Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Blue Dog Dem uses "Nancy Pelosi" as a negative: How far will the most panicky Dems be willing to go in defending themselves against GOP efforts to link them to the Obama/Dem agenda? Rep. Joe Donnelly, last seen blasting Obama as part of "the Washington crowd," is up with a new ad attacking Nancy Pelosi's "energy tax":

This actually goes further than what we've seen from other Dems in tough districts, who tout their "independence" to achieve distance from Obama and Dem leaders. Donnelly not only legitimizing the bogus "energy tax" talking point; he's also using "Nancy Pelosi" as a catch-all negative in a manner similar to the way Republicans do.

* Is Obama actually on a "winning streak?" Eugene Robinson breaks dramatically with journalistic convention and gives credit to Obama for racking up a series of quiet accomplishments while everyone else has been talking about mosques.

* Ya think this might be a political winner for Dems? A new CNN poll finds that less than a third support extending all the Bush tax cuts, while 58 percent support ending them for the rich, and another 18 percent back ending all the tax cuts.

* But: Health reform still remains unpopular, with 56 percent opposing the law, though a sizable chunk (13 percent) oppose it because it's not liberal enough.

* And: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a short term economic boost but will also lead to a big jump in the Federal deficit, putting us in a dicey fiscal situation later. Aren't some folks saying they're worried about the long-term deficit?

* The Tea continues to scald: In multiple races, the GOP is struggling to heal the GOP-Tea Party rift left behind by hard fought primaries.

Concession of the day: GOP House candidate GOP candidate Tom Ganley of Ohio allows that Obama just might be a Christian after all (emphasis mine):

"I do not believe President Obama's religion has any impact on the need for jobs in Ohio's 13th district. According to the White House, our president is a Christian and I have no reason to believe otherwise."

* Can we stop calling antiwar sentiment "left wing" yet? Opposition to the war in Afghanistan goes mainstream.

* Placing blame squarely where it belongs: People think Obama is a Muslim because he's failed to publicly advertise his Christianity as ostentatiously as his predecessor did.

* Failure: Conservatives like to say that history will vindicate Bush on the Iraq war, but the public believes otherwise.

Obama versus Bush: The DNC goes up on national cable with this new ad that attempts to crystallize the emerging Dem message for the fall -- and includes a cameo by a certain unpopular former president:

* And isn't she supposed to be a rock star? Philip Elliott takes stock of Sarah Palin's recent endorsements and concludes that the Mama Grizzly in Chief's roar isn't so terrifying after all.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 20, 2010; 8:32 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House Dems , Morning Plum , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Charles Krauthammer's transparent dodge

Comments

re "what else?"...permit me:

The Israelis and Palestinians are about to restart talks. One would have to be a serious optimist to hope for much with Netanyahu in charge but what else can one hope for?

A story which has not gotten nearly enough coverage and discussion is the recently found interview with Netanyahu from nine years ago where he openly states his government's attitudes towards dealing with the Palestinians (completely mercilessly). There's other statements of interest but the one that perhaps ought to catch our attention arises from what he says here:

"The woman Natanyahu is speaking to wonders if the world won't object to what Israel is doing to the occupied Palestinians (she uses the word occupiers herself. He says the world will say nothing, just that Israel is defending itself. As for the US...

“I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction... Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis] ... so they say it...” [i.e. so what?]"
http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/israeli-pm-natanyahu-america-easily-move

That's rather clear, isn't it? If American protests, it is of no consequence at all. We'll ignore and do what we wish regardless.

There's no hint here of concern that, for example, the huges amounts of dollars transferred from American taxpayers to Israel each year might be threatened. There's no concern that, as another example, the US media might develop a narrative critical of Israeli government policies which could lead to a loss of support financially, militarily, or even in terms of friendliness and sympathy.

Why not? Because "America is a thing that can be easily moved" seems the clear proposition.

And THAT is the interesting element here. How is this classic tail-wagging-dog situation managed? There's nothing hesitant or ambiguous about his claim. It's the obvious way of things.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

What's funny is no Blue Dog Dem will be rewarded for attcking their own party. They are just making it easier for their opponent to win. Remember the one guy who switched parties then got crushed? I guess we can all be thankful though that those disloyal cowards wont be coming back next year.

I personally hope Donnelly goes down in flames to teach the rest a lesson

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | August 20, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

What's funny is no Blue Dog Dem will be rewarded for attcking their own party. They are just making it easier for their opponent to win. Remember the one guy who switched parties then got crushed? I guess we can all be thankful though that those disloyal cowards wont be coming back next year.

I personally hope Donnelly goes down in flames to teach the rest a lesson

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | August 20, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

sg: "What's funny is no Blue Dog Dem will be rewarded for attcking their own party. They are just making it easier for their opponent to win."

Yup, see Creigh Deeds. The base did not lift a finger to help him even a little.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Pat Tillman documentary released... http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/movies/20tillman.html?8dpc

Though many Americans perceive the nature of US mythology as regards heroic warriorism, it is perhaps easier for someone raised outside of the US, like myself.

The US isn't alone in such mythologizing of course. Any militarist state or any nation bent on empire (with the inevitable navy guns to facilitate the mercantile operations) creates a mythology about the relative heroism of their 'boys' and the relative cowardice, bad intentions, lack of character, untrustworthiness etc of the opposing forces. It's predictable to about 101%.

And the home team audience is always quite happy, in the main, to buy into such a mythology because it simply makes emotional and physical life easier.

The Pentagon and related entities understand very well how this works and their propaganda campaigns reflect that understanding. Eg, the retired generals dispatched to all the media outlets to gin up support for the war through demonizing the enemy and through rah rah for the stolid character of the US military man and woman (and the general class, of course).

A key propaganda tool in all of this is "heroism". It's why they lied through their teeth, knowingly and purposively, from day one in the case of Tillman and the case of Jessica Lynch. The media (acting precisely as the Pentagon knew they would) went head over heels for these two complete falsehoods and the public (in almost all cases it seems) swallowed it whole.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Jeffrey Goldberg notes that Imam Rauf was invited to speak at Daniel Pearl's funeral. (WOW! That sure shows how radical he is...but in a good way!) It is just truly painful what this man has been put through, after potentially risking his life for these apostate remarks he made on that occasion:

"We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values."


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/ground-zero-imam-i-am-a-jew-i-have-always-been-one/61761/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

John Stewart highlighted Murdoch's questionable ties to Prince Waleed, 7% stakeholder of NewsCorp, of Saudi Arabia who's govn't has been accused of funding Wahabi Muslims who have ties to Al Qaeda and blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy.

If Republicans were real 'muricans' they'd boycott Fox.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/daily-show--8-19-10-in--60-seconds

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

The facts about this Imam need to be known. Fox has completely character assassinated this guy before any news org had a real chance to find out who he really was.

This is another case of Republicans driving the news. They've got AP and every other news org calling it the Ground Zero Mosque when it's nothing of the sort.

Like I said somewhere else.

AP has directed its writers apparently to stop stoking the flames and refrain from using Ground Zero Mosque title.

The location is an unfortunate coincidence for those that chose the site for the fact that those who choose flaming racial and religious bigotry have made the faulty association of this community center with the ground zero site two blocks away that rightfully would inflame sentiment.

If the anti-Muslim brigade, Pamella Gellar and Fox, had chosen not to turn this into a political game, the center would have been erected most likely and every ones life would have continued.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

"How far will the most panicky Dems be willing to go in defending themselves against GOP efforts to link them to the Obama/Dem agenda?"

"GOP efforts to link"?!?!? What an interesting (Bernie, if he were more objective, might say "propagandistic") way of phrasing the question. A more honest way of phrasing it might be "How far will the most panicky Dems go in de-linking themselves from the Obama/Dem agenda"?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Re Robinson's column Greg notes above... the opposition has to do a dance on this reality of Obama's accomplishments. They want to deny he's incapable and has not done anything while at the same time promoting that he's dangerously effective and has done so much that the country will fail next Tuesday.

But to avoid any close inspection of anything at all in these claims, they ramp up a din of shrill and terrifying noise.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

"insist he's incapable"

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

mike:

"If Republicans were real 'muricans' they'd boycott Fox."

More of this "un-American" stuff, eh. First Greg, now you. For a group that did so much complaining about allegedly being called un-American when Bush was around, you libs sure do like to charge others with being un-American.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Remember how I noted how silent the GOP was on the Iraq drawdown.

AP apparently wrote an article that Fox spent only 10 minutes on it.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0819/fox-news-spends-10-minutes-iraq-exit-focusing-nyc-mosque/

I'm not sure how Fox gets away with this. I'm glad other orgs are calling them out directly. Fox's blatant abuse of it's position as a "News" organization needs to be the story and everyone needs to understand it no longer is a neutral source of news.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

from Krauthammer this morning:

"No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so."

Or to put it another way...

"No one disputes the right of a white woman to marry a black man; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so."

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Scott, relax. I was joking.

The teatards are serious about the claims of being the only patriots.

I'm sure even you can detect snark....right?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

But on that matter Scott.

Doesn't it bother you in the least that the 7% stakeholder in NewsCorp, the company that donated 1 million to Republicans, claimed 9/11 was America's fault?

I guess Republicans are fine with being on the same team of the blame America first crowd.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

@sue - thanks for that tip on Goldberg re Pearl.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington: "Doesn't it bother you in the least that the 7% stakeholder in NewsCorp, the company that donated 1 million to Republicans, claimed 9/11 was America's fault?"

I don't care for it, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop watching The Simpson's. Or Family Guy, for that matter.

That being said, @Greg: "Blue Dog Dem uses 'Nancy Pelosi' as a negative: How far will the most panicky Dems be willing to go in defending themselves against GOP efforts to link them to the Obama/Dem agenda? Rep. Joe Donnelly, last seen blasting Obama as part of 'the Washington crowd,' is up with a new ad attacking Nancy Pelosi's 'energy tax'"

Now, that sounds like a Democrat I could vote for. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"The Israelis and Palestinians are about to restart talks. One would have to be a serious optimist to hope for much with Netanyahu in charge but what else can one hope for?"

And, I suppose, the Palestinian leadership is enough to inspire even the most jaded cynic to have hope, right?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I'd say being against the freedom of religion is decidedly un-American, wouldn't you Scott?

Posted by: nisleib | August 20, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Eg, the retired generals dispatched to all the media outlets to gin up support for the war through demonizing the enemy and through rah rah for the stolid character of the US military man and woman (and the general class, of course)."

I seem to recall that a lot of the generals speaking to the media were opposed to war, before and during. Perhaps my memory is off, but a brief search turned up this:

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/41/27/

I'm sure there's more out there. A common criticism was that Bush and Rumsfeld were ignoring the wisdom of these retired generals.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Palin = Rock star... Funny, rock star was used as a negative when Obama was attracting crowds in excess of 100K. But I guess being a rock star is ok when their playing you flavor of rock...

I would sure love to see the democrats start defending the legislative successes they've achieved even if it means throwing their blue dog coalition under the bus. Of course, throwing the blue dogs under the bus might be good for the blue dogs since they run against Pelosi, Obama and anything democrats believe in. It might prove they are DINO so fit right in with the southern strategy...

Posted by: soapm | August 20, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

The Beck/Palin shindig is on... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/dc/permit-for-palin-rally-approve.html?hpid=politics

There ought to be a contest to title the thing. Cuckoopalooza? Sermon On The Fringe? Nuremberg Rally, v2? Wingstock?

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Scott, give your lecture about "real americans" to Sarah Palin. Thanks.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I seem to recall that a number of Generals were forced into retirement, by Mr. Rumsfeld, after they gave their honest assessments of the proposed Iraq invasion.

General Shinseki comes to mind. He told Congress that he estimated that it would require several hundred thousand troops to handle the post invasion occupation, and Rumsfeld felt that all it would take was five boy scouts, and a meter maid, and "stuff happens".

Posted by: Liam-still | August 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

kevin: "I seem to recall that a lot of the generals speaking to the media were opposed to war, before and during. Perhaps my memory is off"

In the run up to the war, a lot of news outlets used retired generals as positive analysts who also had financial ties to the war machine, and were making money off the US going to war. The NYT had a huge story about it. The rest of the media ignored it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - The Pentagon's "military analyst program" sent out a coterie of retired generals broadly across the media as "message force multipliers" and "surrogates" (their terminology). This was a propaganda project designed to gin up support for the war. There were alternate voices but their presence and profile was far diminished in comparison to those in the program I reference.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Here ya go, Kevin:

"Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=1

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

For your morning reading enjoyment... the far right's ten top conspiracy theories:

"The Southern Poverty Law Centre has done important work in exposing the most dangerous fringes of the US far right for many years. Now it's collected 10 of the right's most popular and bizarre conspiracy theories – all of which would be simply hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that some of these people have lots of guns."

Indeed. Breakfast reading here... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/20/far-right-conspiracy-theories

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"Remember how I noted how silent the GOP was on the Iraq drawdown.
AP apparently wrote an article that Fox spent only 10 minutes on it.mike from Arlington | August 20, 2010 9:15 AM"

The most notable person very silent on the Iraq drawdown was Obama himself. Fox televised his remarks before leaving for Martha's Vineyard, and Obama spoke not a single word about Iraq.

I watch Fox and there were many reports and videos about the Iraq drawdown and the returning soldiers.

Posted by: marybel9999 | August 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

If you've ever heard Franklin Graham (Bill's son) speak, you'll be aware that he's got the intellectual capacity of a bag of hammers. Case in point...

"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother." http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/franklin-graham-i-think-the-presidents-problem-is-that-he-was-born-a-muslim-video.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

And another mosque construction project comes under attack. This one in sacred Kentucky... http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/another_mosque_project_comes_under_fire_in_kentucky.php?ref=fpa

Let bigotry ring.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

From Little Green Footballs:

"Pamela Geller: Poster Girl for Eurofascists"

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33462_Pamela_Geller-_Poster_Girl_for_Eurofascists

"Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:37:33 pm PDT

Pamela Geller of “Atlas Shrugs” and Paul Belien of “Brussels Journal” have been announced as speakers at a German far right event organized by a group called “Pro Köln” — a successor to the notorious fascist group “Deutsche Liga für Volk und Heimat” (the “German League for People and Homeland”).


One of the main organizers of “Pro Köln” is Manfred Rouhs. Here are two photos of Rous with hardcore neo-Nazi activist Axel Reitz, who the local media call “the Hitler of Cologne.”

..................

Use the link to the article to get all the details. Old Geller is keeping strange company these days.

That would explain why she has stopped waxing that upper lip space, beneath her nose.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 20, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Why friends don't let friends read Politico (h/t Yglesias)
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/08/i-am-hearing-it-was-a-huge-mistake-to-invite-mike-allen-to-the-meeting.html

Posted by: bernielatham | August 20, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Does the hypocrisy/obtuseness of Bernie L. have any bounds?

From Bernie today, in response to Krauthammer:

""Or to put it another way...No one disputes the right of a white woman to marry a black man; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so." "

Sure, Bernie. Any time someone questions the propriety or decency of any particular exercise of a given right, it is exactly like questioning the propriety or decency of a black man marrying a white woman. The landlord certainly has a right dump the little old lady who is late on her rent out into the street, but should he do it? How dare we ask such a question and imply that a white woman shouldn't marry a black man. Again, the man dedicated to drawing fine distinctions strikes again with another howler.

But it is even worse than that. Just two days ago he took me to task for allegedly arguing that:

"If someone suggests there are other considerations - or other principles - in conflict with speech rights, then they are making an unprincipled argument."

Of course, I had argued no such thing, and at the time I pointed out that, far from arguing that, I was in fact trying to show that this was precisely what Bernie and Greg were doing themselves. At this point Bernie went silent, but here he comes today to prove my point. He apparently thinks (or, more likely, is simply trying to get others to think) that it would be unrpincipled to argue against the building of the m/Ic/w on grounds of propriety without also arguing against the marriage of a black and a white on the grounds of propriety.

Again, does the hypocrisy/obtuseness of Bernie know no bounds?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

mike:

"Doesn't it bother you in the least that the 7% stakeholder in NewsCorp, the company that donated 1 million to Republicans, claimed 9/11 was America's fault?"

No. Are the personal opinions of every shareholder of every company in the US of concern to you?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

"I'd say being against the freedom of religion is decidedly un-American, wouldn't you Scott?"

I would say that advocating for the legal restriction on the practice of a given religion (with some exceptions) is against American principles, yes. I would not, however, argue that it is un-American to object to a given religion or its practices. There are plenty of anti-Catholics...some on this very board...but that doesn't make them un-American. There are others who are (quite famously) opposed to any religion whatsoever. I would not call them un-American.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

GO OBAMA/HILLARY! PEACE TALKS ON! ANNOUNCEMENT IN 15 MINS:

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to return to direct talks to address core issues in their long-running dispute over peace, which could begin as early as September, diplomatic sources and a senior U.S. official said.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to announce the talks Friday at 11 a.m.

The State Department said President Barack Obama's special envoy for Middle East peace talks, former Sen. George Mitchell, will join Clinton for the 11 a.m. briefing.

The peace talks will be the first since December 2008, when negotiations broke down over Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza.

Obama has also invited Jordan, Egypt and members of the International Quartet -- the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union -- to the table, diplomatic sources said.

The parties have agreed to complete the talks within a year, the sources said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/20/israel.palestinian.talks/index.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 20, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday The Catholic Archbishop of NY, said that he would support relocating the proposed Muslim Center to another location.

Soon after Archbishop Dolan said that, he then said that he would be willing to offer himself, to act as a mediator on the Muslim center issue.

Such a deal. Who wouldn't want to have a mediator, who has already taken sides.

I would support the Catholic Church ordaining Women Priests, and I am also willing to offer myself, to serve as a mediator on the issue.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 20, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1:

"Scott, give your lecture about "real americans..."

It is an odd mind indeed that interprets an observation about the left's inclination to call others un-American as being a "lecture about real Americans".

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC

"For a group that did so much complaining about allegedly being called un-American when Bush was around, you libs sure do like to charge others with being un-American."

False equivalency at it's finest! However I'll listen to your point and try to soothe your hurt feelings. Yes Code Pink and other fringe groups on the left hurled personal invective at Bush...I am as progressive as most anyone on this blog but I certainly call that behavior offensive. Sporting bumper stickers that said "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot" is offensive I don't support such behavior. But as your boy Eric Cantor said...C'mon Scott. Even you have to notice the vitriol directed at Obama, the lies.."terrorist fist jab" "death panels" "he's a Muslim" need I really go on? It exceeds the levels of vitriol directed at Bush by a HUGE level.
And it includes actual Republican Politicians who have used LIES...not that I'm calling them LIARS...but I am referring to truth versus falsehood here...death panels was an absolute lie fabricated by an Insurance lobbyist and then used by R's. You pick what you wish to call these people but you cannot defend what was despicable behavior!!!

Scott did any member of the MSM ORGANIZE, HOST AND COVER any protests of the Bush Administration as Fox has done with the Tea Party? Did they literally have producers behind the scenes of "news" reports coaching the crowd on when to yell when to shake their signs much as the warmup comedian does for shows like Letterman and Leno?

Perhaps we can agree on this...OK let's not call each other ANYTHING...let's simply refer to the behavior. IMHO violation of the First Amendment is by definition UNAMERICAN. The first Amendment is core to our values as AMERICANS. Again by definition if you are not in favor of upholding one of the most SACRED parts of our Constitution you are doing UNAMERICAN.

And so I won't call Palin/Gingrich UNAMERICAN...I'll simply say they engage in UNAMERICAN behavior by definition.

In other words Scott perhaps we can agree to stop PERSONALIZING attacks and simply pointing out BEHAVIOR.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 20, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

All, I beg you to indulge me in my response to Charles Krauthammer:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/charles_krauthammers_transparent_dodge.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 20, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Let's stop pretending that ScottC is rational and worthy of debating matters of substance.

The Right Wing is RUTHLESS and DESPICABLE and fools like him pretend that they are oh-so-principled. Fricking same stupid stupid stuff over and over again. It's useless.

Ignore the BAIT.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 20, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"I do not believe President Obama's religion has any impact on the need for jobs in Ohio's 13th district. According to the White House, our president is a Christian and I have no reason to believe otherwise."
---------------------------------------------

Ha! I heard he doesn't even wear a Jesus lapel pin.

Posted by: CalD | August 20, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Scott: "It is an odd mind indeed that interprets an observation about the left's inclination to call others un-American as being a "lecture about real Americans".

It's an odd mind that doesn't realize that Un-American is a descriptor of speech and, perhaps, behavior that one objects to, while "real Americans" insinuates that the person of scorn isn't even a legitimate citizen. Go figure.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

@suekzoo1: "'Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand' http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=1"

Gotcha. Thanks for that. I don't remember much of that, but then, my memory has never been that great. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"A milestone? The last combat brigades have now left Iraq."
--------------------------------------------

Somehow this kinda slipped by me yesterday, amid all the mosquing mosquiness. But yes, Greg. I think we could very reasonably call that a milestone. A more pertinent might actually be, what the hell happened to anyone who would use a question mark in that sentence, in place of a colon.

Seriously. There's no ambiguity there. Maybe they look bigger in the movies or something but yes, that's a milestone.

Posted by: CalD | August 20, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Ahem: "A more pertinent ~question~..."

(the typographical error, too small for human eyes, till the ink is on the paper, then it grows to mountain size...)

Posted by: CalD | August 20, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a huge negative. I was a democrat but watching this disgusting woman with her 11% approval rating will make me vote for anyone who is not a democrat.

Posted by: farmsnorton | August 20, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company