Friday, October 26, 2012

Who knew? Sununu! Because he's BLAAAAAACK!

UPDATE:

Hilarious!  Video of post-Boca Raton debate interview by Triumph, the insult dog.

John Sununu runs away!


Remember when former GOP Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell said he'd be voting for President Obama only because he's black?

  No?    Me neither.

But that didn't stop Very Big John Sununu from flapping his very pink, glossy gums and spreading his very white foamy spittle all over cable and network news saying former GOP Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell is voting for President Obama only because he's black.

But like all common loud-mouthed bullies, Sununu had to retract his racist slur against General Powell after decent people told the feckless swine to go back to hiding in his bronze jar.

General Colin Powell:

"You know, I voted for him in 2008 and I plan to stick with him in 2012, and I'll be voting for he and Vice President Joe Biden next month," he said on CBS' "This Morning." Asked whether it was an endorsement, he said, "Yes." Powell praised the president's handling of the economy and ending of the Iraq War. "I think we ought to keep on the track we are on," he said. Powell said he had the "utmost respect" for Mitt Romney, but criticized his tax plan. He said Romney's foreign policy was a "moving target." "One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan, but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal. Same thing in Iraq. On every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Gov. Romney agreed with the president with some nuances. But this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign."


Of course that stung the Romney/Ryan campaign, so their surrogate Sununu's first line of attack against the former Secretary of State was to impugn his reasons for making his decision to endorse President Obama FOR THE SECOND TIME. 

It's always about race, isn't it. 

I can't count the number of times I've read on conservative blogs that the only reason people voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 was because he is black, and people wanted to feel good about themselves for voting for America's first black president.  Those folks who've repeated this lie all through Mr. Obama's presidency have no self-awareness on how racist that thinking is, for by repeating it, as they have over the last 4 years, they reveal their underlying assumption:    That no one would vote for a black guy based on the issues and his job performance:

Charles Blow of the New York Times 10/27/12:


Charles Blow:
"We have a very racially divided electorate. As The Washington Post reported Thursday, “Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll.” 
The report pointed out that nearly 80 percent of nonwhites support Obama, while 91 percent of Romney’s supporters are white.
 
I worry that Sununu’s statements intentionally go beyond recognizing racial disparities and seek to exploit them.
 
What does that say about Romney, and what does it say about his campaign’s tactics?
 
Remember: A man is known by the company he keeps."
 

"Haven’t they just spent four years telling the country that he’s “foreign” with a MUSLIM middle name and what is almost a totally for sure phony birth certificate? Obviously liberals (and Colin Powell) are only voting for him because he’s black and looks like a skinny little crackhead or maybe a monkey. And because lazy, shiftless black people want free stuff."--Justin Rosario


Roland Martin, CNN analyst:

"As a distinguished military man who has worked for four U.S. presidents, he has witnessed up close and personal what it takes to be president of the United States and commander in chief. It is ridiculous to assume Powell would be so shallow as to think race is the only determinant for him. The suggestion is beneath him.
 
So, why did Sununu say it? Because it's easy to dismiss an accomplished black man who just praised another accomplished black man. By boiling it down to race, it's easy for others who think such a thing to say, 'Oh, that's it!'
 
Unfortunately, we see this type of thinking in America all of the time."


This isn't the first time Sununu insulted the president:
 



Meanwhile, back on the campaign, Mitt Romney continues to be the Sybil of American politics:






ROMNEY "MISSPEAKS" AGAIN!


October 26, 2012 at 9:02 am

Romney picks up incorrect story about Jeep production moving to China



Romney was apparently responding to reports Thursday on right-leaning blogs that misinterpreted a recent Bloomberg News story earlier this week that said Chrysler, owned by Italian automaker Fiat SpA, is thinking of building Jeeps in China for sale in the Chinese market.

The Bloomberg story, though accurate, "has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri said.

"Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation."



30 comments:

  1. General Powell is a man of integrity and honor. Which is likely why he has chosen not to seek public office.

    While I disagree with General Powell's assessment of President Obama's effectiveness in office by no means can any rationally thinking person believe the General's position has a God damned thing to do with race.

    On this the Governor is out in right field without a glove.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I bet there are more people voting against Obama because he is black than are voting for him because he is black.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Sununu's statements on President Obama:

    – Obama is foreign. Obama doesn’t understand the “American system” because “he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia, another set of years in Indonesia, and, frankly, when he came to the U.S. he worked as a community organizer, which is a socialized structure.” [Fox News, 7/17/2012]

    Classic racism--Sununu tries to make Mr. Obama into "the other," a suspicious "other," not like "one of us," implying Hawaii is "foreign."

    Sununu was, BTW, born in a foreign country: Cuba! Pure projection!



    ReplyDelete
  4. John Sununu's statements on President Obama (cont.):

    – Obama doesn’t know how to be an American. During a conference call, Sununu claimed, “The men and women all over America who have worked hard to build these businesses, their businesses, from the ground up is how our economy became the envy of the world. It is the American way. And I wish this president would learn how to be an American.” [Conference call, 7/17/2012]

    – Obama is a lazy idiot. Sununu described Obama’s debate performance as “babbling,” “lazy,” and “disengaged,” and dismissed the possibility that he could do better in the future. “When you’re not that bright you can’t get better prepared.” [Fox News, 10/4/2012]





    – Obama has no class, just wants to be cool. “That moment of using the B.S. word was kind of a self-defining moment for the president,” he told Sean Hannity.

    No, Sununu, that's not the definition of "no class." You are the embodiment of no class, and what comes out of your mouth is pure B.S.






    ReplyDelete
  5. The last person to know they are racist, is a racist.
    The last person to know they are an anti-Semite, is an anti-Semite.
    The last person to know they are filled with hate, is a person filled with hate.
    The diluted have convinced themselves through their own delusion.
    One must accept they are an alcoholic, before they can stop drinking.
    Sununu is the kind of diluted jerk Romney surrounds himself with, just another judgment flaw of Romney's, because he has the same dilusion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve, I know you meant to type "deluded," not "diluted" in your comment, but I think "diluted" also applies to Sununu: His thinking has been diluted (thinned out and weakened) by years of associating with a number of racists who populate the GOP.

    All of the remarks about President Obama that Sununu has made recently expose him for what he truly is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sununu is like a trick birthday candle that just won't stay blown out....
    1991-
    "Mr. Sununu's political problems began shortly after he arrived in Washington. By the time he resigned, stories were rife about the fear with which he was treated by subordinates, who often accused him in private of meeting their suggestions with scorn.
    The uproar over the 1990 budget deal, in which Mr. Sununu was seen by many Republican lawmakers as a malevolent influence, exacerbated Mr. Sununu's troubles. In the same fashion, he was badly wounded by disclosures of his extensive use of military aircraft for personal and political trips."
    What a strange choice for Romney's
    team....

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What a strange choice for Romney's
    team...."


    Oh I think Romney's team knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they hired Sununu as their attack dog. He said things Romney/Ryan would never dare say, but would like to in order to keep the basest of their base in line with a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know wadda mean, know wadda mean?!" appeal to their bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree, Shaw. Sunni is their rabid racist and feeds red meat to their rabid racist supporters. The Democrats do not have a similar rabid idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shaw, you used the word misspoke regarding the Chrysler story... really? You think he misspoke?

    I think he knew what he was doing, just like I think harry Reid knew what he was doing when he said in the Senate, "I've heard Romney has not paid taxes."

    Don't leading politicians have a responsibility to check their statements before passing them on?

    It's a troubling trend we see more and more everyday... outrageous statements used by people running for office that are not sourced, vetted, or fact checked ahead of time.

    In this case, it does happen from both sides. Twisting statements for political gain s another item that falls into this category.

    The recent statements from the candidate in Indiana are a good example...

    Clearly people heard different things, maybe what they were predisposed to hear.

    He believes that all life is a gift from God... and he said that horribly.

    He was not saying God ordains rape, even if, as I believe, his theology probably supports that view.

    And yet what we heard from partisans was that it is Gods will for pregnancy to come from rape.

    It was a twisted interpretation of what he was trying to say.



    ReplyDelete
  11. Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Words from a woman of the cloth, Rev. Susan Russell:

    "On Tuesday night (Oct. 22), Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock made the most compelling case for atheism this Episcopal priest has ever heard when he uttered the words: "Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen."

    As a priest and pastor I can't count the number of times I have met with, talked with, counseled with and engaged with people who struggle to make sense of "the God thing." Many of those conversations start out with the statement "I don't believe in God." But once I get them to tell me about the God they don't believe in, it turns out I don't believe in that God either.

    Because here's the deal: If I thought my only choice was between "Richard Mourdock's God" (who "intends" that a woman bear the child of her rapist) and "No God," then I would be an atheist faster than Mitt Romney can change positions on a political issue.

    But I am not an atheist. The God I know and serve is one of justice, love and compassion -- not judgment, exclusion and condemnation. The Jesus I follow is the one who preached peace, challenged poverty and liberated women. And the church I belong to is one that stands proudly in the prophetic tradition -- committed to putting our faith into action on the issues of social justice that challenge our generation just as our forbears did in theirs.

    Ironically, the very same day Richard Mourdock made news with his comments about "what God intends," CNN ran a piece asking "Is Obama the 'wrong' kind of Christian?" The lengthy feature article included a history of American Christianity that outlined the faith and values that make me a Christian:
    When Obama invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage, framed health care as a moral imperative to care for "the least of these,'' and once urged people to read their Bible but just not literally, he was invoking another Christian tradition that once dominated American public life.

    Obama is not the "wrong" kind of Christian: Obama is my kind of Christian. And Mourdock is not. And as theologically indefensible as I find his position on a woman's right to choose, the First Amendment protects his right -- and the right of each and every American -- to be whatever kind of Christian or Muslim or Jew or Buddhist or Atheist they choose to be.
    What the First Amendment does NOT protect is the right of any of us to write our theology into our Constitution -- something Joe Biden got totally right in his vice presidential debate with Paul Ryan:
    "I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and -- I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body."

    There are many things at stake in this presidential election, but choosing between faith and freedom is not one of them. Protecting the freedom of others to believe what they choose to believe about what "God intends" protects not only our own freedom to believe what "God intends" but defends our democracy from the very real threat of theocracy embodied in the policies of candidates like Richard Mourdock. And that is a battle worth fighting -- no matter what you believe or don't believe about God!"
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-susan-russell/richard-mourdock-democracy-vs-theocracy_b_2017716.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

    ReplyDelete
  13. Since life is a "gift from God", he can also take it away. Therefore when a murderer kills someone, god intended it to happen.

    I don't think that a god who rapes to begin life and murders to end life is one that I can worship.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Speaking of delusions, RN's assessment is superior to Powell's? Only in RN's mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RR, I see the warden let you out t make an ass of yourself again.

      And Shaw, I see you were only too willing to oblige. To think, I was just beginning to believe conservatives are bigger jerks than progressives. Thanks for setting the record straight and proving I was very much in error.

      Delete
  15. Roland Martin was right about Sununu's intent being to write off two accomplished African American men by boiling one's support for the other down to just racism. But Martin only got half of it. The other half is distraction. -- a time-worn favorite in Republicans' dirty-tricks toolbox. This has been Sununu's role throughout the campaign, and he's well cast in that role. I think he's a thoroughgoing bigot, along with being several other despicable things

    The idea is to draw attentuion away from Romney gaffes and unflattering situations. Just as Sununu's latest ugly outburst was making news, the fact Romney and Ryan have made themselves off limits to major-media reporters and won't be doing any more interveiws, or even taking questions, was being reported on MSNBC (and probably elsewhere).

    Republicans know that in a choice between holding on to a wad of used TP and having anything to do with Sununu, virtually all Democrats and probably a good many independents, would go wit the icky TP.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Powell has been a decorated soldier, worked his way up to General, has been adviser to Presidents, a critical part of this country's intelligence system, Secretary of State, and much more.
    RN reacts like I'm spreading hate against him, because I dare to say RN is delusional to think his assessment of Obama is superior to Powell's.
    Talk about an irrational, angry response to attacking one's delusion.
    And then to blame Shaw for some irrational effort of hate because she posted my comment.
    Hey RN, get over it, you don't come close to Powell's intelligence, or his assessment on anything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Re read the comment. No where does it imply or state anything about my superiority. I simply disagree with his view on Obama effectiveness, just like millions of others. I forgot for a moment that there would be some who would become unhinged at a mere criticism of Obama. Get over it. Is my view on the subject this post irrational as well RR?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Of course a lowly insignificant white man sees himself as superior to one of best black man in the last century

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can anyone point me to Powell's opinion of what the White House did or didn't do over the 7hr fire fight at our consulate and safe house?

    Has he commented on the reported decision not to answer calls for help? Same for Petraus. The reported inaction after repeated calls for help seem to run counter to what I thought these two respected miliatry men would do.

    Considering Powell's endorsement:

    (1) perhaps he knows that the White House did not watch the attack on the consulate and safe house and never heard the pleas for help. In which case the President did not make the decision to do nothing.

    (2) the White House did watch the attack in real time and the President made the decision not to send aid to those under assault for over 7hrs. In that case, (right or wrong) the President would have an uphill PR battle on his hands and Powell might comment.

    My gut tells me the White House will attempt to run out the clock and that each of us will be left to decide if we have the right Commander in Chief with imcomplete intelligence.

    I can't imagine the President not addressing the nation on this topic in an open, transparent and thorough way prior to the election.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As far as Sununu's comment. Rediculous! He knew it as soon as he said it. We all knew it as soon as he said it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. KP: "Can anyone point me to Powell's opinion of what the White House did or didn't do over the 7hr fire fight at our consulate and safe house?"

    I don't know of any comment General Powell made on this subject, but another former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice DID comment on what happened in Benghazi and had this to say:

    "Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is refusing to join the criticism of the Obama administration for its response to the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans last month, saying Americans should reserve judgment until official investigations have time to piece together the truth.

    Rice, who has been campaigning for former Gov. Mitt Romney, echoed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s comment that the “fog of war” made it hard to grasp what happened when dozens of armed militants stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a nearby annex in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11.

    “We don’t have all the pieces and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here,” she told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren in an interview Wednesday. “It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.”



    "It's probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work."

    We can always count on politics to make a terrible tragedy worse.

    ReplyDelete
  22. KP,

    I guess you missed Powell's endorsement of Obama. He gave a rational explanation of why he preferred Obama over Romney.
    Powell is no longer in office and is not privy to secure documents. or information. Unlike some who have made ridiculous claims, not knowing what actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  23. RE: "Considering Powell's endorsement:.." ..in light of
    Donald Trump's endorsement...

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Shaw Thanks Shaw. I agree with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's measured remarks. If Powell does comment I would expect something very similar. Two very good people.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Shaw While I agree with Rice that we should reserve judgment until the facts are all in; there are some facts that do not take time. For example: the President either did or did not watch the 7hr fire fight in real time. It would be nice if he told the nation where he was and what he was doing during the time of the 7hr fire fight and before he flew to Las Vegas.

    Then, he should tell us all, in clear terms, was it his decision to hold back support as those men were killed.

    Then, we can all withold judgment about whether he made the correct decision as the facts and circumstances unfold that either do or do not support his decision.

    My point, somebody made the decision. Who was it? Then we can decide whether it was a good decision. But there is no reason to withold this information; especially if it was a good decision. No reason other than an election.

    ReplyDelete
  26. KP,
    You already jumped to those conclusions without waiting for the facts, as we discussed 2 days after the attack.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Have you shared the history of the art work in your avatar? If yes, please re-post!

    ReplyDelete