I thought I would take the discussion up a notch to the national level and talk about Barack Obama. He is really taking the country by storm, and it’s beyond refreshing to see. When is the last time you remember someone exciting the country like this?
Why does he make such an impression on us, especially the younger generation of Americans? His breath-of-fresh-air approach is like giving water to people crawling through a desert. Voters are tired of the status quo and they are looking to anyone who can present change in a positive way. We saw this on a local level in San Jose, and now we are seeing it with the race for our next president.
Obama knows that we have so many problems as a nation at home, that he doesn’t see spending money in Iraq as a solution to any of those problems. We have problems with education and poverty that he wants to solve and he doesn’t see it happening if our number one focus is on the war abroad. What I like most about him is that he thinks about the average American trying to pay bills on meager salaries. He doesn’t think about the top 1 percent like another president we know well.
An issue he openly discusses (and is ignored by many politicians) is the manner in which we treat our veterans. Our leaders and pro-war supporters say that those who don’t support the war are not supporting the troops. Yet, those same leaders are the ones who cast veterans aside once they return home. There are no war heroes anymore; Obama sees that and wants to change it.
For the first time in years, I am excited about a presidential candidate because—and I am not alone in this opinion—it feels like he is more like us. He isn’t out of touch with the issues that plague us. More importantly, he isn’t Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t matter to me if he is a Democrat or a Republican; I just see him as someone our country needs right now. Much like Howard Dean who rallied people behind him (until the fateful scream ruined his chances), Obama seems to be rallying many Americans.
I just hope his fate isn’t the same as Howard Dean. It would be nice to believe in a president again.
I think there are many of us San Joseans who are with you 100% on your view. I especially like your view that it isn’t the party, it is the individual.
It’s like a real human being has stepped through the vail of political rhetoric and shed the cloak of partisan and divisive sound bites and actually connects with people.
Republicans, Democrats, centrists and independents; throw us all on the chart of how we view the world and we form the classic bell curve. Interestingly, this man may just be the one to ring that bell. He has the intellect, common sense and worldliness that this country has been longing for. Like recently here in San Jose, people instinctively recognize common sense, intelligence and integrity; and when combined with a dedication to the greater good, they’ll vote for it more often than not.
Oboma may not be experienced enough to lead the country at this early stage of his career, but like many of our country’s greatest heros and statesmen, timing and his courage may prove this wrong.
Nice post SG
Single Gal – I share your enthusiasm for Mr. Obama’s candidacy. I had the chance to meet Mr. Obama last Saturday evening and it’s clear that he has some personal magnetism that will be quite appealing to young people. The challenge for Mr. Obama will be how to turn this “rock star” dynamism into actual votes come Election Day.
Howard Dean was just the last presidential candidate who inspires the young yet fails to win over their parents. In 1976, it was Mo Udall. In 1980, it was Ted Kennedy. In 1984 and 1988, it was Gary Hart. Only in 1992 did a rock star candidate go on to win the nomination and the White House (thanks, of course, to Ross Perot.)
I find the entire Democratic field to be the best in a generation with many superior choices. But why the slap against Hillary Clinton? Despite some pretty long odds, she has become an outstanding senator with a legacy of progressive legislation and outstanding leadership on the very issues that you care so much about.
My advice is that you do some research on all of the candidates and take your time to make your presidential pick. You just might be surprised.
Getting away from the mission statement of SJI—“a look at inside San Jose politics and culture.” There was quite a discussion over this a few months ago, you might refer to Jack Van Zandt’s posts from that time.
As for Obama, glad you find him so exciting; I think he’s too inexperienced to seriously be considered for the top post.
Please clarify your statement :Yet, those same leaders are the ones who cast veterans aside once they return home. Shouldn’t both parties be held accountable for this, depending on who was in power during or after which war we’ve been involved in?
Let’s keep this discussion on the same notch, local, where we can have the most influence.
Obama is a very charismatic person, who impresses all of the liberals who don’t like Hillary Clinton. He has struck a chord with a certain element of the electorate and is giving Hillary Clinton fits. Hillary thought she had the nomination locked up but she’ll have to fight for it.
But I don’t see anything in Obama but the same tired old liberal rhetoric tarted up in a new package. Obama is new on the national scene so perhaps he does not remember the 1993 World Trade Center attach, the bombing of the African embassies or the attack on the USS Cole, all of which occurred on Clinton’s watch. All Bill did was fire off a couple of cruise missiles into the desert and declare victory. This, of course, led to 9/11 and the murder of almost 3,000 innocents in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. I don’t want a president who will ignore the threat to this county posed by radical Islam.
There is nobody in California who will argue that the Iraq war went perfectly. But consider the following quote from Peter Wehner:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415
“Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, ‘I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.’”
Remember that Saddam was considered a threat before Bush became president:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
But since what James Taranto calls the Angry Left has a pathological obsession against George Bush, all of the bipartisan concern with Iraq and Islamic terrorism has gone by the wayside, replaced by a determination to make Bush look bad even if it will hurt the USA in the long run. This could very well come back and bite a president Obama or Clinton in the behind during the next few years, because we’re roughly in the same place as America was in the late 1930s, when another intolerant ideology was on the rise. Not confronting Hitler early on ultimately caused more death and destruction later on. The same will be true with the fight against Islamic fascism.
Question for all of the liberals out there: If fundamentalist Christians are so awful, how come you overlook the threat posed by fundamentalist Muslims who go around killing innocents? I, for one, have no desire to live under Sharia law and I would think that the secular left would share in that concern. But instead, they ignore it and bleat about how Bush Lied.
Obama does not seem to get this, so I will not vote for him. I’m in Rudy’s camp.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT HOW A PERSON WILL PERFORM IN THE FUTURE BUT THE CLOSEST PREDICTOR IS THEIR PAST PERFORMANCE. THAT IS WHY COLLEGES REQUIRE HIGH SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS. THAT IS WHY JOB APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE REFERENCES AND JOB HISTORIES NOT TO MENTION CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT IS AN EXECUTIVE POSITION AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE A PROVEN RECORD SUCH AS A GOVERNOR OR A CEO OF A SUCCESSFUL COMPANY. A CAREER RECORD AS A LEGISLATOR DOES NOT QUALIFY A PERSON FOR THE TOP JOB. LEGISLATORS MAKE LAWS THEY DON’T EXECUTE THEM. OBAMA AND HILLARY FOR THAT MATTER, DON’T HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE PRESIDENT ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE POPULAR
AND SPEAK WELL.
SG,
About a year ago, when Obama was beginning to shine, the media asked Bill Clinton what he thought about the new rising star in the Democratic Party. Bill responded with comments almost verbatim to your post. However, Mr. Clinton finished by saying; and I quote “I just hope he doesn’t run too soon”
Look for a real cat fight within the Democratic Party in the months to come. Also, keep in mind that there are few places like the bay area where the voters are able to look beyond the color of one’s skin.
Like you, I think Obama would make an excellent president. The question is: Can he raise enough money to challenge Hillary and Gore? In addition to raising the money needed to run a viable campaign, can he get past the status quo?
While I agree that Obama has injected some fresh energy into the grueling campaign for the nomination, I guess I am less hopeful than you. Those of us who grew up with our hopes being constantly dashed (Gene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, George McGovern) have learned not to get too excited any more—at least not this early in the process. Let’s see what happens. This country doesn’t usually select people based on what they say or even their core beliefs—we select more on how they look, how are they “packaged” by their handlers, etc. Howard Dean melted-down because the public had a problem with his “scream.” Could we be any more shallow than to select or not select someone because of the “scream.”
And of course it matters which party they represent. Both parties have problems but are we to actually believe that you think an Obama would even get this far in the current Republican party? Not in this Republican party.
We have a lot of growing up to do as a nation. Can Obama accelerate that curve? We’ll see, but I have my doubts.
I am also an Obama fan. #3 David D. It is refreshing to hear your thoughts being a Republican. I hope we can move this this country forward without dwelling on the letter next to the candidate’s name. I think Obama can help to clean DC up by not being attached to old political rivalries and bitterness. Similarly, I hope San Jose, with an injection of young leadership at the Council level in CH, can move beyond old bitterness and rivalries that make our political landscape mud laden. Again, if we cast aside labels on focus on issues, we can move the city forward along with the nation.
Addressing the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, Barak Obama said this:
“The world must work to stop Iran‘s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.”
Sound familiar? Though he didn‘t exactly use the term Axis of Evil, it is quite apparent that when it comes to securing Jewish financial and political support, Barak Obama will stoop as low as necessary—even to the point of pandering to traitors and embracing the disgraced and failed policies of Bush‘s Neo-cons. NO OPTION, including MILITARY ACTION, off the table!
Seems to me that America‘s “new voice” is a well-trained parrot. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy? A fair-minded interpretation would conclude that he‘s referring to Israel, a nation founded on the terror of racists and theocrats, one that has covertly constructed hundred of nukes, kidnapped and imprisoned one of its own for opposing this escalation of the arms race, and to date has not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty (though Iran has). But no, this presidential hopeful addressed AIPAC, AS WILL EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE, to assure them that it is Iran that scares us; Iran—a nation that lacks both the bomb and the delivery system.
But of course, as Obama pointed out earlier in his speech, Iran‘s Ahmadinejad has hosted holocaust deniers—as if that has anything to do with America (a nation that, thanks to the Constitution, hosts people with all opinions). Are you ready to fight and kill (or send your child to do so) to defend one particular version of EUROPEAN history? Or one particular version of ANYTHING?
Why any informed, patriotic American would vote for a candidate who treats AIPAC as anything other than a house of traitors, racists, and spies (two of whom—former leaders—are under indictment) dedicated to putting American military power (and American lives) into the service of Israel, is beyond me. But there he was, dutifully repeating his lines and offering for peanuts—admittedly, lots of peanuts—our future.
Since we’re talking about presidential politics, here’s something to think about. Fewer and fewer people in this country bother to vote in elections. At the same time, the campaign season gets longer every cycle, and now is approaching two years. By the time the general election rolls around, people are fed up with politicians and just stay home.
Coincidence? I think not.
We need to shorten the political season, not lengthen it.
This could be bad news for Obama: The last time SG swooned over a politician she sang the praises of Gavin Newsom.
#5—I wondered when someone would complain about “getting away from the mission statement”. I happen to agree with Tip O’Neill when he said “all politics is local”. And what’s the the condescending tone, “you might refer to Jack Van Zandt’s posts from that time”.. like she doesn’t read this blog… sheesh.
As for, “Please clarify your statement: Yet, those same leaders are the ones who cast veterans aside once they return home. Shouldn’t both parties be held accountable for this, depending on who was in power during or after which war we’ve been involved in?” I’ll take a shot at clarifying it of that’s OK…
Let’s see. Right wing neocons (and they know who they are) get us into a war based on falsehoods and then when those of us who oppose the war complain about its very real human cost (both to soldiers and Iraqi civilians) we’re portrayed as not supporting the troops, even though we want nothing more than to support them by bringing them home and getting them out of the line of fire in a civil war.
Sooooo, as neocons march to their drumbeat of “support the troops, support the troops”, they in fact are allowing those very troops who were injured in this ill-conceived war to SUFFER at medical facilities that the Bush Administration allowed to deteriorate. So the HYPOCRISY of said administration to INSINCERELY talk about supporting the troops while casting veterans aside when they return home speaks volumes about them.
There, I feel better…
“Both parties have problems but are we to actually believe that you think an Obama would even get this far in the current Republican party? Not in this Republican party.”
Choice.
Not As Hopeful,
Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice aren’t black? Or in your eyes are they considered not black or somehow less black than Obama? Please explain this to me.
Not As Hopeful,
Can you tell me why Obama last year actively campaigned *against* an excellent *black* Republican candidate who was running for US senate in Maryland?
And then there’s Obama’s voting record.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16935220.htm
On the Democratic side, the analysis of “lifetime” voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99.
The lifetime liberal scores for the other Democrats:
On the Democratic side, the analysis of “lifetime” voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99.
-Kucinich, 79.4
-Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, 79.2
-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 78.8
-Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 76.8
So Obama is to the left of Dennis Kucinich?
Who knew that it was even *possible* to be further left than Kucinich?
Will Obama come to discover that he’s muslim after getting elected president? Like John Kerry and Madeline Albright’s discovering that they were Jewish.
I’d like to learn more about Mr. Obama…more than what you get from the soundbites.
I am reflexively against Hillary, as are many of the people I know, Dems. & Reeps, men and women. So, The Reeps should cheer Hilary on, since it betters their chance to retain the White House.
Obama cannot possibly raise $100 million, which is the minimum entry fee these days. If nothing else, Ol’ Dixie just ain’t changed near enough to let that happen. Hillary refused public $$, since it limits candidates to a paltry spending sum—somewhere in the $70 million range, as I recall.
As for Refreshing #10’s wistful hope—” I think Obama can help to clean DC up”—fuggedaboutit!! It’s beyond cleaning. We can improve it, but absent another Boston Tea Party and a clean sweep, the military industrial lobbyist complex has won.
15 – I’ll make it as simple as I can for you. My comments were about ideas, NOT color. Obama probably campaigned against the candidate you site for the same reason. Many of us actually base our decisions on ideas of substance rather than the color of the candidate. You should try it.
11 – As usual, FF manages to lower the discussion to one of racist and anti-semitic tirades. It’s not worth the time to refute what somebody like him (her?) says because they don’t want to be educated. S/he is steeped in the sterotypes and slurs of like-minded individuals who get off calling other names and distorting history.
I assume, since you negate AIPAC’s status due to an indictment of an individual, that you will also renounce the Republican party with equal vitriol due to their indictments and convictions (with more to come)??
Difference of opinion is fine. Your attack on Israel, AIPAC, and Jews is a pathetic display of your ongoing blather that you pollute this blog with. But, you certainly have a right to say it and show the rest of us your true colors.
Enjoyed your post #15, the stats are great.
Not so fast Not So Hopeful,
Let’s go to the tape.
“Both parties have problems but are we to actually believe that you think an Obama would even get this far in the current Republican party? Not in this Republican party.”
You just smeared the Republican party of being racist.
I just gave you examples of *great* success stories – black men and women whom started from humble beginnings and have ascended to the highest political offices in the US.
How many such examples can the “first black president” lay claim to? Name one.
But back to Obama and his ideas over color.
Consider this:
“Prominent black Democrats in the county broke party ranks this week to support Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, the Republican nominee and the first black elected statewide in Maryland. The Democratic crossovers have accused party officials of repeatedly snubbing the black community and their county.”
But Obama went against the community and backed the Democrat machine’s candidate.
Ideas over color indeed.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20061101-120027-8396r.htm
Doesn’t this all ring familiar?
Obama’s actions are exactly what we saw when Clinton came in here and supported Cindy Chavez.
To think that Obama isn’t part and parcel of the machine is absolutely ludicrous.
Not So Hopeful,
Or should I say, Not So Honest? Indicted:
Steven J. Rosen, AIPAC Director of Foreign Policy Issues.
Keith Weissman, Senior AIPAC Analyst, Middle East Policies.
Since I didn’t, as you alleged, base anything on the “indictment of an individual,” then it is you who have distorted history. The case is no run-of-the-mill corruption case, as you duplicitously suggested; it is the culmination of a five-year long surveillance of the top officials of an organization—one with a long history of promoting brutality against Israel’s neighbors and undermining American diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, and involves dealing in US defense secrets.
As Graham Fuller, former vice-chair at CIA stated just prior to the onset of this last investigation as he explained eroding relations with Tehran, “… efforts to portray Iran with some analytical balance have grown more difficult, crowded out by inflamed rhetoric and intense pro-Israeli lobbying against Tehran in Congress.”
Click here for an example of how the organization you defend dealt with a member of Congress who had the decency—look up that word—to oppose AIPAC’s brutal agenda.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19063
Your move, Hopeful. Why don’t you illuminate us by sharing an example of how AIPAC has been good for America. Or, don’t you care about America?
As usual, FF (or should I say ff) you like to have it both ways. I did not “defend” AIPAC. I merely asked if you would apply the same standard to attacking the Republican party the same way you attack AIPAC. Hardly a defense—simply asking for fairness. Of course you ignored that.
You also seem to use the same tactics that Rep. McCollum accuses AIPAC of using by basically saying she supports terrorists. You do the same when you foolishly ask “don’t you care about America.”
So, get back to your keyboard so you can find something else to bolster your case and justify your tirades. Enjoy living in your world. The rest of ours will work to make ours better and we won’t have to do it by attacking others.
FF #20.
That dog won’t hunt.
Google: Betty McCollum cair
A cursory glance shows that she’s joined at the hip with CAIR – an Islamic pressure group with lots of ties to extremists.
Google: cair terrorism
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18000
CAIR is nothing less than ACLU for Islamic extremism.
Well, I’ll admit… Obama’s style and manner of speaking has great appeal (no need to unpack that), but he hasn’t revealed much about how he intends to address the issues. What specifically are you excited about? We, the voters, got ourselves into this mess by not looking past the veneers and sound bites.
Look! Over there Single Gal… It’s something shiny!
#15: the “analysis” done by the National Journal that you cite really didn’t say much… The study’s authors couldn’t really compare apples to apples in this case. After all, how can anyone REALLY compare a first-term senator’s “lifetime” voting record (the authors only looked at what the members have done since coming to Washington) with a longer-term member of the House; the issues are different, the times are different, in Kucinich’s case, his voting record is different now than it was when he was first elected to the Congress. You could make a comparison, but it would be like comparing Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa. Different issues, different times.
Good post. New energy and blood are always good. I just hope he isn’t a bright shooting star that burns out too quickly.
The democratic party could benefit from getting away from howard dean. He should just be given a job announcing WWF events.
“It’s like a real human being has stepped through the vail of political rhetoric and shed the cloak of partisan and divisive sound bites and actually connects with people.”
#3 The quintessence of a metrosexual hardon.
Great post SG.
#4 Clark:
Why the slap against Hillary?
This anti-war protest sign says it all:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tejana/426325309/
GOBama,
Although I relied on a different source than you did, I checked your link and found the transcript to be the same. Here is the passage:
“Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald…”
Here’s a suggestion: dissect what he said, rather than deny it. History repeating itself? Does Obama really believe that Ahmadinejad, or the nation of Iran, possesses a Holocaust-level threat to Israel? If he does, his thinking is Bush-level delusional or dumb. If he doesn’t believe it, then he is simply just another saber-rattling, pandering politician willing to trade American diplomatic capital for lobbyist dollars.
And since you are obviously no fan of “Bush’s Neo-cons,” you need to know that Obama’s audience at AIPAC are the very power behind the neocon movement (they play both sides of the political fence in service to Israel).
Obama’s pointedly commenting that military action remains an option may sound, to those dazzled beyond cognition, like diplomacy, but to the rest of us it is a bald threat by a wannabe armchair bombardier. And for what? To punish Ahmadinejad for his rhetoric? To violate Iran’s sovereignty and our own values to defend Israel’s collective feelings?
Are you so easily led that it takes only a cartoon villain and a little bit of disinformation to convince you it’s time to bomb? First it was Iran’s alleged nuclear plans that required our bombs. Next, as the first justification began to fizzle, we learn of an alleged Iranian weapons supply line. What will follow is anyone’s guess: will it be our outrage over their treatment of women or the Iranian public’s burning desire to experience democracy?
You know, Obama was right about history repeating itself: we Americans are lining up to repeat our stupidity of five years ago.
#11 Finfan:
Where in Obama’s speech does he say “Ahmadinejad has hosted holocaust deniers”? There are 3 references to Ahmadinejad, but I see nothing about hosting holocaust deniers.
You completely distorted Obama’s speech. Obama is promoting diplomacy, a skill that Bush’s Neo-cons lack. If you had bothered to give his speech a fair-minded interpretation, you would have also posted this paragraph:
The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world’s best interests could help bring Iran to the table.
Iran is our problem when they supply materials for car bombs that kill our troops. We need a leader that will firmly deal with Iran, without sending 3223 more of our men and women to their death.
Yes, thanks to the Constitution and civil rights attorneys like Barak Obama, America can host people with opinions like yours. Next time post factual information.
#27 Novice
I deserve that. You are certainly entitled to your views on this and other subjects; as we all are. As much as we may disagree on some issues, we do have the right to share them in a free and open forum. Please… be feel free to express yourself without further unkind or derisive remarks from me. I look forward to you comments with sincere interest. Regards……
SG – you do realize that almost every head-to-head poll has Rudy Guiliani beating Barack Obama handily (with only Zogby being the outlier), do you not?
It’s not enough for Obama to merely win the Dem primary – he’ll have to win the general election as well.
And since the Clinton Slime Machine is gearing up to work on Obama 24/7 as we speak, were Obama to come out of the nomination fight as the victor, all the GOP frontrunner need do is keep up the pressure.
The Democrats won this last congressional election by basically promoting “nothing” over “something” – their basic stance was “We ain’t them!” And admittedly it was effective. That strategery doesn’t work for the Presidential election, though some would say it did in 1960.
Trust me – the person who will ascend to the Oval Office in 2009 isn’t even a declared candidate yet. Whomever that person is, will declare in about October or November or so, and try to ride the ‘rock star’ new candidate wave to the mega-primary in early February.
The two people to watch for this are former TN Senator (and current TV actor) Fred Dalton Thompson from the (R) side, and Algore from the (D) side.
Obama will go forward from this and probably win the governorship of Illinois, and will be in excellent position to run for the presidency again (quite possibly successfully) in 2016 or so.
Not So Hopeful,
Gee, sorry for assuming that your post was in defense of AIPAC. Maybe your point would’ve easier to understand if you’d done something more than framed my post as on-going, pathetic blather. Nevertheless, your comparing the AIPAC indictments to the typical corruption of our own political scoundrels is inexcusable; the mark of someone acting either in defense or out of ignorance. You choose.
As for questioning whether you care about America, I find it impossible to assume patriotism in the face of such contradictory evidence. I posted factual information of the type that deserved at best investigation, at worst indifference. But you chose to do neither, instead accusing me of distorting history and unfairly slurring an organization, nation, and race. That type of ad hominem attack—on the messenger rather than the message—is the trademark of those who defend Israel and Zionism even at the expense of America.
Novice: I don’t care if Betty McCollum is joined at the hip with Darth Vader, her position on HR 4681 was justifiable. Branding a recalcitrant legislator is standard AIPAC political terror, intended to put the offender on notice that his or her career is about to end. The longer real Americans tolerate the antics of these saboteurs in DC the sooner our nation will fall. Here’s a worthwhile piece on AIPAC from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold
Novice #15
Please, take your meds and get a good nights sleep. That late night radio is not good for your health.
You will know that Al Gore is seriously thinking about running for president when he begins loosing weight.
The moment this happens, he’s made his final decision.
This will be the BEST indicator of his presidential intentions.
#28 That anti-war protest sign doesn’t say jack.
This protest sign says it all:
http://zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2351.JPG
this one too:
http://zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2520.JPG
The whole shootin’ match of SF protest lunacy can be found at:
http://zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/
#34 Novice,
Nice pics.
Looks like you found FinFan too:
http://zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_8526.JPG
Another picture here too:
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rallies_june_5+6_2004/signs/126-2634_IMG.JPG
Bush and Cheney must be doing something right if they’re pissing off all of those SF liberals.
Re: #35,
Beware of those who would have you believe criticism that of AIPAC, Israel, the ADL, or any other Jewish organization is undeserved or sinister in a way that criticism of the Moral Majority, America, the Eagle Forum, or any other Christian organization is not. All organizations, nations, and causes are fair game, and those that try to shield themselves from criticism by demonizing their critics rather than justifying their behavior are those most deserving of skepticism and scrutiny.
36 – Yeah, they’ve done a lot right—if you think send more Americans to their deaths than those who died in 9.11 is right. They’re right if you think going to war on a lie is right and if you think supporting a lying Attorney General is right. They’re right if you think their handling of the Katrina disaster was right. Or if you think their issuing reports based on ideology rather than fact is OK. The list goes on and on. Yeah, they’re doing a lot right.