March 26, 2008

Ramussen poll says 22% of Democrats think Clinton should drop out... and 22% say Obama should drop out.

Drudge reports.

93 comments:

ricpic said...

Why don't they both drop out. Go Kucinich!

Middle Class Guy said...

Hey, it's a tie! Sometimes ovetime is more exciting than the regular game.

joe said...

How many say both should drop out? I am seeing "Gore '08" bumper stickers.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I am seeing "Gore '08" bumper stickers.

I can't remember but I thoght Drudge linked an article yesterday about some Dem congressman saying not to rule out a possible Gore/Obasam or Gore/Clinton compromise ticket in August.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Oh, please. Anyone who thinks Obama should drop out is a Republican or an angry Hillary supporter who wants to even up the polling results.

Middle Class Guy said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
I am seeing "Gore '08" bumper stickers.

I can't remember but I thoght Drudge linked an article yesterday about some Dem congressman saying not to rule out a possible Gore/Obasam or Gore/Clinton compromise ticket in August.



Not just yesterday. For about the past month bringing Gore out of the wings has been floated around; mostly by the pundits in wuestions to the neutral Democratic analyststs and strategists. The funny thing, or strange thing is that Gore has been mum throughout this whole process. Another one whos has remained pretty silent is former president Jimmy Carter.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, like the Domino beleivers, I would say that Gore has it tied up. Since he is rightfully "entitled" to his lost presidency, he cut a deal months ago with the Superdelegates and the unpledged delegates in conjunction with the DNC, the DLC, the CFR, the Tri-Laterals...

Windbag said...

Wasn't there a poll out over the weekend that claimed 1/5 of Dems refuse to vote for the opponent, if nominated? Sounds like the same crowd, same sentiment, different way of asking the same question.

AlphaLiberal said...

Hillary keeps getting more and more desperate. Cozying up to her (our) old nemesis Richard Mellon Scaife, echoing false and nonsensical right wing attacks on Obama over Israel, and going all Tonya Harding on Obama.

I have defended this woman for years but will never do so again, no matter how vicious the right wing attacks.
----
p.s. Ann, here's a suggested topic: Chuck Norris thinks it's wrong to advocate against the beating of gay kids. He's against "tolerance."

rdkraus said...

They're basically tied. Why should either drop out?

On the other hand, Mike Gravel has dropped out of the party and gone libertarian.

Any Gravel supporters here?

Windbag said...

Another one whos has remained pretty silent is former president Jimmy Carter.

Hey, Jimmy has four years of eligibility left. Maybe he could team up with Hillary, Obama, or maybe even the Goracle himself?

MadisonMan said...

Are they the same 22%?

Fen said...

It will be Obama/Richardson.

And all summer long, we'll see video of Obama's church dovetailed with Saudi madrassas, both spewing their hatred of Jews and America.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I have defended this woman for years but will never do so again, no matter how vicious the right wing attacks.

That's a good plan considering you'll have your hands defending Obama from the vicious left wing attacks of the Clintons and her minions.

It is discouraging when the mask slips off and you see someone's true colors isn't it?

AlphaLiberal said...

At any rate, props to Chelsea for this one.

Fen said...

Yah, way to go Chelsea. Your mother blamed Bill's sexual abuse on the VRWC. I'd deflect the question with snarky arrogance too.

Fen said...

No wait, thats wrong.

Your mother enabled Bill's sexual abuse to get where she is now. Lovely.

MadisonMan said...

Gentle Reader:

I agree with the comments over at HuffPost -- the person asking this question of Chelsea should be ashamed. Children should not be asked about parents' infidelities nor the effects of those infidelities. Tacky!

The question should be asked of Hillary! or -- even better -- of Bill.

Sincerly,
MadisonManners

Invisible Man said...

This is such concern trolling. We heard almost the same type of numbers and sentiment right before McCain received the nomination. There will be a few upset and bitter supporters who won't support the other candidate no matter what, but that number will shrink considerably once their is a candidate to coalesce around and Republicans say something untoward to him/her. That NYTimes lobbying article was about all McCain needed to get back most Romney/Huck voters, and a nasty ad by the RNC or Fox News will do pretty much the same for the Dem nominee.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Children should not be asked about parents' infidelities nor the effects of those infidelities. Tacky!

However, its an entirely reasonable question to ask a 28-year-old adult campaigning for Hillary.

You can't have it both ways. You can't fall back on "none of your business" when faced with an uncomfortable question. Chelsea should grow a spine.

Middle Class Guy said...

AlphaLiberal said...
At any rate, props to Chelsea for this one.

…vicious the right wing attacks.

Huffington Post? You could not find a legitimate news source?

Seeing as much of the “attacks” contained truthful information, how can they be vicious? Why would you defend a woman who has been dishonest, disingenuous, and has proven to be a bald face liar?

As to Chuck Norris, in the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Middle Class Guy said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
That's a good plan considering you'll have your hands defending Obama from the vicious left wing attacks of the Clintons and her minions.


Do you mean there is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? Will this be the VRWC versus the VLWC? Will the Huckabee led Domino Conspiracy step in, quell the revolution, and take over the country?

Lawgiver said...

There is no such thing as a lesbian, there are just girls who haven't met Chuck Norris.

Roost on the Moon said...

And all summer long, we'll see video of Obama's church dovetailed with Saudi madrassas, both spewing their hatred of Jews and America.

And if those sleaze tactics don't work, what then?
Coup?

If you believe that Obama is an america-hating racist, or some kind of secret muslim or whatever, most people think you're a nut. This stuff appeals only to a special kind of nut, and it won't carry an election.

I've seen you mention your sniper skills a couple of times in various comments sections, Fen. I think your political predictions are probably just as accurate, but only among a very select population (i.e., the kind of people who tell people online about their elite sniper skills.)

Justin said...

AlphaLiberal said...

Chuck Norris thinks it's wrong to advocate against the beating of gay kids. He's against "tolerance."

Why are liberals always so interested in what celebrities have to say?

Hoosier Daddy said...

If you believe that Obama is an america-hating racist...most people think you're a nut

I believe that Obama attends a america-hating racist church and listens to america-hating racist sermons and has done so for 20 years and considers the preacher as his 'spiritual mentor'.

Now if I'm a nut for beliving that his preacher who refers to my country as the US of KKKA is a racist and that God damning America is america hating, well then I'll identify as an almond because they're good for the prostate.

As for Obama, well his speech didn't blow my skirt up.

Fen said...

I've seen you mention your sniper skills a couple of times in various comments sections, Fen

You're confused. I'm not a scout sniper, my MOS was 0313, LAV-25 gunner.

If you believe that Obama is an america-hating racist -

Obama attends a church that is america-hating racist. Some examples:

1) Jews were creating an "ethnic bomb" to exerminate blacks and arabs.

2) Blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

3) America deserved 9-11 because we "have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans"

4) The white-controlled CIA infected blacks with AIDS/HIV

The church also has a covenant to only do business with people of the "right" color.

Why would Obama attend such a "church" for 20 years? And do you really believe he swam in that poison without being affected by it?

Middle Class Guy said...

Justin said...
Why are liberals always so interested in what celebrities have to say?


You really had to ask that? It was a rhetorical question right?

former law student said...

I never got the memo on a couple of things, so I'd appreciate being filled in:

Who is Rasmussen, and why do we care about his polls? Is Rasmussen the new Zogby? Whatever happened to Gallup, or the acronymic pollsters from the University of Chicago?

[Seinfeld] What is the deal with the Drudge Report? [/Seinfeld] All he does is put links on his page. Is that supposed to give the linkees some sort of imprimatur? Again, why do we care?

Fen said...

"And all summer long, we'll see video of Obama's church dovetailed with Saudi madrassas, both spewing their hatred of Jews and America."

And if those sleaze tactics don't work, what then

Sleaze tactics? Please explain how Trinity's hatred of America and hatred of Jews is any different from that spewed by Islamic madrassas.

For 20 years, Obama has supported a church and a religious leader that have more in common with the Nation of Islam than Christianity. And you're cool with that? Do you share their beliefs?

garage mahal said...

So the Kool Kidz are saying Hillary is Tonya Harding. I'll take that - presumably by default that makes Obama Nancy Kerrigan? I think it's hilarious the Kool Kidz are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you Hillary talked to Scaife, that mean man that spread misleading things on the Clintons [who currently is not spreading rumors] but if you take a look at any liberal blog the conspiracy theories are rampant that would make any wingnut proud.

Daily Kos a 527?

Good times!

Fen said...

Who is Rasmussen, and why do we care about his polls?

"Rasmussen was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, Rasmussen was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined."


If I was forced to follow only one poll, it would be Rasmussen. You should at least at it to your list and weigh it against your favorites.

Chip Ahoy said...

Gore as deus ex machina would be great! But only if they roll out a real wooden crane, like in the good old days, with a stage hand cranking away slowly lowering Himself onto the stage in an ecclesiastic pose to a soft landing whereupon he delivers His divine solution to the intractably complex mess the humans got themselves into.

Then grabs his golden award, hops into the largest jet ever seen and departs in a puff to a white palace at the top of a mountain.

Audience leaps to their feet. Women and frail men swoon.

AJ Lynch said...

Just ordered my Operation Chaos t-shirt. I think I will wear it to the polls in PA on primary day.

The bumper sticker will be applied to some poor Dem election official's car. Heh.

Roost on the Moon said...

HD,

Fen brings out the worst in me. Apologies for the blanket name calling.

I think most people are taking from this Wright thing what they bring into it. If you dislike Obama already, it's easy (and seems valid) to convince yourself:

(1) that Wright is simply a "racist". A racist is a racist is a racist, and that ends the story. There are various degrees of this contextual blindness; Fen is about as obtuse as one can be on this point. Trinity Lutheran = KKK = Hamas = Nazis.

from there,

(2) The reason people went to that church was because they liked it. So someone heavily involved in that church must really hate America, and be racist.

(3) Clearly Barack Obama went to that church.

from there, we just apply a little Modus Ponens, and QED: Barack Obama is a racist who hates America.

I think that is a pretty strong argument, and if you are already inclined to dislike Obama, you swallow it. The problem is that it leaves you with a manifestly false picture: You end up believing that Barack Obama is racist bigot who hates America.

That doesn't square with observable reality, so then you need to start filling in backstory, and I think Fen is a good example of just how overboard you go with trying to shoehorn everything else to fit with a rock-solid notion that Barack Obama is a racist bigot.

Secret Islamic conspiracies abound.

Fen said...

Roost, since I get on your nerves, I'll try to be more gentle with you.

Fen is about as obtuse as one can be on this point. Trinity Lutheran = KKK = Hamas = Nazis.

No, I never said that. I asked you to please explain how Trinity's hatred of America and hatred of Jews is any different from that spewed by Islamic madrassas. You refuse to answer...

(3) Clearly Barack Obama went to that church....and QED: Barack Obama is a racist who hates America.

Its not just that Obama "went to that church". There is no record of him contesting any of this hated, either agressively or passively [by boycotting it]. At best, he is an enabler of racism and anti-americanism.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Who is Rasmussen

Oh you remember him. He was that Russian dude who could cure Czar Nick's sick kid and was probably stooping Nick's wife Alexandra.

He died badly.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh wait. Fen's right.

I must have misspoke.

Elliott A said...

At the time I first saw the Wright "Manifesto" videos, I liked Obama a lot, as did my wife. (Liking doesn't imply voting for). After seeing what sort of church he chooses to attend, our Jewish-American and Catholic-American selves were appalled to the extent that we now like him just a tad more than Hillary, but like absolute zero, it is impossible to get lower than her on my scale. While maybe not anti-American or anti-Jewish himself, thinking those sentiments are OK in a person is pretty despicable.

As for Gore, he is not dishonest, just insane. (Ask President Klaus of the Czech Republic)

Hoosier Daddy said...

I think that is a pretty strong argument, and if you are already inclined to dislike Obama, you swallow it. The problem is that it leaves you with a manifestly false picture: You end up believing that Barack Obama is racist bigot who hates America.

So is it safe to assume you would not think me a racist if I told you I attended weekly KKK or Ayran nation meetings only because I liked the company and enjoyed the vibrant conversations but didn't really believe all that nonsense?

I'm sorry but I simply have a difficult time thinking you would cut any white politician the same slack if he/she attended a church that spouted the same kind of sermons and just substituted 'blacks' for whites.

The observable reality meaning what? The observable reality about politicians is nothing is what it appears to be. The observable reality about Larry Craig was that he was a family values type heterosexual conservative right up to the point we found out he liked getting blow jobs from men in airport bathrooms. The observable reality was that Bill and Hillary were happily married or that Eliot Spitzer was a righteous crime fighter.

But you know what, I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he isn't racist. I'll buy your theory he had to 'act black' to get his political cred on the SS of Chicago. All that tells me then is that he isn't the fresh start he claims to be but just more of the same politician who will compromise a principle just to get a vote.

So either way, he loses with me.

Richard Dolan said...

Since neither H! nor O! has the slightest intention of dropping out, the only interesting aspect of a poll like this is whether the 22% on each side correlates with the group of H!/O! supporters who say that they won't support the Dem nominee if their candidate doesn't win the nomination.

Middle Class Guy said...

Richard Dolan said...
Since neither H! nor O! has the slightest intention of dropping out, the only interesting aspect of a poll like this is whether the 22% on each side correlates with the group of H!/O! supporters who say that they won't support the Dem nominee if their candidate doesn't win the nomination.



It is like chemistry- H22O.

madawaskan said...

Yes Hoosier-

But!

Mortimer the Tolerant-

told you to stow it because you are -of course-a white supremacist.

So-nach.


Former law student-

Gallup?

Gallup?

Uh, huh.

Ya their track record has been good this election cycle.

Cripes I think they were more wrong than Zogby in New Hampshire, and that takes some doin'.

Roost on the Moon said...

I'm sorry but I simply have a difficult time thinking you would cut any white politician the same slack if he/she attended a church that spouted the same kind of sermons and just substituted 'blacks' for whites.

Well Hoosier, thats well worth an experiment. So here's what I propose. Go find a sermon by Wright, and in any place where he is screaming about hating white people, and doing violence to white people, you go ahead and swap colors. Then I'll judge.

Reportedly, there are 20 years worth of racist rantings for you to pick from, so it shouldn't take long. Try to get that one that Fen told us about, where he talks about the Jews developing race-selective bombs.

TMink said...

Morty wrote: "Oh, please. Anyone who thinks Obama should drop out is a Republican or an angry Hillary supporter who wants to even up the polling results."

The Republicans who want him to drop out are of no consequence. Angry Hillary supporters are another matter entirely!

I do not worry about Senator Obama being a racist, but it is crystal clear that some of his advisors are. That is why he cannot win the general election.

Senator Clinton's high negatives make it impossible for her to win the general election. All this makes me sad because the Republicans are going to think that they can win without us Conservatives, and they will become more Democratic lite.

Looks like we are all losers in my prediction.

Trey

madawaskan said...

The knife can cut both ways.

It's too bad really-but there it is.

Be careful of your "weapons" they can be turned against you.

Fen said...

Try to get that one that Fen told us about, where he talks about the Jews developing race-selective bombs.

June 2007, published in Trinity Church Bulletin:

"The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."

Hoosier Daddy said...

Go find a sermon by Wright, and in any place where he is screaming about hating white people, and doing violence to white people, you go ahead and swap colors. Then I'll judge.

Evidently its a moot issue because you clearly don't see a problem with what Wright said and I do. I don't live in the US of KKKA. If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor we wouldn't have bombed Hiroshima. If he wants God to damn America, then perhaps he better leave before the rapture begins. I don't think the CIA invented AIDs to kill black people. If that isn't hate, well...

Here's a sidenote from my perspective of this whole thing. I worked at US Steel Gary works for five years in my early 20s and honestly, I heard this same kind of racist claptrap from a few mill workers there and it was right out of the Farrakhan playbook right down to the AIDs myth plus the one where the government puts chemicals in inner city water to sterilize black women. Yep, heard a lot of crazy shit so honestly what Wright spouts off doesn't shock me. What shocked me is that a presidential candidate who is running on hope, change and unity attended such a church for 20 years.

Try to get that one that Fen told us about, where he talks about the Jews developing race-selective bombs.

I haven't heard that one but the one about 'Italians looking down thier garlic noses' was priceless. I mean that's better than calling them wops.

Fen said...

On "Youth Day" no less.

Roost on the Moon said...

Evidently its a moot issue because you clearly don't see a problem with what Wright said and I do.

That's not true. I do have a problem with it. You were accusing me of applying a double standard, and I was pointing out that it isn't as bad as the klan or the neo-nazis.

But I do have a problem with it, and that link that Fen provided is enough to convince me that Wright is crazier than I've assumed.

Still, there is more to a man than his crazy beliefs, and more to a church than its pastor, and more to a community than its church.

The Wright stuff provides a small amount of evidence for the case that Barack Obama is a racist who hates America. The words and actions of his life provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Middle Class Guy said...

Wright this and Wright that! Obama should leave Wright and throw him under the bus. Clinton lies and states she would walk out of a sermon if she heard Wright make some of those statements.

Chicago Politics 101:
Every person knows, is related to and/or has an effect on seven people.

If Wright has a congregation and following of a couple thousand people. That means at least fourteen thousand people. No candidate in Chicago- living here or passing through is going to alienate fourteen thousand Black voters. Ain't gonna happen.

Pastafarian said...

Roost --

If Obama isn't a racist, then he's a hypocrite who doesn't mind subjecting his young children to racist diatribes from a respected authority figure, all for political gain.

Actually, it might be more palatable if he were merely a racist.

Is there a third possibility that I've overlooked?

Windbag said...

There is little difference amongst Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. Obama did manage to get himself elected. The third possibility that pastafarian ponders may be that Obama, like Jackson and Sharpton, is merely an opportunist. He watches a line form, then jumps out in front, hoping to be recognized as a leader.

Obama had no problem playing the race card to assist in tossing his grandmother under the bus wheels. Despicable behavior, but more opportunistic than racist, I think.

There's moral, immoral, and amoral. Perhaps there's a term that expresses the lack of any racist or non-racist traits? Obama's emptiness becomes more and more obvious each week.

former law student said...

I don't understand the complaint here. Israel did supply arms to apartheid South Africa, and Israel did develop nuclear weapons, presumably to use against Arabs. The truth may hurt, but speaking the truth is not kooky.


http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/85.htm

One of the most hidden but critical of South Africa's strategic relationships during the apartheid era was that with Israel, including both the Labor and the Likud governments. Israel officially opposed the apartheid system, but it also opposed broad international sanctions against Pretoria.
...
South Africa and Israel had collaborated on military training, weapons development, and weapons production for years before broad sanctions were imposed in the late 1980s. Military cooperation continued despite the arms embargo and other trade restrictions imposed by the United States and much of Western Europe. Israel and several other countries discreetly traded with, and purchased enriched uranium from, South Africa throughout the 1980s. Romania's former president Nicolae Ceausescu, for example, used Israel as the "middleman" for exports to South Africa. In a few cases, joint ventures between Israel and South Africa helped to reduce the impact of sanctions on South African businesses.
...
South Africa provided a market for some of Israel's military exports. Israel's arms trade with South Africa was estimated at between US$400 million and US$800 million annually (see Arms Trade and the Defense Industry, ch. 5). In 1986 Israel also imported approximately US$181 million in goods, mainly coal, from South Africa, and exported to South Africa nonmilitary products worth about US$58.8 million.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel's nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided.
Estimates for Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.

The Dimona nuclear reactor is the source of plutonium for Israeli nuclear weapons. The number of nuclear weapons that could have been produced by Israel has generally been estimated on the basis of assumptions about the power level of this reactor, combined with estimates for the number of delivery vehicles (aircraft, missiles) assigned a nuclear mission.
...
Some type of non-nuclear test, perhaps a zero yield or implosion test, occurred on 2 November 1966 [possibly at Al-Naqab in the Negev]. There is no evidence that Israel has ever carried out a nuclear test, although many observers speculated that a suspected nuclear explosion in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979 was a joint South African-Israeli test.

blake said...

So...it's settled, then?

Middle Class Guy said...

Pastafarian said...
If Obama isn't a racist, then he's a hypocrite…


He is a politician, isn’t he?

Revenant said...

Cozying up to her (our) old nemesis Richard Mellon Scaife, echoing false and nonsensical right wing attacks on Obama over Israel, and going all Tonya Harding on Obama. I have defended this woman for years but will never do so again, no matter how vicious the right wing attacks.

Let's see. For the last 16 years, Republicans have been saying that Hillary has no political principles, that she will sell out anybody for political power, and that she launches vicious and unfair attacks on anyone who stands in her way. You "defended" her against these accusations for years... until she started doing those things to someone you liked. Then you suddenly realized they were true.

Well, congrats for wising up. Can we expect an apology, too? :)

Roost on the Moon said...

There is little difference amongst Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.

Oh, brother.

Pasta asks:
Is there a third possibility that I've overlooked?

Well, yeah, maybe he doesn't subject them to their pastor's nuttier pet politics. You have no idea how Obama raises his children, and to pretend you do is silly.

Most of the people involved in this discussion, myself included, have no idea what an average service at that church is like.

This isn't about understanding the truth about what goes on there, it's about framing it in the worst possible light.

There are plenty of well-respected religious leaders who speak highly of that church. How do we square that? Are they all racists too?

Revenant said...

The Wright stuff provides a small amount of evidence for the case that Barack Obama is a racist who hates America. The words and actions of his life provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

His words mean nothing; David Duke has claimed to support racial equality, after all. Let's talk actions: cite the actions of his life that provide supporting evidence for your claim.

Revenant said...

Well, yeah, maybe he doesn't subject them to their pastor's nuttier pet politics.

Now you're getting desperate.

The kids attend the church, Roost. They sit through the sermons. So, yes, they get exposed to the pastor's nuttier pet politics. I guess it is remotely possible that they don't get exposed to the nutty politics of the church itself, if those politics don't come up during the services -- but we know they're there for the sermons.

Daryl said...

Google just ate my comment. @#$%@%#$.

I will rephrase, concisely and with less nuance: AlphaLiberal is a Jew-hating twit for linking to Atrios, who is a Jew-hating twit for calling Israel a traitor to America and a terrorist nation (Atrios says Israel joined the "bullies," i.e. the terrorists)

McPeak is a Jew-hater for blaming American Jews for the problems in Palestine, which are caused exclusively by Palestinian radical Jew-hatred that is indoctrinated into their children.

Anyone who thinks Israel's retreat to the '67 borders would solve anything is a stupid twit. The Palestinians will not look on that as proof that Israel wants peace; they will see it as proof that Israel is LOSING. It will only encourage them.

It's easier to get American Jews and Israeli Jews to change than it is to change the Palestinians. This is the classic problem of looking for your keys under the street lamp because it's dark where you dropped them. The "reality-based community" has no basis in reality.

Wright is a Jew-hater for publishing anti-Semitic items in his church newsletter, including referring to Israel as a "state" (in quotation marks), giving a free page to HAMAS, and accusing Israel of collaborating with South Africa on a black/Arab-killing "race bomb"

Obama is a Jew-hater for going to that church and never challenging the Jew-hatred. He is a Jew-hater for associating with so many Jew-haters, including his advisers such as Samantha Power, whose sole dream in life is to see Israel invaded by a world government. That's what she's thinking about when Cass Sunstein is sweating and grunting on top of her.

Obama has a problem with Jews. And Jews are noticing it. And now he has a problem with the Jewish vote.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That's not true. I do have a problem with it. You were accusing me of applying a double standard, and I was pointing out that it isn't as bad as the klan or the neo-nazis.

I stand corrected. You did say you were bothered by it and I regret the comment.

But I do have a problem with it, and that link that Fen provided is enough to convince me that Wright is crazier than I've assumed.

Well in a way, that is where I think some people have issues. For a lot of people, the US of KKKA and AID's myth was over the top. For us, Fen's link was simply reinforcing what we already thought of the guy.

Still, there is more to a man than his crazy beliefs, and more to a church than its pastor, and more to a community than its church.

True, and so far what I have read about black liberation theology isn't exactly encouraging to me as a white man.

The Wright stuff provides a small amount of evidence for the case that Barack Obama is a racist who hates America. The words and actions of his life provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps but it also makes me have a lot of second thoughts about a man who has presidential aspirations and runs on a unity platform and then attends a church such as that. Words and actions mean little in the realm of politics. Again, Larry Craig and Elliot Spitzer are prime examples. Supposedly upstanding citizens with the rehtoric and voting record to match up to the point we find out one likes airport blowjobs from men and another committing the same crimes he was locking people up for. Maybe I'm just more cynical but its hard not to. Hell, I thought Bush was a conservative.

dick said...

And as for Hillary walking out - she and Bill had Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as "spiritual advisors" during the impeachment problem and they are just about the same as Jeremiah Wright in their religion and politics. Did you see the Clintons walk out on Jesse and Al? Didn't think so. And when Al demanded that Algore and Hillary come to him if they wanted his support in 2000 and they trotted right up there soonest. Unbelievable. Don't the media and the campaigns think people remember things? Do they truly believe that all history started in 2001?

Middle Class Guy said...

dick,

And there are no bigger anti-semites and racists than Sharpton and Jackson. Of course, they can lie with impunity, make reprehensible statements, demand forgiveness, and just move on.

Unlike Don Imus, Trent Lott and others who have suffered public indignation and pilloring for making innocuous statements that were purposefully perceived as racist.

Revenant said...

MCG,

I don't see how you can say that Lott's comment was "innocuous". Strom Thurmond was the pro-segregation nominee of a party formed for the solitary purpose of defending segregation. Lott expressed regret that Thurmond didn't win. There's no innocuous way to interpret that.

Middle Class Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Middle Class Guy said...

Al Sharpton caused a near riot, the burning of a building, and the death of an innocent person because of his statements. Don not forget the Twana Brawley fraud. Yet, he is beloved. He is respected. That makes Trent Lott's statements innocuous by comparison. Should trent Lott have lost his position? He apologised didn't he? Or are only Democrats allowed to make stupid remarks, apologize, and move on?

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Helms, David Duke are all in the same class of people.

Then of course, there is Robert Byrd, the ex-recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Guy makes Thurmond look like a far left Liberal.

Revenant said...

Al Sharpton caused a near riot, the burning of a building, and the death of an innocent person because of his statements.

Yeah, yeah, and white people enslaved millions of blacks, so I guess that makes what Sharpton does ok. Or... wait a second... maybe a person's behavior is right or wrong on their own merits, and not excused by wrongs done by other people.

That makes Trent Lott's statements innocuous by comparison.

"Innocuous" is not a relative scale. If I say "I hate those big-nosed sheenies" I can't say "well in comparison to herding Jews into gas chambers what I did was innocuous".

Lott expressed admiration for one of the most disgusting events in postwar Presidential politics. He expressed pride that a man known primarily for his leadership of a pro-racism political movement was from his state. He expressed regret that the guy had lost, leading to "all these problems" (what's THAT refer to -- the Lewinsky scandal?).

Should trent Lott have lost his position?

He should have lost his position, been voted out of office, and been spit on by passerby in the streets.

Middle Class Guy said...

Revenant said...
Al Sharpton caused a near riot, the burning of a building, and the death of an innocent person because of his statements.

Yeah, yeah, and white people enslaved millions of blacks, so I guess that makes what Sharpton does ok.

So, it is OK if your words cause arson, riots, and murder?

"Should trent Lott have lost his position?

He should have lost his position, been voted out of office, and been spit on by passerby in the streets."

Hmmm, better watch that. You might be shooting the little ole freedom of speech thing right in the ass.

So, Al Sharton is respecable, Jesse Jackson is respectable, Robert Byrd is respectable? By your standards, they should be publically tarred and feathered, then run out f the country.

Democrats and Liberals can say and practice anything they want and get away with it. No problem. They are the good guys. Conservatives have no rights. They are the bad guys. Nice. Real nice.

Revenant said...

So, it is OK if your words cause arson, riots, and murder?

Non-sequiteur. Praise for racism is wrong no matter how many arsonists, rioters, and murderers there are in the world. Al Sharpton's misdeeds are irrelevant to Lott's.

Your entire argument boils down to "there are lots of heinously racist black Democrats, so we should forgive Trent Lott for being a racist piece of dogshit". I have to disagree. Trent Lott's racism is unforgivable regardless of how many black racists the Democrats suck up to.

Fen said...

No, Republicans simply hold their leaders to a higher standard. They threw Lott under the bus because of his stupid remarks. Republicans don't define their values by what the Democrats do.

Fen said...

/I was responding to MCG, not Rev

Revenant said...

Thanks, Fen.

And that's just it. Call me crazy, but just because the Democrats are the party of anti-white racism doesn't make me want to vote for the party of anti-black racism. Purging white racists from the party is a good idea regardless of what the Democrats do, both for moral reasons and for reasons of long-term political viability. There are plenty of blacks in America who can't stand the likes of Sharpton. But it is hard to convince blacks to vote for Republicans when the Senate leadership is waxing nostalgic for a "don't let them make lynching illegal" campaign platform.

Middle Class Guy said...

Fen and Rev,
My whole point is that Democrats never suffer the consequences of their words and deeds. As Fen put it, the Republicans hold their people to higher standards.

I do not agree with Lott's remarks. I was trying to point out that he gets punished while others get respectability. Lotts remarks harmed no one. Sharpton's killed a man and caused property damage.

Roger said...

Rev: I have no problem with your interpretation of Lott's remarks--in the context of the history of the dixiecrats and election of 1948 you are, of course, correct. However, in the context of saying a stupid thing on the occasion of a nearly senile senator's 100th birthday to, perhaps, make the honoree feel good about himself, then those remarks could, I think, be assumed to be innocuous.

Revenant said...

Roger,

Do you honestly mean to suggest that Lott was simply struggling for something nice to say about an old man, and the best thing he could come up with was something which (a) happened over 50 years earlier and (b) is considered a shameful part of US history by the vast majority of Americans? Come on, now. That's like standing up to give a toast at your friend's 50th wedding anniversary and accidentally praising that time he cheated on his wife with a really good-looking woman. It isn't something a person who actually thinks cheating is wrong would DO.

Revenant said...

I was trying to point out that he gets punished while others get respectability.

If Sharpton and Jackson are so "respectable", why do Barack Obama's supporters have a hissy-cow whenever someone compares him to them?

Sharpton and Jackson have a hard core of supporters. They are not "respectable" among the broader population. They are tolerated for the same reason Pat Robertson is tolerated by Republicans.

Lotts remarks harmed no one.

They harmed the Republican Party. :)

Roger said...

Rev: thats precisely what I mean. I think Lott was trying to say something to make ole tangerhead feel good, and it simply came out wrong. YMMV.

Roger said...

oops ole tangerinehead--apologies to the capitol steps

Fen said...

I was trying to point out that he gets punished while others get respectability.

We agree. I know its frustrating, but virtue is its own reward.

Middle Class Guy said...

Revenant said...
Lotts remarks harmed no one.

They harmed the Republican Party. :)

Correction:
OK, Lott's comments did not cause the death of an innocent person and property damage from arson.

Revenant said...

I think Lott was trying to say something to make ole tangerinehead feel good, and it simply came out wrong. YMMV.

Thought experiment: at Byrd's retirement party, how likely do you think it is that someone will praise his years as a Klan recruiter?

I just don't find it credible that a person *accidentally* praises a guy for his years as an overt racist. The Dixiecrats weren't about federalism -- they were explicitly and overtly about keeping whites and blacks segregated from one another. Anyone who actually thinks that position was wrong wouldn't THINK to offer that up in praise of someone, just as no non-racist would think to offer Byrd's Klan years in praise of him. You only "accidentally" make that "mistake" if you really don't see what the problem was with what they did.

Revenant said...

MCG, I think we're arguing in circles here. I think everyone agrees that Sharpton is scum and that he has said many things that were far worse than anything Lott (or Thurmond for that matter) ever said. But I just don't see what that's got to do with anything. That Democrats get away with bad behavior and Republicans don't doesn't make me think "we should let Republicans get away with more". I makes me think "we need to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire".

Look at the bright side. The Democrats' mollycoddling of anti-white racists is really going to bite them on the ass this year.

Middle Class Guy said...

Look at the bright side. The Democrats' mollycoddling of anti-white racists is really going to bite them on the ass this year.


Rev,
There is always a bright side. Mine would be that these two parties self destruct and a third party emerges taking the best of both and eliminating the worst.

blake said...

Rev,

So, is it your belief that Lott is, in fact, a racist, pining for days of yore? Because that's why his comments would be offensive, yes?

Does Lott have much history of racism? (Or any?) If not, is it your position that his racism finally came to the fore?

I'm genuinely curious, here, because I sort of think we went of the rails around the time we decided that the use of certain words proved that someone was a racist.

former law student said...

Supporters of our free enterprise system should support the right of Don Imus' employer to fire his ass for any reason, or no reason at all. The U.S. is not some socialist welfare paradise where employees have to be kept on the payroll for life, no matter how egregiously they fuck up. Similarly, under our free enterprise system, Don Imus is free to seek employment with anyone who wants a disk jockey who gratuitously insults hard-working, talented young women.

blake said...

Don Imus is free to seek employment with anyone who wants a disk jockey who gratuitously insults hard-working, talented young women.

I'm pretty sure, FLS, that Don Imus isn't seeking employment any longer.

Cedarford said...

Rev: I have no problem with your interpretation of Lott's remarks--in the context of the history of the dixiecrats and election of 1948 you are, of course, correct. However, in the context of saying a stupid thing on the occasion of a nearly senile senator's 100th birthday to, perhaps, make the honoree feel good about himself, then those remarks could, I think, be assumed to be innocuous.

Revenent is being excessively judgmental about applying contemporary standards to every point of a man's life on what was "correct" or "incorrect" about life accomplishments done when wholly different values existed in society and his peers.
And in laudable exaggeration or white lies to make an old man or woman feel good about the life they had.

My grandmother was brilliant, but also famously difficult. She had major accomplishments, but also had walked out on her family in the early 60s and done some other self-centered scummy things and was "wrong" in her politics about Saint Alger Hiss, among other things.
When she was dying of cancer, there was no end to people trying to buck her up, gloss over the bad, lie like crazy about her cooking and poems being wonderful and her mid-life university teaching job outside tenure as amounting to academic brilliance the country noticed and her almost immediately out-of-print books as "famous".

And by Revenent's standards, MLK would best be held to contemporary standards about wife and whore beating being abominable, academic plagarism an intellectual's death sentence, flirting with Communism a sign of evil stupidity, open misuse of funds and tax-exempt status as "wanton law-breaking". And Jefferson a racist, Lincoln too!

And we have people that honestly and legitimately count their most significant life accomplishments happening while they were on the "wrong side" in politics, a cultural controversy, or a war. A friend's grandfather was in the German Luftwaffe with 16 kills on the Eastern Front, was a committed Nazi, though he backed off on that and became a Peronist, then a socialist - and a decorated pilot and commercial flight school owner later in a Peruvian dictatorship.

As he was dying back in Peru, all his family and friends returned and talked to this honorable man and listened to his great feats back in "the good old days." For his contributions to Peru and his charitable works, he was honored by the State.

TMink said...

FLS wrote: "Supporters of our free enterprise system should support the right of Don Imus' employer to fire his ass for any reason, or no reason at all."

Agreed, and may I say, well said.

Trey

Revenant said...

So, is it your belief that Lott is, in fact, a racist, pining for days of yore?

He regrets "all these problems" we've had since the racists were defeated. In what sense is that not pining for the good old days of racism? There is no rational explanation for that praise that is consistent with actually thinking segregation was bad. The "he was just trying to say nice things" story is nonsensical.

Does Lott have much history of racism? (Or any?)

There's his famous interview with the white supremacist Southern Partisan, for starters.

If not, is it your position that his racism finally came to the fore?

He let the mask slip, as he had on occasion before. Byrd did something similar a few years back with his comment about how there are "white niggers too".

I'm genuinely curious, here, because I sort of think we went of the rails around the time we decided that the use of certain words proved that someone was a racist.

"Use of certain words"? I'm talking about the content of Lott's speech, not its word usage. Answer my question from before -- do you think anyone at Byrd's retirement will praise his Klan recruitment days? And if someone does, will you accept "oh, I was just trying to be nice" as an explanation? You don't "accidentally" praise a pack of people whose one and only defining characteristic is racism -- a group you *know* to be defined by their racism -- unless you think there's nothing wrong with racism.

Revenant said...

Revenent is being excessively judgmental about applying contemporary standards to every point of a man's life on what was "correct" or "incorrect" about life accomplishments done when wholly different values existed in society and his peers.

I see Cedarford has put down his copy of "Mein Kampf" long enough to honor us with another posting.

"Contemporary standards", Cedarford? The election happened within living memory. I know people who voted in that election. The Dixiecrats split off from the Democrats because the *Dixiecrats* didn't like the contemporary standards of the time -- because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were eager to support Southern racism any longer. The majority of Americans thought Thurmond's view were disgusting, even in 1948.

blake said...

As I said, I was curious. I'm not trying to defend Lott.

Answer my question from before -- do you think anyone at Byrd's retirement will praise his Klan recruitment days?

Not directly. Obliquely without thinking through the historical implications of what they're saying? Possibly. Didn't Boxer already do that? No, I guess she just called him "the love of my life".

And if someone does, will you accept "oh, I was just trying to be nice" as an explanation?

Maybe.

You don't "accidentally" praise a pack of people whose one and only defining characteristic is racism -- a group you *know* to be defined by their racism -- unless you think there's nothing wrong with racism.

Assuming that's what's foremost in your mind when you're speaking.

Let's say (hypothetically, of course) I've done something bad in my life, like drown a bagful of kittens. And let's say I'd repented, seen the error of my ways, etc. Let's say 50 years later someone eulogizing me says I was perfect. Never did anything wrong. A saint. The sort of effusive (and highly inaccurate) praise that people offer at such times.

It's possible that the person is thinking about my program of drowning kittens and is all for it. But it seems less likely then not wanting to lard the eulogy with exclusions for my sins.

Again, I don't have an opinion, really, on Lott. (Well, that's not true. I think he's pretty scuzzy. But I don't have an opinion on him being a racist.) For all I know, you've read his mind perfectly, and he was thinking of segregation the exact moment when he said "all these problems".

Revenant said...

Let's say 50 years later someone eulogizing me says I was perfect. Never did anything wrong. A saint. The sort of effusive (and highly inaccurate) praise that people offer at such times.

That's not a valid parallel. The valid parallel would be if he said he was proud of that time you threw a bag of kittens in the river. Lott didn't overlook something bad that Thurmond had done while praising the man. He singled out the worst thing Thurmond did in his 60-year political career and used that as the basis of his praise.