I wonder where these two conservatives have been for the last few months when the loud-mouthed wackos showed up at tea parties and the DC demonstration repeating the asinine claim that the POTUS was a Socialist. Or a Commmunist. Or Marxist:
In an interview with The Greenville News yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he “would say no” if someone asked him if Obama was a socialist:
Graham was quick to debunk accusations from some people that Obama is a socialist and not a U.S. citizen.
He saw the question coming a few words into it and responded: “If you asked me if the president of the United States is a socialist, I would say no. I think he’s an American liberal, that’s what I think he is. You know, Ted Kennedy was an American liberal, but we found ways to work together.” [...]
“I am not going to give into sentiments that I think degrade the office of the president and that degrade the debate and the culture of our country,” he said. “So if you come up to me calling the president a socialist, a Muslim, you’re talking to the wrong guy.”
So. Is it official now? How many more Republicans will show some courage and dismiss the idiotic blatherings of the brainless fools calling the president a Socialist? Why are these two influential members of the GOP coming forward now? Could it be that they understand that the saner elements in our country are beginning to comprehend that the GOP has been taken over by an irrational, fearful, fact-challenged mob, led by this clown?
And BTW, why would Sen. Graham imply that being called a Muslim would "...degrade the office of the president...degrade the debate and the culture of our country?"
And BTW, why would Sen. Graham imply that being called a Muslim would "...degrade the office of the president...degrade the debate and the culture of our country?"
THIS IS NOW THE FACE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? Good luck with that new tragedy.
16 comments:
This is interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/weekinreview/20segal.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=david%20segal&st=Search
Gee, Nancy Pelosi makes a speech one week and the next thing you know you have these Republicans standing up and coming clean?
Am I jumping to conclusions again dmarks or could we agree that this hypothesis just might test out...
Perhaps the Republicans have decided to take things one step at a time. Take their party back from Beck, Limbaugh and the neocons. Then work on America. I think this shows good sense.
The neocons took a big blow when that old Kristol guy died recently. Since there are so few of them (and they have really little power or influence), their numbers probably went down by 1/10 right there.
Yeah. Those neo-cons have so little influence. The 'foreign policy' (as regards the Middle East in particular) of the previous administration was taken verbatim from the PNAC manifesto. Interesting document. Brings American empire square into the 21st century.
....a "manifesto" that had as much to do with anything as the Communist Manifesto has to do with Obama's administration. That is, nothing.
If it demanded "empire", it was ignored. There is still none.
Read it?
I didn't think so.
I did. Both of them.
Hang on, Shaw. Six months ago you said Rush Limbaugh was the face of the party. Now we have a new face?
Make up your mind, please. It's traumatic for Republicans to have to wait around for you to decide.
"THIS IS NOW THE FACE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?"
Actually, Gordon, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion.
Beck is now the loudest GOP demagogue out there, so I was wondering if he's replaced the dittohead loud mouth.
Beck certainly has grabbed more attention, lately, than has Limbaugh, and one thing we know about right wing loud mouths is that their loyal followers swoon over every foolish exaggeration and misstatement they make.
Well, if you asked most Republicans, I think they would decline to name Beck the face of the party, especially given his suggestion that we're better off with Obama vice McCain. Beck is more of a populist with libertarian leanings; he seems to have a following amongst the Ron Paul folks.
It's a good thing that folks don't swoon over left-wing loudmouths like Maddox and Brock, eh? ;-)
Rachel "Maddox" [maybe you had Lester in mind?] has a Ph.D. and was a Rhodes scholar.
You may look down your upper-middle-class nose at that, but there is no comparison between MADDOW and Beck.
Beck graduated from high school. ("although it couldn't have been easy."--Arthurstone)
We do understand, however, how some GOPers eschew higher education and believe people who earn degrees from elite institutions are, well, elites.
I don't swoon over Maddow; I admire her for her hard earned accomplishments, especially her courage to be who she is.
Brock? I read his book "Blinded by the Right" years ago. He's also courageous and found a bigger tent when he joined the Democratic Party.
Unlike some crazies on the right, we don't believe homosexuality is an abomination to god or that there is a "gay agenda."
Yes, it takes such courage to suck at George Soros' teat and post doctored quotes and videos. As does Maddow (less the subsidy from the currency manipulator), thank you for the correction.
But hey, quoting out of context and video manipulations are A-OK, as long as they serve the progressive cause, right? The truth is whatever serves the movement: that's a progressive mantra that goes way, way back.
That's why it frustrates me when you do it, Shaw. You're smart enough to argue without such artifice.
Shaw said: "Unlike some crazies on the right, we don't believe homosexuality is an abomination to god or that there is a "gay agenda."
Then you must differ from President Obama, who opposes gay marriage. Why would he do so, unless it is because he believes that homosexuality is an abomination/
President Obama has said he supports civil unions. In my opinion civil unions are marriages. The results are exactly the same. Mr. Obama is dancing around meaning when he says he doesn't believe in "marriage" for gays. And he has NEVER used the word "abomination" as applied to gays.
dmarks, you must have grasshopper legs, since you jump to very high conclusions a great deal of the time.
Gordon said: "...to suck at George Soros' teat.."
Gordon, did you have to? That's a real winner of a mental image, if ever there was one...
Shaw: Yes, the President sure has been dissembling on that issue (or "dancing around" if you want to dissemble about dissembling). No straight-talk there. Kind of like your description of Palin's views on abortion in a later comment, which flew well clear of the mark.
Post a Comment