Open Thread: Thursday Morning
March 20th, 2008 at 09:07am Mark Noonan
Ok, boys and girls, here’s you big chance to just have at it…lefties, you want to endlessly rehash the reasons we went to war? Here’s you thread. RIghties, been burning for the 1,000th opportunity to make lefties look like fools over their views on the war? Here’s the place.
Alternately, you can discuss the continuing Obama saga; why Hillary is suddenly so quiet. Why recent polling shows McCain doing better and better against either part of HillBama. Why President Bush seems in such a fine mood these days. Why commodity prices took a dump the other day and why some have opined that oil prices will start to slide later this year.
Have at it.
Entry Filed under: Open Thread
123 Comments
1. SEW | March 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
More on the Church of Christ and Clinton pardons.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12909
2. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Open thread……..
McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia. I know, I know… you all are going to quote the VP and say… “So?” You’ll say it was just a gaffe.
Once is a gaffe. FOUR TIMES is something else.
Is he senile? (Ya know that happens in old age)
Is he lying? (Then you can call him McSame)
Does he really not know the difference? (If so, why is his foreign policy experience so good?
Once is a gaffe. Twice is an error. Three times is on purpose or stupidity. What id FOUR times?
3. Retired Spook | March 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am
This is an interesting look back at recent history:
Yup, sounds like Presidential material to me — NOT!
Joe,
McCain’s success is a reflection of the MSM picking the GOP candidate, not the conscious decision of mainstream Republicans that he’s the best candidate. That said, I’ll take senile over dishonest any day of the week.
4. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Spook,
I do notice you left off this piece of the article you posted:
Having said that… Hillary is not my choice for Prez. If it comes down to her or McCain, you might as well flip a coin. I think they would be very similar. Other than McCain staying in Iraq for 100 yrs and Clinton trying to get troops out quickly. All else is pretty similar.
Another reason Hillary is not my first choice is because of articles like that one you link.
There is just so much anti-everything-Clinton. Right or wrong, the Clinton name is insanely polarizing. That is not what we need in this country after the last 7 yrs. McCain is too closely allied with Bush and continuing his policies. Also something we do not need at this time.
5. jackson | March 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am
McCain is not higher in the polls because of how people feel about him. It’s just that the public is tired of the back-and-forth bickering between Obama and Clinton, and he’s been wise to stay out of the fray. Once a clear democratic winner is decided, McCain is toast. The supporters of the two Dems, which is split now, will combine to make the old man irrelevant.
Plus he’ll be tired out by then, and taking much longer naps to remain coherent.
6. William Teach | March 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Team Clinton doesn’t need to say anything about the Wright affair, and, wisely, shouldn’t. Obama is digging his own political grave over this issue, and doesn’t need any help. Not that I support Hillary, but, it would shift focus to her from the Obamessiah if they commented on the story.
This is exactly the type of issue that Clinton was hoping for, and, while still probably an outside shot, if it continues, it could lead the superdelegates to say “forget Obama, he is a liability.”
7. Retired Spook | March 20th, 2008 at 10:58 am
All else is pretty similar.
Joe, do you know something about McCain’s spouse that I don’t. I’m not aware that she’s a pathological lying, criminal sexual deviate pervert.
Other than that, there are several differences I can think of off the top of my head:
1. The type of SC Justices each would nominate.
2. Their views on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
3. Their views on abortion (this is not a big issue for me personally, but the difference between Clinton and McCain is 180 degrees)
4. Somehow I doubt whether McCain would facilitate the export of missile technology to countries like China in exchange for campaign contributions, while I’d be shocked if Mr. Clinton didn’t follow in her husbands footsteps in that regard.
That’s all I have time to list right now, but I’m sure others can add to the list.
8. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
There are two possible explanations for Senator McCain’s multiple instances of claiming that Sunni al-Qaeda members are being trained in Shiite Iran. One, is that he is too lazy to know or care to make an absolutely critical distinction that is something that would be taught on Day One of Middle East 101. The other is that he deliberately conflates the two because he wants to continue to blame the continuing violence in Iraq on Iran rather than on the 42% of Iraqis who think that attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable. Given his musically-expressed enthusiasm for attacking Iran, the latter seems far more likely. However, in yet another example of how the conservative myth of the liberal press gets it wrong, Senator McCain will continue to get a pass on his “gaffes” because, after all, he’s a really nice guy who cooks barbecue for the press corps or as Ana Marie Cox of Time more fully describes it, “Delicious dry-rub barbecued ribs, actually, baby back ribs.” Yes, the Republican-hating relentless political press corps rolls over to have its tummy rubbed.
9. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Cindy McCain is an admitted former opiate painkiller addict who stole drugs from her former not-for-profit employer and who was prosecuted successfully for that crime. This has what to do with whether her husband should be elected president?
10. Ricorun | March 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Diana: “Delicious dry-rub barbecued ribs, actually, baby back ribs.” Yes, the Republican-hating relentless political press corps rolls over to have its tummy rubbed.
I hope it wasn’t a dry rub. If so, the press corps better be careful they’re not rubbed any higher up on their torso than their tummy.
11. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
do you know something about McCain’s spouse that I don’t. I’m not aware that she’s a pathological lying, criminal sexual deviate pervert.
I didn’t know we were voting for spouses here. If I knew that, I’d have voted for Fred Thomsson.
Spook, a statement like that is exactly what I mean about anti-everything-Clinton. That statement says… You won’t vote for her because her husband got a blow job in the Oval Office (I know you hate other things about her), but come on… that isn’t much of an argument.
The type of SC Justices each would nominate.
If you think that either are going to nominate anything other than a VERY centrist Judge, you are dreaming. One may be slightly more conservative than liberal or the other way around, but either way, you ain’t getting another Scalia on the court with McCain nominating.
Their views on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Umm… are you sure McCain isn’t going to flip flop on this again? He already voted against them once. Now that he wants the GOP vote, he says he is for them. It would still have to get past a Dem Congress that very well could gain more seats than they currently have.
Their views on abortion (this is not a big issue for me personally, but the difference between Clinton and McCain is 180 degrees)
See my views on #2 above. Also… I never understand why people use this as an issue. If you think ANYTHING is getting done about abortions one way or the other, you are kidding yourself. It doesn’t benefit either party politically to do anything about this. Roe v Wade will not get overturned. No laws will be passed regarding this one way or the other. There are, I don’t know…. 50 other things in this country that need to be taken care of before this. If you vote because of this, then go for it. I won’t be changing your mind.
Somehow I doubt whether McCain would facilitate the export of missile technology to countries like China in exchange for campaign contributions, while I’d be shocked if Mr. Clinton didn’t follow in her husbands footsteps in that regard.
Yep. Them Clinton’s are criminals…. psst… I also heard her husband got a blow job in the Oval Office!
12. Tractatus | March 20th, 2008 at 11:22 am
McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia.
And he’s a guy who claims he’s ready to jump right in and continue fighting the war without missing a beat. In an unintended way, he’s right: Statements like that show he’s ready to continue the clueless way the Bush administration has pursued this war.
The other is that he deliberately conflates the two because he wants to continue to blame the continuing violence in Iraq on Iran rather than on the 42% of Iraqis who think that attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable.
It’s that, but it’s also that wingers have a tendency to conflate all these disparate groups into one uber-group. Hamas is Al Qaeda is Fatah is the Mahdi Army is the Taliban is Hezbollah etc. If you put them all together, they all seem much scarier: A huge conglomeration of Scary Middle-Eastern Types who are just a hair’s width away from coming here and going on a head-lopping rampage. The truth–that these are often wildly divergent groups each with their own goals and that some of them are quite hostile to each other–is much stickier and doesn’t work as well in sound-bite politics.
13. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I know you libs love your polls. Please chew on this one. P.S. Joe, no one cares that McCain reversed the name on accident, everyon is too busy talking about how Obama is a racist. Seems to be reflected in the poll below. Woohoo now that story has some LEGS!
RASMUSSEN POLL: McCain Now Leads By Double Digits:
McCain 51% Clinton 41%
McCain 49% Obama 42%
14. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Thanks Rich. That “Obama is a racist” post was a few days ago.
Thanks for deflecting though. Good job.
I guarantee that I can find 4 polls that put Clinton AND Obama both ahead of McCain if you want to play that game.
15. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“McCain is not higher in the polls because of how people feel about him. It?s just that the public is tired of the back-and-forth bickering between Obama and Clinton, and he?s been wise to stay out of the fray. Once a clear democratic winner is decided, McCain is toast. The supporters of the two Dems, which is split now, will combine to make the old man irrelevant.”
Keep whistling past the graveyard. If McCain is gaining because of the bickering, won’t that mean he has several months left of gains? Also, do you really think Clinton’s supporters would vote for Obama? We already know that Obama’s people won’t support Clinton. I love the smell of a democratic civil war in the morning.
16. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Rich: Also, do you really think Clinton?s supporters would vote for Obama? We already know that Obama?s people won?t support Clinton.
THe answer to your question is… ABSOLUTELY.
My question to you is… please prove how you KNOW that Obama supporters wouldn’t vote for Clinton.
17. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“I guarantee that I can find 4 polls that put Clinton AND Obama both ahead of McCain if you want to play that game.”
Please do. Make sure the polls are after the Wright scandal broke. Talk about defelction, almost 50 percent of voters have said the Wright incident has made them less likely to vote for Obama because of the Wright incident. Words matter remember? Care to explain why he claimed he never heard his pastor make those remarks, then stated in his speech that he was present for some? Thats what we tend to call a lie, which people seems to care alot about. Thats why the Golden Boy is in a huge tailspin. Sorry this is’nt going anywhere and you know it. He’ll probably still get the nomination, but he just toally lost any of the close states he might possible pick up. The Obamacins will become rare indeed.
18. Retired Spook | March 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Yep. Them Clinton’s are criminals…
Well, I’m glad we at least agree on that part, Joe. Why anyone would want that pair back in the White House is beyond me.
You made a lot more of my comment than was my intention, particular about BJ Bill. I was merely responding to your statement that Hillary and McCain are similar except for their position
on Iraq. They are about as similar as black and white. That said, this country has survived lots of bad presidents in the past. We’ll undoubtedly survive whichever one of the 3 remaining candidates is elected this time around too. The only action either of the Dems could take that would adversely impact me would be to eliminate my military pension, and I doubt that either one would contemplate such an action.
Diana, nice shot at moral relativism. You Lefties have refined that to an artform.
19. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“My question to you is… please prove how you KNOW that Obama supporters wouldn’t vote for Clinton.”
Wow thanks for the softball. Obama is now getting 90% of the black vote. The only way for Clinton to win is to steal the election at the convention. Do you believe black voters will come out for Clinton if that happens? Do you really think they would support somone that sabatoged their first attempt at having a black President? Kinda like somone stealing your car and then offering you a ride in it, would you accept the ride? Also check out dailykos, they have purged the Clintonites froom the cite through harrassment and bullying. Pretty bad blood amongst the nutroots.
20. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Rich,
Senator McCain didn’t just “reverse[] the name on accident” (sic). What he has said, at least four different times, with Senator Lieberman publicly correcting him in front of the press in Jordan was variations on this, which even Fox News couldn’t ignore:
Even Fox News knows that Sunni and Shi’a have been “feuding for centuries”.
21. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Sorry for the typos, bad case of the flu here.
22. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:50 am
“Moral relativism”? That was random.
23. jackson | March 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Rich, so you know Obama’s supporters won’t support Clinton? How far up did you have to reach to pull out that piece of crap? Supporters of each Dem are bitterly divided now, but will unite in opposition to the Warlord McPain once he/she has been determined. But I’m sure you’ll pull out some irrelevent poll from your constipated horde of BS to prove otherwise.
McCain is MOLDY toast in November.
24. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Sorry… here are 3 polls that I found. I’ll have to look for the 4th I promised…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
CBS News – 3/15-3/18 — Obama 48-43
CNN 3/14-3/16 — Obama 47-46
USA Today 3/14-3/15 — Obama 49-47
Anyway… you still haven’t proven how you KNOW that one group wouldn’t support the other.
Your example in #19 is assuming someone “steals” or “sabatoged” the nomination. If that happens for anyone, wouldn’t anyone be pissed.
Now… if she wins (which is what we are talking about), then that is another story.
You also claim that Clinton backers would never vote for Obama. Since he is the clear leader going into the convention, what is your reasoning that her backers wouldn’t vote for him? Why? Because he gets black vote and she gets white? That is some pretty lame proof. But you seem to KNOW all these things as fact.
25. Thrower | March 20th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Voters who focus on spouses and ministers rather than what is happening to their wallets will get what they deserve.
26. anarchist | March 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“Why commodity prices took a dump the other day”
Becuase the futures markets expected a full point rate cut and there was only a .75 point cut. Less inflation = lower prices.
27. Canadian Observer | March 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
This being the first day of Spring, perhaps we could have a moratorium on the devisive name calling and come together, if just for today, to celebrate of the end of this long, long winter.
This morning I had a grey dove land on my window ledge and stare at me for a good minute or so before flying away in search of a mate.
Better days are ahead, n’est-ce pas?
28. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Did you even look at these polls? From your cbs poll.
“If the election were held today and Obama and McCain were the candidates, 48 percent of those surveyed say they would support Obama while 43 percent say they would support McCain. In February, Obama led McCain 50 percent to 38 percent.” Seven point swing to McCain in a couple weeks and youre pointing this out as good news? Also from the same article.
“In a turnaround from last month, McCain now leads both Obama and Clinton among independent voters. Obama led McCain by 10 points among this group last month, but he now trails by 8 points. Clinton trails McCain by 11 points among independents.” Wow an 18 point swing in independent voters? Youre citing this poll as good news Joe really? I wonder what could have shifted the independents? Maybe the Wright effect. Also from same article-
“If Obama wins more elected delegates but Clinton becomes the nominee because of the vote of the Democratic Party insiders known as superdelegates, 36 percent of Obama supporters say they would be angry. Fifty-six percent would be disappointed, and just 8 percent would be satisfied with the outcome.”
Theres your proof. Thirty six percent would be angry. Lets see, thirty six percent would be just about the percentage of black voters. Do people vote for somone they’re really angry at?
29. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Joe, please research the polls please or you end up looking like an idiot. Do you know what a margin of error is? This one has a 3 point margin of error. That means it is a statistical tie.
From your CNN poll.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/19/content_7817362.htm
“WASHINGTON, March 18 (Xinhua) — Either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton would face a neck-and-neck race with John McCain in the November national presidential elections, according to a poll released on Tuesday.
“The poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation indicated that if Illinois Senator Obama were nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate, he would get 47 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for Republican presumptive nominee McCain.”
30. js | March 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It doesnt take a genious to figure out that even between shia and sunni, a common enemy will make them allies.
Its not so far fetched to understand how that could happen, or how AQ would exploit the issue.
After all, Iran said they deported OBL’s son in 2002, then we found out in 2003 that he was AQ head dog in Iran.
You folks need to really investigate things a lot more before you start puffing up false stories. Your ignorance shines brighter than the sun at noon. The Shia/Sunni divide can be exploited both ways to serve Islams purpose.
31. NeoClown | March 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The Truth about Obama and the Black Community.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-endorser-blasts-obamas-white-moma
32. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Hey Joe, your USA today poll doesn’t cut it either. Margin of error plus or minus 4.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/usa-todaygallup.html
“Gallup surveyed 685 “likely” voters across the nation from Friday through Sunday. It says the margin of error on each result is +/- 4 percentage points. That means neither Clinton nor Obama’s lead in the new poll is “outside” that margin. Clinton’s support could be as low as 47% (because 51-4=47) and McCain’s could be as high as 50% (because 46+4=50).”
Still waiting for 4 polls that show McCain losing after the Wright effect has settled in.
33. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
guys… all I said is I would find polls putting Obama over McCain.
I guess you can laugh at them all you want. We laugh at polls that are put up on this site all the time that say that 60% of Americans want troops out of Iraq within 1yr yet Mark and Matt twist that to say that to somehow say that 23% are for defeatism.
Make whatever you want from the polls I put out there. I grabbed what I found with a quick search to show that Obama was STILL ahead of McCain even with you clowns blathering on about Wright.
But let me use the true true line from Thrower in comment #25….
Voters who focus on spouses and ministers rather than what is happening to their wallets will get what they deserve.
34. Magnum Serpentine | March 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Rich, not another RASMUSSEN POLL
next
35. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
As for Clinton voters supporting Obama-
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/03/pew/
“Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton’s primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November”
This poll is a month old, and I can only suspect this number is growing after the Wright effect.
36. Ricorun | March 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
There’s probably a joke in here about rolling stones and moss and green stuff. But anyway, Boulder, CO represents the first community-wide effort to equip homes with smart power meters. The projected cost is $100M for 50K meters and it will cover about 100K residents. That’s $1000/resident, or $2000/meter. I’m not sure how they plan to amortize the expense, but let’s say it’s over 10 years. That’s $100/resident/year, or about $8.25/resident/month. Is it worth it? I think it’s a no-brainer. But read the article and see what you think.
37. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Magnum Serpentine- Is this the Rasmussen Report your’e talking about? Next.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
“Rasmussen Reports was the nation’s most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry’s vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.”
During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.”
38. jackson | March 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Until we have a nominee, POLLS ARE USELESS!!!
There is bitter division now between the two battling camps. Once that’s over, you know Democrats will unite behind their nominee, just to stop “more of the same McCain”.
You know it’s true, Rich.
39. Magnum Serpentine | March 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
From the neutral Gallup Poll
“John McCain may be benefiting in the short-term from the highly charged Democratic race. He holds a statistically significant lead over Obama, 47% to 43%, in registered voters’ preferences for the general presidential election. That is the first time any of the candidates has held a statistically significant lead since Gallup Poll Daily tracking began reporting on the general election race last week. McCain’s 48% to 45% advantage over Clinton is not statistically significant, but it is the first time he has had an edge over her in Gallup Poll Daily tracking. — Jeff Jones”
From Gallup poll
A lot closer than the republican poll has it.
40. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
If the economy keeps tanking the way it is now, Race, Abortion, Sex scandals… or anything else of the sort will not matter in this election. It’s kind of meaningless talking about overturning ‘Roe’ or who hired a prostitute when people are concerned with losing their homes or where their next meal is coming from. A further continuation of bush’s policies will however and McCain will not stand a prayer. Keep grasping to polls though, anything that can get you through the night into the morning.
41. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I’m still asking one lib here, just one to answer this question I asked earlier that was ignored.
Care to explain why Obama claimed he never heard his pastor make those remarks, then stated in his speech that he was present for some?
What did he know and when did he know it? Seems he knew his pastor was racist, and knew it for a while.
42. NeoClown | March 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
This guy hit the nail on the head regarding affirmative action.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-endorser-blasts-obamas-white-moma
43. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Rich,
Your question is a personal question that should be directed at Senator Barack Obama.
Care to talk about his policies or where he stands on the issues?
44. js | March 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
If Obillery can not pull the confidence in public between the two of them, what makes anyone think they stand a chance with anyone else?
Stranger things have happened, but the DNC’s failure to put a good candidate forward can actually force people to elect the more viable candidate, McCain.
Outside of maybe a 20-25% hardcore liberal core, the middle sways alot more. Hillary and Billary are putz’s, and Obama is a sham-ma. They really dont have what it takes between the two of them to really take responsibility for this nations future.
45. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Wow neoclown. Was that Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks? That guy meant business.
46. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“Your question is a personal question that should be directed at Senator Barack Obama.”
So I take it you have no answer about why Obama lied about knowing his pastor was racist? All you libs on here and nobody can answer that? As far as diricting my question to Obama, I’m not quite sure I can get a meeting with him.
47. Ricorun | March 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Rich: Care to explain why Obama claimed he never heard his pastor make those remarks, then stated in his speech that he was present for some?
Where in his speech did Obama say that? Maybe I’m not looking hard enough, but I can’t find it.
48. MorrisMajor | March 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ricorun,
I don’t know what your point is exactly, but this is a pilot program so the meters et al are going to be a lot more expensive than full scale production versions. It sounds like a pretty darn good idea.
49. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
46. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
You just don’t get it do you… Maybe if the US falls into a complete depression you will start to realize that concentrating so much on Obama’s pastor was probably not the smartest thing to do. But hey, everything in hindsight right…
50. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Mike Huckabee defends Obama:
After joking that he’s leasing a hot dog stand in Manhattan, Mike Huckabee on MSNBC’s Morning Joe yesterday defended Barack Obama on the Rev. Wright issue.
In fact he defended Rev. Wright, too…
see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/huckabee-defend.html
Huckabee: “And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, ‘That’s a terrible statement,’ I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, ‘You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.’
“And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.”
I wouldn’t want him for president, but kudos to Mike Huckabee for showing his genuine Christian creds.
51. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Fair enough Rico- here it is.
“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”
“concentrating so much on Obama’s pastor was probably not the smartest thing to do”
I don’t think I’m the only person concentrating on this at the moment, as recent polls indicate. I would love to focus on the real issues. your guy is gonna have to clear this up before anyone is going to listen to his policies. He can start by answering why he lied about knowing his pastor of twenty years was racist.
52. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Rich,
Of course you aren’t the only one who is talking about this. But does that mean you have to be another voice in the mob of character assassins?
If you would love to focus on the real issues then why are you so focused on trying to achieve a “gotcha” moment with this non-issue of a story? I think you really want to “get” Senator Barack Obama regardless of his being a genuinely amazing candidate for President.
53. NeoClown | March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Rich,
As a liberal I can tell you that Obama was lying. Of course he heard his pastor’s message. Obama heard his pastor’s remarks, but chose to do nothing. When the Reverend Wright said God damn America those words didn’t even register with Obama.
The man that would be President of the United States shrugged off the words: God damn America. The man that says words are important and can bring hope to the people said his pastor was just using words when he said God damn America.
Obama tried to play off the Reverend Wright fiasco off as racism in America. And most Obama supporters bought it. But what it really comes down to is just another example of Obama’s bad judgment.
If the pastor of my church said God damn America, I would get up, and walk out, and I think most people would too.
When Obama’s Grandmother told him she feared for her safety when she passed a black man on the street do you think she wanted the world to hear about it? Does Obama think his Grandmother is the only elderly person in the world to utter a racially insensitive remark? My God, is Obama’s Grandmother still alive? The poor woman raised Obama. And for Obama to take private conversations and use them to gain political points, is the lowest thing I have seen anyone do in years.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-endorser-blasts-obamas-white-moma
54. Aitch | March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
So you guys filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton for President Committee back in October. This is where you used stories published in the MSM as your evidence. Whatever happened regarding this complaint?
What kind of strings do you have to pull to get the Seal of the President of the United States as an endorsement of your blog?
Happy Easter everybody.
55. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Neoclown,
If your pastor told you that gay people were “wrong”, “sinners”, “going to hell”… would you get up and walk out?
56. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Rich,
This is the last time I will comment about Obama’s Pastor. The majority of Republican Policital analyst are saying his speech was superb and that this should be a non-issue. As are all presidential Candidates. To address your question of him lying;
When questioned about the Sermon thats floating around youtube Obama said he did not attend that sermon so he did not hear the racist remarks. Then when asked if he had ever heard Wright say anything controversial Obama says Yes. When Asked again what kind of controversial things he explained how the Wright was often a blunt man and used the example of how when talking about infedality he would often make some people in the congregation blush.
Now, the bush adm. cut interest rates by 0.75% two days ago, their was a momentary spike but now the markets are worse than the were. Continuing the tax cut does not seem like a viable option..
57. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
A presidential candidate with close ties to a racist organization is hardly a non issue. Can you honestly say that if McCain went to a church that promoted white values there would not be a total shitstorm brewing? What did Obama have to say before this hit the fan-
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.”
Wow what awesome judgement your “amazing” candidate has. Guess he didn’t think there was anything controversial about the U.S. creating HIV to kill black people, or the U.S. deserving 9-11.
58. MorrisMajor | March 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Once again, this Wright’s comments are common fare in the black community, along with all the crackpot conspiracy theories. I wasn’t surpised at all. I got a chuckle a couple months ago when I read on his church’s website that they considered black “middleclassness” a sin of sorts. Not black ciminality, or creation of fatherless homes, or welfare parasitism, just middle-classness. That should have been a warning alarm
59. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Can you honestly say that if McCain went to a church that promoted white values there would not be a total shitstorm brewing?
What would these “white values” be that you speak of and how do they differ from “black values”?
Enlighten me.
60. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Some Assembly Required- I’m not sure which Republican pundits youre talking about, can you please name a bunch. This should be asy if its a majority of them. As far as the candidates piling on this, that would be idiotic. Why get your hands dirty on this when Obama’s ship is sinking by itself? How did his magnificent speech do with the people that matters, lets read an article about Pannsylvania voters shall we?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9132.html
“And his speech Tuesday, although widely praised by the pundit caste and Obama supporters, has only seemed to widen the gulf with the Budweiser class here.”
“More than a dozen interviews Wednesday found voters unmoved by Obama’s plea to move beyond racial divisions of the past. Despite baring himself with extraordinarily personal reflections on one of the most toxic issues of the day, a highly unusual move for a politician running for national office, the debate inside taverns and beauty shops here had barely moved beyond outrage aimed at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s refusal to “disown” his longtime pastor.”
And my favorite part-
“A day after the speech, local residents were left wondering whether Obama was candid in the last week when he said he hadn’t heard any of Wright’s most objectionable remarks, but then said Tuesday that he had heard “controversial” remarks while sitting in the pews.
“He lied to Anderson Cooper,” said Rodica Mitrea, an aesthetician and immigrant from Romania, referring to an Obama interview Friday with the CNN anchor.
61. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Steam I know you are not that dense. Obama’s church is “unabashedly afro-centric”. Spin it as you will, but if McCain went to a church for twenty years that was “unabashedly caucasion-centric” I think you might be crying foul.
62. NeoClown | March 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Steam,
First and foremost, to be President of the United States one must love the United States.
To be President of the United States one must place their hand on a bible and swear that they will protect the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
A church that preaches the damnation of the United States is to be considered a domestic enemy of the United States. To socialize with domestic enemies of the United States is to display unfitness for the office of President of the United States.
Yes I would get up and walk out if the pastor condemned gays. I would not attend a church if the pastor were homophobic.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-endorser-blasts-obamas-white-moma
63. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
At least this is one penalty that can’t be interfered with by the President:
64. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Let’s just say I am totally “that dense” and humor me here. What does “unabashedly caucasion-centric” mean? I cannot answer your question because I don’t know what the definition of that phrase is.
You are confused. His church is not the enemy of the United States. That’s is taking this way too far and is not even logical. At best it is called “dissent” and Thomas jefferson said dissent is patriotic. Therefore these people are patriots… far from the enemy.
They might hold a bit of a different view of this country but I garauntee you that they do not “hate” it. They love it as much as you and I do.
Just admit that you hate the Democratic party. You hate any candidate they will have. You will do whatever it takes to bring them down.
65. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Damn… I step away for a couple of hours and all this about shitstorms and Obama’s preacher.
One of Obama’s comments on Wright…
Until anyone on this blog has lived thru years like that, you really have no basis to say something that preacher said was right or wrong. Until you have sat thru several sermons at an all Black church, I would say you have nothing to base your accusations on.
Get over it. Prove to me anything that Obama has said that proves he is a freaking racist. Don’t log the crap out there that he was there and didn’t complain so that proves it. That is nothing but horseshit.
Why is what his preacher said so much more important to you than McCain “confusing” Shia and Sunni FOUR TIMES while we are in a “war” in the Middle East?
A slight difference here… Obama didn’t say anything racist, his preacher did. McCain’s preacher didn’t screw up, McCAIN did.
66. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Oh and if a Republican Presidential candidate is a member of a Southern Baptist Church (an organization who preaches homophobia) and you found out they continued to attend even though they preached homophobia… would you actually attack the the same as you have Obama?
Of course you wouldn’t because to you it would be a non-issue. It’s their opinion and in this country people have a right to have opinions. Sheesh. Are YOU that dense?
67. Arctic Fox | March 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Just as all Republicans will gather behind McCain when it comes to the general election, so all Democrats will gather behind whoever wins out of Obama and Clinton; whether you like your candidate or not isn’t the issue. People will vote on partisan lines. They won’t vote for the other party just because they don’t agree with the choice of their own candidate. The most you could expect there is that they don’t vote at all.
Since America has become Left vs Right in the past few years, even Democrats who dislike Clinton immensely will vote for her over McCain if she’s the candidate. So this entire argument is pointless.
I’ve no doubt the media will continue to stretch the Obama race issue out as long as possible. It gets viewing figures, and it sells newspapers. But if something more “juicy” comes along, they’ll drop it like a hot potato and it will vanish from peoples talking points within days.
Domestic Economy issues have overtaken Iraq as the number one worry in American minds. There’s to some extent an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ aspect to Iraq to those who don’t actually have relatives or friends serving over there. They can - and do - ignore it in the main, except to tut over the odd media item they disagree with. But the economy, now that affects EVERYONE. And it’s in recession, no matter how many times senior members of the administration avoid using the “R” word.
Worse than that, the only plan I’ve seen President Bush come up with is the rebates, and he’s hoping people will be rushing to the mall treating these rebates as disposable income.
They won’t.
Gas is at an all time high; credit cards are about to be crunched (as lenders jittery over the lending market re-assess credit card lending) and job security, or the lack of it, is a real issue. Health insurance is a rip off, and it’s expensive to get sick without it. Given all these instabilities, who in their right mind isn’t going to want to use their rebate to cover at least one, and probably more than one of these areas?
And when very little of this money comes back into the economy, what will President Bush do then?
Iraq is not in a hurry to do anything, from political reconciliation to militarily taking back their country. Why? Because neo-cons will “stay as long as it takes”. Why do they need to lift a finger whilever a President over here is willing to keep spending US Taxpayers money on Iraq? What possible encouragement do they have? Yes, they want their own country back, but they aren’t going to get it back until they sign their oil over. Cheney made that quite clear in his recent visit, even though you had to look very closely at the way it was reported:
(emphasis mine)
Source: BBC News.
So given that they aren’t going to get their country back unless they do as their told, they have no incentive to change anything while ever a US president is prepared to stay in Iraq “for the next hundred years”
Obama is making some interesting speeches about how the daily money that floods to support the Iraq effort could be used for domestic spending, and that appeals to people who see spiraling gas costs, spiraling healthcare costs, mortgage repossessions and credit card call-ins.
So while the pro-war faction continues to promote endless war, there is a steadily drying up pool of taxpayer money that is sucking the domestic spending dry. It’s ultimately unsustainable. When nothing more can be cut back, when there aren’t enough dollars left and their value has deteriorated in world markets (remember, the US economy isn’t number one any more) then there won’t be a choice, there won’t be enough money to fight on, and at THAT time God help our poor troops over there, because suddenly there won’t be any money left to bring them home!
And what then? Blaming “Hillbama” and scoffing about how much worse things would be under a Democratic president is just deluding yourself about how desperate the situation is RIGHT NOW. And President Bush, and Candidate McCain (who follows the same policies) HAS NO PLAN to tackle this. At all.
Any plan is better than no plan.
68. Michael | March 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hmmm.
69. SteaM | March 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Also, let us not forget that Senator Barack Obama’s mother is a white woman.
70. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
You people are ridiculous, Obama comes out and confronts a highly sensitive issue that the US has been pretending does not exist anymore. It’s like beating a friend then bringing him to the hospital. Once that friend is better you then go to him and say ‘were cool right?’ and pretend everything is fine because you brought him to the hospital. Obama’s speech addressed this problem and suggested it’s time to move forward. But all you can get from it is that He lied about hearing his Pastors statement or his Christian church is ‘Evil’ and hates America. This blog has truly hit a new low. I truly hope this is localized and the country will see through this and quickly. If not, the America which you are advocating does not exist. It is an illusion.
71. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Senator John McCain’s broad appeal in the very-Republican Congressional district vacated by former-House Speaker Dennis Hastert which has now been claimed by Democrats:
72. Ricorun | March 20th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
MorrisMajor: Ricorun, I don’t know what your point is exactly, but this is a pilot program so the meters et al are going to be a lot more expensive than full scale production versions. It sounds like a pretty darn good idea.
You’re point about it being a pilot program, and thus more expensive, is a good one. My point is that even considering that (i.e., ignoring economy of scale issues), and even ignoring the likelihood that the cost of legacy fuels will continue to go up, and even ignoring all the other benefits smart grid technology holds for the eventual deployment of renewable energy sources — even if you ignore all that — if all the smart grid does is even out the energy load so as to reduce consumption during traditional peak hours by 10% (when the cost of using energy is the highest), the likelihood is very high that they will pay for themselves. That was my point.
But while Boulder is the first community-wide, commercial scale pilot project, another smaller, though more robust pilot project was performed on Washington State’s Olympic Peninsula last year. In that one they outfitted 112 homes with not only smart meters, but smart thermostats, water heaters, and dryers. That shaved an average of 15% off each home’s montly bill — and, more importantly, reduced power consumption by 50% of normal for days during times of heaviest demand.
It’s that load-leveling effect that will make smart grids pay off in the near-term, because it’s very expensive, inefficient, and usually dirty (environmentally speaking) for a utility to accommodate those heavy demand hours. But in the long term they also allow for a two-way distributed grid wherein if individual consumers have solar panels on their roof, a backyard wind turbine, a water turbine in the stream running through their yard, or even a plug-in hybrid, whatever, they can sell the excess generation back to the grid. Smart grids have the potential not only to change the definitions of “peak” and “off-peak” hours in versatile, community-specific ways (depending upon the energy sources in the area), but also to change the relationship individuals have to the grid itself. It’s no longer a one-way street. When that happens (I don’t think it’s a question of “if” anymore) it will be both individually empowering, but it will also help immunize the whole community against supply shocks.
That’s the up side. The down side is… you can’t run your air conditioner right up until a blackout occurs. The meter will turn it off before that happens, and it won’t let you override it. So in that respect you lose a certain amount of personal freedom. Some people consider that a step down a slippery slope. Personally, I don’t see it that way. Whether the meter turns my air conditioner off or I wait for the inevitable blackout, I’ll still sweat just as much. But if my meter turns it off for me, at least I don’t have to cook everything in my freezer before it spoils.
73. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
So are you admitting that he lied about knowing he belonged to a racist church? It really isn’t up to you to decide how Americans feel about this issue.
74. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Rich,
Do you take everything Literally?
75. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Rich, it really isn’t up to you as to what church someone goes to. It isn’t up to you if someone even wants to go to a church.
Would you ever vote for an athiest?
Would you have elected Mitt Romney although his church believes in magic underwear?
You see… voting for or against someone based on their church is completely up to you. But to make this big of a deal of it is a bit foolish.
But hey… keep listening to Hannity and Rush and get your kicks with the whole pastor thing.
The rest of America will move on to what actually affects us.
76. BARRASSO | March 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
So if we were in Germany and Obama was Jewish and his rabbi had said god damn Germany he would be disqualified from becoming Germany’s leader? America has not always been totally great to blacks in its history, some preachers take it too far, so fucking what???
One must love America? That’s in the constitution right???? One cannot disagree with anything America does or stands for or you cannot be president?
77. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Rich,
Is Obama’s comment that I posted (commect #65) not at all valid to you?
78. BARRASSO | March 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
This whole preacher thing is distracting us from the real debate people LAPEL FLAG PINS!!
We need a person in the white house who can fix the massive screwups of the current president, and hopefully the people of the US remember the years of Bush a long time and the GOP brand is tarnished for decades to come.
79. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Rich, before you move into the Rev’ comment about america giving black men aids. Have you ever heard of the ‘Tuskegee Experiment’?
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586
Move past this Issue like the public has moved past John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Or the Evangelical advisers that bush has on retainer.
Now, the bush adm. cut interest rates by 0.75% two days ago, their was a momentary spike but now the markets are worse than the were. Continuing the tax cut and furthering Bush’s Economic policies do not seem like a viable options where they are certainly not helping now. If McCain really wants to win in November this is an area that he MUST Flip-flop on
80. Canuckguy | March 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I am not to go the Canadian Observer route and plead “Why can’t we all just get along”. I will take Mark at his word and dish it out to you Busbots.
Folks, just remember the reasoning of the Bushbot neo-cons. They, in their ignorant preening arrogance, thought, by invading Iraq(using lies as reasons), they would bring democracy, that it would flower and spread and bring peace and happiness to that cesspool part of the world. Well how’s that working for ya?
Probably a year from now I will be able go ‘NAH NAH NAH NAH & BWAH WAH WAH BWAH’, you and the other Bushbot Repugs were so wrong..
Also, I am sure you will have to eat crow with this this widespread neo-con belief that I summarize here:
“The war in Iraq has been and will be historically regarded as a great success. The long-term positive geopolitical consequences of our bold action are impossible to overestimate”
Too many swallow that bullshit. Good grief, where’s your brains at?
Sometimes the only choice is between the lesser of two evils. Not invading Iraq will be seen as the proper choice when history later judges. Should have concentrated on Afghanistan. But of course, the bonehead neo-cons were more interested in getting control of Iraq’s oil.
There, and a pleasant good evening to yall.
BTW, you Mercans have no good frontrunners, Dems or Repugs for president.. Nothing good in that litter to pick from. Too bad, so sad. You need a smart far-sighted brave leader to get the USA back on track again. I certainly want to see a strong USA run by people with morals and brains.
81. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Joe- No not really. Because somone was treated badly in the past by a member of a certain race does not give them the right to take their prejudices and then spread them. I was stabbed by a black man six years ago, but I would be a fool to use my past experience and preach to others that black people are dangerous. If Wright was treated badly by whites in the 60’s, does that really explain his stance on HIV and 9-11? Once again here is Obama’s quote about his church before the controversy,
“I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.”
So which is it? Did he not think his church was controversial when he made that statement or was he lying. He’s kinda stuck here.
Would I vote for an atheist. Yes. Mormon, yes. Woman, yes. Black, yes. Racist, no.
82. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Someone went to the trouble of scouring through hundreds of hours of Wright’s sermons to distill out the most controversial clips available. They removed them from their contexts, stitched them together and threw them out as if they were representative of everything the man stands for.
It is possible to make anyone look like a fool using such a method. I’ve seen similar videos of George W. Bush that make him appear mentally retarded to anyone with clinical experience. Some might argue, “well he is” - to which I’d respond, “no more or less than Wright is a hate-filled demagogue.”
Mike Huckabee said yesterday: “Pastors like Rev. Wright are [preaching] extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you’d say, ‘Well, I didn’t mean to say it quite like that.’”
Nonetheless, some of Wright’s “extreme” statements actually are quite reasonable when examined dispassionately. In his “chickens coming home to roost” statement he says: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”
By fire-bombing civilian targets such as Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, America did in fact kill more innocent civilians by orders of magnitude than we lost on 9/11. Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, said, “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”
Paulist priest, Father James Gillis, editor of The Catholic World and a stalwart of the old Right, went further, castigating the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima as “the most powerful blow ever delivered against Christian civilization and the moral law.” Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe called Truman a war criminal, placing no difference between America massacring civilians from the air and Nazis wiping out Czech or Polish villages.
Similar historic support may be found for most if not all Rev. Wright’s criticisms. Yet we won’t see Mark or the self-styled “pro-life” conservatives here condemn Father James Gillis as a hate-filled demagogue for saying the same thing Rev. Wright has said. The only difference is Wright’s style, his audience and the ill-concealed bigotry of his accusers - who are either too historically ignorant or arrogant to find put Wright’s words in context.
So who are the real hate-filled demagogues? When all is said and done, it is better not to characterize like that. To his credit Barack Obama has refused to do so. He is leaps and bounds ahead of his critics in political perspective, maturity and substance.
America is blessed by divine grace to have Obama’s candidacy at a moment when such insight in leadership is so sorely needed. America lost Lincoln, Martin Luther King and two promising Kennedys all before their time. Now another generation is poised to scorn the same kind of gift offered yet again - trading it all for the hypocrisy of a basely contrived issue.
83. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“BTW, you Mercans have no good frontrunners, Dems or Repugs for president.. Nothing good in that litter to pick from. Too bad, so sad. You need a smart far-sighted brave leader to get the USA back on track again. I certainly want to see a strong USA run by people with morals and brains.”
You mean like President… I mean Prime Minster Harper. Please man, if he had a majority government Canadians maybe facing what the US are right now. Only difference being he could stay in power a lot longer than 8 years. Oh and Dion is not much better.
Obama has both morals and brains as shown by his ‘race’ speech. Which will go down in history no doubt. He is the best candidate in at least a generation.
I agree with you about the war in Iraq, I think the US should start pull out and start helping out those Canadian soldiers who were left holding the bag (for the most part) in Afghanistan because of Iraq.
84. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Wow talk about revisionist history. Why did Japan surrender in WWII? How many lives were saved because the fighting did not go island to island, street to street? You know the Japanese were training women and children to fight to the death right? WWII was a total war, where resources and factories and your “innocent civilians” were legitimate targets. I don’t believe we were the ones that started that. Ever hear of the London air raids? Ever head of the Rape of NanKing? Sorry, there is no moral equivalency between people that propped up Hitler and people that were enjoying their morning coffee and then got blown to smithereens. Furthermore, what war were we in when the planes hit the towers? you are disgusting. Blame America first. Is this Reverand Wright posting?
85. Arctic Fox | March 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Source: TPM Election Central
86. Canuckguy | March 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Some Assembly Required - regarding your comment:
–I don’t disagree with your statement about Harper, he is too right wing for me. I never claimed to have good leaders in Canada, right all, they can all go to hell in a handbasket, as far as I am concerned.
–Regarding Afghanistan, well at least 3000 rough tough ready-to-rumble marines are setting up camp with the Canadians, that more than the entire Canadian force in Afghanistan.
Regarding Rich’s comment. I agree with Rich completely, this whining about using nukes on Japan, get over it. They had it coming. It was just two bombs, mind you very powerful bombs.
87. Eric T | March 20th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Diana in #9 you mention Cindy McCain’s drug use.
Check out these
prorev.com/connex.htm
88. Eric T | March 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00058.htm
89. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Rich says in post 84: “Wow talk about revisionist history. Why did Japan surrender in WWII? How many lives were saved because the fighting did not go island to island, street to street?”
Truman’s chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, wrote in his book “I Was There” that using the “barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
Ralph Raico, senior scolar of the Mises Institute, writes: The rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.
The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators.
Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb “spared millions of American lives.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
90. looking4laughs | March 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.”
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
“The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small… Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.”
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
“It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.”
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02
“The costs of any intervention would be very small.”
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02
“When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community.”
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03
“There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03
“The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03
“Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction.”
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03
Direct cost per minute of the Iraq occupation: $278,000
Direct cost of the Iraq occupation for the rest of Mister Bush’s term: $122 billion
Total projected cost to the US: 2 to 3 trillion
91. Arctic Fox | March 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Oh, go on then… a short video about the real purpose of being in Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE
92. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Dennis- There is this thing called cause and effect. The U.S. had been at war with Japan for four years. We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Japanese surrendered SIX days later. Yes it is a controversial topic, and its not surprising you have some quotes from dissenting views, big deal. We can argue about the number of American lives saved, but you have to agree that many thousand were indeed saved. Failure to see a direct correlation between the bombings and the immediate surrender six days later is kinda lame.
93. Tractatus | March 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
This whole preacher thing is distracting us from the real debate people LAPEL FLAG PINS!!
So very, very true. As this video conclusively demonstrates, that lapel pin really means something.
94. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Rich, I am sorry to inform you that thousands of lives were not saved. In fact subracting the highest theoretical number of lives that may have been saved from those actually killed leaves a huge sum of burned-up human lives.
And I imagine you fancy yourself pro-life too.
95. js | March 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
You are so naive to bring up Abrahamof.
Did you guys ever figure out why they only tagged the Republicans that recieved donations from him, and none of the Democrats, like Reid and Pelosi? Do they wear lapel pins too? or are have they become anti American like Obama is?
And that doesnt cover the Pledge of Allegiance either. Why doesnt Obama join in the Pledge, with his hand over his heart, as a traditional gesture if nothing else. Its a salute, of respect, for the flag of your nation.
Then again, Obama takes the traditional stance of a non-American during the Pledge, just standing up, and refraining from the salute. At least he didnt stay sitting.
So, Obama really isnt an American, for sure.
96. js | March 20th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Abramoff told prosecutors that more than $30,000 in campaign contributions to Reid from Abramoff’s clients “were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid.”
Abramoff has reportedly claimed the Nevada senator agreed to help him on matters related to Indian gambling.
The Associated Press reported earlier this year that Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to the tribes that had contributed money to his campaign.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html
Funny how that works….you get elected as senate majority leader, and criminal investigations stop dead in thier tracks.
How democratic…..NOT
97. Joe | March 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
js: Did you guys ever figure out why they only tagged the Republicans that recieved donations from him, and none of the Democrats, like Reid and Pelosi?
Umm…. because they didn’t take anything from Abramoff and the Republicans did? Reid took donations from tangent clients of Abramoff, not directly from him or from him thru a client.
I believe this has all been hashed out previously.
98. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
86. Canuckguy | March 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Yeah, your right. The Canadian Forces only have 2500 troops on the ground. Along with Nato forces as well as some American units. Have you noticed any effects on the Canadian economy as a result of the American one? I heard some reports of refinery construction being put on hold because of the credit crunch in America. But then your rising dollar also appears to be lowering prices. Just wondering what your take on this situation is.
In any war, it is the victor that accuses and prosecutes the other side for war crimes.
99. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Dennis reread my post. Its says “We can argue about the number of AMERICAN lives saved”. As for the burned up bodies, firebombing cities week after week did not force the Japanese to surrender, they would have fought to the last child. Only after facing total destruction did they surrender (six days after the bombing). And don’t forget, they were warned at the Potsdam Conference. Japan was given an ultimatum threatening “prompt and utter destruction. They ignored the ultimatum. But really, you are just going to continue to blame America so I’m not sure why I’m even bothering.
100. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
95. js | March 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
~Barbara Ehrenreich
If you think being a patriot is determined by the number of flags you have, whether you salute cheer or whistle during a song or anthem or wear a lapel pin their is truly no hope for your sir. You make such an uproar over a pin, I’m honestly afraid of what you might think if he accidentally passed gas during one of these events. I mean really man disagree with him on issues like healthcare or iraq or his stance on abortion but call him anti-american because of a lapel pin and he didn’t put his hand of his heart. Get over yourself my friend. Everyone Poops!
101. Ricorun | March 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
js: Funny how that works….you get elected as senate majority leader, and criminal investigations stop dead in thier tracks.
My understanding is that several Abramoff-related investigations are still on-going, and that Abramoff is still getting preferential treatment in return for his continuing to sing like a bird. Is that not right? Said in another way, what evidence do you have that any investigation was stopped dead in its tracks?
And to be perfectly honest, the level of evidence you present (i.e., the word of a convicted felon supporting a pattern of contributions that largely existed before said felon became a player), doesn’t even pass the sniff test. If that’s all it took, just about every congresscritter would be under investigation. You have to do better than that.
102. Ricorun | March 20th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Oh jeez, I just realized who I’m trying to reason with. In the words of Rosanne Rosanadanna… never mind.
103. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Rich, I have to weigh your assertions against Admiral William Leahy’s, who was there at the time. He said unequivocally “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
Later Eisenhower confirmed this, telling Newsweek “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
Who am I to believe - you, or actual participants in those events?
As for blaming America, there is blame enough to go around. Nobody has clean hands, and that is my understanding of Rev. Wright’s comments.
Today we define terrorism as attacking innocent civilians to achieve political ends. Can you find a way around that description of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were civilian targets; all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city and escaped damage.
The intent was not to bring Japan to surrender - that point already had been reached. Pleas by scientists involved in the Manhattan project to demonstrate the power of the bomb in some uninhabited place were rebuffed. The intent was to inflict large numbers of casualties.
Terror is an unacceptable tactic now; it was just as morally wrong in 1945, as prominent Catholic theologians correctly pointed out long before Rev. Wright came along. Before his death Leo Szilard, the physicist who instigated the Manhattan profect, said that if the Germans had dropped nuclear bombs instead of us, those responsible would have been sentenced to death at Nuremberg.
It is not anti-Americanism that prompts these observations, it is an awareness of the universal nature of morality. It cannot be selectively applied, or any nation be exempted from its demands by political or military expediency. However this is the old-school conservative view on morality, I might add - not the neo-conservative view or the Mark ‘n’ Matt view.
I recommend the article by Mises scholar Ralph Raico (not a liberal by any means) referenced in my earlier post, for a more definitive treatment of this topic.
104. congressive | March 20th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Whatever happened to flag burning? Is it ok now? What if I burned a gay flag for Jesus? Would that call for a Constitutional Amendment?
What if someone burned an American flag lapel pin? What if someone was still wearing it at the time?
105. Jeremiah | March 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
When are they ever going to stop the Nutri-system commercials??
–Jeremiah–
106. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Paging Bill O’Reilly…paging Bill O’Reilly…
From Fox News…
107. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Paging Sean Hannity…paging Sean Hannity…
108. Rich | March 20th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Dennis, are you still equating Japanese civilians during WWII, civilians being trained to fight, and civilians fueling the imperialist war machine that attacked the U.S. without provocation, to the workers of the trade towers? So it was a coincidence the Japanese surrendered six days after the bombs dropped? Just a coincidence. They were going to surrender anyways. Did not matter that they saw two cities destroyed and had no idea how many more bombs we had?
109. js | March 20th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
The Associated Press reported earlier this year that Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to the tribes that had contributed money to his campaign.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html
Funny how that works
the proof is so easy to find, its in the same post, google the reference, yahoo the key words, tear it apart if its a lie
but rico, dont try to goose the chicken before its hatched, facts, not gossip, are what you said I didnt provide, yet, facts, is exactly what I pointed at.
you playin the stooge today?
110. Tractatus | March 20th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Geez, Diana, after reading that, aren’t you just absolutely stumped as to why the GOP can’t get the Black vote? It’s a total mystery, lemme tell ya.
111. js | March 20th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show
—–breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FLR3380&show_article=1
Democratic leader Reid aided Abramoff clients
——-seattletimes.nwsource.com/
html/politics/2002795932_reid10.html
Howard Dean Unwittingly Fingers Sen. Harry Reid in Abramoff Scandal
—–theconservativevoice.com/article/11938.html
During the interview by Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, Dean continued his claim that Democrats who received money from Abramoff’s Indian clients did no favors for those Indian tribes, according to NewsMax.
“Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff,” the top Democrat insisted. “No Democrat delivered anything and there’s no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that’s not true of the Republicans.”
But Wallace wasn’t buying it. He continued his questioning of Dean: “So if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?”Dean’s response: “That’s a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble.”
Today’s Washington Post reports that Senate Minority Leader Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.
Reid “sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002,” the Post said. “The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid’s group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.”
Cmon ricorun, are you a halfwit now? This IS common knowledge. For cryin out loud, its even in Mark and Matts BOOK you moron.
112. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Rich, you speak of Japanese as if they were one monolithic entity. Felix Morley, constitutional scholar and one of the founders of Human Events, called attention to the “thousands of children trapped in the thirty-three schools that were destroyed” in Hiroshima.
That Truman realized who these victims were is plain from remarks to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop another bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”
Major Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, one of the 20th century’s greatest military historians, wrote of the atomic bombings: “Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified.”
Rich, I realize you think you’re being patriotic, but now you’re right there with the terrorists, justifying atrocity on the basis of military and/or political expediency.
113. js | March 20th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
reality is that facts, not accusations from abramoff, document this whole issue
yet, nobody in the world is investigating reid…and truthfully, this isnt the only skelleton in his closet, the guys a raceteering white collar criminal, and the senate majority leader
that says a lot about AMERICAN VALUES, doesnt it impswitch?
114. Canuckguy | March 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
To Some Assembly Required:
–You asked me a question, I shall try to answer. Regarding the Canadian economy and strong dollar: we are doing well because of our mineral and oil production but if mishandled, we can end up with the ‘Dutch disease’, a state where the dollar becomes too strong, exports suffer and manufacturing jobs disappear - to some extent, that has happened already. We are also at risk otherwise, if the USA does spiral into a recession, we will be sucked into the vortex, there is no avoiding that. So the future is not looking rosy up here, we are not immune to what happens down in the USA. Just stating the obvious. I am very concerned about the fate of the economy, I believe the next 6 months will tell the tale. Brace yourself, fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
115. Some Assembly Required | March 20th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
#114. Canuckguy | March 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
At the risk of sounding Arrogant, that is what I thought. As for the next 6 months it really is not looking good especially with Bush still administering bogus economic policies. Am I the only one frustrated when it comes to digging up $30 Billion to bail out a company but theres nothing around to give to home owners about to foreclose?
On the plus side the US has one of the biggest elections in history in November, and Canada has the 2010 winter Olympics. Interesting times.
116. phnx | March 21st, 2008 at 1:23 am
Dennis,
Its a good thing you weren’t around to influence government policy during WWII. There is no wonder you and your ilk are called defeatocrats.
117. phnx | March 21st, 2008 at 1:25 am
BTW, Hucklberry is pandering to Obama hoping to be his VP selection, now that he’s figured out that McCain won’t have him.
118. Diana Powe | March 21st, 2008 at 1:59 am
It’s no wonder that Republican partisans use the juvenile term defeatocrats. They have the imagination of fifth-graders.
119. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 2:53 am
Dennis,
But Fuller’s views on the atom bomb were colored by his very correct view of “strategic” bombing - as practised in WWII, it was a complete waste of time and resources…spreading death and destruction to no discernable purpose. To Fuller, the atom bomb was just a quicker means of what was done to Dresden.
Should the atom bomb have been dropped? To the men in charge at the time, it seemed like the proper thing to do and we can only judge them by the facts which were in their possession when they made their decision - no going back afterwards and condemning them based on things they didn’t know. At the time the decision was made, the immediate prospect was 18 more months of war with Japan, including what promised to be a very bloody invasion of Japanese home islands. There were military opinions to the contrary, but in a war where taking the optimistic view had repeatedly led to disaster, prudence dictated adherence to the more negative view of things.
We know now that the Japanese government was willing to surrender provided assurances were given that Hirohito and his favored retainers would not be brought up on war crimes charges - Truman didn’t know this…all he had in hand was a Japanese rejection of unconditional surrender, when that was the express policy of the United States since 1943. Nuance was in short supply in 1945 - especially given the fact that the Japanese had proved to be a savage foe - a nation which deliberately raped allied nurses to death in order to demoralise allied soldiers was a nation viewed, by 1945, as something less than human.
Downed Navy pilots were beheaded or tied with chains and thrown into the sea; Chinese civilians were tied up and used for bayonet practice; Philipino children had their eyes poked out and smeared on the wall like jelly…while the Japanese never thought up an Auschwitz, their incredible brutality throughout the war had raised the most implacable hatred amongst their foes. Dropping an atomic bomb on them rather than bothering to fight them on the ground seemed, in light of what was known, as the best option.
120. Dennis | March 21st, 2008 at 5:08 am
Yes, Mark, and nuance was also in short supply before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Saddam offered to go into exile and essentially leave the whole country of Iraq open to the US.
But no, Mr. Bush had to have his war. And instead of what good might actually have been accomplished in Iraq, we now have this train wreck, with hundreds of thousands of human lives lost, bleeding us billions of dollars every week.
And whereas you defend this, I say No; there were better choices clearly offered, but they were not taken. As in 1945, when better choices were available as well. You claim nobody knew the Japanese would surrender - as I’m sure you claim the intelligence available forced Mr. Bush’s hand into this war.
I have to reject your assertions, both on the grounds that you have been patently dishonest in your characterizations of your political opponents, and that the facts of record refute you. Like Rich, you’re right there with the terrorists, justifying atrocity on the basis of military and/or political expediency.
121. js | March 21st, 2008 at 7:35 am
Hindsight is easy to manipulate.
Dennis proves that.
His head is full of rhetoric and propganda from white supremacists and green tree huggers.
For the most part, its much easire for his type to grasp on to conspiracy theories and fantasy than it is for him to grasp the whole truth, and conclude that the taking of human lives in Japan was done for cause, and America has been and will be heralded for thier efforts by most nations in the world.
Conspiracy theories dont prove anything. Facts, and nothing but facts, prove the truth, and that is what Dennis does not have.
122. js | March 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am
112. Dennis | March 20th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Rich, you speak of Japanese as if they were one monolithic entity. Felix Morley, constitutional scholar and one of the founders of Human Events, called attention to the “thousands of children trapped in the thirty-three schools that were destroyed” in Hiroshima.
——————–
Tell us Dennis, was that anything like the thousands and thousands of Chinese women who were abducted and forced to serve as sex slaves for Japanese Officers? When they killed them (certainly less than 3% of these women survived the war), were you also parading for justice, or do you only parade for conspiracy theories?
Cmon Dennis, the whole thing, you cant condemn acts of brutality against a brutal regime and create conspiracy theories about how wrong we were to finish the war, and expect sympathetic agreement from everyone. So far all you have given us is rhetoric, once again. Where are these facts you speak of? Out of context? Where are the facts that we KNEW the Japanese were going to Surrender? WHERE ARE THE FACTS THAT SADDAM AGREED TO GO INTO EXILE?
Im reading, but you only put down accusations. Show us facts.
if you have any
123. js | March 21st, 2008 at 7:51 am
President George W. Bush planned to issue an ultimatum Monday to President Saddam Hussein, saying in a formal address from the White House that the Iraqi leader must leave the country or face war.
Secretary of State Colin Powell foreshadowed that message hours before what was expected to be a fateful, nationally televised speech by Bush.
“I can think of nothing that Saddam Hussein could do diplomatically” to avert war, he said. Saddam’s only option was to leave, along with family members and top aides.
“He had his chance,” Powell said tersely.
It was not clear how long Bush had intended to give Saddam to leave the country. But that question became moot, as Iraq bluntly rejected the ultimatum.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/03/18/a1_21.php
Published March 18th, 2003.
Invasion began March 20th, 2003.
Tell us Dennis, if Saddam was going to go into exile, why did he reject it?
You need to wake up son, find some honest work to do, because you suck at lying.