Why The Resort to a near Thermonuclear Exchange over Bush’s Remarks in Israel?
Posted by WLS:
A curiousity exists concerning the vociferousness of the response by the Obama camp and its surrogates in the Dim establishment and the press over Bush’s comments yesterday tagging “some people” with the belief the US should “negotiate with terrorists and radicals.”
One proffered explanation has been that the argument struck close to home, while at the same time ginning up the age-old campaign issue of whether the Dims are weak on national security and defense.
I don’t think that’s it at all. I think its nothing more than the reality of identity group politics and the need for the Dim nominee to hold together most parts of the traditional lib-dem coalition.
What part is greatly at risk with Obama at the top? Jewish voters, or course.
I think the Obama campaign has known from day one that he’d have problems with Jewish voters given his South Side Chicago political roots. There’s much hostility there as is evidenced by Obama’s own church and the influence of the Nation of Islam.
So, the plan all along has been to agressively hit back at EVERY mere suggestion that Obama would not be a strong supporter of Israel. Any leak in the dike on this issue could be a flood, and given his weakness with white working class democrats, Obama cannot afford to lose large numbers of Jewish voters to McCain over the issue of Israel. Thus the attempts in the media to demonize Joe Lieberman — Lieberman’s support for McCain is a STRONG signal to pro-Israel Jewish voters that there is much for them to fear from an Obama State Dept.
Watch this play out over the next few months. Obama is going to over-react to every suggestion that he would be soft on Islamic nations over the issue of Israel.
In what states might a loss of the Jewish vote hurt Obama electorally? Pennsylvania for one. Florida for another.
Bush picked up 19% of the Jewish vote nationwide in 2000 (with Lieberman as VP for Gore), and increased that number to 25% in 2004 against Kerry.
This is a demographic that is moving toward the GOP, not away from it. This Politico article shows that even in the GOP melt-down in the 2006 midterm elections, the GOP share of the Jewish vote held steady at 26%.
More interstingly, younger Jewish voters are more likely to vote GOP than their parents. Jewish voters under 55 — 31% for the GOP. Jewish voters over 55 — 24% for the GOP.
Now, I hadn’t read this Politico article — which is 16 months old — until after I started this post. But it has this interesting passage which tracks my thoughts here:
Two variables stand out as having the potential to greatly affect the Jewish vote in 2008: The GOP nominee and Iran.
The nonpartisan American Jewish Committee’s 2006 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion showed 42 percent of respondents placing themselves left of center on the political scale, 25 percent right of center and 32 percent picking the middle of the road. If Republicans choose to nominate a socially liberal candidate like Rudy Giuliani or the just-right-of-center John McCain, expect a healthy jump in Jewish crossover voting.
But depending how the situation with Iran develops, a candidate’s social platform may pale in comparison to hawkishness. As Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad ramps up Iran’s nuclear program and his anti-Semitic, anti-Israel rhetoric, the Jewish community is listening — to a degree.
In the AJC poll, 64 percent agreed that the Muslim world and the West are locking horns in a “clash of civilizations.” Yet only 38 percent supported the United States taking military action to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran’s hands, while 57 percent would support Israel taking such action.
“It’s a mistrust of the U.S. government’s handling of the situation in the Middle East that the U.S. could also mishandle Iran,” said AJC spokesman Eli Lipmen, adding that Jews who support military action “see that as supporting the survival of the state of Israel.”
The Republican Party enters the 2008 stretch with steady Jewish support, and time — and current events — will tell if more Jewish voters cross party lines to back the GOP.
Obama’s camp understands the implications of these numbers and is acting accordingly. Obama’s prospects for winning the election will go down the tubes if McCain approaches anything close to 45-50% of the Jewish vote.
There are almost certainly more buried Obama quotes that will surface and tie him more closely to the anti-Semetic left. Just read the comments on any left wing blog to see how prevalent this is.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 5/16/2008 @ 2:03 pmIf McCain gets even close to 45% of the Jewish vote, I’ll eat my own kishkes.
As much mistrust as there is with Obama, you have to remember, it says in the Torah that you have to vote for the Democrat. (Actually, if it said that, Jews would ignore it.)
I’ve long since passed from frustration to resignation about this.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (b6cc49) — 5/16/2008 @ 2:28 pm1) the growth in the Republican vote among Jews is probably tied to the growth of Orthodoxy in relation to other segments of the Jewish community.
2) those Jews who think military action against Iran would be good for Israel are already voting Republican. The larger number of Jews who doubt the wisdom of military action will be voting Democratic anyway. This more or less mirrors Jewish attitudes about Iraq.
3)Jews have known about black antiSemitism for a long time–well before Jesse Jackson and Hymietown. In the end, the antiSemitism of Obama’s church won’t matter, no matter how much airplay it might get. People will accept or reject Obama’s explanations according to their overall view of him, so it won’t change votes.
which is not to say that anti-Semitism of a candidate won’t be completely irrelevant. Plenty of Jews (my mother and myself, for example) refused to vote for Carter in 1980 because his anti-Semitic outlook was already starting to show then.
kishnevi (7e3d78) — 5/16/2008 @ 2:39 pmI doth think he protesteth too much.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/16/2008 @ 4:15 pmWonder when the vast majority of voters will get tired of the crap. Any criticism is racist, Obama pulling stories our of his hat, etc, etc? When Kennedy met with Kruschev, we were not on the brink of war. Obama not only knows nothing of foreign policy, he is ignorant of our history. That is what happens when you listen to a mentor like Wright.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128) — 5/16/2008 @ 4:32 pm#3
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/16/2008 @ 5:00 pmKeep posting the facts. Good post.
Obama’s mindset on foreign policy is reminding me more of Carter every day (and sometimes Bill Clinton) – just talk your enemies to death, and presto, you’ll be fine. He better pray to the heavens that another crisis doesn’t happen in the world between now and November; he’ll look like a deer caught in the headlights.
Dmac (9dd3a1) — 5/16/2008 @ 5:51 pm#7
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/16/2008 @ 6:46 pmLets just hope there is no more major world crisis at all. We have enough already on our hands with a cyclone in Myanmma and an earthquake in China. Food crisis on the increase, terrorism, nuclear threats etc. Not to mention, global warming. I think we are okay on the crisis side. No more please!
I think there is another reason for the quick and strong reaction by the Obama camp, pure primary campaign strategy. Hillary’s voice is not part of the dispute and Barack is getting out his narrative that McCain will be a third Bush term.
Think about it. He has most of the national media out blocking, so they wont turn a critical eye towards Obama. Remember. Bush’s comments were at the Israeli Parliament. Sure Israel is concerned about Iran and Syria, but their most immediate problem is Hamas. Ahd just who was it that just meet with Hamas, without pre-conditions, and with the arrogant naivety Bush was speaking of – That’s right, Jimmy Carter. But by speaking out, Barack Obama took ownership of the argument. In effect, he said “Hey, Bush is talking about me!” Naturally, the media is ignoring this self-damning aspect. Secondly, the media will either ignore all disparaging comments already made by the left on foreign soil, or create a false quasi-equivalence that allows them to paint Bush’s comments much more negatively. And third, they see that it has effectively shut up Hillary and her 41 point win in WV, again, entirely consistent with the overwhelming aim of our “impartial” national media. Pretty smart tactically.
bains (656914) — 5/16/2008 @ 7:12 pm#8 you libs and your global warming goracle crapola. Ok, add Newt Gingrich, Bush and McCain to that con job. For the umpteenth time, temps have been FALLING since 1998 and should continue to fall for the next ten years. besides AGW is insignificant cause as the sun’s activity is the cause of most temp variations. Get a clue. That’s why suddenly it is called Climate Change and not warming. Continue to worship at Gore’s altar of PC and make him rich while you cut US living standards and turn a blind eye to what the 2 billion or so in India and China do pollution-wise. Tell me just WHAT algore and Clinton did with AGW for eight years???? How come the Senate voted like 95-0 against Kyoto. Get educated on the AGW scam. There is no consensus. There is a self-interest in scientists continuing to seek funding for their own research projects. If the UN and the Euroweenies are for it, I am sure it means screw the USA. Oh and thirty years ago, a new ice age was predicted by the powers that be and extolled in the media.
madmax333 (f25971) — 5/16/2008 @ 7:19 pm#8 you libs
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/16/2008 @ 7:47 pmMadmax, whatever gave you the impression that i am a liberal? That would also make Mccain a liberal or a panderer. Which is worse?
Love2008, every comment you’ve made hear has seemed to be consistent with the view of an Obama supporter. (not to mention your choice of handle!) However, to be fair, by the standards of a lot of people around here, McCain is a liberal, so the confusion is natural.
Which is why he’ll lose. In November people will be asked to choose between a Democrat and a would be Democrat, and the natural course in such circumstances is to choose the real Democrat and not the would be Democrat (McCain).
Myself, I’m a libertarian, and therefore look down my ideological nose at all of you socialists! 🙂
kishnevi (82db10) — 5/16/2008 @ 8:19 pmLove 2008 I’ve seen the light. Algore be da man. he must be right if he has a Nobel Peace Prize, emmy and oscar. I just listening to john Lennon singing Imagine and another group singing war-what is it good for? I’m convinced we need to turn the other cheek and have a new beginning with a strong brother to be POTUS and unite us and the world in Peace. Only love can conquer hate. I’m hoping that Jimmy Carter, The Breck Girl, Warren Christoher, Janet Reno, Madalyn Halfbright and Hanoi Jane all get prominent positions in the new administration. America needs experience and raw talent. And the neocons need to be exiled permanently.
madmax333 (f25971) — 5/16/2008 @ 8:28 pmBains, Israel’s big concern is Iran. Hamas is a nuisance, which can be wiped out at any time if the political leadership in Israel shows a spine and brains.
Hezbollah is tougher, but they can be starved out if encircled. Again this would entail not caring about the media, the UN, EU, etc. But it could be done fairly straightforward.
Iran, however, is an existential threat. It wants to wipe out Israel, has predicted many times it will do so, and is either already in possession of nukes or will have them soon, on ICBMs that can hit Israel. Iran has stated many times that they can survive a nuclear exchange with Israel while Israel cannot. They can lose, in a population of 75 million, 5-6 million easily while that destroys Israel as a people and nation. Iran sent out about 300,000 nine and ten and eleven year old boys as Basij, human mine detectors and human wave attackers with plastic keys to heaven, in the Iran-Iraq War. There’s a monument in downtown Tehran with a red fountain, symbolizing the blood shed. The water is colored to look like blood.
Obama has already lost the Jewish vote on this issue. It’s not just one thing, but all of them added up together. That CBS News is already criticizing Bush for going to Israel to celebrate it’s 60th Birthday “at a time when Palestinians are mourning” it’s creation should tell you something.
Reaction. Counter-reaction.
[If Michelle Obama ranting at Trinity about Whitey actually exists on video, kiss Dems good bye this fall.]
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 5/16/2008 @ 8:43 pmSupporting Obama doesnt necessarily make anyone a liberal. Though it makes one look a little skewed. Libertarian? Which group do you belong to? The moralists or the consequentialist? So I guess you belong to the two sides of the argument. That makes you both a socialist and a capitalist. Right? Are you going to vote for Bob Barr?
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/16/2008 @ 8:45 pm#12
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/16/2008 @ 8:51 pmSupporting Obama doesnt necessarily make anyone a liberal. Though it makes one look a little skewed. Libertarian? Which group do you belong to? The moralists or the consequentialist? So I guess you belong to the two sides of the argument. That makes you both a socialist and a capitalist. Right? Are you going to vote for Bob Barr?
#14
Madmax, you need salvation. You are irredeemably mixed up. I am praying for your soul. (Laughing my head off!)
While Obama tries to distance himself from the Hamas endorsement and his arrogant assumption that Bush cares enough about him to slam Obama in a speech in Israel, Obama meets with one of the most radical Imam’s in the U.S., Hassan Qazwini, who has held rallies at his Michigan mosque for Hezbollah. Qazwini is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan saying that Farrakhan was a “dear brother” and a “freedom fighter”.
And why are Palestinians (in Palestine) working the phone banks, making long distance calls to try to convince Americans to vote for Obama?
Birds of a feather flock together?
retire05 (fe8e72) — 5/16/2008 @ 9:41 pmJews have been the third most loyal Democratic constituency — behind blacks in second place and deceased voters, with their 100% loyalty rates — for years uncounted. President Bush’s war against Islamic terrorism netted him a whopping 25% of the Jewish vote in 2004. I have real doubts that Barack Hussein Obama will surrender a much greater percentage of the Jewish vote to John McCain.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 5/17/2008 @ 4:33 amDana — look at that Under 55 v. Over 55 number. That’s the demographic timebomb in the decline of Jewish support for Dems. Carter and Clinton’s clear sympathy for the Palestinians is the historical wedge.
wls (328b4b) — 5/17/2008 @ 9:28 amSo long as BHO’s advisors take their cues from Carteresque thinkers, his Jewish support will be at best unenthusiastic. Whether he loses a significant percentage will depend on his triangulating skills. So far they do not seem as well-developed as the best practioner of the genre, BJC.
vnjagvet (d3d48a) — 5/17/2008 @ 1:30 pmThe reason to pounce on this is that bush is unpopular and despised like no recent president. The more that the campaign is obama vs. bush the more that the dems gain traction.
How did those jewish votes work out for bush?
stef (56628b) — 5/17/2008 @ 3:00 pmYou people are fucking idiots, really, every god damn one of you. Could what goes on here be any more useless?
Levi (76ef55) — 5/17/2008 @ 3:29 pmhttp://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2008/05/mccain-was-in-favor-of-talks-with-syria.html
“I think it’s appropriate that Colin Powell is going there (Damascus)…
MATTHEWS: So you don’t agree with Newt Gingrich dumping all over him? You don’t agree with Newt Gingrich dumping on the Powell trip?
MCCAIN: You know, Dick — Richard Armitage is Powell’s deputy. And he’s a wonderful guy. He served in Vietnam. And he’s a really tough guy. And he was quoted someplace today that Newt Gingrich is out of therapy….”
————-
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/05/8264_bushs_politicki.html
It’s also worth pointing out, as several Israeli security officials and political observers have recently done to me here, a bit of recent history Bush neglected to mention at Israel’s parliament. That Israel and the Palestinian Authority have chiefly him to thank for Hamas having a degree of political legitimacy it otherwise would not have had. After all, they point out, it was the Bush administration that “twisted the arm” of Israeli and Palestinian leaders against considerable resistance and skepticism on their part to allow the Palestinian militant group Hamas to run in 2006 Palestinian elections that Hamas won — an outcome to its policy interventions that the Bush administration once again failed to anticipate.
“It never occurred to them, as in Iraq, that the two goals – regime change and democracy – may not work together,” Jerusalem-based writer Gershom Gorenberg recently told me. “That psychology left them open to the idea that on the one hand they can have their cake and eat it too. You could get rid of Arafat, have democratic elections and you will get Republicans.” Or so the Bush administration wished.
“And the Israelis completely didn’t agree,” Gorenberg added.
————————
http://mediamatters.org/items/200805160007
just another reader (5f3a8b) — 5/17/2008 @ 3:30 pmOne problem: Bush’s speech came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to “sit down and talk with” Iran. Not only that, Gates added, “We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander.”
Could what goes on here be any more useless?
Depends on you. How many more comments could you post?
nk (954dd7) — 5/17/2008 @ 4:13 pmHopefully lots more, now that it seems to be working for me again!
Now get back to your mindless, uninformed gossip and ‘PASS THE POPCORN, LOL!’
Levi (76ef55) — 5/17/2008 @ 4:15 pmWe lost DRJ and Doc Rampage and got Levi back. Great.
nk (954dd7) — 5/17/2008 @ 4:20 pmOn Thursday, Mitt Romney said (and I’m paraphrasing) When you throw a rock over the fence, the dog that yelps is the dog you hit. Love that analogy!
kimsch (2ce939) — 5/17/2008 @ 5:26 pmHey Levi, howdy. Where do you get this inspiration? Really. How do you get to be so, so Levi? LOL!
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/17/2008 @ 5:30 pmLevi’s here, color me gone.
Labcatcher (afe438) — 5/17/2008 @ 6:02 pmYou people are fucking idiots, really, every god damn one of you. Could what goes on here be any more useless?
Hey Retard Boy, finally got over Obama throwing Wright under the bus?
Paul (cf2458) — 5/17/2008 @ 6:12 pmPaul –
Please don’t be so rude.
Comparing folks with valid mental challenges to Levi, who is willfully ignorant, rude and useless, is highly insulting to those with valid physical challenges.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 5/17/2008 @ 6:52 pmComparing folks with valid mental challenges to Levi, who is willfully ignorant, rude and useless, is highly insulting to those with valid physical challenges.
I only call him that because “retard” is his favorite insult.
Paul (cf2458) — 5/17/2008 @ 11:05 pmThe point was that the comparison was an insult to actual retards, not to Levi, who rightly should be insulted. Then again, I don’t hear any actual retards complaining, so I guess everyone’s happy.
Xrlq (8374fb) — 5/18/2008 @ 6:32 amI knew that, Xrlq. My point is that I use Levi the Retard Boy’s favorite insult against him.
No matter what derogatory word he chooses to insult others with, it will be used against him.
Paul (cf2458) — 5/18/2008 @ 7:50 amSo what’s the tact you idiots have agreed upon for this one? Pretend like Bush wasn’t talking about Obama? Just calling Obama hyper-sensitive? Or will you just condescendingly assure everyone within earshot that he has no idea what he’s talking about in terms of foreign policy? A combination of all three?
Levi (76ef55) — 5/18/2008 @ 8:13 amLevi, does it really matter if President Bush was referring to Obama?
The words are true now, and will still be true in mid-January….
Now, show us how Obama’s appeasing of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, et. al., will make us safer…
reff (e20e4c) — 5/18/2008 @ 8:57 amIt’s called diplomacy, not appeasement. What do you think, Obama’s just going to start handing over aircraft schematics and nuke components? You think Obama will cede U.S. terriotory to Iran? The way see it, since you’re accusing him of being an ‘appeaser,’ the onus should be on you to prove that he will make us less safe by negotiating with people, not on me.
So let’s see that, let’s see the argument from you foreign policy gurus that proves it will make us less safe to talk to Iran or anybody else.
Levi (76ef55) — 5/18/2008 @ 9:05 amI’m occasionally told Obama is a Hussein. How do y’all think Iran is likely to react to a Hussein?
stef (034065) — 5/18/2008 @ 9:11 amLast night, I watched President Bush’s speech before the Knesset in Israel to mark the occasion of that country’s 60th birthday. I was glad that the president went to Israel to declare US support. I think Bush gave an excellent speech, which was well received by the Knesset. Unfortunately, not everyone back home approved of the president’s words.
In his speech, Bush referred to “those” who believe they can negotiate with outlaw regimes and terrorists who want to kill them. History, said Bush, has shown that it doesn’t work. He was absolutely correct.
Yet, the Democrats have gone ballistic. Nancy Pelosi, in an otherwise dreary press conference describing whatever trivial pursuits she and her Democratic colleagues have been up to, reacted angrily to a question from a reporter about the president’s comment. You would have thought the president had called for the arrest of Congress.
Not to be outdone, Barack Obama and his campaign jumped up and down in protest at the “insult” directed at the Illinois senator. After John McCain jumped in declaring that Obama didn’t have the strenth, judgement or determination to deal with dictators, Obama told everyone who would listen that he was ready to debate McCain and Bush on national security anytime, anywhere because they had a lot to answer for. That sounded like Neville Chamberlain telling Winston Churchill that he had a lot to answer for.
Hillary Clinton, outvoted but not to be outdone, has also protested.
But who exactly was President Bush referring to? Neville Chamberlain? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? He didn’t mention any names, and the White House has issued a statement claiming that the president was not referring to any particular person. Why are the Democrats so quick to jump up and identify themselves as weaklings and appeasers? Why does Obama assume that Bush was referring to him?
You know, no matter how much and for how long the Democrats have been calling Bush an idiot, he outfoxes them everytime.
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (7b7c7c) — 5/18/2008 @ 9:25 amfousesquawk
Yeah Gary, he outfoxed them all the way to 70% disapproval ratings, didn’t he?
You got anything more on that? Like some examples?
Levi (76ef55) — 5/18/2008 @ 9:42 amLevi…
The last three Presidents have all tried to get diplomacy to work in the Arab-Israeli conflict…
And, all have failed, because the Arab side will not agree to anything that allows Israel to survive…
That simple truth says to any reasonable person that negiotiating, diplomacy, and the like will not work with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like…
Diplomacy only works when BOTH sides are willing to meet at a reasonable solution…
And, if Obama believes that he can walk in with no position and settle something that hasn’t been settled in the last 20 or so years, then he also believes he will give away the safety and security of a nation to get the agreement….
reff (e20e4c) — 5/18/2008 @ 10:02 amWhat’s a-matter, Retard Boy, don’t like the truth that Obama is soft and shapeless pointed out?
Tough.
It’s going to happen a lot between now and November.
Get over it.
Paul (cf2458) — 5/18/2008 @ 10:12 amI’m occasionally told Obama is a Hussein. How do y’all think Iran is likely to react to a Hussein?
The more interesting question to ask, stef, is:
How woud Iran and the rest of the Muslim world react to an apostate Muslim?
Paul (cf2458) — 5/18/2008 @ 10:18 amWhat do you think, Obama’s just going to start handing over aircraft schematics and nuke components?
Why not?
Bill Cinton did.
Paul (cf2458) — 5/18/2008 @ 10:21 amwhy do jews support the dems so much at the voting booth? not a clue here, i have asked my lawyer in DC who is jewish the same question many times.the best he could come up with is “cuz they do”. i can understand their support in the ’60s with the civil rights battles/legislation but my god, thats over 40 yrs ago. i suspect many are closet conservatives today and vote republican at least in presidential elections, they just dont want to admit it.
james conrad (7cd809) — 5/18/2008 @ 10:38 amBTW, i think we can color fla and ohio gone with obama as the nominee and not just because of the jewish vote either, catholics and cubans/hispanics are not likely to vote for him. i predict pennsylvania is still in play but only if obama picks rendell as his running mate, otherwise, i say color it gone as well. heyyyyy, its getting better n better for JMAC everyday. a couple more judicial incidents like what the calif supreme court did in mandating gay marriage and maybe……..nah, calm down, calif is not and prolly never going to be in play, CHUMPS!
james conrad (7cd809) — 5/18/2008 @ 11:02 am#40:
I remember reading a phrase like “uphold and defend the Constitution,” in the Constitution, but I don’t remember reading anything like “but only if your approval rating is over 67%.”
This isn’t a popularity contest, you moron.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/18/2008 @ 11:15 am#47
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/18/2008 @ 11:39 amBush’s approval rating did not fall so low because he was busy “upholding and defending the constitution…” It fell because of a strategic foreign policy blunder–Iraq. That is a fact. Apart from Iraq, he is the toughest, strongest President america has had for a long time. Iraq was his achilles’ heel.
#45 james conrad:
In response to this kind of question being asked repeatedly, my friend Judith Weiss of KesherTalk posted this response back in late 2002.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/18/2008 @ 12:38 pm“How woud Iran and the rest of the Muslim world react to an apostate Muslim?”
I don’t quite think he’s an apostate. But lets say so. So should we be appeasers, or not?
stef (23c2b4) — 5/18/2008 @ 12:38 pm#48:
No, it isn’t. Its an immature response on the part of people who want the bogeyman to go away, but don’t want to try to go to sleep with the lights on, either.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/18/2008 @ 12:40 pm#48…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/18/2008 @ 1:03 pmCall me in 30-40 years and let me know if that was a blunder, it will take that long for the historians to sort it out – it would take less if we could find some other subject for the MSM to obsess over.
Remember, one primary reason that Jacksonian Conservatives are unhappy with GWB, is his temperance in pursuing the War on IslamFascism. A little more sturm-und-drang goes a long way in elevating an approval rating. But then, I grew up in the age of Leo Durocher, who famously said when asked why he didn’t treat his players better: “Nice guys finish last!”
“Call me in 30-40 years and let me know if that was a blunder, it will take that long for the historians to sort it out – it would take less if we could find some other subject for the MSM to obsess over.”
thats my take on the gay marriage stuff. Some people are going to come out of this sounding like george wallace and roger taney.
stef (2905a6) — 5/18/2008 @ 1:24 pm#37
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/18/2008 @ 1:25 pmIt’s called diplomacy, not appeasement. What do you think, Obama’s just going to start handing over aircraft schematics and nuke components? You think Obama will cede U.S. terriotory to Iran? The way see it, since you’re accusing him of being an ‘appeaser,’ the onus should be on you to prove that he will make us less safe by negotiating with people, not on me.
Levi, just how do you think Obama is going to have any success talking to people who have an agenda to obliterate Israel? These people are not reasonable people. They are Islamofascists. They have a one-track mind which tells them that God has sent them.. Its difficult to reason with someone who believes he is doing God’s work. They view you as a satanist who deserves to be beheaded for challenging what they believe is “God’s” will. They are depraved, demented and deluded. The only way to stop them is to destroy them. How can you reason with an Iranian leader who has said that {a) The Holocaust was no big deal, that the jews deserved it. (b) that Isreal should be wiped out of the map and (c) Isreal is a walking, stinking corpse. These are not statements to be parried over. these are serious threats that history has shown not to be joked with. The Iranian president is not fit to live. The fate of saddam should befall him. I am for peace and diplomacy but what good will diplomacy yield when you are dealing with an ideologically flawed lunatic? This is war and the sooner we decide on whose side we will fight this war the better for all of us. No point making peace with someone who hates and despises your very existence. As David said “I am for peace but when I speak they are for war.” Psalm 120:7. Jesus said ” Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I am come not to send peace but the sword.” Matt.10:34. Paul adds “For when they shall say peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. ” 1Thessalonians5:3
Whats my point? There can never be peace in the middle east, especially between the jews and the islamic fundamentalists. This is why all previous attempts by previous administrations to achieve this elusive peace has failed. What is left is a preparation for possible war. It can only be delayed but it will not be averted. It’s a matter of time. America should not try to be everyone’s friend, America should take a stand for who she supports and not flinch on that. America supports Isreal. Period. This is the reality we must all confront.
I don’t quite think he’s an apostate.
stef, you really need to read and comprehend anything I link to.
From the article I linked:
But lets say so.
When it come to
appeasementdiplomacy with Iran and other Musim nations, what you or I think of Obama’s conversion to Christianity is irrelevant. What matters is what they think…and what they would do about it:But, but, but…such woud happen to a head of state! right?
Think again:
So should we be appeasers, or not?
In the light of what I’ve just quoted, do you think
Paul (cf2458) — 5/18/2008 @ 1:39 pmappeasementdiplomacy is even possible?“When it come to appeasement diplomacy with Iran and other Musim nations, what you or I think of Obama’s conversion to Christianity is irrelevant. ”
That thing is that its wrong to describe it as a conversion.
“In the light of what I’ve just quoted, do you think appeasement diplomacy is even possible?”
I think that Obama’s religion wont be a problem, because I don’t think foreign leaders will kill him at a summit. No matter what articles you quote for me that tells me they must.
stef (359b36) — 5/18/2008 @ 1:49 pmThat thing is that its wrong to describe it as a conversion.
I repeat: When it comes to
appeasementdiplomacy with Iran and other Musim nations, what you or I think of Obama’s conversion to Christianity is irrelevant. What matters is what they think…and what they would do about it. “They” meaning any Muslim in a Muslim country.I think that Obama’s religion wont be a problem, because I don’t think foreign leaders will kill him at a summit.
Doesn’t have to be a foreign leader during a summit. For instance, while traveling to and from the meeting area, any suicide bomber from the populace let in by one or two of the security detail, also from the local populace, could do it.
No matter what articles you quote for me that tells me they must.
What’s-a-matter? Too scared to face reality?
Paul (cf2458) — 5/18/2008 @ 3:18 pm“What matters is what they think…and what they would do about it. “They” meaning any Muslim in a Muslim country.”
So I’d like to hear from them. But you shouldn’t call it a conversion when it clearly isn’t.
“For instance, while traveling to and from the meeting area, any suicide bomber from the populace let in by one or two of the security detail, also from the local populace, could do it.”
I think that could happen whether our president is a muslim, jew, atheist or pastafarian.
“What’s-a-matter? Too scared to face reality?”
I think the reality is that obama will hold hands with saudi rulers a little bit less than bush, but it won’t be because of obama’s or bush’s “conversion.”
stef (394243) — 5/18/2008 @ 7:18 pmAh, if only we were just nice enough to other countries, then they’d be nicer to us. We’re just not nice enough.
/sarcasm
kimsch (2ce939) — 5/18/2008 @ 8:11 pmSo I’d like to hear from them.
That many Muslims would consider someone like Obama, the son of a Muslim father, born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood, isn’t exactly new; the belief is centuries old, readily verifiable for anyone willing to pay attention. As you obviousy haven’t.
But you shouldn’t call it a conversion when it clearly isn’t.
I didn’t “call” it anything. I simply quoted what the NYT writer pointed out: what Obama did is a unforgivable crime in the eyes of many Muslims.
And yet again, what I personally think is irrelevant.
I think that could happen whether our president is a muslim, jew, atheist or pastafarian.
So? How does that refute the point the NYT writer made?
Paul (cf2458) — 5/19/2008 @ 7:10 pm