ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [134] -- Some Reality For Gibbs

[ Posted Friday, August 13th, 2010 – 17:36 PDT ]

Happy Friday the Thirteenth, everyone. It's actually a fitting day for this column, which I'll explain in a bit.

Because before we get to that, we simply must begin our column the way we do every week here, which is to call for the abolition of the Pentagon. Yes, as we've done consistently for the past 133 weeks, we demand that the Defense Department's budget be zeroed out entirely. Oh, and also that we immediately adopt a Canadian-style health care system. Can't forget that, as we've been railing about it for ever since Friday Talking Points, Volume One. And lest we forget, President Obama is nothing more than George W. Bush's third term. As I said, none of this will come as any surprise to faithful readers, since we've been saying this sort of thing all along, ever since we were massively disappointed that Dennis Kucinich didn't win the presidency.

Now, you'll have to excuse us, as we're late for our drug test.

What's that? This column has never said any of that, you say? Well, if that's true, it must be news to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who took the entire "professional left" to task this week for doing exactly that. He later narrowed this down to folks on "cable news," so I guess the Lefty Blogosphere is off the hook. Since, as fellow Huffington Post blogger Matt Osborne is fond of saying, "I'm still waiting for my first check from George Soros," I would likely only qualify for the "semi-pro left" or perhaps "triple-A minor league left" anyway, so I guess I'm not even included in Gibbs' sentiments. Whew!

Seriously, this was such a stupid thing to do less than three months from the election, that it must have been intentionally planned -- which is the truly scary thing about the entire fracas. Picture Obama and his top advisors sitting around the Oval Office last week, scratching their heads over why Democratic voters don't seem very enthused to go out and vote this year (as opposed to Republican voters who are positively chomping at the bit to cast their midterm votes). "Why are the president's approval ratings so low?" the advisors wonder. "What can we do to make it better?"

And then some bright spark decides that what Obama really needs is to woo independents and centrists back. And the easy way to do this is to pick up a two-by-four and beat the Left over the head, once again. Yeah, sure, that's the ticket!

Sigh.

As I wrote Wednesday, "With Friends Like These...."

Which brings us back to Friday the Thirteenth. Why is thirteen a "bad luck" number, and why is Friday particularly bad luck? Why are American buildings (many of them, at any rate) constructed with no thirteenth floor, instead jumping from "12" to "14" on the elevator buttons? Why are there traditionally thirteen steps to the gallows?

Two words: Judas Iscariot.

You see, Jesus Christ had a band of followers. There were twelve of them. Together with Jesus, this made thirteen -- which, quite obviously, turned out to be a bad luck number for him.

In other words, one of Jesus' loyal followers betrayed him, leading to his downfall.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to draw analogies with this week's situation between the president and the Left (professional, semi-pro, and amateur). Before anyone complains, I'm not saying Barack Obama is the equivalent to Jesus Christ in any way, just to be clear. It's just a cheap journalistic trick to tie in today's date to what's going on in Washington, that's all.

Which leads into the rest of our weekly column, here, where we ceaselessly advocate eliminating the Pentagon, a Canadian health system, and Dennis Kucinich to be named president-for-life.

Oh, wait... in Gibbs' own words... "that's not reality."

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

There were slim pickings on the ground this week under the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week category, sad to say.

Partly, this was due to the fact that Congress is out on the hustings, instead of in Washington doing the nation's business. Oh, but wait! Both houses actually came back and voted on some things! Will wonders never cease?

The House returned to pass a woefully small bill for the purpose of sparing hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, and firemen from joining the ranks of the unemployed. Of course, since the Republicans are all about being "tough on crime," they all voted for it.

[Pause to allow readers to roll about the floor, laughing hysterically.]

No, of course, it passed on pretty much a party-line vote, with Democrats standing up for first responders and the education of the next generation of Americans, and Republicans standing firmly against saving jobs.

Over on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate briefly reconvened during their traditional August month-long vacation so that they could pass a sop to the "Seal the borders!" crowd. Rather than trying to tackle comprehensive immigration reform (as President Obama promised he'd do his first year in office... oh, wait, I see Robert Gibbs coming with a big stick, better move on quickly...), instead Democrats are trying to pre-empt Republicans in being "tough on illegal immigration." The whole thing was, as said previously, a sop, since the money allocated was less than a billion dollars -- which doesn't even qualify as pocket change in D.C.

But, reluctantly, we'll at least give an Honorable Mention to both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid for getting everyone back to Washington during August -- which happens about as often as pigs flying, we hasten to point out.

Instead, just because we are still mightily annoyed with Robert Gibbs, we're going to give this week's MIDOTW to none other than Representative Alan Grayson, for his response to Gibbs, in which he referred to the press secretary as "Bozo the Spokesman." That alone would likely have won Grayson the Golden Backbone this week, but he then continued on in the same vein:

I don't think [Bozo the Spokesman] should resign, I think he should be fired. He's done a miserable job. He's so far in over his head he'd have to reach up to touch his shoes. I'd like to see Gibbs show some frustration over 15 million unemployed Americans. I'd like to see him show some frustration over 40 million people who can't see a doctor when they need to. I'd like to see him show some frustration over the Republicans, who have blocked the president's plans and his programs ... They're the opponents for him, not the liberals.

Hoo boy, tell us how you really feel, Representative Grayson!

For putting into words the frustration of millions, who watched the president's leading voice absolutely take for granted the very people who got Obama elected -- again, less than three months before an election -- Alan Grayson is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

Hint to the White House: this is not the way to fix your "enthusiasm gap" problem, unless you're talking about Grayson's enthusiasm. Just a thought.

[Congratulate Representative Alan Grayson on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Unlike the MIDOTW, we have an embarrassment of riches in the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week category. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is what it is.

First, of course, there is Robert Gibbs. But I can't honestly give him the award, since I firmly believe that he wasn't acting as some sort of "loose cannon," but instead expressing frustration he was instructed to express. How high up this decision was made is unclear, but Gibbs' refusal to back down in his next public appearance told the whole story -- he had support for what he said, and was not being taken to any sort of metaphorical woodshed for doing so.

Next up, we have Representative Charlie Rangel, under an ethical cloud, who just threw himself a birthday party. This has already provided fodder for political attack ads against Democrats who attended his party, it is worth mentioning. But that's not the reason Charlie was in the running for MDDOTW -- instead, it was for the sheer political chutzpah of holding a birthday party two months after Rangel's actual birthday. What's up with that, Charlie? Was every single rentable hall in New York City booked solid for those two months? Sheesh.

Down in South Carolina, the Democratic nominee for the Senate race just got indicted by a grand jury for showing pornography to a college student and suggesting they go up to her room to discuss it further. Alvin Greene is the gift that just keeps on giving... to Republicans running for office this year, that is.

Narrowly escaping this week's MDDOTW ignominy was New Hampshire Democrat Timothy Horrigan, who thought it'd be funny, after hearing of the plane crash that killed former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens this week, to post on his Facebook page:

Just for the record, I don't wish Sarah Palin dead... but not merely for compassionate reasons. I also want her to live because a living Sarah Palin is less dangerous than a dead one. Her rise to the status of Head Tea Partier had nothing to do with anything she ever said, did or accomplished--- but as long as she lives she might be able to say or do things which could serve as a moderating influence. And she also might commit a gaffe bad enough to shock her followers, though that is unlikely. Unless of course she endorses Obama for President in 2012.

This is despicable. Now, we are no fans of Stevens or Palin, around here. In fact, we think they're two of the worst things ever to come from the state of Alaska. But, seriously, there is a line of propriety in politics, and that line is labeled: "Don't joke about the deaths of politicians, past or future." Horrigan crossed that line. The only thing saving him from the MDDOTW award this week was the fact that he promptly resigned his state House seat, and withdrew from the upcoming election. At least he recognized the magnitude of his error, in other words.

But, after handing out (Dis-)Honorable Mention awards to Horrigan, Greene, Rangel, and Gibbs this week, we have to bestow a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to a second New Hampshire Democrat (insert: "something in the water?" joke here) who jumped on the "Die, Sarah, Die!" bandwagon upon hearing of the Stevens plane crash. Keith Halloran, who is running for a seat in the New Hampshire House, posted to Facebook something even more offensive than what Horrigan posted:

Just wish Sarah and Levy [sic] were on board.

Now, without getting into what, exactly, he's got against Levi Johnston (father of Sarah Palin's grandchild), this sort of thing is just beyond comprehension, as well as beyond the pale. You are an adult politician -- and not some teenager cracking inappropriate jokes. Facebook is not a private communications forum, your words are going to be noticed by the media. When will these people learn?

Halloran has yet to announce he's ending his candidacy, unlike Horrigan, who (to his credit) immediately did the right thing and ended his political career voluntarily. For not realizing the depth of his own stupidity, Halloran is awarded one of our two Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards. For shame, Keith, for shame.

Our other winner of the MDDOTW award is one of those things that almost flew below our radar here. But, as the Salon.com "War Room" column helpfully points out, the Obama administration is convening a gathering of knowledgeable folks to figure out a plan to deal with the housing crisis in America. They've invited lots of people interested in such things, but somehow Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner forgot to invite people who actually know what the heck they're talking about from any perspective other than that of the big banks. From the Salon article (well worth reading in full):

The Obama administration will prove that they have a plan to do something about the housing crisis by holding a housing conference next week, in DC. The event, called the "Conference on the Future of Housing Finance," has been organized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department. Panelists include... well, a bunch of economists, finance industry representatives, bank officials, think tankers, and an academic or two. Not included: Any actual consumer advocates or community group representatives.

See now, this is what "the professional left" is upset about, Mister Gibbs. This is exactly the heart of the entire freakin' problem -- the Left isn't asking for everything on their agenda to be done yesterday, all they're asking for is a damn seat at the table. Which, consistently, they are denied by the Obama administration. Which is why they're so annoyed with you -- because, to be blunt, this is not the "change" they could believe in, and voted for.

Seriously, if the Obama White House can't understand the simple concept of "we don't want a veto, we just want a seat at the table," then how can they be expected not to get frustrated when "the professional left" pushes back against such blatant disregard? We should all just tout their successes instead, right? Come to think of it, we should probably just do away with the entire concept of the MDDOTW award for good, right? Well, maybe not.

For their monumental insensitivity and their complete lack of interest in hearing from anyone other than (as "War Room" puts it): "PIMCO, Wells Fargo, the goddamn American Enterprise Institute, the MacArthur Foundation, Moody's, and Bank of America" on the subject of housing, we hereby award Secretaries Tim Geithner and Shaun Donovan their own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards. Way to fight for the consumer, guys! Way to stand up for the little guy!

Well, no. Because, once again quoting Gibbs, "that's not reality."

[Keith Halloran is a candidate for office, and we do not provide campaign sites here, so you'll have to search for his contact info yourself, sorry. Since the White House is really the one to complain to about Executive Branch foolishness, here is their official contact page to let them know what you think of their cabinet secretaries' actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 134 (8/13/10)

Perhaps you're thinking that I'm taking this whole Gibbs thing too personally. I hasten to assure everyone I'm not. I really don't think I was included in the "professional left" Gibbs referred to (especially after he clarified it to "cable news," on which I've never appeared). But my annoyance is borne not out of personal pique, but rather out of my own frustration with the job that Robert Gibbs and his boss Barack Obama are doing on the communications front.

They're understandably annoyed. I get that. They think that they've got a long list of legislative achievements (far longer, and more sweeping, than virtually any president at this point in his term), and that they're simply not getting enough credit for these achievements from the segment of the press that should be lauding them to the skies. No wonder they're confused, when all they seem to see on television is annoyance from the Left (not to mention what the Right is saying, which is far worse, of course).

But this is, bluntly, largely their fault. Not completely their fault, mind you, but the buck famously does stop in the Oval Office. They just have not been making their own case effectively, and then they wonder why nobody's out there making it for them. It's like hiring a bandwagon, but forgetting to hire a band -- and then wondering why nobody's jumping on it (or even noticing it as it silently glides through town).

As I said, though, this isn't entirely their fault. Other Democratic politicians, as well as the "professional Left" media also have a role to play, which they mostly fall down on.

I speak of the inability to frame things. The inability to use messaging. The inability to develop a political theme (or "meme," for our younger readers). The inability to reinforce each other.

To fully explain this, I'm going to pre-empt the usual discrete talking points this week, and instead give an example of how the Republicans do this sort of thing, and how Democrats have been falling short. We'll take it one step at a time. Picture a Republican in the White House, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate (if that's not too horrifying to imagine, this close to an election).

The Republican president, during a press conference, answers a question by giving it a brush-off, joking type of answer:

"Well, you know, it'd be just as easy to say that all of America's problems can be traced to left-handed people, since everyone knows that everything left is bad."

Before we get into the rest of it, please note the "during a press conference" part of that sentence. For those of you who have forgotten what the term means, a "press conference" is where the president stands at a podium and takes questions from members of the media. Then the president answers these questions, making his own case and showing America how he thinks about issues of the day.

OK, that preceding paragraph was a little snarky, I'll admit. But considering the fact that President Obama has given exactly (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, here) one primetime press conference in about the last year, you can see that I've got a valid point to make. The Obama White House complains that their message isn't getting out? Well, I don't know, how about trying to get your own damn message out by using the biggest damn media platform in the country a little more than once a damn year or so, guys?

This stuff ain't rocket science. If you want to put your spin on things, then you've got to step up, face the cameras, and make your own case. Refusing to do so, and then complaining that others aren't doing it for you is just pathetic.

OK, it's time to move on to Phase Two. Within hours (at the most, a day), every single Republican politician who appears on television is using some version of the following:

"You know what? The president's right. When he said 'all of America's problems can be traced to left-handed people,' he was just giving voice to the vast majority of American citizens who write with their right hands. America is a center-right country, and we think it is abhorrent that some people don't recognize that and continue to favor their left hands. Lefties are the root of what is wrong with America, whether you're talking about their politics or what hand they choose to write with."

You see, this reinforces the message from the top. Using exactly the same terminology, and repeating the soundbite endlessly cements the idea in the public's mind. The cable news "journalists" soon begin reinforcing this phrasing themselves, and start asking their questions using the "lefties are causing all America's problems" rhetoric themselves. This puts Democrats in the uncomfortable position of playing defense, pointing out things like "there have been famous Republicans who were left-handed" and that America's problems aren't quite so simplistic. Of course, nobody listens to them.

Instead, Republicans ratchet up the rhetoric. The whole thing takes on a life of its own (or, for our younger readers, "goes viral"). By the following week, GOP politicians are saying things like:

"We will be introducing a Constitutional Amendment soon which will outlaw writing with your left hand. It will also ban favoring your left hand when raising our nation's flag, throwing a baseball, firing a weapon, or making apple pie. This new law will also mandate that everyone begin wearing their wedding rings on their right hands as well. We want to, once and for all, stamp out the evil that is leftism in this great country of ours."

The Righty blogosphere, of course, will go along for the ride:

"OMG, you know what I just found out?!? The word 'sinister' means 'left'!!! I'm not kidding -- go look it up in the dictionary! ALL LEFTIES ARE SINISTER! Spread the word!"

Soon, though, a backlash develops. Not from Democrats (many of whom, by now, have timidly come out in support of forcing children born left-handed to learn to write with their right hands, as a "sensible compromise"), of course. Instead, from Major League Baseball, and from the hordes of women and men who haven't removed their wedding bands in twenty-eight years and who would require surgery to do so.

So the Republicans moderate their position slightly, and instead call for passage of the "Write Right Act," which forces kindergarten and first-grade teachers to teach everyone to write with their right hand. This passes in both houses of Congress (with a significant number of Democrats voting for it, by the way, who are terrified of the wrath of all their own right-handed voters).

OK, that may have been slightly over the top as an example, I will fully admit. But the process for building public opinion is no joke. The message has to start from the top. "Here is what we're going to do, and why it is a good thing for America." This should ideally come from the president himself, in one of his regular, monthly press conference appearances. At the very least, this is the sort of thing Robert Gibbs should be communicating on a daily basis. It then needs to be picked up and seconded by prominent Democrats everywhere. It needs to be the first thing out of their mouths whenever they're being interviewed, no matter what the question. This positive reinforcement is crucial and is often the weak link in the chain for Democrats.

Then -- and only then -- can the "professional left" pick up the ball and run with it. Oh, sure, there's bound to be disagreement around the edges on this aspect or that of whatever is proposed (being, after all, the Left), but the president and his press secretary will find that if Obama keeps banging the drum on the issue -- in multiple appearances before the media -- and if Democratic politicians are also on board with the basic concept, and speaking with one voice about the desirability of achieving it, then the "professional left" will indeed deliver for them. The Lefty media may not be quite as efficient an echo chamber as the Right (or "corporate") media, but when the message is a good one, the Left can eagerly get behind it, the president will find. If he starts the ball rolling, that is.

To be quite blunt, this is known as leadership.

And it -- not anything the "professional left" has been saying -- is what has been missing in the equation. When the president stops refusing to give press conferences, and when the president stops absolutely refusing to be interviewed by the "professional left" at any time or place, and when the president stops refusing to come out strongly for anything moving through Congress (other than in terms so vague and foggy you could swear you were in London) until sixteen minutes before it is about to pass, then and only then will I entertain the notion that the "professional left" isn't giving this White House and Barack Obama enough credit for their accomplishments.

Because, jokes about zeroing out the Pentagon budget aside, this is what this column has been saying all along, for 134 weeks and counting -- Democrats need to bang their own drum. Democrats need to toot their own horn. Democrats need to get in front of the people and make the case for what they're trying to achieve, and what they have managed to achieve.

While everyone along this chain has shown their faults (such as Democratic politicians' seemingly-inherent inability to stay on message, or the "professional left" always pooh-poohing "the good" in favor of "the perfect"), faults indeed exist at the top of this chain as well. I said it in my initial reaction to Gibbs' statement, and I will say it again: who would have thought that, once in office, Barack Obama's biggest problem was going to be a failure of communication?

Maybe he'll address it at his next press conference... next February, or maybe July. But until then, Gibbs and the rest of the White House need to do some self-examination before reflexively bashing the Left with a two-by-four. Because it is just not the best way to fix the Democrats' "enthusiasm gap" right before an election. And that, Mister Gibbs, is reality for you.

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

120 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [134] -- Some Reality For Gibbs”

  1. [1] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Wow,again. Chris, I respect that you bend over backwards to keep your thoughts firmly grounded in reality. But when you, the sanest voice in the blogosphere, start adamantly pointing out the Obama miscues in such harsh (for you) terminology; I pray the inner circle of Democratic thinkers sit up and take notice. Breathe deeply and have a stiff drink, our beloved CW god.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kevin -

    Well, every so often on Fridays, I just have to quaff deep from the Cup of Rant. Today was one of those days. Hey, it happens. I mean, I don't expect Lincoln Bedroom sleepover invites from the Obama White House for what I do, or even (for Pete's sake) a generic pat on the head to the Left every once in a while, but to be openly insulted by the White House for doing EXACTLY what the president keeps asking from us (to "keep pushing him" on these things), well, that's the point where I sometimes snap. Search for "retard" on this site, and you'll see a similar one from back when Rahm Emanuel called the Left "f-in' retards" and you'll see that, when pushed like this, sometimes I do tend to snap.

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The opening salvo from the piece in The Hill ...

    The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, but this doesn't sound like something you can be even remotely accused of saying.

    Just to reiterate ... you shouldn't be feeling slighted by what Gibbs said - you should be cheering it!

    To be clear, the "professional left" is not a term of endearment but rather a disparaging designation for a collection of individuals that this White House astutely recognizes as being seriously prone to spewing misguided opinions and ill-informed political analysis ... a collective with which you and your reality-based political commentary have nothing in common.

    I don't know why Gibbs said it and I don't really care. I just know that it felt good to hear him say it.

    And, yes ... this is a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face which, under normal conditions, I wouldn't subscribe to. But, I've had quite enough nonsense from these whiners and something needed to be said.

  4. [4] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    There's a certain amount of kabuki to all this. It's August, the White House wants to prevent teabaggery from eating up the oxygen like last year. The week before saw Ed Schultz (did you meet him in Vegas? *NARCISSUS IN BLOOM*) say he was planning to not vote in November, as if that would help. The article came out Monday, Gibbs was "out sick" Tuesday, Wednesday saw the 'sphere pique peak, and by Friday the whole thing ended with Gibbs declaring the president "still wants to feel the pressure" from the left. That's an entire WEEK the online left has been obsessed with this story -- mission accomplished!

    By the end of August, the "hippie punch" will look like an icebreaker.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Matt,

    That's what I love about this administration ... always a few steps ahead of the pack!

    :)

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I'm disappointed. Nobody was impressed my obscure factoid of the week? That "sinister" actually once meant "left"?

    Sigh. I go to all this trouble...

    Heh. Actually, I didn't. It's just another thing I learned from Heinlein at an early age, I have to admit.

    :-)

    -CW

    PS. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me!

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Matt -

    I didn't meet Ed, but my wife met Amy Goodman and got a signed book!

    :-)

    Had to give you a shoutout this week, as the one thing I regret from NRN was not ever being compos mentis enough, when we met, to appear on your video.

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Liz -

    It's not so much I was personally affronted by Gibbs, as that I was affronted for a whole class of folks.

    Let me put it this way -- if Gibbs was strictly right, and was only talking about the Maddows and Olbermanns and Schultzes of this world, that would be one thing. They all (assumably) are well-paid for what they do, and can take care of themselves. But for the thousands of folks who blog for free (or nearly so) who aren't big media types -- but who are putting in countless hours writing for the cause on their own dime and their own effort, I was SERIOUSLY affronted. These folks don't make millions doing what they do, they do it because they are dedicated. And that dedication is a fragile flower. It needs watering occasionally, and every so often some time in the sun.

    What it does NOT need is a jackboot which occasionally stamps on it, just for the fun of it.

    And THAT is why I get so personally offended by the White House every so often just taking a cheap shot at Lefty media -- without EVER offering an apology, and without EVER offering outreach (read the Lux article I linked to Wednesday). Because they really don't have to. It costs them nothing to nurture the grassroots flowerbeds. But they seem to have forgotten all of this. Which, at times, enrages me. This is just one of those times, sorry.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a certain amount of kabuki to all this. It's August, the White House wants to prevent teabaggery from eating up the oxygen like last year. The week before saw Ed Schultz (did you meet him in Vegas? *NARCISSUS IN BLOOM*) say he was planning to not vote in November, as if that would help. The article came out Monday, Gibbs was "out sick" Tuesday, Wednesday saw the 'sphere pique peak, and by Friday the whole thing ended with Gibbs declaring the president "still wants to feel the pressure" from the left. That's an entire WEEK the online left has been obsessed with this story -- mission accomplished!

    By the end of August, the "hippie punch" will look like an icebreaker.

    I think you give the Obama administration WAY too much credit.. No big shocker there, eh??

    So, what you are saying is that the Obama Administration decided that they needed a really big distraction to overcome the "August curse"..

    And what they came up with was a diversion that involves totally pissing off their base. The VERY base that got them elected. And they pissed off this oh-so-important base less than three months before an election that, by all accounts, will give control Congress BACK to the GOP..

    Hmmmmmmmm

    While the Obama Administration may succeed in their diversionary attempts, I do believe it will epitomize the term, "Pyhrric Victory".....

    Frankly, I don't believe this "diversion" tactic is the 3-D Chess game that you like to ascribe to the Obama Administration.

    I think it's more likely another example in a long line of examples of the Obama gang being so arrogant that they feel they don't NEED the "Professional Left" any more..

    It's a common affliction amongst the "rock star" types that happens when they actually start believing their own press releases..

    Once the Obama gang starts pissing off someone as evenly keeled and fair as CW, you KNOW they have gone off the reservation.

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I'm disappointed. Nobody was impressed my obscure factoid of the week? That "sinister" actually once meant "left"?

    "You were SERIOUS about dat??"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNIE

    I took it as "literary license".. :D I didn't know it was actually true...

    {Michale takes out his Honey Dew list for the day...
    "Learn something new.... CHECK".....}

    On another note, could you be so kind as to close my {I} attribute on the previous post?? Right after Ink's "hippie punch" line..

    Much Ass Grassy Ass... :D

    Michale....

    [Editorial Interruption:] Done. But you've got to promise to look up "sinister" in the next dictionary you come across, to see that I'm right...

    Heh.

    -The Editors

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having discredited the idea that Obama is some sort of 3-D Chess Grandmaster, let's explore the possibility..

    IF Obama is some sort of cheese wiz.... er.. I mean CHESS wiz... :D then it stands to reason that his "end game" may not be in keeping with what is in the best interests of the "Professional Left"...

    Stay with me here. If, as Ink postulates, it's Obama's plan to create a diversion from the August Curse, I submit that, in reality, such a diversion is merely a secondary effect...

    Because the PRIMARY effect will be to completely depress the Democrat turn-out in the upcoming mid-terms, thereby assuring GOP control of both houses of Congress...

    Now, if Obama is the Uber Master that some claim him to be, he HAS to know this. He HAS to know that he is pissing off his base to no end. This will, in turn lead to a DEM massacre at the election booths that will make 1994 look like a picnic by comparison.

    What if THAT is exactly what Obama's plan is??

    Now, WHY he would have this plan I have no idea. If this IS some sort of master plan, it is way beyond my pay grade..

    But, IF....

    If Obama is the Chess GrandMaster that some claim him to be, then it is only logical that his "Master Plan" is GOP control of Congress...

    Of course, I don't believe this.

    Employing Occam's Razor clearly indicates that the most likely explanation is that Obama's naiveté and inexperience in leadership is showing thru...

    But if I am wrong and it IS some master plan, ya'all have to concede the possibility that the end game of this "master plan" might not be the one ya'all think it is...

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Editorial Interruption:] Done. But you've got to promise to look up "sinister" in the next dictionary you come across, to see that I'm right...

    WOW, someone is up late... :D Thanx for the correction..

    sin·is·ter? ?[sin-uh-ster] Show IPA
    –adjective
    1.
    threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous: a sinister remark.
    2.
    bad, evil, base, or wicked; fell: his sinister purposes.
    3.
    unfortunate; disastrous; unfavorable: a sinister accident.
    4.
    of or on the left side; left.
    5.
    Heraldry . noting the side of an escutcheon or achievement of arms that is to the left of the bearer ( opposed to dexter).
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sinister

    Well, I'll be damned. Yer right! :D

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    OK, it's time to move on to Phase Two. Within hours (at the most, a day), every single Republican politician who appears on television is using some version of the following:

    "You know what? The president's right. When he said 'all of America's problems can be traced to left-handed people,' he was just giving voice to the vast majority of American citizens who write with their right hands. America is a center-right country, and we think it is abhorrent that some people don't recognize that and continue to favor their left hands. Lefties are the root of what is wrong with America, whether you're talking about their politics or what hand they choose to write with."

    You see, this reinforces the message from the top. Using exactly the same terminology, and repeating the soundbite endlessly cements the idea in the public's mind.

    Y'know why you keep seeing the same commercials for laundry detergent played over and over again to the point where ya wanna shoot yourself? It's because the gazillions of dollars invested in consumer research reveals that people need to hear a message three times before it even begins to register:

    First exposure: They're exposed to the commercial. Period. They can't play back any specifics except to say, "Yeah, it was something about laundry detergent, or dish-washing detergent, or stuff you wash your hands with, or something. I think."

    Seceond exposure: They have "familiarity." They've seen it before. They'll say "I think it was clothing detergent, not dish detergent." Tagline? The have no idea. Brand name? Fuggedabowdit. They'll maybe remember if it had music and whether they liked the tune or not. Or if a cute puppy was in it.

    Third exposure: They only BEGIN to zero in on what's actually being said. They'll say, "Yeah, it one woman bitching to her sister that she can never get certain crap to come out. But this stuff takes that crap out, or something." Which crap does new & improved Tide remove? No idea. Brand name? "One of those big ones."

    So you're absolutely right, Chris. Formulating one message and repeating and repeating and repeating the same "copy," over and over again, is key to getting one's message solidified in the minds of consumers, otherwise known as voters. Because politicians are products, just like laundry detergent. It's Tide against its competitor. Packaging, tag line, jingle, competitive point of difference, and — more important than anything — repetition.

  14. [14] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So the Republicans moderate their position slightly, and instead call for passage of the "Write Right Act," which forces kindergarten and first-grade teachers to teach everyone to write with their right hand. This passes in both houses of Congress (with a significant number of Democrats voting for it, by the way, who are terrified of the wrath of all their own right-handed voters).

    ROFL. You really are right on the money with your assessment. You've got the Republicans' strategy nailed.

    But another VERY important part of their marketing plan is a long-term strategy. That's where the Left falls apart. You guys think short-term. You myopically focus on the here-and-now and don't think down to the road about the ramifications of here-and-now legislation. HCR is a perfect example. What did Obama/Reid/Pelosi THINK was gonna happen after ignoring a majority of Americans who said "no" for a solid year, going so far as to elect a Republican Senator — outta Massachusetts, no less — to stop them, and still getting HCR forced upon them?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html#polls

    Answer: They didn't think. They were myopically focused on the "historic" aspect of getting it passed, and what that would mean to their legacies. And they didn't even bother to think of what's gonna happen to those historic legacies when the HCR mandate gets ruled unconstitutional?

    Picture that scenario for a second: Their legacy is out the door. The mandate is out the door, which means the entire HCR legislation collapses. And there they are, going into 2012, with a totally, utterly failed universal health care program to show for their four years, with gabillions of dollars already spent on setting up agencies and employing federal workers, etc. A complete waste of billions of taxpayers dollars, and at a time when the number one concern among the VAST majority of Americans is the debt their children and grandchildren are gonna inherit.

    And how about the future of the Party? When's the next time ya think this country is gonna vote in another Democratic congress? Or president?

    The second you saw the public option out and the mandate in, courtesy of Obama kowtowing to the insurance and pharma lobbyists, the Left should have been driving those poll numbers down with just as much vigor as the right. Because if Obama's approval rating were in the 30's months ago, with no way to explain them other than to connect them to HCR, he would've been forced to abandon it and go onto something else — like JOB CREATION. And you guys might have a real, genuine fighting chance in 2010. Instead, Dem candidates are on the campaign trail, scared to death somebody's gonna mention HCR.

  15. [15] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Now, WHY he would have this plan I have no idea. If this IS some sort of master plan, it is way beyond my pay grade..

    I think Obama is a great deal smarter than Pelosi/Reid. I think it is, indeed, his plan to let the congress go to the Republicans. I don't think he's on the 2010 campaign trail right now; I think he's campaigning for 2012.

    But, IF....

    If Obama is the Chess GrandMaster that some claim him to be, then it is only logical that his "Master Plan" is GOP control of Congress...

    Of course, I don't believe this.

    I do. In fact, if I were the Republican leadership, control of the House is the very last think I would want. I would want just enough House members to make it impossible for the Dems to pass any more reckless legislation through. And then I would sit back and let Obama and Pelosi hang themselves for two more years, showing the American people how desperately they want to spend more and more money that this country doesn't have. And there's the Republican party, in white hats, stepping in to block these out-of-control Dems every time they try to get something through. 2012 is a cakewalk for Republicans under those circumstances.

    But flip that around. Look at it from Obama's perspective. This entire financial mess we're in now transfers off him and onto congressional Republicans. It becomes their job to clean this economy up and create jobs. And every misstep they make, Obama gets to point the finger of blame. It puts him, personally, in a much better position in 2012 than not, because he's able to Monday-morning-quarterback, saying what he WOULD HAVE DONE, but couldn't, all because the Republicans wouldn't let him.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do.

    Ya know, to be honest, I thought you were a little overboard on this...

    Then I read...

    Obama's comments take mosque story national
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41069.html

    .... and I thought , "WTF"???

    I mean, what the hell??? Obama seems to be purposefully choosing the sides of an issue that is guaranteed to piss off the majority of Americans...

    Either Obama is utterly and completely clueless or he has some major agenda in mind...

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    This mosque thing is likely Obama throwing his base a bone. But there's more to it than that, I think, Michale. Because here's the president of the United States getting behind this mosque with no clue of who's funding it. THAT disturbs me.

    I've also been noticing something else that disturbs me about Obama, but which I'm not willing to lay out a case for, just yet. So I'll just leave you with two words for now:

    Louis Farrakhan.

  18. [18] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Either Obama is utterly and completely clueless or he has some major agenda in mind...

    Like I said, I don't think Obama's on the 2010 campaign trail at all because I believe he's already resigned to losing Congress, which he probably sees as in his best interest. But there's something I've been wondering lately, which you might wanna roll around in the back of your head, just for fun:

    I already know this guy is a one-termer. But what if Obama already knows that, too? What, then, does his agenda become for the next two years?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I already know this guy is a one-termer. But what if Obama already knows that, too? What, then, does his agenda become for the next two years?

    "Never underestimate a man who has nothing to lose."
    -IceT, SURVIVING THE GAME

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Gibbs was talking about folks on the left who haven’t had one good word to say about this administration, from day one. The same folks on the left who are outrageously critical of everything this administration has done and who have incessantly spewed their misguided opinions and ill-informed political analyses throughout the blogosphere and media.

    And, it matters NOT how much or how little or if these imbeciles get paid!

    These folks do what they do because they are dedicated, alright ... dedicated to inciting populist outrage against this administration through their fantasy-based political commentary. Unfortunately, that dedication is a powerful force against a backdrop of a large and ill-informed swath of the electorate. It needs to be stopped in its tracks!

    Why should the White House offer an apology to THIS class of folks? The White House needs to issue an apology to that OTHER class of folks on the left who actually ARE dedicated to writing and speaking for the cause ... writers like you, for example.

    The White House will offer outreach to these people if and when these people come to their senses and show that they really are dedicated to keeping the country on the right track and moving it forward. I wish these people could all be gathered up and put in a room and be made to listen to Vice President Biden giving them what the real deal is in a modified reprieve of his ‘Augean Stables’ speech.

    Oh, wait ... it was Biden who should have been in the room addressing NRN! I guarantee you that there would be no confusion as to who should apologize to whom and who has been subjected to being stamped on with the jackboot, a whole lot more than occasionally.

    In any event, I simply refuse to believe that you could possibly be affronted on behalf of this particular class of folks.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I need some editing, please ... sorry.

    The White House needs to issue an apology to that OTHER class of folks on the left who actually ARE dedicated to writing and speaking for the cause ... writers like you, for example.

    Should read as,

    The White House needs to issue an apology to that OTHER class of folks on the left who actually ARE dedicated to writing and speaking for the cause - writers like you, for example - for not responding to all of the nonsense from the left a whole lot sooner than almost half-way through their first term.

  22. [22] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Not included: Any actual consumer advocates or community group representatives.

    See now, this is what "the professional left" is upset about, Mister Gibbs. This is exactly the heart of the entire freakin' problem -- the Left isn't asking for everything on their agenda to be done yesterday, all they're asking for is a damn seat at the table.

    That "seat at the table" reminds me of that sweet little Dr. Margaret Flowers, who got arrested at the Max Baucus hearing. Listen to the WAY she says "...and they said noooooooooo."

    http://chris11962.com/Seat%20at%20the%20table.mov

    I keep thinking to myself, "Do these politicians even understand that Dr. Margaret Flowers is their boss; that she hired them; that she pays their salaries; that THEY are supposed to be working for HER? Evidently not, because Dr. Flowers ended up in handcuffs, and all she and her fellow "activists" — otherwise known as American citizens — were asking was for ONE lone representative to have a seat at that looooooooooooooooooong table. There is something very, VERY wrong with that shot of "we, the people" in handcuffs.

    The difference between Tea Partiers and Libs/Progs is that Tea Partiers aren't taking it anymore and the Libs/Progs still are.

  23. [23] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "I don't think [Bozo the Spokesman] should resign, I think he should be fired." - Grayson

    This is true, though not necessarily for the reasons Grayson lays out. Gibbs resigning says "Fine, ya big buncha babies. I'll leave so that the president doesn't have to be distracted by your incessant whining." Obama's firing him says "I won't tolerate a show of disrespect to American citizens of the Democratic party."

    BIG difference in the message sent out to this country.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Since, as fellow Huffington Post blogger Matt Osborne is fond of saying, "I'm still waiting for my first check from George Soros,"

    As the old saying goes, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free??"

    :D

    And then some bright spark decides that what Obama really needs is to woo independents and centrists back. And the easy way to do this is to pick up a two-by-four and beat the Left over the head, once again. Yeah, sure, that's the ticket!

    Yea, that's kinda my point.

    Obama is NOT this stupid...

    Is he???

    This is despicable. Now, we are no fans of Stevens or Palin, around here. In fact, we think they're two of the worst things ever to come from the state of Alaska. But, seriously, there is a line of propriety in politics, and that line is labeled: "Don't joke about the deaths of politicians, past or future." Horrigan crossed that line. The only thing saving him from the MDDOTW award this week was the fact that he promptly resigned his state House seat, and withdrew from the upcoming election. At least he recognized the magnitude of his error, in other words.

    The Lefties from a previous commentary should remember these despicable acts when they pontificate that it's always the Right that is mean and nasty and the Left is as pure as the driven snow..

    "Well, looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it."
    -Joyce DeWitt, THREES COMPANY

    (Had to reach REALLY far back for THAT little gem, eh?? :D )

    To be quite blunt, this is known as leadership.

    Exactly..

    And, since Obama is a "Leader In Training", he is making mistakes left and right. (No pun intended)

    CB,

    This mosque thing is likely Obama throwing his base a bone. But there's more to it than that, I think, Michale. Because here's the president of the United States getting behind this mosque with no clue of who's funding it. THAT disturbs me.

    I know that many here think that the Mosque issue is much ado about nothing...

    While it has been firmly established that, all things being equal, Muslims have the right to build a mosque on private property, the one's opposed to the mosque do make good points. Emotional points, to be sure, but good points nonetheless..

    Postulate a scenario where a fundementalist Christian group, a group that Timothy McVeigh belonged to for example, wanted to build a "church" a block away from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Do you think that the citizens of Oklahoma City would think that was a really great idea???

    Of course not..

    So, why should the citizens of New York be an exception??

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There you go AGAIN making false, not to mention ludicrous, analogies.

    These analogies only deflate your arguments.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1062,

    You may be clueless as to who is funding the mosque.

    But, that doesn't mean that Obama, Biden and Geithner are clueless, too. You really should try to refrain from projecting so much. It relflects so poorly on you.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Perhaps you can explain exactly why or how the analogy is flawed..

    That would be "peachy keen wonderful" as my lovely wife would say... :D

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, that doesn't mean that Obama, Biden and Geithner are clueless, too.

    You actually raise a very good point.

    It IS possible that Obama et al DOES know the exact funding sources for the Cordoba Mosque.

    It's also possible that they CAN'T say they know because it would compromise intelligence assets to get into specifics.

    However, since the funding question is one of the issues against the Cordoba Mosque, it would behoove Obama to make it clear that the funding is NOT coming from terrorists.

    To my knowledge, NO ONE has addressed the funding concern. Which, in my mind, makes that a VERY important issue..

    Regardless, there are still very real emotional issues that are valid, above and beyond the question of funding..

    Muslim groups are saying the Cordoba Mosque is meant to build bridges...

    It's becoming apparent that, due to the complete and utter insensitivity of the Muslim community over this issue, bridges are being destroyed, not built...

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best and most irrefutable analogy would be this:

    Would it have been appropriate to build a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor in 1950??

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Perhaps you can explain exactly why or how the analogy is flawed...

    Your analogy is flawed because it implies facts not in evidence. :)

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I really enjoyed reading [28] ... I just wanted to say that. :)

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's becoming apparent that, due to the complete and utter insensitivity of the Muslim community over this issue, bridges are being destroyed, not built...

    Have you heard that the mosque developers are open to relocation? How far away from the attack site is far enough for those opposed to the mosque being built (in the proposed place), I wonder.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    One more point about the sensitivity issue.

    I haven't heard a lot from the family members of those killed in the attack on the World Trade Center complex. But, what I have heard is very distressing in that they are equating the people involved with the mosque with the people involved with the 9/11 attacks.

    Sadly, that only betrays their ignorance and does nothing to validate their sensitivities.

    Perhaps if the mosque developers and their supporters were to sit down with the family members and others opposed to building the mosque so close to the attack site, they might reach a compromise that would build bridges.

  34. [34] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    However, since the funding question is one of the issues against the Cordoba Mosque, it would behoove Obama to make it clear that the funding is NOT coming from terrorists.

    To my knowledge, NO ONE has addressed the funding concern. Which, in my mind, makes that a VERY important issue..

    NY congressman Peter King has been harping on this funding from the start. He's on the Homeland committee, so if "intel" were involved, he would know about it. The fact is that the Imam is just refusing to say who's funding it:

    "...in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Rauf told the newspaper that funding would come from Muslims in the United States and from overseas.

    "Imam Abdul Rauf . . . told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Islamic center will be financed through contributions from Muslims in the US, as well as by donations from Arab and Islamic countries," the newspaper reported.

    Rauf did not return a call for comment.

    In interviews with US media, Rauf has insisted funds would be raised here."
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO

    So he's got two two different stories going on. That, right there, is a red flag. And here's Obama, standing up for the project with no clue who's funding it.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Nope, you're still the only one who is quite clueless about all of this.

    You are apparently unaware of how capable the treasury department is in figuring out these things.

    So, you may continue on with your nonsense - ad nauseam - inspired by your own cluelessness, if you wish, but you are only succeeding in portraying yourself as just another member of the ill-informed electorate ... or worse ...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Your analogy is flawed because it implies facts not in evidence. :)

    Analogies are rarely "factual"... That is why they are analogies. :D

    Have you heard that the mosque developers are open to relocation? How far away from the attack site is far enough for those opposed to the mosque being built (in the proposed place), I wonder.

    I have not heard that... I would love to read about it if you have the link...

    As far as how far?? Beyond the nationalistic isues, that would be a better question to those who lost loved ones on 9/11..

    But, what I have heard is very distressing in that they are equating the people involved with the mosque with the people involved with the 9/11 attacks.

    That's because there IS a direct link, as much as it is not PC to point it out...

    Just as there is a direct link between Christian fundamentalists and the likes of McVCeigh and Rudolph, just as there is a direct link between the Japanese people and those that attacked Pearl Harbor...

    Anyone who lost a husband, wife, son, daughter, father or mother on 9/11 simply cannot help but make the link between Islam and Islamic terrorists...

    And it's damn insensitive to ask ANYONE that lost a loved one to accept the instrument of terrorism mere blocks away from the site of the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the United States.

    As I said above, if the idea was to build bridges, the Cordoba Mosque is already a dismal failure. The main reason being because they chose the Cordoba name, thereby invoking the Cordoba legend as it pertains to Islam.

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Analogies must at least make sense. This one did not. This one compared apples with oranges and, therefore, failed to make your point.

    Here's a link for you about the possibility of a change in location for the mosque ... I can't vouch, however, for the accuracy of the article.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/13/2010-08-13_we_can_talk_about_move_sez_mosque.html

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You are apparently unaware of how capable the treasury department is in figuring out these things.

    If this is true, then it would behoove the Treasury Dept to settle the question of the Cordoba Mosque funding.

    Until such time, CB's assertion that the funding is in question is accurate..

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Analogies must at least make sense. This one did not. This one compared apples with oranges and, therefore, failed to make your point.

    But WHY doesn't it make sense.

    That's my question....

    Thanx for the link.. Reading now.. :D

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And, of course, there's this:

    "...Democrats — at least some who were willing to comment — could barely contain their frustration over Obama's remarks, saying he had potentially placed every one of their candidates into the middle of the debate by giving GOP candidates a chance to ask them point-blank: Do you agree with Obama on the mosque, or not?"
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41069.html

    Notice the sign the woman is holding. Muslims know the significance of the name "Cordoba." The fact that the building was named that, of all things, raises a red flag. That the Imam won't disclose who's funding it is another flag. That the groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for September 11th of next year — the tenth-year anniversary of the attack — is another red flag. And there's Obama — whose JD should be following the money, but isn't — is throwing his support behind this project, with no clue who's funding it.

    And you wonder why I raise the I-word? This guy is either as incompetent as the day is long or (a disturbing thought) he's an "internationalist" who puts the world first and America second.

    Frankly, the more I watch Obama and look at the people he surrounds himself with, the more he's looking like he holds attitudes not too terribly dissimilar from Louis Farrakahn. (His Attorney General is disciple of Farrakahn if I've ever seen one.) I think there's a lot more to the dreamy, Kumbaya, heartwarming Obama story than has been told. For instance, does anybody really know what his "politics" were when he was in college? Because I'm getting the strong sense that he was a lot more radical than we know. Like, a few steps beyond the blame-America-first crowd.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    This rant will be more appreciated at the Huffington Post.

    You find more comrades-in-arms there, too.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    According to a WSJ, the Mosque group rejected Gov Paterson's offer to relocate the Mosque..

    Which is in keeping with the Cordoba designation, as Cordoba requires that the site of conquest be marked with a Mosque...

    Michale....

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But WHY doesn't it make sense.

    Simply because the mosque developers are not known to be the Moslem equivalant of a fundamentalist Christian group. On the contrary, they are known to be moderate Moslems.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    According to a WSJ, the Mosque group rejected Gov Paterson's offer to relocate the Mosque...

    Shall I find another media link that says the opposite? No, I don't think so.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You have to admit, the Cordoba Group scheduling the ground-breaking on 11 Sep is pretty inflammatory..

    They could have chosen 364 different days..

    WHY would they choose THAT particular day to break ground on their new Mosque??

    Because the Cordoba designation, as it pertains to Islam, requires it..

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simply because the mosque developers are not known to be the Moslem equivalant of a fundamentalist Christian group. On the contrary, they are known to be moderate Moslems.

    And I am certain that the Christian Fundamentalists in my analogy would show themselves to be "moderate" as well.

    The association is with the religion itself. Let's face it, as much as it would like to pretend otherwise, Islam is not the most tolerant of religions...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:
  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Simply because the mosque developers are not known to be the Moslem equivalant of a fundamentalist Christian group. On the contrary, they are known to be moderate Moslems.

    "Moderate" Muslims would not choose to name their group, "Cordoba"....

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "Well, looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it."
    -Joyce DeWitt, THREES COMPANY

    ROFL! Where the heck do you come up with these quotes, Michale. Please don't tell me you actually have them stored in your memory banks.

  50. [50] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    As I said above, if the idea was to build bridges, the Cordoba Mosque is already a dismal failure.

    Yet look how firmly their heels are, nevertheless, dug in. It seems no other location but the foot of the attack site will do for "Cordoba" House. Red flag, anyone?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    ROFL! Where the heck do you come up with these quotes, Michale. Please don't tell me you actually have them stored in your memory banks.

    Scary, ain't I?? :D

    Yet look how firmly their heels are, nevertheless, dug in. It seems no other location but the foot of the attack site will do for "Cordoba" House. Red flag, anyone?

    No other explanation fits the facts..

    Regardless of one's position vis a vis the Cordoba Mosque, one simply must admit what a bonehead move it was for Obama to state his position so adamantly, then back-pedal furiously the next day..

    I think this latest boner rivals Obama's "Cops acted stupidly" moment...

    And THAT was a huge boner and a hard act to follow...

    Michale......

  52. [52] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    This Imam refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist group, and he had a "leading role in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, 'a principal partner,' in its own words, of the Turkish-launched flotilla that tried to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza." He's tied to a number of other questionable groups:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mosque-grows-near-brooklyn

  53. [53] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Also from that article...

    "Rauf’s wife failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its website to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami."

  54. [54] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Regardless of one's position vis a vis the Cordoba Mosque, one simply must admit what a bonehead move it was for Obama to state his position so adamantly...

    And what if financial ties to terrorist organizations pop up down the road? What is Obama gonna say THEN? This wouldn't be the first time a mosque project was shut down in this country, due to terrorist-tied funding. I recall a similar thing going down in in Florida. Yet here's the president of the United States, with no clue where this money is coming from, throwing his support behind this project.

    I sometimes wonder whose side Obama is on. And I ain't talking political parties.

  55. [55] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton made a statement, trying to clarify Obama's position. Within this statement is something I find very disturbing:

    "We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack."

    Small band of terrorists???? Al Qaeda extends well beyond "the small band of terrorists who planned and executed the attack." Al Qaeda is all over the world, with training camps and indoctrination centers and money-funneling organizations — you name it. Yet this entire White House seems to regard al Qaeda as some pesky little organization that simply won't stop annoying us with attacks and attempted attacks upon the homeland.

  56. [56] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  57. [57] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    No, of course, it passed on pretty much a party-line vote, with Democrats standing up for first responders and the education of the next generation of Americans, and Republicans standing firmly against saving jobs.

    Let's not forget the part where the food stamps program was cut in order to "stand up" for the paychecks of first responders and teachers, all because states have been spending just as recklessly as the federal government and now — surprise, surprise — can't pay their bills.

    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/e831468dd5f32187853c738c005ffdc0-175.html

    Check out the second part of that video, with Christie talking about how he closed Jersey's $11B deficit without raising taxes. The only reason the states are cutting teachers/firefighters is because they're not willing to cut the tons of entitlement programs they've created, though CAN'T AFFORD; plus, they're scared to death to take the teachers (and other) unions on.

  58. [58] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    President Obama has given exactly (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, here) one primetime press conference in about the last year, you can see that I've got a valid point to make. The Obama White House complains that their message isn't getting out? Well, I don't know, how about trying to get your own damn message out by using the biggest damn media platform in the country a little more than once a damn year or so, guys?

    Bearing in mind that the Democratic party is 39% of the electorate, check out Obama's new record-low approval rating with Gallup:

    http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

    Even if this 42% were to include the approval of every last Democrat in the country, that means a mere 3% of the rest of the country approves of the job he's doing. And that's according to a poll with +/- 3% margin of error.

    The problem for Dems is not that they can't get their communications act together: it's that they've got nothing to trumpet. The majority of the country wants the Dems' victorious HCR repealed; this enormously expensive "recovery" plan is a wholesale failure, with the recession on the threshold of a double-dip; the jobs numbers are horrifying...

    So WHAT is the message? What are Dem candidates supposed to say? THAT is the problem, Chris.

    One has to follow the likely voters polls to realize this, but the Dems have been on the wrong side of virtually every legislation and issue that's transpired over the past year and half. For example, the majority never wanted HCR legislation OR the Student Aid legislation. They never supported the Nuke agreement Obama cut, with 77% saying, to this day, that the more nukes the better, in terms of protecting this country. The majority is against Obama's Arizona lawsuit; they're against his drilling moratorium; they're against the GZ mosque; they were against the terrorist trial in NYC; they were all for reigning in Wall Street, but NOT for the huge new agency that's being created, or the Federal Government giving itself the authority to simply seize any financial business that LOOKS rocky to them; they were against the auto bail-outs; they're aginst cap-n-trade... I mean, virtually EVERYTHING the Dems have been for, the majority has been against.

    So what campaign message would you recommend, Chris? Because I'm a strategist, by profession, and I'll be damned if I can figure out a viable selling proposition. I wouldn't know how to sell this tube of toothpaste if ya held a gun to my head.

  59. [59] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Here's another, re: Independents:

    "Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November's elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls." - http://tinyurl.com/2akb2wd

    This is gonna be ugly. I think the Dems are gonna get seriously stomped in November, because for the life of me, I can't think of anything that can happen between now and November that would change voters minds — including, say, the capture of Osama bin Laden. I don't think even THAT would change anything, given the jobs situation AND the fear that this country is turning into a socialism.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    I sometimes wonder whose side Obama is on. And I ain't talking political parties.

    I often wonder the same thing about you.

  61. [61] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Chris,

    Aside from being ticked off, are you OK? You've been greatly missed in the comments for some time now. Hope all is well with you, Mrs. CW, and your vehicle :D

  62. [62] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    More change you can believe in:

    "Banks to benefit most from White House effort to fight foreclosures."
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/114349-banks-to-benefit-most-from-white-house-program-to-stave-off-foreclosures

    But it's the Republicans who are in bed with the banks, right?

    Plus, as if it weren't bad enough that the Dems cut the food stamps program to bail out the teachers (union campaign contributions, anyone?), catch the other article entitled "Dems may use food stamp money to pay for Michelle Obama's nutrition initiative." This is precisely the personal-liberty "intrusion" the majority of Americans are pissed off about. And it's also the kind of spending that's infuriating them. Yet the Dems just keep on doing it.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is precisely the personal-liberty "intrusion" the majority of Americans are pissed off about. And it's also the kind of spending that's infuriating them. Yet the Dems just keep on doing it.

    It's obvious what the Democrats are doing.

    They know they are going to lose their majority, likely in both houses of Congress.

    So, they are doing their utmost to move forward their own agenda before they do..

    Unfortunately, their agenda is NOT the agenda that best serves the country.

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until AFTER the election, when they're a lame-duck congress.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    Aside from being ticked off, are you OK? You've been greatly missed in the comments for some time now. Hope all is well with you, Mrs. CW, and your vehicle :D

    CB and I have kidnapped CW..

    We will turn him over to Rush for indoctrination unless ALL of you capitulate and renounce Obamaism and embrace Michale'ism..

    You have 24 hours to comply...

    :D

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Michale,

    First let us speak to Chris.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    Michale,

    First let us speak to Chris.

    "I am fine. Please do everything that Michale says."
    -CW

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale,

    First let us speak to Chris.

    You'll speak to Chris when Michale, Rush and I decide you'll speak to Chris.

  69. [69] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Obama backtracks over Ground Zero mosque after furious 9/11 families label him 'insensitive and uncaring'

    "...Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

    He spoke as Islamist group Hamas today backed the mosque plan.

    Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said Muslims 'have to build everywhere' so that followers can pray, just like Christians and Jews build their places of worship.

    Al-Zahar spoke on 'Aaron Klein Investigative Radio' on WABC-AM in the U.S. He is a co-founder of Hamas and its chief on the Gaza Strip. http://tinyurl.com/22kyyn9

    Oh, good. The president of the United States and Hamas are on the same side in this issue, in stark contrast to the majority of Americans.

    Repeat: I sometimes wonder whose side Obama is on. And I ain't talking political parties.

  70. [70] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    From the NY Post:
    Hamas nod for Ground Zero mosque
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/ba95c4a4a313bcd843413271db8779e0-186.html

    Notice how Bloomberg is sloooooooooowly backing away.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    You'll speak to Chris when Michale, Rush and I decide you'll speak to Chris.

    hehehehehehehehehehe :D

    As far as the Mosque issue, Obama is talking apples and alligators..

    It's as if he said,"I want to address the Mosque issue. Dogs barking can't fly home without umbrella"

    One statement has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

    The issue with the Mosque is not that they don't have the RIGHT to build the Mosque. Assuming the funding issue is proven, of course they have the RIGHT to build it..

    The issue is why this group is so adamant about tying this mosque to the 9/11 attacks??

    THAT is the issue that I would like to see Obama address..

    I know, I know.. Fat chance of that, eh??

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    ""We have to build everywhere. We have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places."
    -Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas.

    So, we should see a Christian Church in Mecca and a Synagogue in Medina soon???

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kevin -

    Actually, I have a minor medical problem currently which makes it very hard to sit in front of a computer for any length of time. It's been all I can do to get each day's article out, and I realize I've been falling down on the comments, for which I apologize. Hopefully this problem will be resolved soon, and things will return to normal here.

    I'm sorry I've left it up to you folks to counter some of the negative stuff here, but hopefully, as I said, things will get back to normal soon.

    -CW

  74. [74] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Chris,

    I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the problem is not so contagious that your wife may be at risk. Better yet that it is not contagious at all. I think I may be having a similar problem in that my vision is getting slightly fuzzy from spending so much time on the computer. I look forward to hearing your problem is done with.

  75. [75] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Actually, I have a minor medical problem currently which makes it very hard to sit in front of a computer for any length of time.

    Lower back pain. Here's what you do: Stack books on your desk, stick your computer on top of it, and write while standing up. Donald Rumsfeld did all his desk work standing up and not until I started getting writer-related lower-back pain did I understand why.

    Also, in the morning, before drinking coffee or tea, drink a glass of water and take a baby aspirin. That'll keep your circulation going in your legs, which is another malady writers suffer from. (That's dangerous, y'know.)

  76. [76] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So, we should see a Christian Church in Mecca and a Synagogue in Medina soon???

    Aaaaaaany day now.

  77. [77] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The issue with the Mosque is not that they don't have the RIGHT to build the Mosque. Assuming the funding issue is proven, of course they have the RIGHT to build it..

    This is what Lefty spinners are truly talented at: deliberately missing the point and then dumping on the Rightie for a point he/she has neither made nor contested, nor is even at issue. (It's called "changing the subject.") MediaMatters does that to frickin' Glen Beck all the time. LOL. That poor guy. And then, of course, Olbermann and Rachel Madcow run with it that evening. And then ya go to the HuffPo the next day, and all the folks are regurgitating it as "fact." LOL. Ah, fun and games. Fun and games.

  78. [78] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think I may be having a similar problem in that my vision is getting slightly fuzzy from spending so much time on the computer.

    Here's whatcha do: Go to the eye doctor, and if you don't already have reading glasses, they'll prescribe them. And when you get the order filled, go for that special coating they're always pushing, which helps with monitor glare. It costs a small fortune, but it's well worth it. You'll notice a difference.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Sorry to hear yer not doing good... I feel like an idjut for making jokes..

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I'm sorry I've left it up to you folks to counter some of the negative stuff here, but hopefully, as I said, things will get back to normal soon.

    Now that I know you'll be out of commission for a while, I'll try to put more effort into that. Glad you checked in because I had about given up hope that we would ever get back to normal around here.

    In the meantime, take good care and get well soon!

  81. [81] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You're catching the touchy-feely Kumbaya disease, Michale. Chris is a tough guy. He can take it. 'D

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You aren't the one around here who should feel like an idiot.

    :)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Harry Reid is against the Cordoba Mosque...

    Well, I guess even a busted watch is right twice a day... :D

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you trying to prove me wrong?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    About what??

    About Harry Reid being a busted clock??? :D

    Michale.....

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Actually, that was pretty funny.

    But, you know ... I bet that we don't know the half of what Harry Reid has been doing to move the president's agenda forward. Whether you like that agenda or not, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Reid deserves more credit that he is usually given.

    I just don't know that much about him to offer anything remotely resembling an informed opinion.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, you know ... I bet that we don't know the half of what Harry Reid has been doing to move the president's agenda forward. Whether you like that agenda or not, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Reid deserves more credit that he is usually given.

    You say "credit".. I say "blame"...

    But it amounts to the same thing. :D

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962

    In lieu of wasting too many minutes of my time responding further to any of your comments in this and previous threads, let me give you fair warning that your unique brand of nonsense will no longer be tolerated at http://www.chrisweigant.com. In future, if you should insist on posting such nonsense it will be competently called out for the puerile babble that it is.

    Suffice to say that this important space in the blogosphere puts a very high premium on reality-based political analysis and on thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments that stand or fall on the proven facts, in context, of any given issue. We are accustomed here to friendly discussions and heated debates, based on informed opinion and infused with a very healthy dose of good humour. All of this is a reflection right back upon our extraordinary host, Chris Weigant, whose enlightened political analysis and personal integrity are second to none in the blogosphere.

    It is my fervent hope that you will choose to become a part of this phenomenal atmosphere which Chris has very carefully cultivated and that your comments will reflect a great respect for this special place that we are all so proud to be a part of.

  89. [89] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Even Harry Reid is against the Cordoba Mosque...

    Well, I guess even a busted watch is right twice a day... :D

    Ol' Harry doesn't have much choice in the matter. His Tea Partier opponent would just hammer him into the ground if he were to side with Obama (and Hamas!) and against popular public opinion. I'm sure Harry would've preferred not to have answered one way or the other, given the hot political potato this has turned out to be. (Way to go, Obama.) But he was never gonna get away with that on the campaign trail.

    Rahm Emanuel must be spitting fire right about now.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, looks like gay marriages are on hold indefinitely...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

    This usually means that the Appeals Court feels that the plaintiffs may have a good chance to succeed in the appeal.

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "...instead of lining up with President Barack Obama, who expressed support for the Muslim community’s right to build the mosque, Reid is more in tune with Sarah Palin and his Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, on this one."
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/16/sen-reid-opposes-mosque-near-ground-zero/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=WSJ_Politics_Blog

    Oh, that had to hurt. 'D

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Islam and Two Americas ... Ross Douthat, New York Times

    I just read this interesting op-ed in the NYTimes about 'two Americas' and the Cordoba House.

    I thought it was extremely well written and might go a long way toward bridging the great divide on this issue right here!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This usually means that the Appeals Court feels that the plaintiffs may have a good chance to succeed in the appeal.

    This development may be just what we need. The Appeals Court decision on this, assuming it goes against the plaintiffs, will give the original decision more weight with a certain segment of the populaton.

    There doesn't appear to be any valid constitutional argument for reversing the original decision.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Oh, that had to hurt. 'D

    In spades... :D

    Liz,

    There doesn't appear to be any valid constitutional argument for reversing the original decision.

    Other than dis-enfranchising 7 million California voters, I would agree with you.

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I hope you don't believe that the majority of California voters can usurp equality rights enshrined in the constitution.

    In other words, the will of the people will stand unless it is contradicted by the constitution, no?

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, the will of the people will stand unless it is contradicted by the constitution, no?

    If you can find anything in the US Constitution that specifically allows gay marriage, then I would agree with you...

    Look, I support gay marriage completely and unequivocally...

    But, apparently, the voters in California feel differently..

    It appears to me that the gay community wants acceptance to be legislated..

    And THAT will never happen. The more they fight for it, the more they try to ram it down people's throats, the more people who don't approve, will fight against it..

    Let me put it another way..

    Would the gay community accept a situation whereas each and every right that is afforded traditional married couples is afforded to gay couples, but that the designation for gay marriage would NOT be called "marriage" but rather "civil union"??

    I don't think they would...

    And therein lies the issue...

    By and large, gay couples don't want equality...

    They want acceptance...

    And they are trying to get it thru legislation..

    And THAT simply will never happen...

    Much as a Jewish family wouldn't live in Saudi Arabia if they wanted to openly practice their faith, a gay family would have to relocate to a region where their lifestyle is accepted, if it is acceptance that they seek...

    In other words, I am all for fighting for equal rights and such...

    But I firmly believe that you simply cannot legislate acceptance and to try and do so just makes it that much harder to gain the equality.

    And it's equality that is important...

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    By and large, gay couples don't want equality...

    They want acceptance...

    And they are trying to get it thru legislation..

    And THAT simply will never happen...

    What are gays gonna do if this gets before the Supreme Court — which could actually happen soon — and they lose the ruling? What then? That's gonna be end of the road.

    You're right, Michale: If gays want acceptance, they can't force it upon society. They have to let it evolve, naturally. Think about if Roe v. Wade had come before the Supremes in the 1950's. Does anyone believe it would've been passed into law? No way.

    I think gays are pushing for this a little too forcefully and a little too soon.

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    <And THAT will never happen. The more they fight for it, the more they try to ram it down people's throats, the more people who don't approve, will fight against it...

    This is an extremely common argument, often used to deny the recognition of minority rights when the majority does not approve.

    I like to call it the 'ram it, jam it' argument. Heh Heh

    You have added another irrelevant component to it by arguing that they want to legislate acceptance. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean but it is a spurious argument, at best.

    Perhaps you could explain to me how fighting for recognition of your rights is somehow ramming something down someone else's throat. In this case, how is the recognition of gay marriage infringing upon the rights of anyone else?

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps you could explain to me how fighting for recognition of your rights is somehow ramming something down someone else's throat. In this case, how is the recognition of gay marriage infringing upon the rights of anyone else?

    I'll be happy to explain it. But I just want you to answer the question I asked above.

    Do you think the gay community would accept a situation whereas their partnerships would have all the rights and privileges afforded to regular married couples but that there partnership would NOT be called a "marriage" but rather a civil union?

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't know but, why should they?

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know but, why should they?

    Because it would show that they are more interested in equal rights than they are interested in forcing their lifestyle upon someone else...

    Let me put it to you this way.

    Let's postulate a scenario where you worked long and hard to obtain a certification. You spent years studying and studying and you finally obtain the A-1 Certification For Excellence... You are as pleased as punch..

    Then you see this guy who was able to obtain the EXACT A-1 Certification For Excellence just by plopping down $29.95 on some website.

    Now, wouldn't that just piss you off a little???

    For many in the US, "marriage" is a religious and moral institution. Now, I don't partake of that idea because I am as agnostic as they come..

    But I *DO* understand and acknowledge that, for many in this country, it IS a religious/moral issue.. And they have as much right to THEIR opinions and THEIR freedom as gay couples have to theirs..

    The people of California voted in a free and fair election to state that "marriage" is between a man and a woman..

    I don't agree with that, but I do acknowledge the right for Californians to decide that way.

    If Gay Couples want to exercise their lifestyle freely and openly with ALL the designations and labels that "regular" couples have, then they need to move to an area where such is the case.

    Apparently, California is NOT one of those areas..

    Put it into another context...

    You have a Jewish family that lives in the heart of Dearborn which is the largest community of Muslims in the United States..

    They are uncomfortable with their neighbors and they want the entire area to change more to their liking.

    Now, what would your response be to that Jewish Family. Would it be, "Yer damn right!! We need to change EVERYONE in the city of Dearborn, so you can be comfortable because dammit, that is your right!!!"

    Or would it be, "Ya know, the entire area is Muslim. If you want acceptance and comfort within your religion, perhaps Dearborn MI is not the place for you to be."

    I think that most logical and rational people would opt for the latter response..

    And so it is with gay couples..

    It may not be fair.. Just like it wasn't fair for the US military to avoid sending interracial couples to places like Mississippi and Alabama. Slowly that changed, but it took time..

    It wasn't legislated or demanded or forced upon. We gradually grew up and accepted such things..

    The gay community are really shooting themselves in the foot by forcing the issue and demanding acceptance..

    Because, if it DOES get to the SCOTUS in the next couple years (which is likely), the gay community will lose and lose big..

    Then what??

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ultimately, my point is simple.

    You can't legislation feelings.

    You can force someone to like or accept someone else...

    And THAT is exactly what the gay community is doing.

    It's trying to FORCE people to accept the idea of gay marriage...

    Such acceptance can NEVER be forced.

    If history has taught us anything, it is that if such acceptance is forced upon people, people will fight that much harder and longer against it.

    Michale.....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't legislation feelings

    You can force someone to like or accept someone else...

    Arrggghhhh!!! I can't believe I made such bonehead mistakes... :D

    That should read, "You can't legislate feelings"

    and

    "You can't force someone to like or accept someone else..."

    My bust.

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CB...

    "Q: Will Barack Obama be a one-term president?

    A: Yes, he might last that long.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41134.html

    I thought you would like this article.. :D

    Michale.....

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Ultimately, your point is not worth the space in the blogosphere that you are using to try to make it.

    Sorry.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    In other words, people can accept gay marriage or, not. It doesn't matter.

    Whether people accept gar marriage or they don't accept gey marriage has no bearing on whether gay marriage is deemed constitutional.

    I hope that is clear as mud.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, people can accept gay marriage or, not. It doesn't matter.

    No...

    In other words, gay couples can accept the will of the California voters or they can move to where the can label their lifestyle as they would like to..

    Whether people accept gar marriage or they don't accept gey marriage has no bearing on whether gay marriage is deemed constitutional.

    There will be those who will never accept gay marriage, even if the SCOTUS deems gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right..

    As I said, you can't legislate feelings...

    At the heart of the dilemma is whether marriage is a state institution or a religious institution..

    It's actually both, but in this case, the gay community wants to impose the state view onto the religious view.

    The voters in California decided that the religious view is the paramount view.

    Like I said above.. It's not about equal rights..

    It's about the gay community's attempt to legislate opinions and feelings..

    Michale.....

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that, had the Prop8 vote gone the OTHER way and 7 million voters voted DOWN Prop8, my message to the proponents of Prop8 would be the same.

    The voters have spoken.

    Quit whining...

    Accept it..

    Michale.....

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There will be those who will never accept gay marriage, even if the SCOTUS deems gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right...

    That is PRECISELY what I have been saying, Michale. Regardless of whether people accept gay marriage or not, the SCOTUS will rule on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

    You can't possible believe that the will of the people trumps the constitution!

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    By the way ... this is ALL about equal rights under the law versus discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    And, I'm not whining! Geesh.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I know you are not whining... If I gave the impression I thought that, I am most sincerely sorry...

    By the way ... this is ALL about equal rights under the law versus discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Here's an idea...

    Why not have the gay community get together and sponsor a measure that would designate gay partnerships as "civil unions" and give said unions ALL the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are afforded to couples that are married..

    I would be willing to wager that such a measure would pass overwhelmingly in California.

    But, I don't think the gay community would go for it.. Because it doesn't appear that it is about "equal rights"...

    It appears to me that the issue is about "equal acceptance"...

    And that's just not legislatable...

    That is PRECISELY what I have been saying, Michale. Regardless of whether people accept gay marriage or not, the SCOTUS will rule on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

    You can't possible believe that the will of the people trumps the constitution!

    No, I don't...

    And if the SCOTUS decides that gay marriage is constitutionally protected then that becomes the law of the land..

    However... If the SCOTUS decides that gay marriage is NOT constitutionally protected (as is likely, given the make-up of the court) what then??

    Michale.....

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Well, when you tell me explicitly to "stop whining", what's a poor girl supposed to think? :)

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    :D Actually, I was referring to my hypothetical whereas the proponents of Prop8 lost and I would, hypothetically, tell THEM to stop whining, thereby implying that I am also telling the gay community (not your personally) to stop whining.. :D

    It just seems to me that the Left, in general, will bend over backways, sideways and every way in their efforts to make sure that voters are not disenfranchised..

    UNLESS....

    Unless the voters vote in a way that the Left doesn't like...

    Then they can't disenfranchise voters fast enough...

    Time will tell how this all plays out. I really can't see the SCOTUS, with it's current make-up, upholding the original Judge's decision...

    Is there any reason to think that the SCOTUS will even take the case??

    Michale.....

  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @1962,

    Because I'm a strategist, by profession, and I'll be damned if I can figure out a viable selling proposition. I wouldn't know how to sell this tube of toothpaste if ya held a gun to my head.

    this being the case, i suppose it is not surprising that you're continuing your work role in this forum. i enjoyed your detergent analogy and your contribution to the media discussion. however, unless you are able to remove your righty propagandist hat, you will not be well regarded here. although conservative views are generally given fair consideration, limbaugh style name-calling ("rachel madcow?"), accusations and innuendo without support or qualification, will not long be tolerated here.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    although conservative views are generally given fair consideration, limbaugh style name-calling ("rachel madcow?"), accusations and innuendo without support or qualification, will not long be tolerated here.

    I have to go with nypoet on this.. Although I missed the MadCow reference..

    I always give a little sigh when I see the Left post things like "Rethugs" or "Repugs" or all the "cutsey" (read in "pathetic") names for Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. Not to mention Bush or Cheney. (Which reminds me, Nypoet.. Check some of the recent comments.. Someone was doing the exact same thing to Cheney).. I give a little sigh because such actions indicate to me that the person saying them doesn't have a reasonable argument and is simply resorting to childish attacks...

    OK, being called funny names based on my last name was a bane of mine growing up, so maybe I am a tad oversensitive to it. :D

    Anyways, I have stated that I point out good points no matter where they come from, so....

    NYpoet has a good point...

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    ... unless you are able to remove your righty propagandist hat, you will not be well regarded here. although conservative views are generally given fair consideration, limbaugh style name-calling ("rachel madcow?"), accusations and innuendo without support or qualification, will not long be tolerated here.

    We've got some Leftie propaganda hat-wearers around here, engaging in full-frontal personal attacks, and I'll be darned if I can find anyone taking them to task. But not to upset the double-standard applecart, I'm more than happy to comply with your wishes, NYpoet, regarding PUBLIC fair-game POLITICAL FIGURES, regardless of that proud, rich tradition and great all-American pastime of tearing them apart every which way from Sunday.

    As for my own peace, by all means, let's everybody continue not to notice the stalker I've had on my heels since day-one on this board.

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    nypoet22

    I've missed you around here, number one; and, number two ... you should know that while chris1962 can dish it out pretty good, 'she' can't take it.

    So, be kind. :)

  118. [118] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Elizabeth, what did I miss? Who's the stalker? Does she mean you, since you've been posting a lot lately? Most of us have given up slogging through the dreck in hope of finding a comment from an old friend; although a few of the newbies are pretty terrific :)

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kevin,

    I think by "stalker" Chris1962 means anyone who challenges her warped political thinking which she consistently fails to respond to.

    She also cherishes her "on-line anonymity" as she puts it and she feels she can make any preposterous statement at will and not back it up with any facts because she is 'protecting' her online anonymous persona.

    And, just to let you know ... I'm officially done with this thread. It's kind of old and there are only so many hours in the day. :)

  120. [120] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Elizabeth,

    I hear you. Lately I've been going back to check out the Huffpo threads; there's actually some intelligent comments there. I'm close to giving up on the comments here; you have to scroll through so much to find something worthwhile. And considering how pathetic Huffpo has become, that's saying something. Keep up the good fight, like you I'd hate to see our neighbours go down the political toilet :)

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]