With all the rabid frothing partisan divide and the extreme right dominating the Republican Party, I am happy to say, well done Mr McCain. Thank you for standing up and talking sense.
McCain defends Huma Abedin over Brotherhood charge
John McCain lashed out against Michele Bachmann and other republican lawmakers after they claimed Huma Abedin is conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. McCain called the accusations “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman”.
Republican Senator John McCain leapt across the political aisle to defend a top aide to Democrat Hillary Clinton who has been accused of conspiring with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
McCain railed against accusations from five lawmakers in his own party, including former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, that Huma Abedin is somehow part of a Brotherhood conspiracy to influence US foreign policy.
Abedin, who is in her mid-30s, is a long-time aide of Secretary of State Clinton who has traveled around the world with her and acted as her chief of staff during her losing 2008 run for the White House.
McCain's intervention, delivered on the floor of the Senate, was startling as it came against the backdrop of stark polarization in America's bitter politics, with the rival camps in Washington gearing up for November elections.
"Rarely do I come to the floor of this institution to discuss particular individuals," McCain said to open his remarks.
"But I understand how painful and injurious it is when a person's character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness. It is for that reason that I rise today to speak in defense of Huma Abedin."
McCain said he had come to know Abedin over many years as a devoted public servant whose "decency, warmth, and good humor" shone through as she "devoted countless days of her life to advancing the ideals of the nation she loves."
Abedin, a Muslim, was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976 but moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was two. Her father was born in India under British rule and her mother is Pakistani.
"Put simply, Huma represents what is best about America: the daughter of immigrants, who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit," McCain said.
"Recently, it has been alleged that Huma, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing US foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes," he said.
Five members of Congress, including Minnesota congresswoman Bachmann, wrote a letter to the deputy inspector general of the State Department alleging the conspiracy and demanding a probe.
"These allegations about Huma, and the report from which they are drawn, are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant," McCain said.
He went on to shoot down the accusations, explaining that one member of Abedin's family alleged to be part the conspiracy, her father, had actually passed away two decades ago.
"These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma's family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way," McCain said.
"These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now."
Abedin came under the spotlight last year when her husband, New York congressman Anthony Weiner, resigned after sending lewd online messages and photographs on his cell phone and then lying about it.
"The Secretary (Clinton) very much values her wise counsel and support, and we think that these allegations are preposterous," said a statement from the State Department following McCain's speech.
The United States voiced caution last month after the Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi was crowned Egypt's new president, urging the Islamist leader to respect the rights of women and keep the peace with Israel.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist political movement founded in Egypt in 1928 and a staunch opponent of several Middle East governments that enjoyed US backing, notably Israel and the formerly secular regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.
I'm actually a fan of neither McCain or Googly Eyes, although I agree with McCain on a few issues.
Its unfortunate that Bachmann and her Tea Party goons needed to jump on the soapbox about bulljive conspiracy theories and start this whole mess, because its drowned out the fact that the FBI thoroughly botched the investigation into the Fort Hood shooter. They knew the dude was in direct comms with the now thankfully deceased Anwar Alwaki and didn't follow the lead further.
13 dead soldiers and almost 3 dozen wounded because a little extra effort wasn't taken, either because of political correctness (as some have implied) or gross negligence.
Nope, lets not talk about that, lets talk about a westernized muslim woman who is the mother to her Jewish husbands baby. Fun fact: Huma Abedin would probably be killed by the people Bachmann says she's in cahoots with because of that last sentence.
If they can drop the ball on something as obvious as that, how many other terrorizers slipped through the cracks?
I bet if I was in direct contact with a prolific weed grower and asked for gardening advice, SWAT would bust through my windows and tear my place apart looking for silly cigarettes and assorted accessories. Damn this country pisses me off sometimes.
He went on to shoot down the accusations, explaining that one member of Abedin's family alleged to be part the conspiracy, her father, had actually passed away two decades ago.
Ah, never let the truth get in the way of partisanship, eh Republican party?
To be honest, if McCain had stuck with being himself during his presidential campaign and not tried to be Bush the Third, I'd have voted for him instead of Obama. I rather liked him before that campaign.
I really liked McCain in 2000. Too bad the GW camp smeared him during the Republican who's prettiest campaign by going after his rock solid military time. He would have been pretty decent choice over GW in my opinion. His second run was a circus, I am sure it is one of his biggest regrets. If one thing does stand out about the guy it is his character, the man is a rock and totally respectable.
Hey I think we are all way ahead of you here mate.
I had missus Matty, a full on democrat, all ready to vote McCain instead of Obama in 2008...
And then he picked Palin as VP... :(
Needless to say, he didn't get a tick in the box from her, and about another 50 million Americans.
The bloke was offered early release from captivity and didn't take it because they refused to release the rest of his team. He spend fething years as a POW as a result of that decision.
He is a stand up guy and a gentleman, and I respect him immensely, despite disagreeing with some of his political opinions.
With all the rabid frothing partisan divide and the extreme right dominating the Republican Party, I am happy to say, well done Mr McCain. Thank you for standing up and talking sense.
McCain defends Huma Abedin over Brotherhood charge
John McCain lashed out against Michele Bachmann and other republican lawmakers after they claimed Huma Abedin is conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. McCain called the accusations “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman”.
Republican Senator John McCain leapt across the political aisle to defend a top aide to Democrat Hillary Clinton who has been accused of conspiring with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
McCain railed against accusations from five lawmakers in his own party, including former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, that Huma Abedin is somehow part of a Brotherhood conspiracy to influence US foreign policy.
Abedin, who is in her mid-30s, is a long-time aide of Secretary of State Clinton who has traveled around the world with her and acted as her chief of staff during her losing 2008 run for the White House.
McCain's intervention, delivered on the floor of the Senate, was startling as it came against the backdrop of stark polarization in America's bitter politics, with the rival camps in Washington gearing up for November elections.
"Rarely do I come to the floor of this institution to discuss particular individuals," McCain said to open his remarks.
"But I understand how painful and injurious it is when a person's character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness. It is for that reason that I rise today to speak in defense of Huma Abedin."
McCain said he had come to know Abedin over many years as a devoted public servant whose "decency, warmth, and good humor" shone through as she "devoted countless days of her life to advancing the ideals of the nation she loves."
Abedin, a Muslim, was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976 but moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was two. Her father was born in India under British rule and her mother is Pakistani.
"Put simply, Huma represents what is best about America: the daughter of immigrants, who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit," McCain said.
"Recently, it has been alleged that Huma, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing US foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes," he said.
Five members of Congress, including Minnesota congresswoman Bachmann, wrote a letter to the deputy inspector general of the State Department alleging the conspiracy and demanding a probe.
"These allegations about Huma, and the report from which they are drawn, are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant," McCain said.
He went on to shoot down the accusations, explaining that one member of Abedin's family alleged to be part the conspiracy, her father, had actually passed away two decades ago.
"These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma's family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way," McCain said.
"These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now."
Abedin came under the spotlight last year when her husband, New York congressman Anthony Weiner, resigned after sending lewd online messages and photographs on his cell phone and then lying about it.
"The Secretary (Clinton) very much values her wise counsel and support, and we think that these allegations are preposterous," said a statement from the State Department following McCain's speech.
The United States voiced caution last month after the Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi was crowned Egypt's new president, urging the Islamist leader to respect the rights of women and keep the peace with Israel.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist political movement founded in Egypt in 1928 and a staunch opponent of several Middle East governments that enjoyed US backing, notably Israel and the formerly secular regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.
He's like Luke Skywalker fighting his way through the Death Star!
J-Roc77 wrote:I really liked McCain in 2000. Too bad the GW camp smeared him during the Republican who's prettiest campaign by going after his rock solid military time. He would have been pretty decent choice over GW in my opinion. His second run was a circus, I am sure it is one of his biggest regrets. If one thing does stand out about the guy it is his character, the man is a rock and totally respectable.
Cant we put him in a 40k style rejuvenation vat and get him to run again instead of that walking fething toilet Romney?
Obama is clearly beatable, and he wont be, because even people who aren't so keen on him like me, and going to gleefully vote for him instead of that horrible Mormon vampire.
mattyrm wrote:Cant we put him in a 40k style rejuvenation vat and get him to run again instead of that walking fething toilet Romney?
Obama is clearly beatable, and he wont be, because even people who aren't so keen on him like me, and going to gleefully vote for him instead of that horrible Mormon vampire.
You have a point. This time calls for titans, and what do we get? Pigmies, the lot of them, none fit to hold the boots of great men.
J-Roc77 wrote:I really liked McCain in 2000. Too bad the GW camp smeared him during the Republican who's prettiest campaign by going after his rock solid military time. He would have been pretty decent choice over GW in my opinion. His second run was a circus, I am sure it is one of his biggest regrets. If one thing does stand out about the guy it is his character, the man is a rock and totally respectable.
But not conservative enough for some elements of the GOP, who view him as a RINO.
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I'd vote for McCain over Obama, like.
Definitely. My missus has always voted dem, but she was happy to go with McCain after Hilary lost to Obama. She loves her for some reason, but I could see why, Obama was way more happy telling total BS on the trail than Hilary was. I made my mind up about that when asked about Afghanistan and Hilary said "I will obviously have to ask the military experts for a sensible timeline" and Obama just said "I will get every soldier home! Yeah!"
McCain had it in the bag until Palin showed up, I would rather have Trig as VP than his mom.
Anyway, then she voted for an independent and I guarantee tens of millions of Americans did the exact same.
He went on to shoot down the accusations, explaining that one member of Abedin's family alleged to be part the conspiracy, her father, had actually passed away two decades ago.
Ah, never let the truth get in the way of partisanship, eh Republican party?
To be honest, if McCain had stuck with being himself during his presidential campaign and not tried to be Bush the Third, I'd have voted for him instead of Obama. I rather liked him before that campaign.
My two candidates in 2008 were McCain on the Republican side, and Obama on the Democratic side. I like McCain a lot, but it seems that his campaign took over when he won the nomination and the political machine changed his message and maybe himself. I did not recognize the McCain I liked during the primaries once his nomination was sealed.
And then, when he gave his concession speech, it was almost as if the McCain that disappeared during the election suddenly showed up again. He looked physically in pain when he said Obama's name and everybody started to boo.
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I'd vote for McCain over Obama, like.
Definitely. My missus has always voted dem, but she was happy to go with McCain after Hilary lost to Obama. She loves her for some reason, but I could see why, Obama was way more happy telling total BS on the trail than Hilary was. I made my mind up about that when asked about Afghanistan and Hilary said "I will obviously have to ask the military experts for a sensible timeline" and Obama just said "I will get every soldier home! Yeah!"
McCain had it in the bag until Palin showed up, I would rather have Trig as VP than his mom.
Anyway, then she voted for an independent and I guarantee tens of millions of Americans did the exact same.
No he was substantially behind in the polls at that time. Zombie Reagan would have lost at that point against Any Candidate (D).
I also supported him in 2000 over GWB, but it wasn't meant to be. Unfortunately, he just didn't seem to me to be the same man in 2008. I don't know if that makes any sense.
I also supported him in 2000 over GWB, but it wasn't meant to be. Unfortunately, he just didn't seem to me to be the same man in 2008. I don't know if that makes any sense.
It does. I felt the same. Didn't he have a bought with cancer in the interim?
I also supported him in 2000 over GWB, but it wasn't meant to be. Unfortunately, he just didn't seem to me to be the same man in 2008. I don't know if that makes any sense.
Again, it's because elements of his party weren't firmly in his camp before Palin signed on. His actions to appease the right cost him with moderates. That's the downside of being a moderate/maverick in one's party. The GOP used to be a more moderate place, but McCain is one of the few moderate voices left. It's really an upset he even got the nomination.
Overall I think McCain is probably a good man, but when the chips were down, he sold out to win just like any other politician. That's how politics works, but at the same time I think we need to be careful not to lionize him too much.
McCain used to be a reasonable and OK guy. I would have voted for him in 2000, I didn't like Gore very much. Unfortunately he was pretty bitter after how he lost (not with the fact he lost) and went a little too far to the right. I think he was willing to abandon his own value system to win, and that was a mistake - not only did he compromise his honor but I don't think any Republican could have won in 2008, Bush just polluted the brand too intensely.... in my opinion Bush actually beat him twice. And no, Palin didn't help.
It's nice to see flashes of the old McCain.
Also, Michelle Bachmann is a terrible, terrible person and a continuous, ongoing embarrassment to America.
Did anyone else see the HBO movie about the 2004 election? It essentially was the story of how a well respected, well liked, honorable man was injured by bringing Palin onto the campaign. Not only did it hurt his campaign, it also tainted him by association, which was a bit foreshadowed. It wasn't a great film by any stretch, but it wasn't terrible either. It is worth it for Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin if nothing.
Ahtman wrote:Did anyone else see the HBO movie about the 2004 election? It essentially was the story of how a well respected, well liked, honorable man was injured by bringing Palin onto the campaign. Not only did it hurt his campaign, it also tainted him by association, which was a bit foreshadowed. It wasn't a great film by any stretch, but it wasn't terrible either. It is worth it for Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin if nothing.
I should thank her though, I hate creationists for the harm they do to children and science as a whole, and she did more harm to their idiotic crusade than I could have done in twenty years of complaining about them.
So I should love her and yet.. I cant bring myself to embrace her, maybe its because her house is full of dead bears?
I always respected McCain, despite being an Obama supporter at the time (not so much now, I thought he was going to be the Bobby Kennedy the US never got so he's been a bit of a disappointment all things considered. Still better than Romney though).
I can remember reading about some of the Republicans making a big fuss over Obama banning waterboarding in Guantanemo, claiming it wasn't torture but an "interrogation technique". Then there was McCain, someone who had actually experienced it and many other types of "interrogation techniques" during his time as a POW in Vietnam flat out saying "No, it's torture." ( Link to an article about it here. Probably won't be surprised to hear that the Bachmann woman was one of those saying that waterboarding was ok.)
"Yes I would, because waterboarding does not kill anyone," Bachmann said. "Is it uncomfortable? Yes, it's uncomfortable, but I am more concerned that we would prevent aircraft from going into the Twin Towers, taking them down, and taking out 3,000 innocent American lives, than I am about the comfort level of a terrorist, and what that means for them," referring to the 9/11 attacks.
Palin legalized hunting wolves from helicopters for sport. Because American hunters are now so fat and lazy they can't even walk to the place they are going to kill something they won't eat.
I would happily strangle her with my bare hands. Slowly.
Even though I don't hunt, I can see the appeal. I don't even have an issue with people hunting to be fair, that seems a bit childish. If you want to shoot gak that's down to you. Even if there is no skill involved and you use a machine gun, whatever butters your muffin. I don't presume to tell people how to spend their free time.
I just can't respect people that overtly and obviously have absolute gak for brains!
I have no problem with hunting food you will eat, or hunting things you won't eat if there's a reason to do so (such as killing wolves for legitimate conservation reasons). I'm not too big on people like my wife's ex, who just likes killing stuff.
Where I live I desperately wish they'd increase the bag limit on deer, I work at night and there is part of my drive in I consider "the red zone" because there is almost always from a few, to a herd, of deer congregating in the street.
I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure. He was never going to beat Obama, no-one could have. Obama swept to power on a wave of emotion - he was a viable candidate for first black president, and the country needed something to feel good about after a difficult decade. Putting up a good candidate against him was a total waste of time, politically. It should have been Romney then and McCain now. McCain could beat Obama now, but back then he was swimming against the tide of history. It's a shame really.
Albatross wrote:I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure.
It's just part of the reason, though.
His whole career was based on being the "maverick" who follows his conscience even when it puts him at odds with his party. Then in 2008 he went really, really far to the right during the primary and it cost him a lot of votes. Though you're probably right. Dubya kind of ruined things for Republicans for that election.
He went on to shoot down the accusations, explaining that one member of Abedin's family alleged to be part the conspiracy, her father, had actually passed away two decades ago.
Ah, never let the truth get in the way of partisanship, eh Republican party?
To be honest, if McCain had stuck with being himself during his presidential campaign and not tried to be Bush the Third, I'd have voted for him instead of Obama. I rather liked him before that campaign.
My two candidates in 2008 were McCain on the Republican side, and Obama on the Democratic side. I like McCain a lot, but it seems that his campaign took over when he won the nomination and the political machine changed his message and maybe himself. I did not recognize the McCain I liked during the primaries once his nomination was sealed.
And then, when he gave his concession speech, it was almost as if the McCain that disappeared during the election suddenly showed up again. He looked physically in pain when he said Obama's name and everybody started to boo.
I remember hearing about the McCain rally where an old woman stood up and called Obama a muslim, and McCain corrected her. When he did the entire crowd booed him. I think that was when McCain basically said "feth all of you" and started sinking his own campaign.
John McCain is a good and an honorable man. His own party abuses the crap out of him, like Santorum and his "[McCain] doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works" bullcrap. I really feel like his campaign against Obama did a good job of demonstrating what the political process has become; it isn't about who a candidate is, or what the candidate stands for anymore. Especially for my Republican party, it has simply become about pandering to a load group of fanatical voters who wouldn't vote for a democrat if you put a gun to their head. Hopeful nominees have to pontificate to a certain group for the nomination, but to get the actual Presidency the candidate has to somehow do an almost 180 degree turn to focus on the moderates. But it doesn't matter, because by then the damage is done. They've been forced to spew a bunch of vitriolic garbage to appeal to the far right (the afore mentioned "gun to their head" voters), which is then used against them in the actual presidential campaign.
I keep hoping we'll be able to go back to republicans actually being the progressive group (see: Teddy Roosevelt) , but as long as they're forced to pander to a bunch of schmucks like Tea Partiers or hard line NeoCons that simply won't happen.
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I'd vote for McCain over Obama, like.
McCain is a good, honourable man, which is exactly why he's compelled to, and why it's so good when he stands up against the bigotry that's so unfortunately common among the leaders of his party.
But let's not let a few years of history lead us into forgetting why McCain lost that election. In the midst of the GFC, McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points. The guys policy interests begin and end with foreign policy, and there they basically narrow down to 'countries we need to be dropping bombs on'.
He's a good guy with a truly incredible personal story, but as a legislator and leader he's got serious shortcomings.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Yeah this is either sarcasm, one of the most brilliant trolls i've seen or the most ridiculous thing i have ever read on this forum... I can't tell which
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
Smear first made by Walid Shoebat last year
This one is being widely reported; from Politico:
They were long afraid to do it, but now conservatives have their knives out for Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Senators in her own party, congressional candidates, a lawmaker in her state’s delegation and leaders of the House Republican Conference are all lambasting the Minnesota Republican for saying the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
..The Republican backlash against Bachmann started with Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) statement on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying she had made “sinister accusations.”
Rep. Jeff Flake, a conservative Arizona lawmaker running for Senate, tweeted “Kudos to @SenJohnMcCain for his statement on Senate floor yesterday defending Clinton aide. Well said.”
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) added: “Rep. Bachmann’s accusations about Sec. Clinton aide Huma Abedin are out-of-line. This kind of rhetoric has no place in our public discourse.”
John Boehner, meanwhile, stated that
“I don’t know Huma, but from everything I do know of her, she has a sterling character,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “And I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”
McCain’s full speech can be read here. Bachmann’s accusation was made in a letter to Ambassador Harold W. Geisel, Deputy Inspector General at the Department of State, and co-signed by Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland.
I noted the conspiracy-theory about Huma Abedin in June last year; the subject appears to have been raised first by Walid Shoebat, in the wake of a failed conspiracy theory (suggested by Eleana Benador, who has handled PR for Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Frank Gaffney) that Abedin’s husband Anthony Weiner may have secretly converted to Islam.
Shoebat suggested that Abedin’s family background put her in the same position as Eva Braun:
Imagine during World War II, the U.S. government accepted Eva Braun, Hitler’s mistress or one of Hitler’s henchmen daughters to work with our State Department and even be with the Secretary of State 24/7?
RightWingWatch notes that the subject was raised again earlier this month by Frank Gaffney and Gen William “Jerry” Boykin. Boykin, egged on by Gaffney, explained that:
Secondly, Huma [Abedin] is not the only person who has penetrated our government and if you go back to the explanatory memorandum that is in our book, Sharia: The Threat, which was discovered in Annandale, Virginia in the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of their strategies was to penetrate our government and they have done so. If my mother or father was a known member of the Muslim Brotherhood it is highly unlikely that I would ever be able to get a security clearance so you have to ask yourself, why is this individual able to do that when no one else can possibly do that. So there is a willful blindness to what is happening. I believe in some aspects of this situation there is support for the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government, that sounds extremist but it is just a fact, it’s a reality.
In 2010, Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy produced a report entitled Shariah: The Threat to America (discussed here), to which Boykin also contributed; Boykin publicised the report in a letter to supporters which emphasised the dangers of Muslims being employed by the Obama administration:
The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security recently swore in two devout Muslims in senior posts…. Was it not “Devout Muslim men” that flew planes into U.S. buildings 9 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 14 at Fort Hood?
…It’s not just about ONE mosque being built near the 9-11 catastrophe, it is about Sharia Law not stopping until they overtake each and every government on this earth…
The letter was written in Boykin’s capacity as “Grand Chancellor” of a chivalric order called “The Knights of Malta: The Ecumenical Order”; Boykin co-signed it with Nicholas Papanicolaou, the order’s “Grand Master” (the two men inducted Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff into the order last autumn).
Think Progress, following Adam Serwer at Mother Jones, notes that Bachmann has links to Gaffney – as does McCain himself. Serwer observed:
McCain inexplicably also defends Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, as a “friend” despite the center’s role in providing “empirical” support for the absurd conspiracy theory that American Muslims are secretly trying to impose Taliban-style Islamic law on the United States. It’s Gaffney’s scurrilous reasoning masquerading as policy expertise that lead to Bachmann’s smearing of Abedin in the first place.
Gaffney’s conspiracy-mongering is extravagant: just recently he shared a stage with phony “ex-terrorist” Kamal Saleem while Saleem explained that whenever Obama appears to pledge allegiance to the flag, he in fact holds his hand in a special way which shows that in reality he is praying to Allah. One conspiracy Gaffney was forced to back down from was his claim that the DOD’s Missile Defense Agency’s logo represented the “morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo…” and was an act “of submission to Shariah by President Obama”. Alas, it turned out that the logo dated from 2007.
Boykin, meanwhile, has featured on his blog a number of times: while he remains most famous with the general public for the controversy over his comments reported in 2003 on how the War on Terror is a religious war, he is also a high-profile figure in the Christian Right, associated in particular with the neo-Pentecostal evangelist Rick Joyner.
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I'd vote for McCain over Obama, like.
McCain is a good, honourable man, which is exactly why he's compelled to, and why it's so good when he stands up against the bigotry that's so unfortunately common among the leaders of his party.
But let's not let a few years of history lead us into forgetting why McCain lost that election. In the midst of the GFC, McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points. The guys policy interests begin and end with foreign policy, and there they basically narrow down to 'countries we need to be dropping bombs on'.
He's a good guy with a truly incredible personal story, but as a legislator and leader he's got serious shortcomings.
I don't disagree, but I would counter that the same could be said about Obama, and that McCain sticks to his principles more readily. Now, as an amoral jerk-off, I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.
He's a good orator, but a fairly crappy politician in that he seems to alienate a hell of a lot of people, and there's only so long you can blame prejudice.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Palin legalized hunting wolves from helicopters for sport. Because American hunters are now so fat and lazy they can't even walk to the place they are going to kill something they won't eat.
I would happily strangle her with my bare hands. Slowly.
Good luck with that. She'd likely beat yer ass six ways to Sunday.
…It’s not just about ONE mosque being built near the 9-11 catastrophe, it is about Sharia Law not stopping until they overtake each and every government on this earth…
Does any find this slightly egotistical?
Just because they have a problem with some countries in the West doesn't automatically mean they're out for world domination...
That said he's clearly of his nut so go figure...
would hug her if she let me hunt the most dangerous prey of all...Man.
Seriously not a good hunt because the other man is hunting you
See thats all bs. Wrong target.
Pizza. The ultimate game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure. He was never going to beat Obama, no-one could have. Obama swept to power on a wave of emotion - he was a viable candidate for first black president, and the country needed something to feel good about after a difficult decade. Putting up a good candidate against him was a total waste of time, politically. It should have been Romney then and McCain now. McCain could beat Obama now, but back then he was swimming against the tide of history. It's a shame really.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
It's asking entirely on the basis of her religion and ethnicity and nothing else...
That's pretty unreasonable to me.
What if someone asked for an investigation done on one of the accusers based on their religion and ethnicity? It would be ignored and mocked, as it should be.
Anybody who uses the term RINO won't be happy until we have an extreme right-wing dictatorship where it is legal to carry whatever weapon you could possibly think of and the only role of the Government is to spend 50% of it's income on defense and the remaining 50% on imprisoning gays, people who like porn, people who do any sort of drugs, people that are not protestant Christians, and anybody who might have ever considered an abortion.
But in all seriousness, people who use the term RINO have zero capacity for political compromise and are 100% part of the problem.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Still not sure if serious...
Have you ever had a background check done for any sort of security clearance?
purplefood wrote:It's asking entirely on the basis of her religion and ethnicity and nothing else...
That's pretty unreasonable to me.
What if someone asked for an investigation done on one of the accusers based on their religion and ethnicity? It would be ignored and mocked, as it should be.
The letter never mentioned her religion but, then again it can also be dedoused that you have to be Muslim to join the Muslim Brotherhood. The letter does specifically mention her Father, Mother, and Brother's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her level of influence in policy making within the department. Either way the request was filed and the Inspector still has 60 days to reply, let's hope his investigation turns up nothing fruitful.
purplefood wrote:It's asking entirely on the basis of her religion and ethnicity and nothing else...
That's pretty unreasonable to me.
What if someone asked for an investigation done on one of the accusers based on their religion and ethnicity? It would be ignored and mocked, as it should be.
The letter never mentioned her religion but, then again it can also be dedoused that you have to be Muslim to join the Muslim Brotherhood. The letter does specifically mention her Father, Mother, and Brother's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her level of influence in policy making within the department. Either way the request was filed and the Inspector still has 60 days to reply, let's hope his investigation turns up nothing fruitful.
Why should he bother?
There's no real evidence that she is in any way suspect apart from people saying that she has a relative who knows some people...
Smear first made by Walid Shoebat last year
This one is being widely reported; from Politico:
They were long afraid to do it, but now conservatives have their knives out for Rep. Michele Bachmann.
•Few neutral political prognosticators expect Michele Bachmann to face much of a challenge in November, but her national prominence and Tea Party appeal still make her the top fundraiser in the state’s congressional delegation. In raising $1.9 million, she accounts for nearly one-third of all the money collected by Minnesota incumbents and challengers this quarter.
See, she is a "true eliever" and lots of other "true believers' will pony up money to keep her voice in Congress, even with her former district being completely rearranged to be more competitive.
Albatross wrote:I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.
For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.
Why is this "abandoning principles" again?
Because he hasn't actually tried very hard to do the things he promised to do, instead offering watered-down versions that manage to piss everyone off.
Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet?
Are the troops home yet?
Do you have universal healthcare yet?
Do you still feel like 'we can'? His new campaign slogan should be "Yes, We Might. If I Feel Like It. Actually, We Probably Won't.'
Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet?
Are the troops home yet?
Do you have universal healthcare yet?
That's why my missus didn't vote for Obama, she is a dem, but she felt her was far far too prolific with the promises in his "yes we can" speeches. She liked Hilary way more because she always seemed to give a more honest answer. Namely, a far more ambiguous one.
Obama was just "I will have every troop home, I will close Guantanamo, every American will get free healthcare"
She voted independent after Hilary lost the primary.
Albatross wrote:I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.
For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.
Why is this "abandoning principles" again?
Because he hasn't actually tried very hard to do the things he promised to do, instead offering watered-down versions that manage to piss everyone off.
Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet?
Are the troops home yet?
Do you have universal healthcare yet?
Do you still feel like 'we can'? His new campaign slogan should be "Yes, We Might. If I Feel Like It. Actually, We Probably Won't.'
Like all Presidential campaigns, they say a lot; and then reality sets in and they can only do a some of it and it is usually watered down. I'm still waiting for my privatized SS accounts that GW Bush promised us.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Oh my gosh, he's serious!
I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?
The issue is less the background check and more the fact that the only reason they're doing it is because they're politically motivated. If it really was standard procedure and EVERYONE in that position went through it, it wouldn't really be an issue.
Background check for a security clearence is pretty straight forward. If these relatives are like 3-4 cousins way out on the family branch then the security won't show it unless it is mention on her security clearence request forms SF86
The background check will stop the application if she owes over ten grand or going through a divorce. Since she's a aid to Hillary I think its top secret at the least. So the background check goes back 10 yrs. Finance and martial issue is the stopper again on that.
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Oh my gosh, he's serious!
I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?
The secret service showed up at the door of a UFC fighter who made a comment about wanting to fight Obama.
Do we really think that there hasnt been an investigation into someone who might actually havr access to him? Really?
sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.
McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Oh my gosh, he's serious!
I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?
She's also married and bred with a Jew... That's about as close to 'worst possible sin' for a Muslim, unless, of course, she's done all that as part of an insidious manchurian candidate program to get her into a position to spy for Cobra... I mean, the world muslim coalition of darkness and evil.
Bachman and co pulled this gak to try and prove they were still relevant and because she's a dark person from a sandy place!
Reds under the beds!!!
As to broodstar's (well aren't you a peach, broody... ) allegation that McCain is a RINO, perhaps he should cross the floor, in fact perhaps all the moderates should leave the Republican party, Huntsman and co should start their own party perhaps and we'll just leave all the 'really, really rightwing types' in the Republicans. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than watching the right start witch hunting it's own ranks like some tricorn hat wearing, bible-thumping, evolution denying, badly spelled placard waving uroboros...
rubiksnoob wrote:I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Oh my gosh, he's serious!
I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?
A) I have closer ties to the KKK than Huma Abedin has to the Muslim Brotherhood.
B) The whole thing is both stupid and bigoted. There's no evidence whatsoever, and without any kind of evidence, why would you suspect a woman who's married to and has a kid with a reliably pro-Israel Jewish former congressman of being a Islamoterrorist sleeper agent? It's just insane. The plot of Angelina Jolie's Salt had more basis in reality.
Hey, new target for Bachmann! There's equally credible evidence that Hollywood is being infiltrated by Russian Terrorist sleeper agents from the Soviet era! Get on it!
rubiksnoob wrote:I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.
Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Oh my gosh, he's serious!
I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?
A) I have closer ties to the KKK than Huma Abedin has to the Muslim Brotherhood.
B) The whole thing is both stupid and bigoted. There's no evidence whatsoever, and without any kind of evidence, why would you suspect a woman who's married to and has a kid with a reliably pro-Israel Jewish former congressman of being a Islamoterrorist sleeper agent? It's just insane. The plot of Angelina Jolie's Salt had more basis in reality.
Hey, new target for Bachmann! There's equally credible evidence that Hollywood is being infiltrated by Russian Terrorist sleeper agents from the Soviet era! Get on it!
Like I said. If the position requires a background check, and she passed said background check then I don't have an issue.
Of course she passed a background check. She has a security clearance.
Bachmann doesn't believe in letting facts get in the way of paranoid bigoted/racist rants, especially when they help drive massive fundraising for her from the most bigoted/hateful members of her party. Which sadly, there are a lot of. In part because way too few people do what John McCain did, which is call out these unamerican crazies, even if they're in the same political party.
broodstar wrote:McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.
Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.
Uh huh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:I don't disagree, but I would counter that the same could be said about Obama, and that McCain sticks to his principles more readily. Now, as an amoral jerk-off, I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.
He's a good orator, but a fairly crappy politician in that he seems to alienate a hell of a lot of people, and there's only so long you can blame prejudice.
I think Obama has a few more beats to his drum, he's shown policy interest across the whole spectrum. Whereas with McCain the only place he ever really expands on discussion is with foreign policy, everywhere else he basically gives a short an answer as possible.
I do agree that Obama has alienated some people, and crucially lost the support of the blue dogs (though I wouldn't include a single Repbublican in that list, the culture that's become dominant in their party meant they were going to aggressively oppose anything he attempted - even if he attempted to bring in their own healthcare model). I think this is likely the product of Obama becoming president too soon, he was in Washington too little time, and when elected to the presidency assumed this meant the reforms he thought were important were the ones the Washington system was going to accept. A few more terms in the system and he'd likely have had a better idea what reforms would be more palatable, and how he might have better brought those reforms in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.
No, any argument has half baked as the one you've given above will go down like a ton of bricks.
And yes, investigating someone for terrorist plotting on the strength of nothing more than a speculative letter has an incredible amount wrong with it. To be honest I cannot concieve of a functioning human being who could just miss everythign that's wrong with that idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.
Why is this "abandoning principles" again?
The major point of difference between Obama and Clinton, apart from Obama running a far better campaign in the early stages of the primary, was Obama taking a strong stance of civil rights, and his stated opposition to Iraq before the war (whereas Clinton had voted for military action). All of that ended up smoke and noise.
So you're talking about the same Iraq we finished withdrawing from completely last year, right? As for civil rights, I don't know if you're really paying much attention on that front. Obama's done more for civil rights than Clinton and caused far fewer steps back for the movement as a whole, given the latter's creation of the Defense of Marriage Act.
According to the Times, Harris believes Muslims are incapable of being loyal to the U.S., because he claims that their faith in Islam and the Quran trumps any other allegiance.
Someone should point out to him that the Bible says pretty much the same thing as the Quran. Their worship of the USA (or rather their twisted view of it) would be akin to the worship of a false idol, which God clearly points out is a no-no (the First Commandment in fact: And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.).
sebster wrote: I think this is likely the product of Obama becoming president too soon, he was in Washington too little time, and when elected to the presidency assumed this meant the reforms he thought were important were the ones the Washington system was going to accept. A few more terms in the system and he'd likely have had a better idea what reforms would be more palatable, and how he might have better brought those reforms in.
IIRC, Obama and team felt Clinton wasn't a transformative president, and didn't want to follow the same course. After getting slapped down on health care, Clinton settled for a bunch of smaller accomplishments, but no great achievement in his 8 years in office. He was trying right up to the end to broker some kind of deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, but fell short.
On some level, I kinda agree with Obama's team. Why not go for broke and try to actually do something? Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, fer chrissakes. I guess he can hang his hat on that.
I didn't even read the article, that quote alone has got me so angry I've got a headache.
I honestly can't coherently say anything else that wouldn't be advocating violence against this scum sucking troglodyte.
I didn't even read the article, that quote alone has got me so angry I've got a headache.
I honestly can't coherently say anything else that wouldn't be advocating violence against this scum sucking troglodyte.
What a nauseating piece of gak.
Agreed. I weep for this country. Thats it. The rest of you off my planet! Who's with me?
purplefood wrote:Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...
This planet belongs to no one but the Mole People. I am their representative and they bid me to tell you that for centuries they have bided their time and now the time of reckoning has come.
purplefood wrote:Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...
This planet belongs to no one but the Mole People. I am their representative and they bid me to tell you that for centuries they have bided their time and now the time of reckoning has come.
Albatross wrote:I think the fact that he appointed a psychopath as a running mate is basically just a fig-leaf excuse that people can point to as reason for McCain's failure. He was never going to beat Obama, no-one could have. Obama swept to power on a wave of emotion - he was a viable candidate for first black president, and the country needed something to feel good about after a difficult decade.
Actually, McCain was running right about even with Obama until the economic crisis, which the GOP horribly bungled through a combination of some poorly timed comments (the economy is fundamentally sound) and simple association. Palin hurt McCain, but it was the economy that really killed him. Well, that, and the larger GOP which continues to show that it hasn't learned how to move past Rove's approach to campaigning.
purplefood wrote:Your planet?
I think you mean our planet...
This planet belongs to no one but the Mole People. I am their representative and they bid me to tell you that for centuries they have bided their time and now the time of reckoning has come.
Beware mole people. We are ready.
We are Wienie. We are Legion.
According to the Times, Harris believes Muslims are incapable of being loyal to the U.S., because he claims that their faith in Islam and the Quran trumps any other allegiance.
Spoiler:
Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a muslim, died fighting for America at 20 years old. There are nearly 15,000 muslims fighting in the US Armed Forces right now. Fighting so gaks like Wes Harris can spew their ignorant filth.
I want to find this guy Harris and beat him with that picture until the cops drag me away. People like him are a cancer to this country. They have forgotten what America actually stands for. John McCain is a war hero. Who does Wes Harris think he is? He's a schmuck from the biggest hell hole in Arizona. Screw him.
“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.
Clearly, when presented with carefully prepared rhetoric none of us could ever hope to stand in opposition.
I particularly like the idea of a "final dirt nap." Harris has obviously realized the horrifying truth that John McCain died in Vietnamese internment, and was raised from the dead by a Voodoo priestess employed by the Rothschild family; who are the true masters of the Islamists attempting to infiltrate the State Department.
Over a half a million people have viewed this video. Could Obamacare and this administration be fulfilling Revelations and 'the mark of the beast'? A mico chip required for all of us by March of 2013 could be just that...The Mark of The Beast.
“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.
Clearly, when presented with carefully prepared rhetoric none of us could ever hope to stand in opposition.
I particularly like the idea of a "final dirt nap." Harris has obviously realized the horrifying truth that John McCain died in Vietnamese internment, and was raised from the dead by a Voodoo priestess employed by the Rothschild family; who are the true masters of the Islamists attempting to infiltrate the State Department.
No, you see McCain is actually rambo, and you can't kill rambo. I'm just waiting for him to just go completely crazy and start attacking senators because he thinks they're charlies
“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.
Clearly, when presented with carefully prepared rhetoric none of us could ever hope to stand in opposition.
I particularly like the idea of a "final dirt nap." Harris has obviously realized the horrifying truth that John McCain died in Vietnamese internment, and was raised from the dead by a Voodoo priestess employed by the Rothschild family; who are the true masters of the Islamists attempting to infiltrate the State Department.
According to the Times, Harris believes Muslims are incapable of being loyal to the U.S., because he claims that their faith in Islam and the Quran trumps any other allegiance.
This kind of poison has sadly always been a part of the American political landscape. His kind of awful Protestant bigot said the exact same thing about Catholics. JFK was very careful to make public statements about keeping his religious beliefs separate from his political decision making, exactly because of people like this scumbag.
Melissia wrote:So you're talking about the same Iraq we finished withdrawing from completely last year, right?
Aah... Iraq continued right on the schedule it had been on. Obama, like anyone else who isn't a complete nut, wanted to ensure that withdrawal was done as quickly as possible, without leaving behind chaos. Which ultimately means withdrawal is left in the hands of the military, not presidential policy.
As for civil rights, I don't know if you're really paying much attention on that front. Obama's done more for civil rights than Clinton and caused far fewer steps back for the movement as a whole, given the latter's creation of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Really? There was DOMA? Well golly jee willickers thanks for enlightening me. That's an issue that ultimately reflects how vast the change in view on homosexual rights has been in the last 15 to 20 years. Both Clintons now argue for its repeal - while back then DADT was actually a progressive move forward, and the best anyone could hope to push through against the military establishment.
At the same time, Obama's sudden change on that gay rights is all about him throwing a bone to the left wing, and it seems to be a bone they've been very willing to take, and use to pretend Obama never thought any differently.
What you seem to be missing here is that we're on the same side - Obama is clearly the best option to be the next president - it's just that I'm not willing to pretend he, or his presidency, is actually anything more than what it really is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:IIRC, Obama and team felt Clinton wasn't a transformative president, and didn't want to follow the same course. After getting slapped down on health care, Clinton settled for a bunch of smaller accomplishments, but no great achievement in his 8 years in office. He was trying right up to the end to broker some kind of deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, but fell short.
On some level, I kinda agree with Obama's team. Why not go for broke and try to actually do something? Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, fer chrissakes. I guess he can hang his hat on that.
I think that's what every president hopes for at first, to be honest. Some land that great achievement, but most don't, and instead settle for as many little things as they can. Considering Obama's healthcare reform ended up being about half the job, at best, and given the nature of the presidential campaign so far that even if he wins he won't have any kind of mandate and so will be unlikely to install greater reforms in his second term, I think we're probably looking at a guy who's legacy will end up looking a lot like Clinton's.
In a lot of ways that's probably not such a bad thing, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Actually, McCain was running right about even with Obama until the economic crisis, which the GOP horribly bungled through a combination of some poorly timed comments (the economy is fundamentally sound) and simple association. Palin hurt McCain, but it was the economy that really killed him. Well, that, and the larger GOP which continues to show that it hasn't learned how to move past Rove's approach to campaigning.
McCain running level with Obama was one of those misleading things that's never properly gone away. Basically for a short period McCain caught Obama in the polls, as a combination of the post convention bump (which was always going to drop away in the latter weeks) and polling models continuing to use 2004 likely voter models as a predictor of who was likely to vote in this election (given the massive change in enthusiasm they were always going to give misleading figures) - once they switched to to the numbers provided by directly asking 'are you likely to vote?' then the polls starting showing clearly that Obama was always the strong favourite.
Even when he drew level in those polls, McCain was always the rank underdog. This is something McCain always knew, even if the media never quite figured it out. It's why McCain moved from one attempted big game changing moment to next, and kept shifting his campaign strategy. He knew he had to do something to make a big catch up.
It's also why Obama never focussed on the swing states, and instead spent his assets relatively evenly across the nation. If anything, he focussed more on states with close senatorial races than presidential swing states, because he knew he was an overwhelming favourite for the whitehouse, but that every senate seat they picked up meant more of his reforms were likely to get up (well that didn't quite work out as planned, but still).
Notice how the two candidates haven't acted in the same way this campaign? I mean its early days, but so far it sounds like Obama is narrowing in on those swing states, and Romney has kept a consistent message. It's because this campaign really is on.
sebster wrote:
McCain running level with Obama was one of those misleading things that's never properly gone away. Basically for a short period McCain caught Obama in the polls, as a combination of the post convention bump (which was always going to drop away in the latter weeks) and polling models continuing to use 2004 likely voter models as a predictor of who was likely to vote in this election (given the massive change in enthusiasm they were always going to give misleading figures) - once they switched to to the numbers provided by directly asking 'are you likely to vote?' then the polls starting showing clearly that Obama was always the strong favourite.
Until October the gap between McCain and Obama was relatively small, topping out at around 3-4 points barring some spikes. This is very much surmountable in the general, though it clearly places McCain as the underdog. What really decided the election was the economic crisis, after which we start seeing Obama with an 8-10 point advantage.
Either way, the polls I've seen that feature the "Are you likely to vote?" question haven't produced hugely distinct numbers from the traditional methodology. I've also never been a huge fan of that approach because it relies too much on an honest response, though it is a useful comparison against an established baseline.
sebster wrote:
Even when he drew level in those polls, McCain was always the rank underdog. This is something McCain always knew, even if the media never quite figured it out. It's why McCain moved from one attempted big game changing moment to next, and kept shifting his campaign strategy. He knew he had to do something to make a big catch up.
Interestingly I think that's what killed his campaign. I think had he been able to cast himself in a manner consistent with his established image while focusing on incremental gains he would have done better. He still wouldn't have won, he simply didn't have the money, but he would have done better. He certainly could have kept some Senate seats from going to the Democrats.
sebster wrote:
It's also why Obama never focussed on the swing states, and instead spent his assets relatively evenly across the nation. If anything, he focussed more on states with close senatorial races than presidential swing states, because he knew he was an overwhelming favourite for the whitehouse, but that every senate seat they picked up meant more of his reforms were likely to get up (well that didn't quite work out as planned, but still).
I'm not sure polling was a major factor. Rather, I think it was Obama's massive funding advantage that drove their strategy. Even spreading their resources across the entire nation, the Obama campaign was still able to outspend McCain in Presidential swing states, states in which he had a natural advantage to begin with due to Bush's disastrous exit approval.
sebster wrote:
Notice how the two candidates haven't acted in the same way this campaign? I mean its early days, but so far it sounds like Obama is narrowing in on those swing states, and Romney has kept a consistent message. It's because this campaign really is on.
I think this time around, while Obama still has the funding advantage over Romney, the Democrats recognize that there is a lot more third-party investment on the Republican side in this election. The polls are much closer as well, but the absence of the ability to simply outspend the opposition is a huge issue.
dogma wrote:Until October the gap between McCain and Obama was relatively small, topping out at around 3-4 points barring some spikes. This is very much surmountable in the general, though it clearly places McCain as the underdog. What really decided the election was the economic crisis, after which we start seeing Obama with an 8-10 point advantage.
As I said before, those polling results were very misleading, because that 3-4 point lead was based around 2004 turnouts. The increase in likely voters among core Democrat voting blocs, particularly black people and the under 25s, was a major driver in Obama's win.
Either way, the polls I've seen that feature the "Are you likely to vote?" question haven't produced hugely distinct numbers from the traditional methodology. I've also never been a huge fan of that approach because it relies too much on an honest response, though it is a useful comparison against an established baseline.
All elements of polling requires an honest answer, and so all polling has problems. But polling on likelihood of turning out to vote needs to be accounted for, because you cannot assume similar turnout for each demographic from one election to the next... when those turnout numbers are 90% of what determines a winner in the first place.
When polling numbers shifted from one to the other you saw Obama's lead increase significantly. This was mistakenly reported as being driven by the economic news.
Interestingly I think that's what killed his campaign. I think had he been able to cast himself in a manner consistent with his established image while focusing on incremental gains he would have done better. He still wouldn't have won, he simply didn't have the money, but he would have done better. He certainly could have kept some Senate seats from going to the Democrats.
It didn't help, but then I think McCain knew that it was probably not going to. Going for the long bomb into the endzone will generally end up in you scoring nothing, and maybe setting the opposition up to score, but if you're down by a load of points you might as well try it - the safe play might see you lose by less, but still lose.
I think that's the thing a lot of people never really thought through - McCain isn't an idiot, nor is he a political rookie. He isn't going to go for any out there craziness when there's no need - the fact that he did is strong evidence that his position was pretty dire.
I'm not sure polling was a major factor. Rather, I think it was Obama's massive funding advantage that drove their strategy. Even spreading their resources across the entire nation, the Obama campaign was still able to outspend McCain in Presidential swing states, states in which he had a natural advantage to begin with due to Bush's disastrous exit approval.
That only really holds if 'more' funding means that's all the advantage you're going to get. If instead Obama hadn't just spent more than McCain, but 2 or 3 times as much he could have pushed his lead out in those key states - which is exactly what he would have done if the election was on the line. But instead he used his brand, which was incredibly strong at the time, to get other Democrats over the line.
Remember the number of stops he made in states that were safe in the presidential race, just to stand next to some Democrat facing a tough election?
sebster wrote:Both Clintons now argue for its repeal - while back then DADT was actually a progressive move forward, and the best anyone could hope to push through against the military establishment.
And yet, they still have both DADT and DoMA as marks against them.
Obama has also pushed for various laws and programs to help women, the disabled, and other minorities as well, such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women and other such laws, and he ordered a stop to "enhanced interrogation" methods. He hasn't closed gitmo yet, but a good deal of that is because there's really nowhere else to put those prisoners. So don't think I'm focusing entirely on the gay rights agenda.
Claiming it's nothing more than "throwing a bone" seems unusually ignorant of you, Seb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Over a half a million people have viewed this video. Could Obamacare and this administration be fulfilling Revelations and 'the mark of the beast'? A mico chip required for all of us by March of 2013 could be just that...The Mark of The Beast.
Oh goddamnit.
I think I need to take some tylenol and lay down. My brain is rebelling. It's tired of this cruel world...
AHA! It all becomes much clearer! You see, the pod peopl... I mean muslims, have infected McCain as well! He's one of them now!
Tea Party Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) lashed out at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for criticizing him and his fellow conservative members for suggesting that a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Gohmert is part of a small group of five Republican members, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who are demanding an investigation into whether Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin is connected to the group.
“Normally you don’t go blast somebody on the floor who is a colleague on the same side of the aisle unless you touch base with them,” Gohmert complained during an appearance on the Dennis Miller Show on Tuesday, referring to McCain’s denunciation of the group’s allegations as “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack.” The fiery Texan then launched into a personal attack against McCain, calling him “numb nuts” and suggesting the Muslim Brotherhood is now influencing him too:
GOHMERT: Well, it’s obvious that John McCain didn’t even read the letter because of what he said in accusing Michele and us of making these horrible accusations. There were five letters and there were many things that are stated that are facts in each letter. And I wish some of these numb nuts would go out and read the letter before they make these horrible allegations about the horrible accusations we’re making. But we also know that John McCain himself had said back in the early stages of stuff going on in Egypt that he was, in his words, “unalterably opposed to helping the Muslim Brotherhood.” Well, obviously the unalterable person has been altered, so he is okay with it now.
Gohmert has long believed that Muslim extremist organizations have infiltrated the American government. At a recent Congressional hearing, he furiously questioned Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about whether Mohamed Elibiary, a member of DHS’s Combatting Violent Extremism Working Group (CVE) and a Muslim is part of a terrorist organization.
While Bachmann and her small group of supporters are doubling down on their attacks, a growing number of Republicans are distancing themselves from the charges.
The nutjobs got rid of Max Cleland a while back...McCain was only a matter of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some thoughts since my previous post:
I understand why Republicans venerate Reagan. It wasn't because he was truly a great president. Heck, he might have been more of a puppet than Dubya ever was. But he's the last GOP president/presidential candidate to be able to pull off an optimistic, uplifting message.
It's kind of remarkable when you think about it. There have been a lot of angry old men, but even the women like Palin and Bachmann have an angry air about them. The rest have mostly been charismatically challenged. Dubya in 2000 might have been the closest thing, but he came across as too dim to take seriously. Romney has the look and seems to smile enough, but doesn't have a full tank of charisma himself. Plus there's something kinda cardboard about him. The Romney-Kerry parallels are truly striking.
Anyway, I think the GOP just needs a leader who can do the optimistic thing. I really do think people would rather respond to that than negativity and infighting and searches for ideological purity. With the right leader, the whole tone of the party could change.
gorgon wrote:The nutjobs got rid of Max Cleland a while back...McCain was only a matter of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some thoughts since my previous post:
I understand why Republicans venerate Reagan. It wasn't because he was truly a great president. Heck, he might have been more of a puppet than Dubya ever was. But he's the last GOP president/presidential candidate to be able to pull off an optimistic, uplifting message.
It's kind of remarkable when you think about it. There have been a lot of angry old men, but even the women like Palin and Bachmann have an angry air about them. The rest have mostly been charismatically challenged. Dubya in 2000 might have been the closest thing, but he came across as too dim to take seriously. Romney has the look and seems to smile enough, but doesn't have a full tank of charisma himself. Plus there's something kinda cardboard about him. The Romney-Kerry parallels are truly striking.
Anyway, I think the GOP just needs a leader who can do the optimistic thing. I really do think people would rather respond to that than negativity and infighting and searches for ideological purity. With the right leader, the whole tone of the party could change.
That's what the Conservatives tried here. The thing is that when one thing goes wrong with your new happy brand of republicans/conservatives the vicious negative side resurface and try to rip the whole thing apart. So you end up trying to juggle coming across as a nice person and pleasing the frothing right wing lunatics in your own party and fail at both.
I don't think the nutjobs are numerous, they're just loud. And absent other leadership, the masses just follow the voice they're hearing most clearly.
Negativity is kinda like the dark side of the Force. It's quicker and easier. But it isn't stronger than a positive message. People would rather be inspired than have someone plucking their strings in a negative way all the time. There's a certain weight that comes with that.
I think that's the one thing Obama needs to worry about. Clearly he can't run on a strong record, but if his message goes sharply negative during the campaign, that's not a bad thing for Romney. The negative campaigning will likely suppress turnout, while giving Romney cover to get ugly himself.
sebster wrote:
As I said before, those polling results were very misleading, because that 3-4 point lead was based around 2004 turnouts. The increase in likely voters among core Democrat voting blocs, particularly black people and the under 25s, was a major driver in Obama's win.
But if you look at Obama's actual margin of victory in the popular vote, 7 points, you see results consistent with polling based on historical metrics of likely voters.
Further, the role of the youth vote has been largely overstated. In 2004 roughly 17% of all voters were under 30, in 2008 it was roughly 18%. The major difference was that Obama was able to capture a much larger share of the under 30 vote (66%) than Kerry had been (54%). The point being that those people under 30 were not significantly more likely to vote than they had been in 2004, but they were significantly more likely to vote for Obama.
Similarly, voter participation among black people and Hispanics rose respectively, from 11% in 2004 to 12.1% in 2008, and 6% in 2004 to 7.4% in 2008. A notable increase, but not one which invalidated the historical methodology given that, speaking from actual results, this translates into ~1.7* additional points for Obama.
*95% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama.
sebster wrote:
That only really holds if 'more' funding means that's all the advantage you're going to get. If instead Obama hadn't just spent more than McCain, but 2 or 3 times as much he could have pushed his lead out in those key states - which is exactly what he would have done if the election was on the line. But instead he used his brand, which was incredibly strong at the time, to get other Democrats over the line.
Remember the number of stops he made in states that were safe in the presidential race, just to stand next to some Democrat facing a tough election?
See, but that's the thing, Obama was spending 2-3 times as much as McCain in the major battleground states. In PA Obama spent ~40 million, while McCain spent ~20 million. In Ohio Obama spent ~25 million, while McCain spent ~15 million. In Florida Obama spent ~36 million, while McCain spent ~10 million. In Virginia, which isn't even really a battleground in most elections, Obama spent ~25 million, and McCain spent ~7 million. In North Carolina, similar to Virginia, Obama spent ~15 million, and McCain spent ~4 million.
