Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Ominous read of the morning: Don't miss this interesting, if ominous, overview of the political predicament Obama and Dems face. Cliff notes version: With the recovery faltering as election day approaches, Dems are simply running out of policy options to turn things around.

As Duncan Black keeps saying, Dems had better roll out some new product this fall or else.

* Takedown of the day: Ruth Marcus versus John Boehner over his speech attacking Obama's economic policies, in which he used the phrase "job-killing" at least a dozen times.

* Jake Sherman sums up the GOP game plan:

Not a Contract with America, but a Contract on Obama. A continuous battering of the president's advisers, policies and legacy. A recital of every Democratic misstep, misstatement and miscue of the past 20 months. An attack strategy that is thus far short on Republican vision and long on bashing Democrats.

* The Cheney-ification of the GOP: I noted yesterday that it's another subtext to the Cordoba House controversy, and it turns out Matt Duss has already taken a long and well researched look at the recent rise of Cheney-ism within the party. Worth a read.

* Tea Party and Sarah Palin roar in unison: Attorney Joe Miller, who's backed by the Tea Party and the Mama Grizzly in Chief, took a surprising and unexpected lead over Senator Lisa Murkowski this morning, edging Murkowski 52-48 with 77 percent of precincts reporting.

* Also: Kendrick Meek's victory in Florida may show that labor is still a force to be reckoned with, which could help limit Dem losses this fall.

* But: Meek may be the weakest of the three candidates in the Florida Senate race, meaning national Dems face a difficult choice as they weigh how much to invest in the race.

* Privatize Social Security? Moi? No matter how many times they try to deny it, conservatives did try to privatize Social Security.

* The spirit of Breitbart lives on: Here's still more evidence that anti-mosque zealot Pamela Geller pulled a major Breitbart in her latest effort to slime Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

* "Un-American": Michael Bloomberg mounts another impassioned defense of Cordoba House: "To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American."

The whole speech is worth a watch, particularly his point about the idiocy of efforts to establish a Mosque Exclusion Zone and his allusion to JFK's Catholicism.

* And Sharron Angle agrees there are domestic enemies within Congress: ICYMI, the GOP Senate candidate in Nevada unequivocally agreed with a radio host who asserted that there are "domestic enemies" within the "walls of the Senate and the Congress."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 25, 2010; 8:31 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , House GOPers , Morning Plum  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Van Hollen: We'll use Boehner as weapon against Republicans

Comments

Greg thought "Cheney-ization" of the GOP was "ominous" yesterday... but midterms are even more ominous than ominous.

O words are fun.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Rick Scott winning the Florida primary for Governor should help Alex Sink. That would be a nice pick up for the Democrats this fall.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 25, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"And Sharron Angle agrees there are domestic enemies within Congress"

Well, not too surprising given the prior decade of voices on the right working to portray McCarthy as a victimized genius and patriot.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

This is good news for Obama and the workers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON — When the Obama administration called a halt to virtually all deepwater drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon blowout and fire in April, oil executives, economists and local officials complained that the six-month moratorium would cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Oil supply firms went to court to have the moratorium overturned, calling it illegal and warning that it would exacerbate the nation’s economic woes, lead to oil shortages and cause an exodus of drilling rigs from the gulf to other fields around the world. Two federal courts agreed.

Yet the worst of those forecasts has failed to materialize, as companies wait to see how long the moratorium will last before making critical decisions on spending cuts and layoffs. Unemployment claims related to the oil industry along the Gulf Coast have been in the hundreds, not the thousands, and while oil production from the gulf is down because of the drilling halt, supplies from the region are expected to rebound in future years. Only 2 of the 33 deepwater rigs operating in the gulf before the BP rig exploded have left for other fields.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/us/25drill.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

You've got a good clue to the lack of political sophistication in a discussion when someone refers to "the Senate and the Congress."

Posted by: converse | August 25, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"Privatize Social Security? Moi? No matter how many times they try to deny it, conservatives did try to privatize Social Security."

No matter how many times liberals try to assert it, no plan that was actively advanced was actually "privatization" in the way that word would be normally understood. That is, government functions being completely taken over by private companies or contractors.

It certainly doesn't mean what it was generally used to imply: that anyone, anywhere, was seriously suggesting that Social Security be turned over, lock, stock & barrel to fat cat Wallstreet bankers.

Neither the Bush plan, or what Toomey supports, can be accurately described as "privatizing" Social Security. Although I certain understand why opponents would want to control the framing, and thus shape the narrative, as any sort of personal accounts of any kind being associated with Social Security as an effort to steal grandpa's entitlement check and give it to some superwealthy banker, who will use it--presumably--to set it on fire and light his cigar).

And, though I support the whole idea of limited personal accounts being associated with Social Security (and FDR implied--perhaps to soften criticism of such a perpetual entitlement, and thus tax payer liability--that Social Security would eventually be something handled by, are done in participation with, the private sector), opposition is not unreasonable. Change always brings risk (not the least of which is the predictions of proponents being dead wrong).

However, you can be opposed to a fraction of Social Security withholding being used to fund personal accounts that are thus, essentially, a personal lockbox for each individual--you can say that's a bad idea (and maybe it is) without implying all the money could be invested in a single, volatile, Enron-like stock (no plan offered would have allowed that) and that anyone was going to get 100% of their SS witholding in said private account, or that the functions of Social Security administration were going to be turned over to Wallstreet fatcats.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Good for Bloomberg.

Good to see when leaders show a pair and voice a viewpoint that doesn't always match exactly with popular opinion. It's respectable, regardless of if its right or wrong.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

To suggest that the vast majority of patriotic Americans are implicating "all of Islam for the actions of a few" is slanderous and un-American.

This has NOTHING to do with intolerance of the vast majority of mosques and everything to do with the apartheid Islamo-supremacism of Cordoba House, in particular. Somehow, I think Bloomberg (and his Quisling media toadies) wouldn't support neo-pagans' "right" to erect eternal Crann Tara monuments next to MLK memorials.

But when patriotic Americans object to stealth jihadists-- and (yes) that accurately describes the Cordoba House cabal-- opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and jihadi recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero-- these Quisling hypocrits shriek with indignation!

American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Americans to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Cordoba House jihadists than insincere bromides and disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia law, as practiced by the Cordoba House cabal and their financial sponsors.

A genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims may be found @
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the sharia law vendors of Cordoba House supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists-- but don’t hold your breath.

When will Quislings support Secular Islam advocates' right to live free from the sharia law intimidation of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists?

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!"
[Matthew 23:24]

Shame on Mayor Bloomberg for slandering the vast majority of patriotic Americans as "un-American."

And shame on Greg for applauding Bloomberg's ugly smear.

Folks may expect the ACLU to shriek "MCCARTHYISM!" in 4... 3... 2... you betcha'!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Well, not too surprising given the prior decade of voices on the right working to portray McCarthy as a victimized genius and patriot."

Well, while not exactly a genius--and perhaps his patriotism was more cynical and self-serving than entirely genuine--history has sort of borne out that the great majority of folks he accused of being Communist dupes actually were Communists.

Of course, he was also a raging alcoholic.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"No matter how many times liberals try to assert it, no plan that was actively advanced was actually "privatization" in the way that word would be normally understood."

Sure it is.

They plan on taking Govn't management of SS away and putting management of SS into the hands of the individual.

I hope you understand just what is going on here. Private investment/hedge fund lobbyists are working fervently to find more money to pump into the stock market so the people who have the access and knowledge to game the system can sap more money out of it. They did it with the big migration of pension funds to 401k plans. They've done it with securitizing just about anything they can from mortgages to futures on water.

Now they are looking for more income. Their next target is SS.

I wish people would realize exactly what is taking place here.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Yet the worst of those forecasts has failed to materialize"

This is almost always the case. From the post Gulf War oil fields (could be burning for *40 years*/effects similar to a nuclear winter!) to the oil rigs, predictions of disaster tend to be wrong. Human beings are terrible prognosticators--studies have shown that we are terrible at predicting even what our own personal behavior will be in a given situation. Doomsday scenarios and utopian visions of the future share this common trait: they are almost always wrong. And emotion and politics and hopes and fears, and the chances of you getting a reasonably accurate forecast are very small.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Gerson this morning attempts to convince that the surge of John Bircher power in the party (that is, the consequences of the strategy to harness the Ron Paul crowd as GOP voters/activists and - importantly - to avoid a third party) can be somehow made compatible with traditional conservatism... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405001.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Good luck with that, Michael.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington: "They plan on taking Govn't management of SS away and putting management of SS into the hands of the individual."

That's incorrect. A small portion of SS would be invested in personal accounts, and those investments would be from a limited choice of government curated options. At least, in regards to the plans thus far proposed (which sometimes gloss over the details, admittedly).

That's not privatization in a meaningful sense. At least, not yet.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I’d also like to point out how bigotted, ignorant and intolerant it is of Bloomberg to endorse the spiritual commitment of Cordoba House fanatics who endorse “Vilayet-i-faquih” (mullahocracy).
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770

By what authority does Bloomberg excommunicate (takfir) devout Secular Muslims when they oppose “Vilayet-i-faquih” and the multitude of oppressive sharia fatwas, endorsed by the Corboba House sharia law advocates?

Again, the prerogative to issue apostacy fatwas is granted only to Islam’s prophet, or authoritative representatives of the Ummah— which is Bloomberg endorsing?

Does Bloomberg know whether Cordoba House’s handlers in the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood approved of any anti-sharia fatwas?

Don’t take my word for it: Here is Rauf's editorial endorsing "Vilayet-i-faquih" (the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe mullahocracy).

Please explain your nasty bigotry toward American Muslims who oppose the Cordoba House mosque, Mayor Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

@kevin - "history has sort of borne out that the great majority of folks he accused of being Communist dupes actually were Communists."

Excuse me. "Sort of" hardly allows the rest of that sentence to stand as accurate.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"To suggest that the vast majority of patriotic Americans are implicating "all of Islam for the actions of a few" is slanderous and un-American."

Nah. Just the bigot brigade of Fox, Gellar, Robert Spencer and their "Brietbart" of the Imam who's working on the U.S.'s behalf to promote a more moderate form of Islam and denounce the extremist kind.

See, people like you seem to have the same selective hearing the brain dead brigade at Fox do. When we say people with signs calling Islam evil and Muslims killers we're talking about them specifically. When we say America in the past was arrogant, we were speaking of the Bush/Cheney policy, when we trash Sarah Palin, we aren't trashing middle America, we're just trashing Sarah because well, she's trash.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Linky Errata: Don’t take my word for it: Here is Rauf's editorial endorsing "Vilayet-i-faquih" (the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe mullahocracy).
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770

Please explain your nasty bigotry toward American Muslims who oppose the Cordoba House mosque, Mayor Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I see that Rick Scott won. That's depressing. "Vote for me, I have a life history of corruption and serial deceit."

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Bloomberg has apparently been in a coma (both before and after 9/11) since he appears to think 9/11 was the only incident of Muslims attacking non-Muslims. If he wasn’t in a coma, there’s no excuse for such gross stupidity.

Muslims must take some responsibility for their global jihad when thousands of their co-religionists over the past two decades kill thousands of innocents of every religion around the world; and when they deprive non-Muslims of their human rights in 57 of 57 Muslim governed countries.

Look. American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for folks to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Muslims than disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia tradition, as practiced in Iran, Gaza, Kashmir, Malaysia, the Paris banlieue... and (pointedly) Cordoba House in NYC.

A genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims may be found @ SecularIslam.org.

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the vast majority of (allegedly) “peaceful” American Muslims supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists... but don’t hold your breath.

+15K deadly Islamo-supremacist attacks since 9/11 don’t lie. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Don't parrot the propaganda lies of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists your whole life, Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

umm....Kaddafi.

You realize Iran's govn't prior to the revolution, which was initially started by the youth but got taken over by the hardliners in the end, was not of their making.

I don't agree with what's become of the Iranian Govn't. But can you really fault people for wanting to impose their own Govn't?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Let's not beat around the bush, Kevin. It is a fact that the GOP has wanted to END SS for decades if not years. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The Republican Party has ZERO credibility on SS and Medicare, as borne out by Bush's privatization drive and the death panels Medi-scare during the HCR "debate."

They have proven time and time and time again that their motivation on this issue is far from pure.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Let's not beat around the bush, Kevin. It is a fact that the GOP has wanted to END SS for decades if not years. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The Republican Party has ZERO credibility on SS and Medicare, as borne out by Bush's privatization drive and the death panels Medi-scare during the HCR "debate."

They have proven time and time and time again that their motivation on this issue is far from pure.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"I see that Rick Scott won. That's depressing. "Vote for me, I have a life history of corruption and serial deceit."

I'd call that pathetic of the Fl. Republican party.

That guy is about as corrupt as they get yet the majority of Republican voters voted for him.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The McCain win... politically necessary.

Is there anyone in the GOP power structure who actually retains any respect or affinity for this man? But had he lost to his extremist opponent, it would have wrought a very negative press narrative about the direction of the Republican party and movement.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - So the Republicans want partial privatization, is that more to your liking?

The problem is when you throw in the word "partial" you add nuance to the argument. For anyone who votes Republican to complain about a lack of nuance from Democrats is too funny for words.

If Republicans liked nuance they wouldn't say Obama "promised" the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. That never happened, I can provide a link if you doubt that.

There are hundreds of issues that Republicans do this with. And Dems do it too, no doubt. Why is this so common? Because nuance makes selling positions and policies more difficult.

So when Dems say Republicans favor "Privatizing" social security what they are saying is well within the bounds of typical political speech. It is the truth, but not the whole truth, which makes it about as true as most things politicians, regardless of affiliation, say.

PS - Social Security, as you know, is not a retirement account, it is insurance. If you want to take 15% of it and put it in a private account you are fundamentally changing the nature of the program. Just get an IRA or a retirement account for goodness sake.

Posted by: nisleib | August 25, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand "not privatization in a meaningful sense." Yesterday you said it wasn't privatization at all now it's "not privatization in a meaningful sense."

And "investments would be from a choice of government curated options." Isn't that tyranny, Kevin?

If people want to invest pre-tax earnings in a personal retirement account, they can do that - it's called a 401(k) plan. They can invest those funds in any way their plan provides and they can pass the excess funds to their heirs.

Why is that not good enough for the GOP? Why isn't it good enough for you, Kevin?

What is the benefit, in your view, of establishing a program diverting funds from Social Security when a more or less identical program already exists to supplement Social Security? Do you really believe that such a diversion program would benefit the middle class, Kevin?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Any Liberal, Progressive or Moderate who promises to sit out the upcoming elections, is actually helping the TeaBaggers to take over both the House and Senate.

They are making it more likely that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will take control of the legislative agenda, and control all committees, including the one that decides which judicial nominees get sent for a full vote.

Were the Republicans to take over, Boehner and McConnell would be captive to the TeaBagger crowd.

Any Liberal who thinks that not going out to vote, to prevent that from happening, belongs to The Lunatic Left.

You know who you are.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

[mike asked: "can you really fault people for wanting to impose their own Govn't?"]

I fault Imam Rauf for endorsing Vilayet-i-faquih, the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs.

Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.)

As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.

I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. And I condemn the breathtaking bigotry of Bloomberg who condemns as "un-American" people of good will (Secular Muslims and non-Muslims alike) who oppose Rauf's apartheid sharia law advocacy.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I think it time that we Privatized the Pentagon Budgets. Why not let each individual, set aside their share of the taxes, that go to pay for Military Spending, in their individual private investment accounts, and make it tax exempt. Each individual knows best, what level of national security works best for them,

Keep the Government's Hands Off Of Our National Security Decisions.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Kaddafi, I almost feel pitty for you.

You're fighting imaginary people in your mind and you think they are playing out in real life.

I think you need to stop hanging out on atlassshrugged2000, Gellar has you fighting against people that don't exist.

Anyways Kaddafi, I found an old article of the Imam's on Huffington Post. Read it if you want. It appears what you're concerned about is the penal code being applied by some, not about the laws its self.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

How about privatizing the FDA budget too Liam. Then everyone can inspect their own eggs. Maybe just a "partial" egg privatization.

Of course, women should not be allowed to privatize their eggs -- the government should get total control over what they do with those.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 25, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Here's another one of his, 'radical' in your view, articles Kadaffi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/obamas-challenge-to-the-m_b_211838.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Mike - Ignore the troll. This is the same guy who calls everyone to the left of Frank Gaffney a quisling.

He gets his jollies cutting and pasting nonsensical rightwing talking points. There really is no point engaging with him.

Don't feed the troll!

Posted by: nisleib | August 25, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Here's another article I found about his rebuttal of the enforcement of perceived Sharia laws.

http://talkislam.info/2009/07/29/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-rebuts-the-sharia/

Here's what I suggest you do Kaddafi.

Go to Google. Do a search based on dates. Say go from 2000 to early 2009, prior to the flareups at the Cordoba initiative.

There you will find his moderate positions.

Enjoy.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I think it time that we Privatized the Pentagon Budgets. Why not let each individual, set aside their share of the taxes, that go to pay for Military Spending, in their individual private investment accounts, and make it tax exempt. Each individual knows best, what level of national security works best for them,

Keep the Government's Hands Off Of Our National Security Decisions.
_________

What a bunch of tripe. Any Government's fundamental role is the protection of its citizens. You can hardly argue that having professionals manage our national defense, which is a benefit to all citizens of this country, is the same as Social Security, which is intended to benefit an individual.

Posted by: Bailers | August 25, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Liam, I'm glad you cleared that up for us, the Lunatic Left are the non voters, PHEW, now I know I'm not one. Thanks.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"What a bunch of tripe. Any Government's fundamental role is the protection of its citizens."

The Pentagon budgets are riffled with contracts for ex Commander/General buddies in private contracting firms. That's not what the Govn't role is.

Is defense a role?

Sure.

But the corruption and waste on contracts nobody "needs" is out of control.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Professional also manage our Health Care Decisions. You know; Professional Doctors. Only you and The Sue Weldman crowd still believe in letting amateurs treat you with Leeches and Blood Letting, and paying them with Chickens.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

Yeah, you're doing quite a bit of tap-dancing on this one.

I appreciate that you're attempting to inject a deeper policy discussion about Social Security, but it's simply not working. It's also really showing the reason why we shouldn't mess with SS at all.

Once you alter the proven, stable funding mechanism that's been in place for decades...then the whole program is at risk. Even if you try to limit the change by some spin-based "partial" privatization, the risk is still introduced. I'm unwilling to risk the safety net of millions of American seniors, especially when there's so many better ways for the Government to reduce spending & increase revenue.

That's also the view of a huge majority of Americans, and the GOP knows it. That's why they resort to spin arguments meant to muddy the waters about the subject, and why they try to make the change incrementally by way of "partial" privatization.

Social Security is solvent for a long, long time. There are so many more productive, more unintrusive, less risky, and more effiecent ways for the Government's balance sheet to be balanced. So I always find it a bit ridiculous to even entertain the notion of changing social security in some way.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 25, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans want to conduct some grand experiment with seniors Social Security.

Thanks but no thanks.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The speculation that Democrats may vote "strategically" to elect Crist is very disturbing. The Party and Administration need to get behind Meek in a clear and forceful way, especially after the shameful treatement of Sherrod and Obama's clumsy attempt to throw Rangel under the bus. There's a limit to how much minority voters will take and still turn out.

Posted by: androcles | August 25, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Liam:

Do you really think that insulting and bullying Liberals is helpful to the Democratic Party? If not, why do you persist in doing do? Because Rahm and the Administration say so? I know you think them infallible but they might be wrong. Please consider it.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 25, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

What a bunch of tripe. Any Government's fundamental role is the protection of its citizens. You can hardly argue that having professionals manage our national defense, which is a benefit to all citizens of this country, is the same as Social Security, which is intended to benefit an individual.

Posted by: Bailers | August 25, 2010 10:10 AM |

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

How dare you come out against The Constitution. The second amendment has granted the right to individuals to own guns to protect theirselves, and not leave it up to the Government. Therefore, I should be allowed to set up my own privatized, personal, tax exempt, defense account, to pay for the weapons and ammo that I need, instead of giving that money to the Pentagon.

I have that right, or so Nino Scalia recently ruled, so you keep your hands of the Musket in Chuck Heston's Cold Dead Hands, you Tyranical Government Loving Quisling.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

WoeBegone,

You said that you were not going to vote in the upcoming elections, so I have no use for you. You are just as much of a danger to the country as all those TeaBagger Nut Jobs.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's clumsy attempt to throw Rangel under the bus."

Your sincere concern is duly noted. However, responsible liberals like Eric Alterman (Rangel is his rep) have been shouting about Rangel's corruption for years.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Joe McCarthy was a vile and despicable man. You may recall that Richard Nixon also got his start as a HUAC crusader. That is not coincidence since the GOP has become the Party of Nixon, using a an enhanced Southern Strategy to fearmonger and divide the nation for political gain. If the GOP does take over the House we can expect a new HUAC to terrorize Muslims throughout the government and the country.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 25, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"The speculation that Democrats may vote "strategically" to elect Crist is very disturbing. The Party and Administration need to get behind Meek in a clear and forceful way, especially after the shameful treatement of Sherrod and Obama's clumsy attempt to throw Rangel under the bus. There's a limit to how much minority voters will take and still turn out."

androcles, sorry, but anyone putting their weight behind Meeks because he's black is ridiculous.

Both the Sherrod and Rangel stories have ziltch to do with Meeks. Sherrod's story was an error they tried to rectify. Rangel's is his own doing.

If Crist wins and caucuses with the Dems on most issues, it's a loss for Republicans. If the Dems put all their weight behind Meeks in FL which is I think the most expensive market apart from CA and NY and Rubio wins, then what?

I honestly don't see how Meeks can win statistically. Meeks and Crist are no doubtingly splitting voters between the two of them. Unless Meeks gets some huge surge in the next month, Dems will not pour cash into FL knowing that Crist is a middle of the road guy trending Democratic that could very well caucus with them. Especially after Republicans threw him under the bus.

Would I rather have Meeks there? Sure. It is important for our country to have more African American leaders in Congress? Yes. But we throw money at him because he happens to be black? I don't think that's a good way of looking at it.

That's just my opinion of course though.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,

No corruption charges have been filed against Rangel, so I would not label his ethics violations in that manner.

Rangel opposed Obama, in the primaries, and said some harsh things about him, so there is no love lost between those two.

Rangel should step down, if the ethics violations charges are accurate.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Liam: You still haven't answered my questions. You just repeated your insults and bullying. It is you are is just like the Teabagger Nutjobs. Think about it please.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 25, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"E. Coli Conservatism"
http://www.ourfuture.org/progressive-opinion/e-coli-conservatism

h/t Benen

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

@Liam - Here's an Alterman piece from two years ago. There's more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/sep/19/uselections2008.congress

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

WoeBegone, By not voting to keep them out of office, you are helping the TeaBaggers take over. That makes you a member of the Lunatic Left.

You can keep asking over and over, hoping for to get a different answer, because that is what Lunatics do, but the answer will still remain the same, so this is the last time I respond to you; Quitter, and Tea Bagger enabler.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

OK. Liam. Do what makes you feel good. That's the way the Teabaggers do it.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 25, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Apparently Ashley Carson received a nasty email from Alan Simpson Monday night in response to a post she put up in April regarding SS and possible cuts. She focused on the predicament of older and disable women and he really didn't appreciate it.

I posted this last night, but the guys were all discussing other subjects, so I'll re post now and then post the letter to Obama asking him to remove Simpson from the commission.

"Simpson's email, which OWL chief Ashley Carson released publicly, (PDF) was sent in response to an April blog post Carson wrote for the Huffington Post. Carson criticized Simpson for repeatedly describing his Social Security opponents as "Pink Panthers," arguing that the description had sexist connotations.

His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension. At one point he urged Carson to read a certain graph, "which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs."

Simpson concludes by implying that leading a major organization dedicated to the interests of middle-aged and elderly women is not "honest work."

"If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know," he writes. "And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow
with 310 million ti!s! Call when you get honest work!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Here is the letter the National Council of Women's Organizations sent to the President calling for Simpson to remove himself from the commission or be removed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Letter that we are sending to President Obama reads as follows:

We call for the resignation of Alan K. Simpson as co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. We have given the former Senator several chances at redemption, but his email today to our sister member organization, the Older Women's League, illustrates his clear disrespect for Social Security, women and the American people, highlighted by his degrading, sexist, ageist and profane language. In the closing few sentences of the e-mail he states, "It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million ti!s! Call when you get honest work."

The facts speak for themselves, but Mr. Simpson suggests that anyone supporting people who most need help and who deserve the benefits they paid for must be dishonest or stupid. Such open contempt goes beyond the pale and cannot be tolerated from someone in such a position of authority.

The National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO) works in coalition with many other campaigns to prevent misleading and false attacks on Social Security. Forty-five percent of women over age 65, who live alone, do so in poverty. Women, who earn less on average for the same work as men, are hit again upon taking Social Security benefits; due to lower lifetime earnings, women receive on average less than $12,000 per year in Social Security benefits, while men receive nearly $14,000.

Further, women are not living longer in retirement (low-income minority women have seen decreases in life expectancy), and cannot continue to work more years in physically difficult or demanding jobs. Social Security is not an overly generous program helping all seniors live out luxurious retirements. Social Security provides a base level of replacement income for older Americans who can no longer work, and any cuts to benefits, either in the form of smaller checks or by raising the retirement age, will hurt all generations, forcing more and more Americans back into poverty.

It may be good politics to have such an enemy to play off of heading into November, but Mr. President, it is time for you to stand up for the millions of American workers who have paid into Social Security on the promise of a secure retirement, and put them ahead of political sportsmanship. Mr. Simpson must be removed from this commission, either by his own will, or by yours. Show American workers you mean what you say about protecting Social Security. This is your chance.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Excuse me. 'Sort of' hardly allows the rest of that sentence to stand as accurate."

All right then. "Mostly". There were some cases where he was clearly off his nut.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - I'm not even close to accepting "mostly". What on earth is your source, please? (Yes, I know of the Russian documents).

Posted by: bernielatham | August 25, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca


Alan Simpson considers me to be a "Pink Panther"? Wait until my wife hears that. It might become her new pet name for me, instead of her; "little Quisling".

I think I will play the theme song, by Henry Mancini, in the bedroom tonight. Thank you Alan Simpson.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"And Sharron Angle agrees there are domestic enemies within Congress"
---------------------------------------------

No doubt Harry Reid will now try to use this quote to try and paint Angle as the sort of person who agrees that there are domestic enemies within Congress.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"I don't understand 'not privatization in a meaningful sense.' Yesterday you said it wasn't privatization at all now it's 'not privatization in a meaningful sense.'"

Both of which mean that the Social Security reform plans thus far presented are not "privatization". More to the point, the use of the term is misleading. There would be personal accounts, yes, and some determination would be made by the individual, but that does not, in any meaningful sense, constitute privatization.

Thus, such SS reform is not privatization.

"And 'investments would be from a choice of government curated options.' Isn't that tyranny, Kevin?"

Uh, no. It's an attempt at crafting a productive policy. It is certainly no more "tyrannical" that SS as it stands (which, for the record, is not tyrannical).

"If people want to invest pre-tax earnings in a personal retirement account, they can do that - it's called a 401(k) plan. They can invest those funds in any way their plan provides and they can pass the excess funds to their heirs."

If people want to plan for their retirement, they can deduct some money from every paycheck and put it away in a savings account, and probably get a better return that SS. So what have SS at all?

"Why is that not good enough for the GOP? Why isn't it good enough for you, Kevin?"

I'm hoping for change. If you think a certain set of policies would be, on the whole, better for everybody, you're going to support them. If you think they'd be worse, you don't. I think GOP style SS reform would be, on the whole, better for the vast majority of people. Thus, I support it. It's not a matter of the status quo not being good enough for me, per se.

"What is the benefit, in your view, of establishing a program diverting funds from Social Security when a more or less identical program already exists to supplement Social Security?"

I'm not necessarily arguing for diverting funds, per se. Use of the program could be indefinitely optional, and any supposed "shortfall" from the program could be (now, this is my opinion, not shared in any current plans that I know of) made up from raising or eliminating the cap on SS taxable wages.

"Do you really believe that such a diversion program would benefit the middle class, Kevin?"

The devil is always in the details but, generally, yes, I do.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca, I was just looking up some info on what you posted. I always thought life expectancy rose for all races and sexes.

I found minority lifespans are becoming lower because of obesity. That should be a target that could be remedied through education.

Income disparity is a an issue that would need to be addressed if any sort of age adjustment were made imho.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I'm late to the party but I realize why I love this blog sooo much!

With the exception of one poor lost soul who I think we all pity...you guys are doing such a terrific job of discussing issues.
Kudos to all of you.

@Mike...."Now they are looking for more income. Their next target is SS.
I wish people would realize exactly what is taking place here."

You are spot on Mike, this is simply about the financial sector trying to bilk more of our money to play with on things like credit default swaps - derivatives or whatever the next new scam might be.

@Bernie & Kevin...thanks to both of you for showing me the light about civil discussion without hyperbole and name calling. Your efforts seem to be paying not only with me but with the rest of our regulars. Civility on the political blog...whoda thunk it?

@Bernie and others who have noted what the R's are trying to inflict on the state of Florida. We are scared that somehow one of the largest crooks in our recent history may capture the Governor's mansion.

We in Florida are asking for your HELP!!!
Please. Hate to use caps but really..this guy is a sleazeball of Jack Abramoff level..Duke Cunningham...he simply got off because his board ran him out of his company and then bought off the Feds with a 1.7 BILLION dollar fine.

HELP US PLEASE!

http://action.alexsink2010.com/p/salsa/web/tellafriend/public/?tell_a_friend_KEY=51

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

@mike: None of the HuffPo's refried taqiya propaganda explains or justifies Imam Rauf's endorsement of Vilayet-i-faquih. Moreover, Imam Rauf is a demonstrated duplicitous liar who speaks from both sides of his mouth.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/

If mike chooses to accept HuffPo refried propaganda as mitigating, then that is mike's prerogative. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for folks to ask for more from (allegedly) "peaceful" Muslims than disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia tradition, as practiced in Iran, Gaza, Kashmir, Malaysia, the Paris banlieue... and (pointedly) Cordoba House in NYC.

Before Imam Rauf is endorsed by Bloomberg as representative of "all Muslims", I'd like to see Imam Rauf asked a few searching questions about his support for clerical dictatorship in Iran. Let us by all means make the "Ground Zero" debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street, unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.

More to the point, it is the depth of arrogance and bigotry for Bloomberg to slander patriotic Americans (Secular Muslims and non-Muslims alike) as "un-American" for the thought crime of objecting to Rauf's sharia advocacy.

btw: Where have all the "MCCARTHYISM!" police gone today?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I've got no problem with privatizing SS either in part or whole, provided the following is stipulated by law: in the event that tomfoolery or monkey business in the stock market causes a crash similar to what we saw in 2008, those who invested their SS in private accounts will be paid from government accounts an amount equal to current benefits, indexed for inflation, and the government will collect the monies needed to pay those obligations by raising taxes on the wealthiest people in the country by whatever amount is necessary to make the payments; those people being by definition the ones who benefitted from the tomfoolery and/or monkey business in the stock market that made everyone's individual accounts worthless.

Somehow I don't think that's what the privateers have in mind, though.

Posted by: JennOfArk | August 25, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

We have seen what happens to private savings accounts, and investment accounts, when the economy collapses. Many people are now paying stiff penalties for drawing down their 401K accounts, prematurly. Social Security is the only safety net they will have left, and had they been allowed to control those funds, they would also have lost most of them, or been taken to the cleaners by some Bernie Madoff type.

Keep Social Security funds out of the hands of individuals. Most of them are not sophisticated enough in financial investment matters, to be able to make sound, secure investment decisions, and those that are, do not really need the additional funds, to invest.

It is a pension plan/insurance plan. Leave it alone, because if you privatize it, you will destroy it, and when the Next Republican Economic crash arrives, you will have created a massive number of old people, who will have been made destitute and homeless.

A safety net, is not something that works, once you cut many holes in it. Social Security is Social Security, not Casino Royale.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

All, check out Van Hollen's blistering response to Boehner's speech:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca....You are my favorite poster. If you ever decide to run for office...and you should give it some thought now that your daughter is off to CSU..unless you have some more younger children to raise...I would love to have the honor of making the first donation to your campaign.

You are level headed and sensible..clearly a progressive but not a bitter name calling partisan. You rock limsinca!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Kaddafi - yadda yadda yadda.

It's called the First Amendment - look into it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | August 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Good thing there's no religious test to be a US citizen.

Posted by: stonedone | August 25, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Kevin - I'm not even close to accepting ;'mostly'. What on earth is your source, please?"

Venona intercepts, the Russian files and the American Communist Party documents released after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Whittaker Chambers biography, "Venona" from Yale University Press, "The Secret History of the KGB", "The Secret World of American Communism" (Yale University Press, again) and, if you want,
"Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator" from Free Press. And there's some other stuff.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@Mike: When Rauf speaks in Arabic, he contradicts what he says to his English-speaking audience. On March 24, 2010, Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All, a leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world, entitled "The Most Prominent Imam in New York: 'I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.'"
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?print=1

He goes on to say that "Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing." Finally, Rauf says "it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of sharia that are required to govern."

Bloomberg is endorsing an ideology at odds with democratic beliefs. Thus, "Sharia law contradicts the American Constitution just as the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, flatly contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." How many more faces of young women with their noses and ears cut off must we see to understand the bestiality of this belief system?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html

Under sharia law, mistreatment of all non-Muslims, whether Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh or Christians in Egypt and Lebanon, has caused many to flee for their lives.

Perhaps that is why Bloomberg (and others) chose the Quisling path of appeasement? He sees the writing on the wall and is prepared to submit.

Lan astaslem!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - I think Bernie is right on this one, neither "mostly" nor "sort of" applly to the victims of McCarthyism.

I would love for you to provide a link showing your source.

Wikipedia says the following:

Victims of McCarthyism

It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous. Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment.

In the film industry, over 300 actors, authors and directors were denied work in the U.S. through the unofficial Hollywood blacklist. Blacklists were at work throughout the entertainment industry, in universities and schools at all levels, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. A port security program initiated by the Coast Guard shortly after the start of the Korean War required a review of every maritime worker who loaded or worked aboard any American ship, regardless of cargo or destination. As with other loyalty-security reviews of McCarthyism, the identities of any accusers and even the nature of any accusations were typically kept secret from the accused. Nearly 3,000 seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to this program alone.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Posted by: nisleib | August 25, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Reality Check:

There has never been a Muslim army in the United States, but the United States sure has had plenty of them in Muslim countries.

President Bush referred to the Invasion of Iraq, as a Crusade. How is that for a potent symbol of past conquest for you, all you people who see the name Cordoba as standing for something similar.

And no; The Crusades was not the last ancient Conquest of Muslim lands.

Learn some history, you ignorant bigots.

The West was still colonizing Islamic lands, as recently as 1960. Look up the history of the French in Algeria, for example.

Does no one recall that The Brits, The French, and The Israelis, invaded and captured the Suez Canal, during the Eisenhower era. Does no one recall that Eisenhower overthrew the elected government of Iran, and send in the Military to install the Shah, as our puppet dictator.

What the hell do you think both the Germans and British were doing in North Africa, during World War 2?

Again; at this moment; there are American Armies in Muslim lands, but no Muslim Army has ever landed in America.


So, let us change the name of the Center from Cordoba House, to The Karen Hughes, Forget-Me-Not, Muslim Outreach Center;

And harmony shall take root and blossom.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

All, come over to the new thread:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 25, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

ruk, thanks but no thanks. I'm more of a behind the scenes gal. I have worked on many campaigns and been on several local policy commissions and that's plenty for me and besides I'm looking forward to retirement. I also sort of like to annoy the City Council whenever possible from the audience.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

@ KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 9:13 AM

"To suggest that the vast majority of patriotic Americans are implicating "all of Islam for the actions of a few" is slanderous and un-American."

I see your problem. You're just confused. Nobody actually said anything about a vast majority of patriotic Americans? We were talking about the scraggly handful of nutbaggers who are making a fuss about an Islamic community center planned for downtown Manhattan.

Of course freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional right as fundamental as the freedom to practice one's religion pretty much anywhere one pleases. So it cannot be reasonably argued that scraggly bands of nutbaggers do not have as much right to whine and hyperventilate about the Islamic center as it's organizers have to build it. But patriotic Americans -- pretty much by definition I'm afraid -- are people who ~don't~ hate America for the most fundamental freedoms enshrined in our constitution and so the vast majority of us of obviously have or want nothing to do with the aforementioned nutbaggers.

Vast majority of patriotic Americans; nutbaggers protesting Islamic center: Two different things.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING: Islamo-supremacist "Imam Rauf wrote Obama's Cairo speech"
http://888webtoday.com/articles/viewnews.cgi?id=EklkyAFAFVxHELEDIJ

QUESTION: Who really was speaking on that historic day of June 4th 2009 in Cairo, Egypt? President Obama or the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf?

ANSWER: Feisal Abdul Rauf! Link to audio of Rauf's admission
http://www.specialguests.com/guests/data/audio/Rauf_Interview_excerpt_0210.mp3

The Shoebat Foundation obtained this shocking audio recording of Rauf's own voice boasting in Arabic that Obama’s historic Cairo speech was provided by the Imam and the Cordova Initiative in what the Imam called “The Blue Print” which he said was the solution to the Islamic-American divide. Rauf claimed Chapter 6 of the Imam’s work engineered by the Cordova Initiative was the construct for the entire speech:

“This is an example of the impact of our work in a positive way to be used by the President.”

"The blue print," Rauf elaborated, included everything from U.S. policy to Jewish and Christian relations with Muslims.

[Now we know who's behind the submission tour of our Teleprompter-in-Chief.]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "I would love for you to provide a link showing your source."

Oh, good grief. I gotta do everything.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp

There is a fairly large body of literature discussing the penetration of both Soviet spies and the American Communist Party into the U.S. government.

amazon.com/Secrets-Exposing-Espionage-Americas-Traitors/dp/0895262258

amazon.com/Sword-Shield-Mitrokhin-Archive-History/dp/0465003125

amazon.com/Joseph-McCarthy-Reexamining-Americas-Senator/dp/0684836254

amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068

amazon.com/Secret-World-American-Communism-Annals/dp/0300068557

amazon.com/Denial-Historians-Communism-Espionage/dp/159403088X

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

[CaID sneered: "Nobody actually said anything about a vast majority of patriotic Americans?"]

Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque has crept up to 63 percent among state voters, as more New Yorkers choose sides in the debate, according to the most recent Siena Research Institute poll.

A similar survey two weeks before found 61 percent oppose the proposed project, known as Park51 two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Support for the project was at 22 percent, compared to 21 percent in the Aug. 5 poll.

While both increases are within the poll's 3.5 percentage-point margin of error, the survey suggests more voters are making up their minds about the project, which has become a troublesome issue for Democrats nationwide.

[Quislings can keep pretending opposition to Imam Rauf is just a tiny minority. Good luck with that in November.]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I think it was Karen Hughes who wrote that Cairo Speech for President Obama. After all she was George W. Bush's Muslim Whisperer.


Reality Check:

There has never been a Muslim army in the United States, but the United States sure has had plenty of them in Muslim countries.

President Bush referred to the Invasion of Iraq, as a Crusade. How is that for a potent symbol of past conquest for you, all you people who see the name Cordoba as standing for something similar.

And no; The Crusades was not the last ancient Conquest of Muslim lands.

Learn some history, you ignorant bigots.

The West was still colonizing Islamic lands, as recently as 1960. Look up the history of the French in Algeria, for example.

Does no one recall that The Brits, The French, and The Israelis, invaded and captured the Suez Canal, during the Eisenhower era. Does no one recall that Eisenhower overthrew the elected government of Iran, and send in the Military to install the Shah, as our puppet dictator.

What the hell do you think both the Germans and British were doing in North Africa, during World War 2?

Again; at this moment; there are American Armies in Muslim lands, but no Muslim Army has ever landed in America.


So, let us change the name of the Center from Cordoba House, to The Karen Hughes, Forget-Me-Not, Muslim Outreach Center;

And harmony shall take root and blossom.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

@Liam: When Muslims return occupied Constantinople and the sacred Hagia Sophia (Christendom’s 2nd most holy cathedral)— then victimhood cultists can howl about the alleged “rights” of Muslim invaders to other lands (from the Phillipines to Morroco) from which apartheid Islamo-supremacists extirpated native populations through genocide.

Those interested in exploring the history of apartheid Islamo-supremacism in a more scholarly manner may read, “The Legacy of Jihad” @
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/

The Buddha called— he’d like his Bamiyan monuments back.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Nice of Liam to belittle the hard work and heroic sacrifices of this generation of Americans. Adding insult to injury, Liam smears American soldiers as Crusaders. That’s pure al-Qaeda propaganda you’re spitting there, Liam.

Don’t know where Liam's been but America has successfully occupied our allies in Japan and Western Europe for over 60 years (and counting). Like WWII, our Iraqi mission is a good start to stabilizing the Middle East. And please don’t pretend there weren’t Cold War sacrifices (including bloody terrorist attacks on us) in Europe, you silly ignoramus. Ever heard of the Berlin disco bombing?

Never forget: Liam smears our American liberation of Iraq as an "invasion." Liam implies here that Saddam and his terrorist allies were not responsible for the innocent casualties of that liberation. The 22 legitimate casus belli cited by Congress against Saddam were clear: Saddam did try to kill a former American president; the U.N. embargo was violated (as were its inspection protocols); the 1991 accords were ignored; the genocide of brave Kurds did happen; suicide bombers were being given bounties; terrorists (including those involved into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were given sanctuary by Saddam; and on and on.

Clearly, Liam prefers the rape rooms of Qusay and Uday to the elected government of our new Iraqi allies.

Don’t spit al-Qaeda propaganda your whole life, Liam.

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

But still:

There has never been a Muslim army in the United States, but the United States sure has had plenty of them in Muslim countries.

President Bush referred to the Invasion of Iraq, as a Crusade. How is that for a potent symbol of past conquest for you, all you people who see the name Cordoba as standing for something similar.

And no; The Crusades was not the last ancient Conquest of Muslim lands.

Learn some history, you ignorant bigots.

The West was still colonizing Islamic lands, as recently as 1960. Look up the history of the French in Algeria, for example.

Does no one recall that The Brits, The French, and The Israelis, invaded and captured the Suez Canal, during the Eisenhower era. Does no one recall that Eisenhower overthrew the elected government of Iran, and send in the Military to install the Shah, as our puppet dictator.

What the hell do you think both the Germans and British were doing in North Africa, during World War 2?

Again; at this moment; there are American Armies in Muslim lands, but no Muslim Army has ever landed in America.


So, let us change the name of the Center from Cordoba House, to The Karen Hughes, Forget-Me-Not, Muslim Outreach Center;

And harmony shall take root and blossom.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "Learn some history, you ignorant bigots."

When name-calling, you should be specific about who you're addressing. Although I'm pretty sure I know, it's still just a good idea. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - I don't have time to read all of those books and respond to your comment.

I did look up that book you provided a link for, Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America. It does NOT show that most, many, or all of those accused by McCarthy were guilty of anything approaching a crime.

Posted by: nisleib | August 25, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Fair point.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Ahem.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: When Muslims return occupied Constantinople and the sacred Hagia Sophia (Christendom’s 2nd most holy cathedral)— then victimhood cultists can howl about the alleged “rights” of Muslim invaders to other lands (from the Phillipines to Morroco) from which apartheid Islamo-supremacists extirpated native populations through genocide.

Those interested in exploring the history of apartheid Islamo-supremacism in a more scholarly manner may read, “The Legacy of Jihad” @
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/

The Buddha called— he’d like his Bamiyan monuments back.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

@ KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 11:52 AM

Mmm-hmm. And 62% (in a new Pew poll released yesterday) think Muslims should have the same rights as other groups to build houses of worship in local communities. And just so we're clear right up front, if you wanted to suggest that you seriously believe we would be still having this conversation if this were a YMCA or a christian church that someone wanted to build in that same neighborhood, you would be leaving me no choice but to laugh at you loudly, rudely, hysterically.

You may note that neither freedom of speech nor freedom religion in any way imply that anyone has to ~like~ what other people say or where they build their churches, only that they have every right to say or build them nevertheless. Heck, if you asked me I kind of wish all the people out there hyperventilating over this on ~both~ sides of the argument would grow the hell up -- you people are giving me migraines -- even though I fully recognize their right not to. Lucky for me though, the same freedom of speech fact that gives someone every right to wear their own keester as a hat if they like, also means I can make as much fun as I want of their fashion sense.

I love America for that. Don't you? (CalD sneered)

;-)

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Shame on Mayor Bloomberg (and his toady apologists) for slandering 9/11 widows and orphans who oppose Cordoba House as "un-American."

"Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless."
[Psalm 10:14]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 25, 2010 3:58 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