he couldn’t be an anti-Semite.’ The first claim in no way entails the second. So, in short, outlander, the only thing “absurd” here are the knots you’ll twist yourself into to defend the indefensible.

I don’t know, and cannot know, outlander, whether or not in your heart of hearts you are an anti-Semite. I suspect not. But I do know that you are unself-consciously advancing classical anti-Semitic arguments as if they were common knowledge or conventional wisdom. That you do so so easily ought to be a source of shame and embarrassment.

“And if one persecutes the Jews, outlander, by the theological argument Hagee makes that you yourself affirm, one can plead innocent because one is doing God’s will. Doesn’t that argument strike you as, well, a bit anti-Semitic?”

————-

No one could make that hypothetical argument, CF, without being intellectually dishonest.

So, who is the anti-Semite? One who urges love for the Jewish people and support of Israel (without the false motives that you ascribe to him BTW). That’s a real funny way to show hate, isn’t it?
Or those who supports the terrorists who attack Israel today and blame Israel for her problems?

http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=2

J R,

You seem a bit ignorant about the candidate that you love to hate. Bradley endorsed Obama way back in early January.

Bradley also has a lot of pull with “independent” voters.

Enough CF. You have your view, and I have mine. ON this issue it is obvious we will not see eye to eye. You have shown basically nothing to demonstrate any anti-semitic belief on the part of Hagee.

I have never seen such strained pretzel logic to try to reach a politically expedient conclusion.

Just so as to be clear also CF, I am not a supporter of John Hagee. He is overbearing in some areas.

But that doesn’t mean I won’t speak up when someone tries to tag him with an undeserved smear for political purposes.

And you know, I really don’t care about your opinion of my personality traits. And in many ways, it is a positive to be compared with Nathan. Thank you.

That being said:

“Enough CF. You have your view, and I have mine. ON this issue it is obvious we will not see eye to eye. You have shown basically nothing to demonstrate any anti-semitic belief on the part of Hagee.”

Cerebral inertia. Remarkable.

If seeing the mass murder of a group of a group of human beings (Jews) as a good thing simply for the purpose of getting members of that group back to a designated homeland (Israel) at a designated time is not a form of anti-semitism, I honestly don’t know what else you would call it.

Seeing a group of people as the chosen playthings of a god who uses genocide for his purposes is not a good thing.

There go those Democrats, bring Religion into politics again, lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?_r=2&ei=5090&en=31393242dd61f808&ex=1363924800&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

““An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Sigh. So many disingenuous people, so little time.

Yeah, like people who only quote only part of a sentence to imply something different that what it says.

My full sentence: “If seeing the mass murder of a group of a group of human beings (Jews) as a good thing simply for the purpose of getting members of that group back to a designated homeland (Israel) at a designated time is not a form of anti-semitism, I honestly don’t know what else you would call it.”

Rage quoting outlander: “‘Sigh. So many disingenuous people, so little time.’

“Yeah, like people who only quote only part of a sentence to imply something different that what it says.”

Nice catch Rage. The full sentence really does provide context that outlander apparently wished to leave out. However, even posting the snippet doesn’t really help him. Hagee’s intepretation of the Nazi genocide as a part of “God’s love” for the Jewish people still stands out.

Most books I’ve read of that nature, spend an entire explaining one point.

should read

Most books I’ve read of that nature, spend an entire CHAPTER explaining one point.

“cosmos” –

On some level (because I generally like Carville), I can understand how the Clintons might think Richardson’s endorsment seems like a betrayal.

And the street-fighter attitude might (as “J R” contends) be an asset in the general election.

But there’s something about raising the quality of presidential campaign rhetoric that embodies the Barack Obama candidacy that I think ressonates with the American people.

Yeah, we’ve seen how the Reich Wing Limbaugh-tomized masses parrot any and every every spurious argument the Half-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and conjure. And there’s a lurking fear in the back of my soul that reminds me of the time a woman approached Adlai Stevenson and said, “Every thinking American will vote for you,” and Stevenson saying, “But I need a majority.”

I know you don’t like it linda.

And I am not crazy about the situation either.

But Florida and Michigan HAVE to be addressed somehow. The party will figure something out.

They’ll have to.

Here is what happens. Senator Clinton is going to win by double digits in Pennsylvania. This is going to make Florida and Michigan even MORE antsy about their place in all this. Too? With Clinton having won two major states, the momentum is with her.

Ya don’t call the game for the guy who is flagging.

Personally? I’m glad the process and the super delegates are out there. We have two strong candidates. If one of them self destructs, we will still have one left.

Pity the poor Republicans! (Not)

They are stuck for good or evolving bad with John McCain.

She isn’t interfering!

She’s advocating. And she is being practical.

You don’t disrespect Florida and Michigan. It also is not wise to give the general idea that some votes count and some don’t.

Obama should be helping to try and address the Florida and Michigan problem, not resisting it.

On this one we will disagree.

Everyone knew what the rules were and agreed to them. Everyone knew full well those votes wouldn’t count unless the dates of the primaries were changed — they knew for SEVEN MONTHS in advance of the primaries. That would have been the time to advocate but that was the time she was ahead and things were comin’ up roses so she agreed along with every other candidate. That would include candidates who can never have the opportunity to be on the ballots of those two states.

Obama didn’t even put his name on the ballot - that means pay the price - as it was all agreed that those primaries were held against the rules and the consequences would be that they would not count.

And, there isn’t time to allow for every registered voter in those states to vote! The deployed soldiers, the citizens who are traveling, etc. And, why would it make any sense to allow some of them a do-over, but not all of them?

Now that she is behind isn’t the time to change her mind.

ksagnostic,

Thanks for the kind words.

Here is the relevant exchange with outlander, back on November 29, 2007. I will include all the relevant posts to support my contention that outlander has, shall we say, a flexible standard when it comes to acknowledging factual assertions that conflict with his beliefs.

************************************************

blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/11/ron-paul-suppor/

CF2K
Posted November 28, 2007 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
J R,

Indeed. Ron Paul is the proverbial stopped clock. Right on Iraq, scarily wrong on everything else.

And he’s taken $500 from Don Black, the White Supremacist head of Stormfront.

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

One is known by the company one keeps, no?

————————————————

Ed Friedemann
Posted November 28, 2007 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
Mention Ron Paul and, oh, my, my, how the pigs do squeal.

Reminds me of that film “Deliverance” along with the promise not to tell anyone?

Listen to yourselves….shame, shame.

————————————————-

CF2K
Posted November 28, 2007 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
Ed,

Excuse me. Ron Paul took money from White Supremacists, did he not?

I think that says something about Paul, whether you like it or not. And if you don’t think this matters, Ed, it may say something about YOU, too.

I think Rage gets it right. Scratch a liberatian, and often as not you get an IOKIYAR authoritarian, for whom rules are for other people.

————————————————

outlander
Posted November 28, 2007 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
I’m not a Ron Paul fan but I bet if he knew that someone contributing $500 was a racist, he probably would just return the money.

Do the candidates really have to do a background check on everyone who contributes $500 to a political campaign?

Non-story.

————————————————-

CF2K
Posted November 28, 2007 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
outlander,

Read the above link: his staff was notified, and never responded. Back in 1989, even the GOP condemned David Duke when he tried to run for President.

Here’s a nice picture of David Duke, by the way, with Don Black–the head of Stormfront who gave Paul the money.

http://www.davidduke.com/

If one is known by the company one keeps, outlander, I’d say Representative Paul has some explaining to do and some money to give back–if he doesn’t want to be known as someone who owes Neo-Nazis a political favor.

————————————————

outlander
Posted November 29, 2007 at 8:47 am | Permalink
“HYea, sure, Outtie… When it was Hillary’s campaign funds, you thought she should know the origin of every penny!! Shows what you are made of!! LOL” –Chas

Chuck, you want to provide evidence that I thought Hillary should know the origin of every penny? Oh, you just made that up? That’s what I thought. Nice example to your flock Chuck.

And let’s just look at Hillary’s latest, the Norman Hsu scandal. that involved $850,000 as opposed to this made up thing on Ron Pual for $500. And you equate those? You look more than a little foolish Chuck.

————————————————

CF2K
Posted November 29, 2007 at 9:32 am | Permalink
outlander,

To the best of my knowledge, Norman Hsu isn’t a neo-Nazi who advocates racial genocide.

As for this ‘made up thing,’ disprove it or shut your trap, outlander.

————————————————-

outlander
Posted November 29, 2007 at 9:53 am | Permalink
Yeah CF. Ron Paul knew the money was from a racist but he just couldn’t part with all that money ($500), so he decided he had to have it, damn the political cost. That makes sense to you.

And CF, don’t tell me to shut up.

*************************************************

So, rather than provide factual refutations of factual assertions, outlander breezily dismisses them with a wave of his hand because they doesn’t conform to his previously held beliefs. Not what I’d call argumentative scruples, now is it?

Flashing forward to last night, this same impulse is very much in evidence, when outlander simply refuses to deal with the facts that are presented to him–in this case, John Hagee’s ACTUAL PUBLISHED VIEWS.

Common to both cases is that outlander doesn’t actually appear to have a dog in either fight: others remember him supporting Mitt Romney, and he himself makes a point of putting some distance between himself and Hagee.

As I said before, outlander appears to manifest an odd argumentative tic, in which he treats the facutal assertions made by others as subjective opinions, should they happen to conflict with his own set of beliefs. And it is striking that in both cases, outlander winds up defending Right Wingers who traffick in extreme sorts of anti-Semitic racism.

McCain SOUGHT the endorsement of a bigot.

THEN he lied and said it was not his idea.

Got any proof of that?

It isn’t true because Rush tells you it is ya know lamo.

I expect a thread about John McCain and how he lied about asking for the endorsement of a bigot.

outlander,

You need to actually READ my posts before dismissing them, since the excerpt you credit to ksagnostic was actually posted by me, first, upthread, at 11:55 PM. Doesn’t help folks to take you seriously when you don’t see fit to actually comprehend the arguments you claim to refute, outlander.

As for your attempt at a response: you’re accusing ME of “pretzel logic?” Jesus. I guess the analogy would be fine, outlander, if Uncle Bob were God, and Uncle Bob sent those thugs to beat me up. After all, John Hagee DOES say that God visited percecution upon the Jews as punishment for their wrongdoing (an interpretation you actually do affirm). As it is, your analogy completely misses the salient point, though whether this is by accident or by design, I cannot say.

Arguments from analogy, outlander, are the very weakest sort of arguments. They are even weaker when you try to analogize a finite entity (Uncle Bob) with an infinite one (God).

I’m not much of one for declaring victory. But considering the laughable argument you’ve put up, and the way in which you’ve discredited yourself by unwittingly admitting that you haven’t even read the arguments to which you purport to respond, I feel justified in doing so.

outlanderm

Oh, OK, my bad: so, “it’s your own fault those evil Nazis murdered six million of you.” Is that what you meant, outlander?

It’s also a bit patronizing to say that Jews need John Hagee to “take care of them,” but that’s a minor point.

ksagnostic gives yet another lesson on rationalizing a topic until it is twisted into the mental map of his mind.

(chortles)