Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:43 AM ET, 02/ 3/2011

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Obama eschews "aggressive, overbearing role" in Egypt: This will enrage conservatives who are criticizing Obama's handling of the Egypt crisis as insufficiently heavy-handed, but do check out Fareed Zakaria's positive contrast of Obama's approach with that of Bush:

After 9/11, Bush put a harsh spotlight on the problem of Arab dictatorships in a way that made them impossible to ignore. But he discredited his cause with a foreign policy that was deeply unpopular in the Arab world ... Obama, by contrast, pulled back from an overbearing, aggressive American role, which made it possible for Egyptian liberals and democrats to find their voices without being branded as U.S. puppets.

* But: As E.J. Dionne notes, Obama may yet pay a political cost for his caution: "Ultimately, Obama will be judged by results. If the Egyptian uprising eventually leads to an undemocratic regime hostile to the United States and Israel, the president will pay the price."

* Also: Administration officials are privately worried that Mubarak's sluggishness about getting that "orderly transition" started means things could get much, much uglier.

* Health repeal battle shifts to the courts: Senate Democrats yesterday defeated the GOP measure to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which means it's time to redouble our attention on fighting this battle out in the courts. There's no denying that a Supreme Court ruling against the law is a very real possibility.

* Dems maintain unity against repeal: The courts may be the only hope for the repeal brigade, because the fact that Senate Dems held the line against repeal yesterday makes it clearer than ever that it's going to be all but impossible to roll back the law by legislative means.

* Republicans vow to press on: With Senate GOPers vowing to keep pressing ahead with legislative efforts at repeal, it remains to be seen whether Tea Partyers will be willing to give Republicans an "A for effort" if these efforts prove a bust.

* Dems challenge GOP: Repeal and replace with what? Expect Dems to keep hammering away at this point from Chuck Schumer:

"If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: 'You know, you're right. We have to reduce costs. We have a better way,' and they offered a bill on the floor, well maybe we'd take a look at it. Easy to sit there and say, 'repeal.' What would you put in its place?"

* Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.

* Filibuster reform's first test: Sam Stein on how Dems are putting the informal truce in the Senate to its first big test by sending Republicans a batch of judicial nominations to see if they'll block them.

Key takeaway: The onus is on Dem leaders to show that their watered down package of reforms, which rests partly on a gentleman's agreement of sorts with Repubs, will actually change how the Senate functions. If nothing really changes, that will give younger Dems more incentive to renew their push for reform.

* On tap for today: More government investment. Obama will unveil new proposals to use tax incentives and grants to boost the energy efficiency of commercial buildings, the latest effort to make good on the State of the Union promise of more government investment to spur economic competitiveness.

Courtesy of Mike Allen, the White House fact sheet.

* Tea Partyers are every bit as militaristic as other conservatives: Benjamin Friedman on why the notion that Tea Partyers are going to organize against bloated Pentagon spending and oppose the Afghanistan war is a big myth. Anyone who is hoping for ideological consistency from these good people is going to be sorely disappointed.

* The generational divide within GOP on gay marriage: I don't spend much time highlighting what the children of politicians think, but Meghan McCain's and Barbara Bush's support for gay marriage really does highlight a striking generational divide within the GOP on the issue, and reminds us that it's only a matter of time until it becomes a reality.

* Only one-fifth disapprove of Obama's handling of Egypt: Conservative bloggers gnash teeth as even Rasmussen finds that a plurality approves of Obama's performance, with a meager 22 percent disapproving.

* The GOP leadership's strategy for dealing with Michele Bachmann: Ignore her in hopes that she will go away.

* And the Right-wing anti-Muslim whackjobbery of the day: GOP Rep Allen West opines that Dem Rep. Keith Ellison (who was targeted by Tea Partyers as the "only Muslim" in Congress) is "someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | February 3, 2011; 8:43 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Health reform, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Supreme Court, Tea Party, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: What should Obama do next on Egypt?

Comments

Cao

You have no morality


What adult male - who says he is gay - moves to a communist country in Southeast Asia - if not for the little boys?


Seriously - you are a twisted sick person.

And you have worked with the Obama paid trolls to push deceptions and lies onto the American People - never caring that most of what you say is untrue and damaging to the Economy. You have pushed these lies with the Obama paid trolls like drug dealers in a public housing complex. Exactly the kind of neighborhood Obama claims he knows so well. Obama's people are trained as if they came directly from the drug-infested public housing projects.


AND yet, all the criticisms you have of the United States, you appear completely unaware that on every account, Vietnam is worse.


12BarBlues did a horrible, obnoxious, vicious thing by emailing you and asking you to come to this blog.

She knew full well what you would do on this blog.

She is SOLELY responsible for the plague that is you.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Cao

You have no morality


What adult male - who says he is gay - moves to a communist country in Southeast Asia - if not for the little boys?


Seriously - you are a twisted sick person.

And you have worked with the Obama paid trolls to push deceptions and lies onto the American People - never caring that most of what you say is untrue and damaging to the Economy. You have pushed these lies with the Obama paid trolls like drug dealers in a public housing complex. Exactly the kind of neighborhood Obama claims he knows so well. Obama's people are trained as if they came directly from the drug-infested public housing projects.


AND yet, all the criticisms you have of the United States, you appear completely unaware that on every account, Vietnam is worse.


12BarBlues did a horrible, obnoxious, vicious thing by emailing you and asking you to come to this blog.

She knew full well what you would do on this blog.

She is SOLELY responsible for the plague that is you.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

One question, Greg: why haven't you banned caothien9?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I'm going off topic again and re-iterate my original point last night that the discussion over the GOP redefining rape for the purpose of limiting choices is a distraction to the larger issue of removing abortion coverage from all insurance plans. Someone agrees with me and here's his warning. David Waldman know a little about legislative maneuvers.

""In H.R. 3, Republicans revive the mid-90s "Istook amendment" theory of the fungibility of money to include under their definition of "taxpayer funding for abortion" all tax deductions, credits or other benefits for the cost of health insurance, when that insurance includes under its plan coverage for abortion.

So if a company provides health care benefits for its employees, and the plan they pay for includes coverage for abortion, the company becomes ineligible for the normal federal tax deductions and credits that are the usual reward for providing benefits. That's a gigantic tax increase. If you pay for your own coverage directly, no deductions, credits, etc. for you, either, if the plan you select offers abortion coverage. Whether you or someone on your plan ever gets one or not. All deductions associated with your health care costs are disallowed.

And by the way, there's no difference or barrier between targeting abortion and doing the same in the future for benefit plans that cover contraception.

Or for that matter, chiropractic or other medical alternatives. Or medicine in general.

Frankly, I'm not sure why, under this theory, individuals should even be eligible for federal tax deductions, credits, etc. if they make private purchases from such a targeted company. After all, all money being fungible, it could well be said that you're using "federal dollars" that are in your pocket by virtue of any tax deduction you take (whether related to health care or not) when you buy products from such a company, and that those "federal dollars" are going into the coffers of a company that uses them fungibly with the dollars they're using to pay for their health care plan.""

http://david-waldman.dailykos.com/

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

A generation from now people will look back on the debate over gay marriage in puzzlement, wo daring what all the fuss was about.

A few blue hairs in nursing homes will be ranting about it to low-wage caregivers who will humor them.

Barbara Bush? Really?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

You know how often I've commented how much I admire your journalistic integrity. Again as a former journalist I do respect your integrity.

And now for the Yin and Yang. You didn't think I could give you a compliment without asking for something in return.:-)

Proof of your integrity, IMHO is the number of right wingers you've attracted to your blog. I view that as a terrific compliment for a blog that is purportedly "progressive". They must feel they get a fair shake here or they would go somewhere else. Perhaps some of them are just too stupid to realize that choice, and yet others are here simply to harass you and the rest of us "libruls" but I believe the smart ones are here because they respect you whether they admit it or not.

By and large I welcome the small c conservative viewpoint. But you've also attracted some real wack jobs and at least one poor soul who obviously has "issues".
I love this blog, I'm trying to hang on, but there are now threads where I find I'm scrolling and scrolling and scrolling..where literally I have to go by, not just the blog sicko, but about a half dozen other worthless posters who simply come to get their jollies by trying to offer up "clever" mostly hateful responses directed at "libruls" I don't care what names Scott or Q.B. call me, or any of their criticisms of me, because at the end of the day I realize that the vast majority of their posts are not simple insults but contain actual nuggets of original thought.

What I am saying Greg is that I can't download Troll blocker on my computer here at work...I'm really running out of energy scrolling past about a half dozen cretins who populate this blog.

PLEASE GREG TELL THE TECHIES...HELP!!!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca

People who are against abortion are against abortion


People who are in favor of abortion ARE in favor of abortion.


Please don't try to "nuance" any of that. It is clear that if you are against abortion, you should be against others doing the same.


YOU are basically saying, - "you personally would not rob a bank, but you think that bank robbery should be legal"

There is no logic there - only self-deception. Please don't try to push this garbage on anyone else.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Deep thought for the morning: Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and Julian Assange in a room.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

This is really going to annoy John McCain. Think he'll un-friend her?

And finally: While the Middle East rages, Jersey Shore cast member Snooki is taking a stand. “War is not cool at all,” Snooki told Politico while on a trip to Washington, D.C., perhaps to lobby for a repeal of the tanning salon tax in the Affordable Care Act. “I’d probably stop the war, and that’s serious. I’m not trying to be a beauty pageant girl, but war is not cool at all,” she explained.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/03/thinkfast-february-3-2011/

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 3, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

A generation from now people will be fighting against Man-Boy Love and/or cross-species marriage.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"Deep thought for the morning: Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and Julian Assange in a room."

And me, please.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse


Apparently Obama and the liberals in the Senate are going to be INSISTING ON DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND JOBS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.


It is pretty simple. By hanging onto the massive taxes and expensive health insurance costs in Obama's plan, the democrats in the Senate are dragging down hiring.

So: IS IT MORAL to keep millions of people out of work, just to have an expensive health care bill that they think will help others?


HOWEVER, what about the millions who will be running out of unemployment benefits, and who will be running out of health care benefits?


THE IRONY is the truth: Obama's plan will ultimately result in MORE PEOPLE NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE.

And the situation is even worse if one believes that Obama and the Senate democrats are CLINGING to a health care bill that will eventually get repealed or declared UnConstitutional.

IT IS IMMORAL TO KEEP OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN IN PLACE.


These are the same democrats in the Senate who VOTED FOR the Iraq War, and then turned on the war when our troops were in the field, risking their lives.

These are the SAME democrats in the Senate, who on ONE DAY ASKED AMERICANS TO DIE IN IRAQ AND THEN TURNED THEIR BACKS ON THOSE MEN AFTER THEY HAD GIVEN THEIR LIVES -


All to gain a few points in the overnight polls.


These are the truly worthless scum of the Earth -

Thank you very much.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I don't care what names Scott or Q.B. call me, or any of their criticisms of me, because at the end of the day I realize that the vast majority of their posts are not simple insults but contain actual nuggets of original thought.

==

Next time one of those goes by could you highlight it for me?

All I see from the righties here is sarcasm and snideness, and when they do offer arguments they're really simplistic and always doctrinaire. Matter of fact but for the writing style they all seem interchangeable.

Why can't you run TH at work?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca

Thanks for that link. It clearly explains the tactics of the right on this issue and I appreciate the "education" on the topic.

"Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds."

OK. How about calling them right wing mental midgets? Or perhaps gullible kool aid drinkers who only get their beverage from Faux News?

Re Obama's handling of the EGYPTIAN revolution...it is THEIRS not ours!
Obama not acting with the swaggering macho demanded by the pea brained neo cons...hurray! BTW For the idiot neo cons who posited that what is taking place in Egypt is somehow an achievement of the Bush administration...get your heads out of your backsides. As I was viewing the anti-Mubarak protestors I didn't see a single sign that said "Bring it on!"
Amazingly I did see two signs that said..
"Change we can believe in." Hmmmm did they steal that line from Bush? Do we suppose Obama's Cairo speech might have planted any seeds?

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Greg wrote:

" On tap for today: More government investment. Obama will unveil new proposals to use tax incentives and grants to boost the energy efficiency of commercial buildings, the latest effort to make good on the State of the Union promise of more government investment to spur economic competitiveness."

Is there any reason to think Rs will support this initiative or is it just another round of PR shell fire? The Rs wasted our time on symbolic ACA repeal to impress their base. Does this initiative impress BHO's base? Or, again, is there a reason to think Rs will support it?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Check out the poll questions today, vote, then view the NRO demographic.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 9:20 AM | Report abuse

rukidding

Why don't you go over to Jennifer Rubin's blog and debate your issues over there?

I too don't like "scrolling through" the garbage that you post.

Seriously man, you bring little to this place.


I find many of the liberals talking about things that have little to do with politics, or little to do with the issues of the day.


Few liberals want to make an HONEST EVALUATION OF OBAMA, and they rather have some conversation about some obscure topic which isn't on the table at all politically, or about some personal topic.


Seriously man, you are asking for a level of quality which the liberals do not even come close to. So, asking for the Conservatives to live up to a standard that you and your liberals are far, far from - is illogical and irrational.


Go over to Jennifer Rubin's blog - and give you opinions there.

There is less scrolling there, if it is so difficult for you to use your mouse.

voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn


Thanks!

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

So Jake how does it feel to be on the losing side of history? Again?

Racism is out, gays in the military, women with the vote, pretty soon gays marrying in every state. And in church, too.

Maybe you can sell your wedding ring and send the money to SarahPac to feel better.

Now repeat after me: the president is black.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Apparently Obama and the liberals in the Senate are going to be INSISTING ON DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND JOBS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.


It is pretty simple. By hanging onto the massive taxes and expensive health insurance costs in Obama's plan, the democrats in the Senate are dragging down hiring.

So: IS IT MORAL to keep millions of people out of work, just to have an expensive health care bill that they think will help others?


HOWEVER, what about the millions who will be running out of unemployment benefits, and who will be running out of health care benefits?


THE IRONY is the truth: Obama's plan will ultimately result in MORE PEOPLE NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone else watch Rachel Maddow last night? There was some pretty remarkable coverage of the pro vs anti Mubarak stand-off. I'll skip the Robert Fisk report from the ground today for Scott but here's another:

And Al Masry Al Youm reports:

"" Following violent attacks on protesters in Tahrir Square on Wednesday, activists who were already reluctant to accept the regime’s invitation to negotiate say that such a move is now completely out of the question…

Commenting on Wednesday’s violent clashes in Tahrir Square, [Esraa] Abdel Fatah, [member of the 6 April movement and one of the initiators of the 25 January protests] in reference to President Hosni Mubarak, said, “He is trying to set us and the whole country on fire.” “He has fooled us for thirty years; there are no guarantees that his promises will be realized this time,” she added…

Yasser al-Hawary, media coordinator for The Young People for Justice and Freedom movement, says that he and his colleagues are determined to continue their fight against the regime–especially after today’s violent attacks on protesters.

“We won’t back down,” he said. “This is a criminal regime. They tried to kill us before with live ammunition, and today they’re using a new technique by employing armed thugs and policemen against demonstrators.”

Al-Hawary went on to say that the decision to reject negotiations was supported by most demonstrators. “The issue is out of our hands; the people on the street reject the president’s words,” he said.""

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

" On tap for today: More government investment. Obama will unveil new proposals to use tax incentives and grants to boost the energy efficiency of commercial buildings, the latest effort to make good on the State of the Union promise of more government investment to spur economic competitiveness."

==

Well, WalMart is leading the way on this one, and it's saving them millions of dollars.

Anything we do to address global warming saves money, since after all those CO2 emissions are a direct reflection of waste.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The only reason I can think that the GOP will support the proposal for tax incentives to make commercial buildings more energy efficient is that it makes sense. However, since it was proposed by the President, I'm confident that the GOP will unanimously oppose it.


Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 3, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Finally some hard hitting TV reporting about the Super Bowl

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video/ben-roethlisberger-one-win-away-from-being-good-pe,19005/

"Ben Roethlisberger One Win Away From Being Good Person

After being accused of sexual assault twice in three years, Ben Roethlisberger can fully redeem himself by winning Super Bowl XLV."


Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I just wanted to point out how unique and fortunate our generation has been. It was 2000 years ago that Christ was born and walked the earth. And there has been nothing similar until Reagan.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""And me, please.""

I knew you were excited about Assange/wikileaks, but I never would have guessed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

[Greg: "check out Fareed Zakaria's positive contrast of Obama's approach with that of Bush"]

Reagan's (alleged) "heavy-handedness" with the Soviets was "branded" by Leftists-- until Poland's liberation and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Bush's (alleged) "heavy-handedness" with Saddam was "branded"-- until Iraq's liberation and democratization came to pass.

Who seriously thinks that Egyptian mob violence will diminish, or self-regulate, or respond to "soft power"? It is one thing to acknowledge that Obama can't determine (or dictate) the outcome of the changes coming to the Middle East-- quite another to act as though his aloof posturing will exert a "positive" shaping influence.

The Obamateur's inability to take a firm stance and stamp America's "brand" on this movement will be interpreted (correctly) by Iran, Syria and Libya as opportunity.

Under The Obamateur's watch, Lebanon's Cedar Revolution has now fallen to Hezbollah. It appears Egypt is now in danger of falling to Muslim Brotherhood-- while The Obamateur fiddles.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"Meet Mubarak's American fan club"

http://www.salon.com/news/egyptian_protests/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/mubarak_american_allies

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Since the Onion can not stay on top of all the news; It is left to me to break this story:

Preparing for the next giant tea party protest rally in Washington, Koch Brothers are now buying up all the Camels in North America, and training select Tea Party members to ride them.

Michael Steele has been asked to reach out to a certain lesbian bondage club, for to obtain a shipment of whips for the Tea Party Riders.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Obamacare is clearly headed for the scrapheap of failed, liberal pipedreams and boondoggles. It will be the biggest carcass after LBJ and Kennedy's, "Great Society" WELFARE scam.

You know WELFARE. That's the giant con-game that squandered trillions in national treasure even as it destroyed the African American, family structure and made African Americans permanently dependent on Democrat charity.

Nipping it in the bud is a wise thing to do. Before more trillions are blown into the winds of government waste and fraud.

It took 30 years to kill welfare. It was Bill Clintons greatest achievement after scamming himself into a second term.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 3, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, I meant for the look of course. How pale can you go?

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"Deep thought for the morning: Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and Julian Assange in a room."

And me, please.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 9:14 AM
.......................

Psst Bernie:

They are all the same person.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

rattlegourd, what color is the sky on your planet?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

If find the gay marriage debate fascinating, if only because the advocates for or against are seeking the wrong goal. The best way to end this fight is eliminate the government's role in marriage altogether.


Posted by: NoVAHockey | February 3, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"Did anyone else watch Rachel Maddow last night?"

Yes lmsinca and like you I was very impressed. I've always admired Engel because he is more than a pretty face...he actually speaks Arabic, how handy in Iraq, and Cairo.

And Maddow continues to impress me. She is an excellent anchor as well as a pundit. When she puts her "credible" anchor face on she is one of the most talented journalists we have in this new milieu of media.

@Cao "Why can't you run TH at work?"

Short answer..I'm too lazy. :-) Alas my friend I'm not as computer literate as you...thought I might as well beat the righties to most egregious understatement of the day.

I got a Droid a few months back with the assurance from the Verizon dude that it was a simple matter to download a free program and synch my Outlook Calendar and contacts. Well...that was an adventure...first program didn't work..had to uninstall..googled "help in synching a droid and outlook" Read through four posts, very tedious reading for someone like me :-) finally found a guy like Kevin who literally had provided the link to the best program and then step by step "user friendly" instructions on how to accomplish what really wan't a user friendly installation and synch.
My point...I was very frustrated.

My wife is a dentist, I'm the business manager and while our IT guy assures me about our firewall and our software protection my computer is networked to a server with thousands of HIPPA protected records. Call me paranoid...I'm very very cautious about downloading anything to my computer..ergo our network.

The final and perhaps most compelling reason is that Greg has promised a WaPo trollblocker, comment selector whatever for literally weeks now. I've been thinking I'll just wait...perhaps that is as futile as waiting for a Conservative to develop consistency in their "morality".:-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

[ruk boasted: "Amazingly I did see two signs that said... "Change we can believe in." Hmmmm did they steal that line from Bush? Do we suppose Obama's Cairo speech might have planted any seeds?]

LMAO! Leftists believe those "Change" signs were speaking to the Arabic mob? That are in ENGLISH for YOUR consumption, pea-brain. The Muslim Brotherhood are appealiig to Leftist conceits-- and Leftists are stupid enough to believe them.

Here's the PROOF: Those signs are Obama's Code Pinko toadies working with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2011/01/29/did-muslim-brotherhood-learn-day-of-rage-egypt-protest-tactics-from-obama-allies-bill-ayers-and-code-pink/

Do Leftists honestly think Americans don't see what Leftists are doing?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I am really breaking lots of news this morning.

This just in. Social Conservatives to push for plank in 2012 Republican Convention Platform, that fully backs;

Traditional Family Values Sad Marriages.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Looks like the military has stepped in to protect the anti-government Egyptians from the pro Mubarak faction.

""The military began to move with muscle for the first time to stop the fighting early Thursday after a barrage of automatic gunfire hit the anti-government camp before dawn, killing at least three protesters in a serious escalation.

Four tanks cleared a highway overpass from which Mubarak supporters had hurled rocks and firebombs onto the protesters. Soldiers on the streets carrying rifles lined up between the two sides around 11 a.m. Several hundred other soldiers were moving toward the front line.

Thursday morning, more protesters streamed into the square, joining the thousands of defenders who spent the chilly night there, hunkered down against the thousands of government supporters in the surrounding streets.

The apology by Shafiq, who was appointed by Mubarak over the weekend, was highly unusual from a leadership that rarely makes public admissions of a mistake. His promise to investigate who organized the attack came only hours after the Interior Ministry issued a denial that any of its police were involved.

"I offer my apology for everything that happened yesterday because it's neither logical nor rational," Shafiq said. "What happened was wrong, a million percent wrong, whether it was deliberate or not deliberate ... Everything that happened yesterday will be investigated so everyone knows who was behind it."""

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/03/egypt_military_army_intervenes_fights/index.html

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Disagree, NoVA. That's tossing the baby with the bathwater.

(1) It's very'uch in the national interest to encourage stable human relationships. It makes for healthier people.

(2) Suppression of discrimination has to be a core government responsibility

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Prediction: The Obamateur's Nobel-annointed Egyptian leader will be ElBaradei (who advocates "sharing" power with the Islamists).

The Obamateur will broker INTERIM power "sharing"; but, ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, if Muabarak falls.

Islamists (like Leftists, Bolsheviks and Nazis) don't believe in "sharing" power-- any longer than is absolutely necessary to achieve absolute power.

Witness Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Nazis don't believe in "sharing" power-- any longer than is absolutely necessary to achieve absolute power.

Witness Republicans in America.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 9:58 AM

Fixed it.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 3, 2011 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.


___________________________


YOU are correct. It's not like Obama was raised a Muslim or anything like that.


It's not like Obama didn't really attend a Christian Church -


Obama attended a HATE CHURCH BASED ON BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY.


Seriously Greg Sargent you really are not allowed to have your own version of the facts and then get snarky about people who are looking at the FACTS. This is not journalism - it is FICTION which you are writing.


Obama lived in Hyde Park - several MILES from Rev. Wright's church - Obama must have PASSED DOZENS OF CHURCHES IN SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS to get to Rev. Wright


Obama CHOSE BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY


The questions about Obama's Christianity are based on this BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY HERITAGE, as well as Obama's Muslim heritage.


----------


Sorry, but the questions about Obama's LOYALTY TO THE MUSLIM WORLD ARE VALID


Let's not get snarky here with the charges of irrationality - because Greg many of your writings are nothing more than piles of garbage.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: you're gonna hate me for this ... FaceBook is blocked here. Yet I continue to use it. Each time the government changes the block, income up with a new way to bypass it and stay on FB.

I've sat at a lunch table in the rural south and done FB on my iPad.

Oddly, they don't block it on cell phones for chaf, and open.y advertise FB chat

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

OK. It looks like what can be concluded from last night's discussion is:

the vast majority of Right Wing Men are against having abortions.

Fine: In that case, let us pass a law, that allows them to carry their own pregnancies to term.

I am Pro-Choice, so I think it is about time that we stopped coercing Right Wing Men, into undergoing abortion procedures. Some horrible mistakes have happened, because of such coercion. It turns out that 37% of the Right Wing men, who were forced to undergo abortions, weren't even pregnant, they just had large beer bellies.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

[prag drooled: "Nazis... Witness Republicans in America."]

Leftists must learn to accept the FACT that fascism is Leftist.

Dr. John Ray has exhaustively demonstrated that Hitler was indeed a Leftist.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

For those who wish to explore the subject in greater depth, a useful recent resource would be a book by an expert on Italian Fascism: “The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the 20th Century”, by A. James Gregor.
http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Janus-Marxism-Fascism-Twentieth/dp/0300078277

Gregor exhaustively demonstrates that Fascism and Nazism modelled their methods on the atheistic Marxism of Lenin and Stalin; and that the Fascist idea of adding nationalism to socialism was later taken up by Stalin and Mao— so that (in the end) Fascism and Communism were merely twin atheistic Marxist sects. Thus, during the era of their big confrontation, Soviet Russia and Maoist China were perfectly correct in accusing one-another of being “fascists.”

100s of millions of corpses don’t lie. That’s one big steaming pile your Leftist dogs left in history’s living room. Own it, “progressives”.

*Just Say No to Pelosi-Care Death Panels*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

And let's get behind the right of fat right wing dropouts with no gun training to keep and bear blunderbusses.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.


__________________________


"recognizably rational thought processes"


Actually based on FACTS


Obama was raised a MUSLIM

Pure and simple, that is a fact.


Obama attended a HATE CHURCH guided by BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY


That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.


OK - you can stop with your ridiculous, silly attacks on the right which have ZERO basis in fact,


AND you are trying to establish a standard of "recognizably rational thought processes"


HOWEVER, one must point out to you GREG SARGENT that you RARELY BASE ANYTHING IN YOUR COLUMN ON "recognizably rational thought processes."

ONLY A FOOL would continue on and on the way you do.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Liam, you're on a roll today, though surely you're undercounting on that 37%.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Leftists must learn to accept the FACT that fascism is Leftist.

==

You. Bloody. Fool.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 3, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Has Paul Ryan introduced his Health Care Reforms Bills yet?

He told us, before the Health Care Reform bill was passed, that he had the Republican reforms ready to be voted on.

Now that The House has voted to repeal the Democrats' version of Health Care Reform; where is your bill Paul Ryan?

You said you had it already prepared; so:

Where Is The Beef; Mr. Beefer?

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"I knew you were excited about Assange/wikileaks, but I never would have guessed."

I take my liberalism seriously.

Re "how pale can I go?"

I once heard an anthropologist discussing the history of preferences (in the western world) for pale versus tanned. It was/is a key marker for social class. Previously, the lower classes were involved in mainly outdoor, agricultural endeavors while the upper classes were not. Thus pale coloration was perceived culturally as superior, more beautiful, more refined, etc. But the shift that attended with the industrial revolution and up to the present, put the lower classes indoors while the wealthier folks were free to safari or repose on white sand beaches in exotic locales, etc.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Alan West is very impressive. He certainly says exactly what he thinks. And he's completely right about Keith Ellison. Ellison's past is "checkered" at best and his relationship with CAIR needs to be broadcast throughout the land.

It will be interesting to see how Mr Ellison responds. As a liberal his initial reaction would be to call his antagonist a racist. That's what liberals do.

Good luck with that Keithy old boy. How's that proliferation of Sharia going for ya?

Supported any cop killers lately?

The left can't handle straight talk. Especially when that straight talk clearly depicts the ugliness of their "leaders".

Ellison is a nasty piece of work and I am glad that Alan West is speaking out against him. It is long past time that we took the gloves off.

Oh, but I don't think that Mr West used any military metaphors when he spoke the truth about Minnesota's favorite gang banger. So what will the left whine about? Something will come up, of that I'm certain.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 3, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

"It's very'uch in the national interest to encourage stable human relationships"

Maybe. But setting that aside, I can walk away from my marriage if I were so inclined, so I don't see how this is an effective method to achieve that goal.

I don't understand how your second point relates. I'd agree that the current situation discriminates against gays b/c the government is handing out goodies to married couples. But treating everyone equally by not offering preferential treatment isn't discriminatory.

Basically though, I don't think I need the government's imprimatur on who I spend my life with and how I arrange my finances. That's between me and the missus

Or, in more practical terms, I think it makes more sense to treat everyone as "single" under the tax code than coming up with new state-approved definitions of what counts as married. Same with kids. Have one? Great! Doesn't mean the rest of the country needs to subsidize your choice(s) by offering a tax deduction.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | February 3, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.


__________________________


"recognizably rational thought processes"


Actually based on FACTS


Obama was raised a MUSLIM

Pure and simple, that is a fact.


Obama attended a HATE CHURCH guided by BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY


That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.


OK - you can stop with your ridiculous, silly attacks on the right which have ZERO basis in fact,


AND you are trying to establish a standard of "recognizably rational thought processes"


HOWEVER, one must point out to you GREG SARGENT that you RARELY BASE ANYTHING IN YOUR COLUMN ON "recognizably rational thought processes."

ONLY A FOOL would continue on and on the way you do.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

From TPM's Live Eqypt Wire:

10:16 AM | Rachel Slajda | #
CNN: Journalists from WaPo, NYT, Globe & Mail Arrested

CNN is reporting that reporters from the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Globe & Mail have been arrested in Cairo.
-----
10:21 AM | Rachel Slajda | #

ABC Reporter Reports Being Carjacked

From Brian Hartman, an ABC News reporter in Cairo:

Just escaped after being carjacked at a checkpoint and driven to a compound where men surrounded the car and threatened to behead us.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Liam, you're on a roll today, though surely you're undercounting on that 37%.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 10:12 AM
...........................

I guess it depends on how the reports are counted. For example: Rush Limbaugh was coerced into undergoing abortion procedures three times. Do we count him just once, or three times. in the percentage of right wing fat bellies, who were mistakenly forced to have abortions.

I will get Unplanned Parenthood to investigate what the true figures should be.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I think it was Troll McW that last night asked for examples of the unhinged changes coming from the right in the past several years. Certainly the revision of history that has now become mainstream is an example.

For example, the mainstream right now seriously contends that fascism is a creation of the left, that the policies of FDR extended the Great Depression, that "reverse dicrimination" is a great American societal problem, that reductions in marginal tax rates lead to increased tax revenues.

While there have always been whackos making these contentions, these now seem to be mainstream republican tenets. I'm sure there are many more examples but these are just a few off the top of my head.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 3, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

" I don't care what names Scott or Q.B. call me, or any of their criticisms of me, because at the end of the day I realize that the vast majority of their posts are not simple insults but contain actual nuggets of original thought."

High praise indeed. I'm going to give myself a gold star. : )


Greg said:

"Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds."

I wonder what exactly he would call skeptics, then. And how he knows their doubts aren't based on rational thought.

We get into definitions. Who and what is a "Christian"? Someone who nominally gives verbal evidence of it by saying "I am a Christian"? A Christian in a generic or cultural sense, or in the negative sense of not being something else?

I happen to doubt that Obama actually is a Christian in a sense that would be genuine in my view, even though he says he is one. Not because I hate him, etc., but because when I hear him talk about it it rings false (his use of language, for example, is usually a little "off"), because his story of becoming one rings false, and he's made statements about his faith that are patently nonchristian in theological substance.

I don't ultimately judge him on the matter, but I have doubts grounded in rational thought.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

ABC Reporter Reports Being Carjacked

From Brian Hartman, an ABC News reporter in Cairo:

Just escaped after being carjacked at a checkpoint and driven to a compound where men surrounded the car and threatened to behead us.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 10:27 AM
.....................

And those are the backers of Mubarak, the guy we are supposed to be depending on to protect us from Al Qaeda types!

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

10:16 AM | Rachel Slajda | #

AJE: Police Systematically Raiding Journalists' Rooms

From AJE:

Spotters stand outside many hotels, watching balconies with high-powered binoculars. When they see balconies with camera equipment or photographers, they use radios to call in the details.

Egyptian police sources say that information from those spotters has been used to conduct several raids on journalists' hotel rooms in recent days.

And the government has reportedly pressured several hotels not to extend the reservations of foreign journalists.

But most of the intimidation and violence has come from unofficial sources: Young men loiter outside the hotels where many reporters are staying, shouting at (and sometimes attacking) anyone with equipment.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

From Yglesias...

"Carter and Israel

Adventures in frivolous lawsuits:


"More than four years after its publication, five disgruntled readers have filed a class-action lawsuit against President Jimmy Carter and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, alleging that his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” contained “numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised.”


The odd thing about the anti-Carter animus among Israeli nationalists is that the signature legacy of the Carter administration is the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. And as you may have noted with recent Israeli freakouts about Hosni Mubarak’s possible fall from power, the treaty in question is the cornerstone of Israel’s regional policy. That doesn’t mean people need to like Carter’s books, but it should certainly lead people to think harder before ascribing anti-Israel motives to the architect of a key element of Israel’s current national security."

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/carter-and-israel/

I'd previously noted the absence of any mention (in right wing commentary on the present Egypt situation) of Carter. Wrong narrative, of course.

But as most any Canadian would tell you (and I expect most anyone outside of the US as well) the right wing demonization of the past President looks utterly bizarre in its intensity, its ubiquity on the right, and its longevity.

One way to make sense of this is to understand that Carter stood as an opposing symbol, in right wing myth-making, to Reagan. The worse Carter could be made to appear, the better Reagan would appear.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

[caothien9 drooled: "You. Bloody. Fool."]

I accept your inability to rebut the cited EVIDENCE as demonstrating your intellectual bankruptcy.

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

*dismissed*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The left still doesn't get it. Here's proof:
====================
Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.

+++++++++++++++++

Now my little dear ones, go back and think of all the nasty and untruthful things that were said about George W. Bush. That was YOUR tactic.

A perfect example was the "truthers". They were a prominent part of the left (protestations to the contrary will be greeted with derisive laughter) and they never let up.

Oh and what about the nonsense concerning, gasp!, secret meetings with oil execs!!! why the left gnawed on that like a dog with a bone for YEARS.

The grand strategy was quite clear: raise every issue, big or small and never, ever, ever stop pounding on them. The goal was to force the Bush admin to react to the lefists thus consuming limited administrative resource.

Now the left is on the recieving end and the whining is of such a magnatude that the cherubim and seraphim must be tired of it by now.

Do a little self assesment my liberal co commenters. Recognize your own tactics. Recall how righteous you felt when you used them. Now for the sake of your tattered self image as adults, lie in silence in the bed you've made for yourselves.

thank you for showing us on the right how it is done. Thank you for destroying civility in this country. Thank you for being PC toward everyone but conservatives. All of this makes using your tools against you just sooooo much more fun.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 3, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7, care to point out even one "inconsistency" as to my morality?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

And the government has reportedly pressured several hotels not to extend the reservations of foreign journalists.

But most of the intimidation and violence has come from unofficial sources: Young men loiter outside the hotels where many reporters are staying, shouting at (and sometimes attacking) anyone with equipment.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 10:35 AM

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

The Regime's intentions have become very clear. They shut down then internet, and Al Jazerra. They now want to scare off all foreign media coverage, especially TV coverage, because they want the world to be blind to the attacks that they are going to have their goons keep on making.

Did you see the the report on ABC on how Ms. Amanpour was surrounded, and threatened by a gang of the regime's goons? I suspect that many of them are just the same thuggish police men, without their uniforms now. That was probably why they were taken off the streets last week; in order to organize them as goon squads, that could not be identified as part of the regime.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"But as most any Canadian would tell you (and I expect most anyone outside of the US as well) the right wing demonization of the past President looks utterly bizarre in its intensity, its ubiquity on the right, and its longevity. "

I gather you have not paid much attention to Carter's 30 graceless years of public bitterness and of penning and speaking calumnies against Israel, his GOP successors, and all things not Carter liberal in general, since the American electorate did him the grievous wrong of not reelecting him.

Can hardly wait for the Carter worshippers at PL to swarm aboard now, "thanking" him and apologizing for the country's injustice to him.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

[Greg needs: "conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes"]

People believe Obama is Muslim because he was a practicing Muslim. This matters because Obama is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion– who (under sharia law) is subject to the most severe penalties. Obama’s apostate status clearly has enormous implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.

"Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam"
http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam

In sum: The cited evidence demonstrates that Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates the assertion that Obama for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father.

Therefore, what Quislings consider a media falsehood is in fact confirmed by evidence as truthful and accurate. The fact that so few understand this about Obama is a testimony to the Obamedia puppets disinformation and denial campaigns.

Denying Obama’s Muslim heritage is in itself a falsehood.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Bernie you need to expand your horizons. Take a trip to NRO and read the comparisons between Obama and Carter being made there.

there is even a terrific photo shop of Obama holding up a Carter mask.

frankly if Egypt falls to the Islamists, America will blame Obama. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 3, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""...as futile as waiting for a Conservative to develop consistency in their "morality".""

I am a conservative. What do you find inconsistent regarding my morality?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Here is what I see happening in Egypt:

Mubarak knows that he (and his son) can't be dictator any longer. Mubarak and his allies, including the United States, want Mubarak's new Vice President, Omar Suleiman, to take over. The thinking is to let some steam blow off then clamp down and have Suleiman impose "order" and "save" the country. You will know that the United States is displeased with Egypt's direction if and when we cut off foreign aid.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 3, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

It's probably something patently foolish like "pro-lifers can't support capital punishment."

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

skippy,

Couldn't care less about NRO's opinion. Not.Any.Less.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

New Adam Serwer post on what's next in Egypt:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/what_should_the_administration.html

Posted by: sargegreg | February 3, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"Ultimately, Obama will be judged by results. If the Egyptian uprising eventually leads to an undemocratic regime hostile to the United States and Israel, the president will pay the price."

What if the end result is a DEMOCRATIC regime hostile to the United States and Israel? After all, that is the likely result of free and open elections. Will we, as usual, be all for free and fair elections only so long as our preferred choice wins? So far it seems to me the U.S. is hoping to maintain the Mubarak regime -- which is "friendly" to the United States and Israel -- and install Suleiman and try to make sure Suleiman triumphs over ElBaradei or any other independent Egyptian leader. I heard McCain saying repeatedly that ElBaradei is "not a friend" to the U.S. and McCain just had a private meeting with Obama. No doubt this will be cast as a effort to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power.

We love democracy and free elections. Except when we don't like the winners of the elections. So we try to manipulate other countries to get our preferred candidates into power. Which is how we forever screw up our foreign policy. I hope it doesn't happen yet again in Egypt.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 3, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Two good points from Greg.

Republicans keep saying repeal and replace, but their goal is not to improve health care, it is to destroy Obama and eliminate liberal social justice issues so that corporations can funnel more money to fewer people. Democrats need to call their bluff. The motto of the Democrats should be 'amend and improve', and they should call on Republicans to take a positive role by proposing legislation to fix what they think needs fixing instead of the negative role that have currently embraced of legislating the entire bill away. Democrats should hammer this point home. If Republicans want to replace the health care bill, then they should get to work on creating a bill to replace it.

The people who question Obama's Christian faith should not be called skeptics, irrational zealots is much closer to the truth.

Posted by: mmyotis | February 3, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

New Adam Serwer post]

...and Greg raises the morning Plum surrender flag.

Well done, clawrence12, mark, battleground, et.al.

*V*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 3, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

P.S.

To the Egyptian People: If you want a democracy you better grab it right now.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.


__________________________


"recognizably rational thought processes"


Actually based on FACTS


Obama was raised a MUSLIM

Pure and simple, that is a fact.


Obama attended a HATE CHURCH guided by BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY


That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.


OK - you can stop with your ridiculous, silly attacks on the right which have ZERO basis in fact,


AND you are trying to establish a standard of "recognizably rational thought processes"


HOWEVER, one must point out to you GREG SARGENT that you RARELY BASE ANYTHING IN YOUR COLUMN ON "recognizably rational thought processes."

ONLY A FOOL would continue on and on the way you do.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Has Paul Ryan introduced his Health Care Reforms Bills yet?

He told us, before the Health Care Reform bill was passed, that he had the Republican reforms ready to be voted on.

Now that The House has voted to repeal the Democrats' version of Health Care Reform; where is your bill Paul Ryan?

You said you had it already prepared; so:

Where Is The Beef; Mr. Beefer?

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"rukidding7, care to point out even one "inconsistency" as to my morality?

@Clawrence With all due respect..and remember how many times I've defended you as not being Jake..not being a birther...I answer your question with a question.

Why would I bother answering a question of someone with a closed mind. IMHO your posts reveal a very rigid rote orthodoxy that leaves little or no room for an open mind. In other words Clawrence sadly I do not believe you are a "critical" thinker nor that you would ever change your mind.
You're more interested in getting me on the record so that you can "attempt" to win the day with your points. I realize that charge could be hurled at many posters here including myself..but clawrence open up that mind a bit and then we'll talk.

@Scott....same question from you that merits an entirely different answer..again because I do think you possess the ability to think "critically"...IMO I'm not certain you always use that ability, I'm sure you'd say the same about me..:-)..that is if you even give me credit for possessing the ability to begin with...perhaps you can dismiss me as easily as I do Clawrence, and I'm perfectly cool with that.

But out of respect for you Scott give me some time so I can formulate an answer worthy of YOUR question. I'll get back to you later.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Re Obama's Christianity....

NOBODY can truly know what is in another person's heart. The "Christian" or charitable thing to do is to accept someone at face value, take them at their word, unless their "actions" so egregiously violate what their speech implies or specifically states, that there is "genuine" room for doubt.

IMHO the very action of those who are doing the questioning is incredibly "UnChristian".
Rather than pick another pejorative to call those "skeptics" I'd simply point out that their actions reveal them to be non Christian...or at minimum folks who do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don't know what to call them...but I do know what NOT to call them....CHRISTIAN!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, it's okay for rukidding7 to call us non Christians, or at a minimum folks who do not follow His teachings, but we can't do the same to Obama. And, he has the gall to claim we are the ones being inconsistent. Let's see if he ever answers your question (I think that everyone else can see he's admitted that I am at least consistent in my "very rigid rote orthodoxy that leaves little or no room for an open mind.")

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Why should it be any one's business what if an religious beliefs a President has.

We do not elect Presidents to be our Pope or Supreme Ayatollah, but it seems that Many Right Wing Republicans want to turn America into a Theocracy.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

This is encouraging news. Maybe we won't f it up after all.

"US: Muslim Brotherhood could play role in Egypt"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020204691.html

Posted by: wbgonne | February 3, 2011 12:12 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

Gotta say, that's one of the most self-contradictory and self-defeating comments you've ever made -- a high achievement indeed!

Leaving aside the major contradiction, identified by clawrence, let's note the irony in the fact that you, a self-identified nonChristian, purport to be able to judge who is a Christian, based on Christian tenets that you by definition don't accept (and of course can't identify) but somehow in your mind prohibit an actual Christian from judging (or even doubting) whether someone else is a Christian.

You are a true mental gymnast.

How's this: I find that Obama's actions show he isn't a Christian, and in fact when he has spoken about his religious beliefs he has revealed them to be distinctly nonChristian. Indeed, he has implicitly denied what Jesus said about himself and what orthodox Christian theology has always taught.

There. Totally rational explanation why O is not an actual Christian imo.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Via Politicalwire.com

What Would the Tea Party Think of Reagan Tax Policy?
Walter Shapiro notes that even though Ronald Reagan "persuaded a Democratic Congress to approve his massive 1981 rate reductions, the Gipper reversed field in 1982 to staunch the deficit and agreed to a tax increase (equal to about one-third of the original cuts). That single act of tax realism would have prompted today's tea party movement to denounce Reagan as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and to threaten to find a real conservative to challenge him in the GOP primaries."

"That was nothing compared to the tax-code apostasy of Reagan's second term. He championed, and in 1986 signed into law, a sweeping bipartisan tax reform bill that (warning: be sure you are sitting down before reading further) raised capital gains taxes. In one of the great progressive reforms of the last half century, Reagan eliminated tax loopholes and special preferences like capital gains in exchange for lowering individual tax brackets. At the core of Reagan's tax reform triumph was the liberal principle that unearned income (stock market swag) should be treated the same ways as an autoworker's wages."

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

"that you by definition don't accept"

A totally irrelevant point. Because I don't self Identify as a Christian..does not mean I do not accept the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not accept much of the dogma surrounding "Christianity" that doesn't mean I haven't studied the Bible for years (some of it forced, some of it voluntary) and am not aware of what "Christians" proclaim they believe.

"and in fact when he has spoken about his religious beliefs he has revealed them to be distinctly nonChristian. Indeed, he has implicitly denied what Jesus said about himself and what orthodox Christian theology has always taught.

There. Totally rational explanation why O is not an actual Christian imo."

Nope, total poppycock..simply more of YOUR OPINION without the first example of exactly what Obama has said or done that informs your skepticism.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"There. Totally rational explanation why O is not an actual Christian imo."

Making an assertion without a single fact to support it and then claiming to have provided an explanation could hardly be called 'totally rational'.

Posted by: mmyotis | February 3, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"There. Totally rational explanation why O is not an actual Christian imo."

Making an assertion without a single fact to support it and then claiming to have provided an explanation could hardly be called 'totally rational'.

Posted by: mmyotis | February 3, 2011 1:01 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7, just as you provided your opinion about me without the first example of exactly what I've said (you've cited instead to "the entire body of your efforts...all your posts...there is a common thread...and it's not very pretty."). I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer to ScottC3's question.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Let he who is a theologian stand up and identify himself.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of you, just your posts. I'm not motivated nearly enough by a blog pissing contest to go back and dig up all your "Obama failure" posts...nor am I going to search high and low for a single post where you lauded him...

If you wish to dispute my observations based on some factual evidence such as past posts you can dig up that refute my charges...feel free. If you prove me wrong I'm man enough to say...OK I see your point Clawrence. Again I'm frequently mistaken...often times that is exactly how I LEARN..from my mistakes.
It's not shameful to make a mistake...but perhaps less than admirable to refuse to learn from them.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, I know enough theology to recognize that "I've walked the walk which is more than you have" is full of judgment on your part, with a healthy dose of condemnation for good measure.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

"Because I don't self Identify as a Christian..does not mean I do not accept the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Actually, it quite does mean that, since he taught, inter alia, that he was/is God and the only way to God. You don't accept his core teaching about himself and God.

"Nope, total poppycock..simply more of YOUR OPINION without the first example of exactly what Obama has said or done that informs your skepticism."

Of course it's my opinion, as I said. Stating a rational opinion doesn't require citation of factual details. I gave rational reasons for an opinion. Your disagreement doesn't make it irrational, any more than your failure to cite factual proof of O's Christianity makes your opinion irrational.

If you'd like to investigate, go research Obama's public statements about his faith. Not my job.

"Making an assertion without a single fact to support it and then claiming to have provided an explanation could hardly be called 'totally rational'."

Nonsense. (1) An opinion need to be accompanied by citation of factual proof to be rational. (2) I cited facts, and rationally explained my opinion.

You need tutoring in critical reasoning.


Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I think I do pretty well on my own, thanks. The trick is to not let your emotions color your reasoning.

I might have missed an earlier post, but the one I quoted offered no reasons to support your Obama "is not an actual Christian" opinion.

"Nonsense. (1) An opinion need to be accompanied by citation of factual proof to be rational."

I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this comment, but you seem to be suggesting that opinions don't need to be supported by facts to be rational?

Okay, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it doesn't rise to the level of "totally rational[ity]" when you expect opinion alone to be convincing in a discussion forum.

Again, I may have missed the facts you cited. But they weren't in the post I quoted.

Posted by: mmyotis | February 3, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this comment, but you seem to be suggesting that opinions don't need to be supported by facts to be rational?"

Lousy typing by me, leaving out "need not."

But you still misconstrue it. I didn't say don't need to be supported. I said supporting facts don't have to be stated for an opinion to be rational.

"My point was that it doesn't rise to the level of "totally rational[ity]" when you expect opinion alone to be convincing in a discussion forum."

I don't believe that's the point you stated. But in any event I wasn't trying to convince anyone to share my opinion. I was only disputing the notion that the opinion isn't rational, or can't be rational unless detailed factual support is recited.

Those are silly claims.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 9:40 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company