well...

i honestly dont know where he stands in regard to Israel. I honestly love how we stand side by side with them and take their side on everything and I think it brings out the vitriol and hatred in the Muslim nations so much so that they resort to violence (thus showing them to be in the wrong, since they should be trying to be peaceful right?). So if Obama is going to continue this tradition and not pull a Jimmy Carter then he might be viable.

I don't agree

I love individual Israelis, I have friends there... some on a kibbutz in the north. I have intense sympathy and pain for what they suffer from terrorism and/or Hezbollah.

However.

I do not "love how we stand side by side with them and take their side on everything." I don't think "tak[ing] their side on everything" is a valid or even a compassionate foreign policy. Nations, like people, can be very, very wrong sometimes. A true friend point that out.

The statement "it brings out the vitriol and hatred in the Muslim nations so much so that they resort to violence (thus showing them to be in the wrong, since they should be trying to be peaceful right?) is so silly I can only assume it was meant in jest...

well i thought

that anyone who resorted to violence (aside from being attacked first) was automatically in the wrong? That is how our society works and it one of the top 5 liberal tenets, is it not?

"top 5?"

The other four being... ?

I don't think you can break down the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into who was "attacked first." You may want to look into the history of the Irgun gang before Israeli statehood. Lots of blame to go around.

I strongly recommend that people avoid reaching for easy answers in this conflict.

Muslim's Hating...

" I think it brings out the vitriol and hatred in the Muslim nations so much so that they resort to violence (thus showing them to be in the wrong, since they should be trying to be peaceful right?). "

What doesn't bring out the hatred in the muslims so much that they resort to violence. Could you imagine a display being created that had muhamid in a vat of pee like they had of Jesus a couple years back? I don't recall any killings or lootings happening from the Christians after that one. But should a simple comic appear putting muhamid in a dark light the religion goes bonkers and starts a rampage of violence world-wide.

No, I don't think "osama" (as kennedy puts it) should be president, even if he is very popular among the liberals. They are quite known for constantly supporting the wrong person for the job. I don't think he is qualified to be the president of the US. Running chicago is one thing, but running the US is something totally different.

LIAMD

As usual you dont know what you are talking about

Do you EVER have even a dim idea what you are talking about? Piss Christ was not done by Muslims rather by a photo artist named Robert Maplethorpe. Jesus is considered a Holy Propeht in Islam. What doesnt make haters like YOU just lie and make things up about whoever its your turn to smear? It is clearly conservatives who are well known for supportin ignorant, lying, moronic candidates without a SHRED of integrity. Hey you ought to think about running.

you misread him solon

after throwing all your insults, you still misread the guy's post. His only fault was using poor grammar, he used a pronoun "they" to refer to the guy who made the artwork of Jesus, AFTER defining a noun, "muslims." I knew what he meant and from the context you can tell he wasn't accusing the muslims of making this painting, but I can see how it might be confusing.

Anyway his point is valid. If anyone does anything but kiss muslim butt they got ballistic and cause violent riots. Yet for some reason liberals find Christians to be the most intolerant group when muslims will kill gays and oppress women all day long and make it a matter of law.

SOLON:

The art in question was by Andres Serrano (not Maplethorpe), and it indeed depicted a society in which the most pious are "pissing" on the message and the meaning of Jesus Christ (Bush, Robertson, Falwell, the list is long of those who claim to "speak" for Christ, yet live their lives full of arrogance, greed, dishonesty, and even bloodlust.)

The art and thus the MESSAGE is a compelling one to contemplate, as we now celebrate CONSUMERISM ("Go out and SHOP!") while our soldiers are dying for the greed of a lying "born again" leader. As in all good art, this particular piece was loathed by the same folks who would reject the image within a mirror.

There it is, folks...

This is likely how the troglodytes will come at Obama, just in case he is the candidate in 2008. They will appeal to the racist underpennings of the Republican Party, with a little xenophobia and Religious Correctness thrown in.

Nerzog

The "Troglodytes", as you refer to them, have said nothing. This columnist has her own opinion and speaks for herself, nobody else. For you to extrapolate her views on anyone else is unfair, unless they specifically say they agree with her.

For the record, I do not.

Tommy I disagree slightly

I have heard from many sites and sources about conservatives attacking minoritys and especially Muslims. I remember not to long ago something Savage said about Keith Ellison and the Quran. Think Progress has an article about Virgil Goode (R-VA) and his racist remarks towards muslims. I am beginning many on the right have alligned themselves with these racist individuals and it can not be ignored. Just look at freerepublic.com and you will seem many posters making derogatory remarks about muslims. I find it hard to believe that their are many conservatives who are defending muslims; other than you.

Barry

It isn't about anyone other than this woman and her opinion. Everyone has one, and even though her's may be way off base and unfair, in my opinion, she is entitled to it. As are people who disagree with her.

But to make some blanket statement condemning anyone on the right is equally unfair. That is my point. Take her to task on her column, but only her.

I Understand

And it should also apply to the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Beck and everyone else. They speak for only themselves. It's not like there has been an orchestrated effort underway to vilify every Democrat (except for Leiberman), most patriots who've voiced opposition to the War in Iraq and anyone who disagrees with the powers that be.

I'd agree with you 100 % Tommy, in a perfect world. But todays world reality is redefined everyday on talk radio and on Fox News and even CNN. Patriotism is defined today by people who've been hiding behind it and the flag for almost 6 years now. There is a chorus of right wing nonsense coming from every direction. There is a huge problem. Where do we go from here?

Worrier

To answer your "where do we go from here" question, I have said this for along time.

Ignore it.

Highlighting it only lends it legitimacy. People who write or spout this stuff need the publicity and the recognition otherwise they have nothing. Ignoring it renders it meaningless and useless. No columnist of blabberer ever wants to be that.

Ignoring these bullies doesn't work

It's been proven that simply ignoring the idiocy from these pundits just doesn't work. For 12 years, there was a concentrated effort to demonize anything left of center. "Liberal" is now a word of spite even AMONG those on the left (I know many left-leaners who would curse you if you dared called them a "liberal").

The Democratic Party tried ignoring lies and slander in 2004, and a war veteran was trumped by a boy king who mysteriously vanished during his stateside duty in the VietNam war. These pundits aren't just calling names - if it were limited to that, ignoring them MAY just work - these pundits are instead distorting reality in massive doses, and convincing the voting public (who are unable or completely unwilling to do their own research for the Truth) that lies are Truth.

Sincerely, I believe that law suits have been warranted, and the "liberal Democrats" have been dropping the ball when they've pretended to take the higher ground by ignoring the offenses instead of attacking them head-on. There's a reason the Democratic party is seen as spineless -- it has yet to prove otherwise when the less moral members of the Republican party actively lie, cheat and steal in order to achieve their objectives.

Absolutely

Some of the right wing media people have said that since no one is contesting what they say, it must be true. Limbaugh, Coulter and many others have said this. No more lying down for right wing lies.

Worrier

Right wing "lies" are one thing. Right wing "opinions" are another. Answer the lies with the truth, that is understandable. Answering opinions with one name call after another, as some here do, only increases the decibel level and accomplishes nothing.

when they are based on lies, knowingly, they ARE lies

only obfuscators and idiots could think they could fool other people by deflecting from that.

although

when Lieberman ran as VP under Gore, the Repubs criticized/questioned his Jewish faith.

Sorry Tommy I take it back

Upon seeing this thread I was sure a hundred of conservative blogs would come to Debbie's rescue, however that does not seem to be the case at all. MMFA has just provided a link to some of the conservative blogs condemming Ms.Schlussel's statements. I think I let my prejudices get in the way of my brain...lol. I understand your point and I apologize

Barry

Nothing to apologize for.

Just curious, Tommy

what position did you take when conservatives were railing against the hollywood elite for voicing their opinions in public?

Snoopy

Much ado about nothing. The "Hollywood" elite are also a favorite punching bag of the right and it's just silly. They have no more influence over the public as anyone else - they just make movies or TV show. Who cares?

They have a right to voice their opinion, as do those who disagree with them. Ideologues from both sides love these demons they can sling arrows at, it makes them feel superior or something. I have no problem with any Hollywood type saying what they want.........if it hurts or helps them, it's their business.

good for you!

Too bad most don't think that way.

You're right...

I'm jumping to conclusions. However, I am basing this on past experience with the professional liars like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. This looks like a trial balloon to me, but this person could just be another kook pundit like Savage or Coulter; I've never heard of her. We'll see if this line of attack has legs. It could easily turn out to be one of those "unofficial" subtexts, sort of like the Swift Boat Liars. The Republican candidate would disown it, of course, but the GOP Flying Monkeys would be busily spreading it like manure on a corn field.

Nerzog

In my opinion, if there is some orchestrated effort to bash Obama out there, anywhere - it will backfire. People don't like it if it looks as though someone is being piled on, especially unfairly. The public sympathy will turn to Obama and he will come out looking like the one who rose above the scum and slime, particularly if the slamming of him is based on his name or his religion, and not specific issues or his backround/experience.

Well, I hope you're right.

My cynical side says don't count on it, but my much-diminished optimistic side is ever-hopeful that the American public won't be fooled again by that kind of hate-mongering.

Nerz, look her up on wikipedia

According to the bio, she's 2nd in marketshare behind Ann Coulter, and if you check her site out, you will find she thinks she personally hurt a coffee importer - something about she revealed some sort of muslim support link and all.

While I understand Tommy and would like to see her ignored, that's not the problem. People like me are and never will be part of the fan base that keeps her on the air. As long as she has a platform to spout her views entirely unopposed, that's the problem. Her base don't look for all the facts to make a decision, they look for someone to support what they have been thinking all along. She's reinforcing their ignorance, and that's the entire problem.

And

what a bigoted and ugly opinion it is. It simultaneously saddens me and pisses me off that these people have no moral boundaries. I mean she reached into a sewage strewn gutter for these turds here. And why don't these bigots cut the BS and go record with the truth, which is they hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. What a nasty little witch she is.

hahahahaha

While I mostly agree with your opinion, I am a witch myself, and take offense to being put in such company. How dare you sink so low as to belittle my religion!!! just kidding. while I am Wiccan, some people have a sense of humor.

Lynn, check this opinion out.

Yesterday on Fox News, talk radio host Mike Gallagher said the U.S. government should “round up” actor Matt Damon, “The View” host Joy Behar, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and “put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they’re a bunch of traitors.”

So I guess this means they can say anything they want about liberals in the name of free speech, but liberals aren't afforded anything near that same freedom. Zeig Heil!

We (liberals) could talk that kinda backward violent smack.

But we don't.

This is a COLUMNIST ...

... who speaks for herself.

Just as Robert Novak was "just a columnist" who was fed propaganda, briefed, wound up and set in motion by Karl Rove.

Just as Armstrong Williams (and a host of others) are "just columnists" who accept cash to present a public point of view utilizing their high profile and syndicated forums.

There is no such thing, in this age of rightwing message control, as "just a columnist". They are all soldiers in the rightwing propaganda war, and it's beyond reasonable to consider that THEIR message is the official one to be pursued in an organized campaign of smear propaganda promoted from the very top. The EVIDENCE shows this to be true; protests to the contrary are only reminiscent of the Reagan notion of "plausible deniability" ... the right wishes to SMEAR in tandem, yet individually be able to DENY the conspiracy. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

Nerzog's right.

>>"They will appeal to the racist underpennings of the Republican Party, with a little xenophobia and Religious Correctness thrown in"<<

I agree. But it will be done in such a subtle, Rove-like way that there will be enough plausible deniability-of-racism available for a rebuttal.

Such as was the case with Kerry, Dukakis, et al. In response you'll hear, 'I'm not questioning ____'s patriotism, but.....' (the keyword being "but").

Turning Obama's appeal into negatives. That's the Rove Way.

yep, won't be long before we have 'Muslim ONLY' fountains

and restrooms. And of course the tommy-boys will all claim it is only 'natural'.

It's closer than you think...

[link to thinkprogress.org]

Wow

Another Rove-paranoia leftist. His clout and stature is really rising these days considering his monumental failures of the recent elections and Bush's tanked poll numbers.

Don't you think it's time to get a new punching bag to demonize? This one ain't got any stuffing left.

Aware----not paranoid.

>>Another Rove-paranoia leftist.<<

I'm another Rove/Atwater-aware & wary leftist.

My experience going back to Dukakis (and George H.W.'s 'I'm not questioning my opponent's patriotism') has made me very aware of just how low the right will stoop.

It's already started. Schlussel is the latest, early example. There'll be more to come, but a vigilance upon the media will help to curtail it. With people taking action, instead of sitting idly by, we might here something about Obama's positions on ISSUES, rather than how big his ears are.

Good

With Obama being the latest political media darling, his book is a bestseller and he is most likely one of the more coveted and sought after guests on the circuit these days......then he should have absolutely no problem in getting out there and fully explaining his position on a wide variety of relevant issues of the day.

No columnist will be able to derail or stop him from being forthcoming and upfront on those positions.

The ball is definitely in his court.

It's about influence.

>>"No columnist will be able to derail or stop him from being forthcoming and upfront on those positions."<<

No one has said or is saying "columnists will derail Obama from talking." Straw man....

The real matter here is will influential columnists, writers and pundits---people who shape public opinions and opinions of other writers---stick to ISSUES or will they write TRASH like Schussel. There's not a word in Schussel's column about Obama's position on any issue. Anyone who's been around here for awhile knows that today it's Schussel, tomorrow it's Hannity, and the next day it's Broder, Brooks and Lowry.

What issues?

---There's not a word in Schussel's column about Obama's position on any issue.---

Does she know what his issues are? Do you? Does Obama?

This is a canard

It's not that hard to find out what a given senator stands for. The fact that the media is lazy and focuses on "People magazine" issues (the ears, middle name, etc.) means you have to do a little research.

You can start with his website, which is (as all senators' websites) a little bit heavy on the rhetoric:

[link to obama.senate.gov]

The idea that the guy has no record is a canard. He makes votes, he gives speeches. You just have to check it out.

Thanks, V

I should have thought of that. Will check it out and then compare it to his voting record.

Yes I do

I fail to see how Yurstoopid is our problem

DAVE:

It's an old TRIAL technique, and it's used to almost exclusive excess by the "Rovians".

The idea is to FRAME. Get the discussion OFF the issues and ON non-issues of controversy. The Rightwing does not want Obama discussing ISSUES ... that will INCREASE his popularity, and thus destroy the rightwing's wish to destroy Obama.

So what they WANT Obama doing is DEFENDING HIMSELF, talking incessently about being Moslem, or NOT being Moslem (the TRUTH doesn't matter, it's CONTROLLING THE DISCUSSION which matters).

Get the opposition so busy DENYING things, he doesn't have time to promote his positive agenda.

Ah, but if he decides to IGNORE the distractions, that works equally well. THEN, the lies and propaganda are promoted as TRUTH ... because the target doesn't DENY them strongly enough (note Kerry and the "Swift Boaters").

As a tactic, it is considered a "win-win" for the smearing propagandists ... it works whether it is joined or not joined.

At least, it worked until the latest election, where the lying propagandists in the GOP were handed a resounding defeat.

That just makes him a bigger threat and a bigger target...

Even the most popular Democratic politician can be whittled away piece by piece when the opposition has unlimited propaganda resources. Look what they did to Gore and Kerry. Granted, Gore and Kerry were never that popular to begin with, but we have almost two years...they can do a lot of whittling in that amount of time.

Yes, but it can backfire...

Think about the right-wing attacks on Nancy Pelosi for being too "emotional" in her decision-making. A lot of professional women who are on the fence politically are being turned off by that sort of rhetoric.

The same can happen with Obama. There are many people who consider themselves "conservatives" who are repelled by this sort of overt racism (look at MM's compilation of right-wing bloggers criticizing Schlussel).

And while there may be many Americans who are scared of Muslim terrorists, the number who are scared of Muslim congressmen is small indeed.

I say we provoke them to do even more of this stuff. Say it everywhere you can: "Barack Hussein Obama!"

Right...

...because people always tend to focus on the relevant issues of the day as opposed to all the inconsequential nonsense, unsubstantiated personal attacks and character assassinations that get thrown out and repeated ad infinitum by every wingnut with access to a computer or a microphone. No matter what Obama says, there will still be a significant (and noisy) part of the population that will dwell on his race, his religious background, his ears and any other irrelevancy they can come up with as a distraction.

The media will define the narrative

In 2000, Gore was about earth tones and "invented the internet." None of his substantive positions were heard above the media din.

Seriously - nobody even got a chance to disagree with the guy. Social Security? Environment? No, let's talk about the sighing.

It will be the same with Obama. The media will pick a narrative and run with it. And that will be all the electorate will hear.

Tommy

Rove may be gone but he has created a nasty political tricks tradition, and they’re many who will try to repeat Roves political success’s using the same tactics that Rove copied from the infamous Lee Atwater’s. Atwater’s been dead a while but he left his legacy with KR, hopefully KR will repent like Atwater felt compelled to do for his sinful ways. KR owes the country an apology for pulling it into the political gutter, but I won’t hold my breath waiting on that. I hope that people have tired of the political ugliness, but I think Rove's contribution to the political process will live for a while. This is not paranoia talking this is reality.

Lynn

Paranoia is being afraid of something that poses no threat. Rove is impotent and poses no threat. If there is some underling down the road that acts like his clone someday, then he or she can be dealt with then.

Until then, Rove's influence is nonexistant. Just look at his recent bunglings for proof of that.

Rove's influence is not nonexistant...

...just look at the article you're posting under now. You're arguing that Rove himself is no longer a threat based on the last election, but Lynn and others are pointing out that his tactics live on. That's not paranoia, it's just a fact. And assuming you've read article, that fact is self-evident.

Ridiculous

Since when does Karl Rove own an exclusive patent on smearing political opponents? He may be a recent and well known example, but this kind of political gamesmanship has been going on for centuries by countless political advisors from both sides - and will continue most likely long after Rove is history.

Unless this woman specifically gives credit to Rove for her opinions, your supposition is baseless.

You're the one being ridiculous...

This woman doesn't have to cite Rove as a specific influence on her tactics in order for anyone to refer to those tactics as "Rovian." Karl Rove didn't invent the playbook, but he successfully executed it for years, and the Right will naturally abide by that model for as long as it works.

Go for it

Demonizing Rove is like the left still demonizing Nixon. It's irrelevant, a waste of time, past it's prime, and sorely out of date. Keep it up if that's all you've got, but you just look silly.

You're shifting the argument...

For a while now (not just this thread) you've been relentlessly trying to frame this debate as "the left pointlessly demonizing Karl Rove," but it's just not working. Yes, we all know that Rove is out of favor since the last election, but that's completely beside the point. In this thread Dave_Chicago referred only to "a subtle, Rove-like way" and "the Rove way," while Lynn cited the Rove "tradition" with the full acknowledgement that Rove himself had followed in the footsteps of Lee Atwater.

If you can't tell the difference then you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or you are deliberately misrepresenting the entire debate.

I'm shifting?

You are a piece of work. There is nothing in this article or this thread about Rove, yet you and your fellow liberals want to make it about him........and I am shifting the argument? Now that is rich.

Do you even read your posts and examine their content before hitting the "post" button.

Beat up on Rove all you want, he's off topic actually and irrelevant to this thread.........and me.

I see the problem now...

I think it's your concrete thinking getting in the way again. Maybe I'm giving you too much the benefit of the doubt here, but I think you may honestly be unable to see the difference between "Rovian" and "Rove" or "Nixonian" and "Nixon."

So as is often the case, we come to an impass, where you're absolutely positive that you've won an argument, while everyone who is capable of abstract thought can plainly see that you're wrong.

Clams

Considering you make no sense, and the topic has veered away from it's content..........yes, we are at an impass.

To argue Rove vs Rovian or Roveisms or Rove-like or some other nonsense with you is a dismal prospect, at best.

It's a "dismal prospect"...

...only in that you've clearly demonstrated that you really don't know the difference between "Rovian" and "Rove." Schlussel's column is Rovian. Schlussel doesn't have to mention Rove and she doesn't have to be connected to Rove in any way shape or form in order to make that observation valid and completely on topic.

No, Clams is right on this one

No one has talked directly about Rove. The offending comment was "...it will be done in such a subtle, Rove-like way..."

I feel the man has had a sufficient impact on American political life to merit adjectival status.

He makes

Perfect sense and is making a valid point

Rove lost one election

And now he's Nixon?

Nixon has been out of office for thirty-two years, and dead for 12.

I think you are reaching a bit with this comparison...

VALENTINIAN:

The Right does not wish to discuss the past, or history, or the concrete examples of the behavior of their "champions".

The discredited, dishonest, even criminal Rightwingers are "old news" as soon as they have fallen out of favor, and thus are "irrelevant" and can no longer be mentioned. It's like a Rightwing shunning, which prevents the Rightwing being reminded about any historic examples of their dishonesty, treachery, or foul tactics.

It serves Tommy well to have a "never look back" mindset, unwilling to even acknowledge ROVE was in charge of propaganda through 12 years of GOP Congressional control and 6 years of TOTAL governmental control with Bush at the helm.

It's all old stuff, move on. Don't mention Rove, he no longer matters.

"Sure, I committed adultery last night, but this is TODAY ... you can't look at past behavior!" (try this one on your wife, see if it flies!)

Tommy WISHES to simply forgive and forget Rightwing patterns, EVEN AS THEY CONTINUE. He may WISH it, but the "record" is always relevant. Criminals, errant teens, and folks who have messed up badly honestly HOPE for the past to simply be forgotten. There is an ongoing price for one's actions, Tommy, and the Rightwing has not yet BEGUN to pay that price. Sorry.

tommy - Misreading what people have said

Unless this woman specifically gives credit to Rove for her opinions, your supposition is baseless. - from tommy

Are you reading what's actually been said? No one, from Dave_Chicago's post on, has blamed Rove for Schlussel's blather. Dave_Chicago referred to the tactic as "Rove-like" and no one else has gone beyond that. If you want to say that the style of attack is NOT Rove-like you could have something to discuss. If not, Rove's current status in the power structure is completely irrelevant to what everyone else is stating.

It's the style, not the man being referrenced.

No misreading

Please, Rove is so irrationally despised from the left, and still is even though he's but a blip anymore, that it is just hysterical. Even though he is hardly a footnote these days, the left still acts like he has some granddaddy influence over anything - and there is no proof he has. Quite the opposite with his recent public failures.

Yet he is still the favorite punching bag, and why? Because he is any easy target, I guess. Better turn your darts away from him or another "Rove-like" will be right behind him gathering steam ready - and where will you all be then? Still blubbering about Karl Rove.

It would still

be relevant to refer to something as "Nixonian," even though the man has been worm food since Ace of Base had a hit.

Something is really bugging you about this.

tommy - Brutally abusing logic

Please, Rove is so irrationally despised from the left, and still is even though he's but a blip anymore, that it is just hysterical. - from tommy

Irrationally despised? I don't think so. His dishonest, immoral past actions have earned him every bit of disgust and dislike he receives. His current level of power has no effect on that.

I see very few suggesting he personally currently wields much power, but many are still influenced by the standards he set.

Better turn your darts away from him or another "Rove-like" will be right behind him gathering steam ready - and where will you all be then? Still blubbering about Karl Rove. - from tommy

Remembering the depths to which Rove was willing to sink will make us unprepared for another slime artist? I don't think so. Remembering the past will keep us aware and proactive on dealing with future strategists who apply Rove-like tactics.

Remember the past to keep from repeating it. Rove's tactics worked many times in many places over many years. If Rove vanished from the earth today we would still see some applying the methods he devised and refined. I have no faith that the slime attack has ceased to have influence on people's opinions.

It's the machine.

I agree totally.

It takes a Schussel to push the envelope that other right-wingers won't. Once Schussel has broken the media ice and openly fearmongered about Obama's Muslim connection, others will pick it up. Soon this will be the evening's topic on HANNITY&colmes. Then, a few days later, it's being discussed by the supposedly wise, sane pundits on Meet the Press. (I can already hear Russert intoning, "IS Obama's heritage ...an issue ...in the campaign?....")

It's already happening.

Caught part of Hannity's radio show the other day. (tuesday?) I heard about four minutes of the show, all I could stomach. The guest host asked the calller twice, who was calling from Illinois, if he was aware that Obama's middle name was Hussein?

It's here. They are scared out of their wits and can't refute the progressive message on its merits so they must impugn Obama's person.

and ignoring him will do what that is positive?

Give him more chances to destroy our country? While it is clear that would please you, others feel that ignoring criminals and traitors is not the best thing for a society of laws.

I agree with you on both points

Clinton wasnt really liberal he was moderate DLC and I consider the words liberal and progressive to be interchangeable. Its only rightwing propaganda that there is something wrong with being a liberal and anyone NOT a wingnut shouldnt buy into it.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Here comes the noise machine

Is there no way we can have an election in which the SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES are discussed, and not a man's name? I wanna know where Schlussel gets off making ad hominem attacks and questioning a U.S. Senator's loyalties... Even if he WAS a practicing Muslim, isn't our country founded on freedom of religion? She is saying that no Muslim would side AGAINST terrorists? Racist xenophobe is too polite a term to use, and that's without having to even resort to name-calling.

Nerzog hit it on the head...

Sorry, Tommy, but I think if you look at it objectively, you'll see that this is right out of the right-wing smear machine playbook. Limbaugh and others are already focusing on the "Hussein" thing ...

This is just the beginning ....

Well...

SOME folks are in a tizzy because Mitt Romney is a Mormon. And it was only 46 yrs ago that John F. Kennedy being a Catholic had some concerned.

HOWEVER, Obama is NOT a Muslim, practicing or otherwise so THESE concerns are phony ones, MEANT to SCARE the electorate that doesn't know any better.

These next 2 years will be VERY interesting.

Ahh, the old Chinese curse.

May you live in interesting times!

Merry Christmas Jeter!

Back at ya :-)

Merry Christmas Roundhouse!

Limbaugh and others are already focusing on the "Hussein" thing ...

That's just part of it. Limbaugh has been juxtaposing Osama and Obama for some time. Who knows what the hell is coming out of the mouths of Savage (Weiner), Coulter and Malkin. But, as long as there's a market for hate speech, it will continue.

furthermore...

I'm appalled by the term "war of our lives AGAINST ISLAM" I don't think I really even need to go into this one. I guess she doesn't mind counteracting every PR push we've had since the GWOT began saying that this war is against extremists and insurgents, not against the Islamic people. Wonder if she can fit her other foot in her mouth while she's at it?

The perfect paradigm...

A permanent state of war helps....who? Most likely the Republicans, since they've managed to establish the myth that the Democrats are "weak" on defense. Maybe this was their intent all along. It gives them an excuse to do pretty much whatever they want and refuse any Congressional oversight on the grounds of "national security". At least they'll try. The next two years may prove to be a huge Constitutional conflict between Bush's Imperial Executive Branch and the Democratic Congress.

It is a war against Islam

It's US christian fundamentalism prodded on by Israeli zionism, in what can only be termed the 14th Crusade. None of these obviously racist pundits want to point out that it's been US policy to support the slow genocide of the Palestinian people and back Israel every time it comes under criticism for crimes against humanity. They won't ever mention the abuses carried out in the name of jewish or christian extremism, but they sure love to whine about Islam.

It is all about religion, about jewish supremacism in Israel and the armageddonist movement in the USA.

Tommy wrong again

One note Tommy can't help himself from defending repugs, she's got her marching orders from Rove and the rest and bigotry is part and parcel of this group.

Well put

Wow, Yes - I defended this "repug" who got her marching orders from a failed, miserable Republican strategist/operative who just lost both houses of Congress for his party and whose boss is at one of the lowest approval ratings of any President in modern history.

Your analysis is right on!

Take a look at the website

Glad you agree, take a look at Schlussel's website, oh it's just her opinion, no one elses, yeah sure.....

So

She has her supporters, so what? People I support don't speak for me, I speak for myself and they speak for themselves. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. This isn't hard - for most people to comprehend.

Go back to throwing darts at your Rove picture.

Creative response

Did you bother looking at her site? She represents your side, don't change the subject, oh and most people on this site are not afraid of terror, unless you count the Worst President Ever.

Sorry

If you can't comprehend what I said then you are wasting my time.

Wasting time

Oh greatest apologies for wasting your time, let me guess.. busy plagerizing something?

hey marker

you are lowering the level of discourse. can you drop it already, please? allow someone a legitimate difference of opinion.

Discourse

Interesting point but pointless, maybe you missed it the elections but if you think for one minute somehow conservatives want a debate, you kid yourself, this president has no regard for ayone that disagrees and Schussel very much represents his side. It's a continuation of death, every day that goes by brings more death in Iraq, sorry, I'm not lowering the level of discourse in this country.

i'm not referring to the country, marker

i'm referring to this forum. i would prefer it be a home of civil discussion, and i think there are those from both sides of the political aisle who would like to see it as such. please, just please try and address the points, and leave the name-calling behind. Please?

tommy is not 'civil'

he is a distracter, pure and simple. Calling him on his silliness is not a bad thing to do. In this thread aone he has promoted and defended racism and/or bigotry(however you want to define religious bigotry, seeing as this particular one is tinged more then a little for being a 'brown' religion) and treason. Sorry, but I cannot view that as 'civil' in any sense.

No, I disagree

Tommy is usually a pretty good foil. Occasionally he flies off the rails but hell, so do I.

I am sick of the echo chamber, so I welcome somebody decent and intelligent to debate. "Me too" gets boring after awhile.

I agree

Overall, no matter how much or often we disagree, I think tommy is a good poster.

hey marker

you are lowering the level of discourse. allow someone else a legitimate difference of opinion, please? just as a mark of respect for others.

I agree.

That was a cheap shot, Marker.

And everyone plagarizes. Everyone. None of us have an original thought. We all repeat what we've heard, without tendering due credit.

I agree

We all copy. All of us repeat things we have heard before. Including me, right now!!

Good to see you again Holly. I want an autographed copy of yer book now!!

Thanks, Valentinian!

You're a doll, but the first printing is sold out. Ain't that cool?

Tsk

Oh come on, give us a title or an ISBN or something! You know how many "Hollys" there are on Amazon?...

It's a children's picture book.

The title is "Pumpkin Town!" and there are a few first editions still out there, but the warehouses are empty and that makes me giddy, for it only took 3.5 months. My naughty book is "It All Began With a Bean." That book is a gas: in all ways.

What do customers ultimately buy after viewing It All Began with a Bean?

18% buy Walter the Farting Dog: Trouble At the Yard Sale by William Kotzwinkle

Obviously, a whole genre I knew nothing about.

Kudos, Holly!

Thanks Holly

It doesn't bother me in the least. I am responsible for the plagiarism incident and deserved the lack of respect from some for it - including Marker's. We obviously have the same amount for each other.

Demonization of Democrats

Schlussel is one in a long line of smear merchants that Media Matters has correctly and precisely exposed. I only want the mainstream media to honestly access all politicians, I'm still waiting.........still waiting........

Tommy,

you're a mighty big man. I admire you.

xoxo,

Holly

Thanks Holly

Ditto back at ya.

Happy Holidays.............

Tommy

Happy Ramahanakwanzamas!

Tommy

defending the right of people to be reprehensible doesn't seem like it mesh's into you’re world of black and white and good vs. evil. These statements are evil and the good thing to do would be to go on record and condemn them correct? Shouldn’t we proactively encourage people not to be bigots? Or are bigots welcomed in Libertarian world. Now neither of us will ever get to create the world of our desire but bigots wouldn’t be welcomed in my world; not that they would want to live in a world created by an African American Liberal woman.

Lynn..

it didn't look to me as though tommy defended her statements... in fact, it appears he disagreed with them. i think the point he was making is that schlussels opinions shouldn't be extrapolated onto all conservatives.

Thank you

That was exactly what I meant.

And as I have said before

I agree with that. Heck I dont blame you. I sure wouldnt want to be saddled with this idiocy or Coulter or Savage. No you arent responsible for their bile.

Lynn

Maybe you misinterpreted what I said. I was specifically defending this woman's right to say what she thinks, her opinion. Would you not agree with that? I also took issue with those who want to hang her opinion on anyone else from the right, that is blantantly unfair. Would you also agree with that?

And I would vigorously defend you or anyone's right to criticize her for the content of her article. I said I disagreed with her assessment.........I felt no need to punctuate that with a personal attack and name calling, which makes me no better than her.

You are correct Tommy

I understood now what you ment by your original post but Marker and a few others obviously do not. Count me on your side for this one...

Tommy

My point is and smarter people than me have said we shouldn't tolerate intolerance. Now you and Barry are correct that this women has the right of free speech and she can stand on a corner and spew all kinds of hateful bile until the cows come home. I din't say she should be whipped for it. Nevertheless civilized people should be just as vehment in their criticism of this kind of bigotry. Bigoty has no place in a civilized society. BTW, I know you said you didn't agree with her.

Absolutly

I couldnt agree more.

Lynn -Best post on this topic so far!

More people need to have courage and speak up for what is right no matter how difficult or easy it might be. I cannot wait for the holidays, its time to brawl some of my exteneded family members over matters of politics and social issues!

I know that Tommy doesn't agree with this woman, having said that I think the reason some people have issues with his posts is because they give the APPEARANCE of defending her comments by trying to down play thier importance. We know what the media is capable of doing and when stupid comments/ideas like this come out I think we should listen and call them out for what they are.

Congradulations on your book Holly. I have 2 neices that are getting to that reading age so I will have to check it out. Is it going to get reprinted?

Have a great holiday everyone...

Rovian

The term "machiavellian" came from the 15th century and is still used today in reference to being deceiptful, corrupt, and totalitarian. Rove is far more "deserving" of having a word named after him. Nicollo Machiavelli was a diplomat, writer, philosopher, and poet whom history has revealed as a good man and true patriot of the people. Rove's only talent was his unscrupulous appetite for power by any means. He is deserving of representing the very ugliest and darkest part of politics.

Are you now, or have you ever been a Muslim?

Boy is this not going to work. This is race-based hatred, and will only drive decent thinking people towards Obama. When you start talking about who someone's father is, you're screaming "He has BAD BLOOD!" Bigotry--and most Americans know it. Keep this up, Deb, and you'll make him President.

Don't underestimate the power of fear...

Have you ever watched Glenn Beck? He's been doing a series of shows about just how dangerous "radical Islam" really is and how very afraid we should be if we're smart. Xenophobia is an easy thing to foment, and the Republican propaganda machine is really good at it. If they can scare enough people into believing that hordes of rabid Muslims are sharpening their scimitars and just waiting to invade America, Obama's name alone will be enough to bring him down.

What war agianst Islam?

I thought this was the war on terror?

.....Oh did they change it again?

Hey, the presidents first name is "George" as in "Curious George" the monkey. Do we really want a monkey as our president?

BTW This is only the begining and besides the actual "facts', I am always surpised at how many people will fall for this tripe. Not to worry though, the people who eat this kind of garbage up weren't going to vote for Obama in the first place. (if he even decides to run for President)

You mean..

She actually published this on purpose?

If she's not a laughingstock already, she should be one now.

Absolutely pathetic.

Are conservatives really this dumb?

Why the hell, when they say what we show in the news is seen by 'terrorists' do they do this? It is part of the problem. Do they not realize if we keep insulting the religion, and inferring that the religion itself is our enemy, that it just becomes terrorist propaganda? All they have to do to recruit people to their cause is show clips from nimrods like this. It proves in their minds that we are out to destroy