Schlussel: Should Barack Hussein Obama be president "when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam"?
In a December 18 column headlined "Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim" and posted on her website, right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel argued that because Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) middle name is Hussein, his late, estranged father was of Muslim descent, and he has shown interest in his father's Kenyan heritage, Obama's "loyalties" must be called into question as he emerges as a possible Democratic presidential candidate. In the column, Schlussel asked: "So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian ... is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?" She ended her column by asking if Obama becoming vice president instead would be acceptable. Answering her own question, she wrote: "NO WAY, JOSE ... Or, is that, HUSSEIN?"
In questioning Obama's "loyalties," Schlussel immediately noted his middle name and then pointed to several "items in his background." First, she wrote that Obama's father was "apparently a Muslim." She went on to note that his mother's second husband was an Indonesian man, whom Schlussel described as "likely a Muslim." She also brought up a March 3, 2004, Salon.com article by Scott Turow which noted that Obama attended a Muslim school while living in Indonesia. But in citing these "items" as evidence of Obama's Muslim leanings, Schlussel ignored several pertinent facts. First, she left out that Turow made clear in his 2004 article that, during his time in Indonesia, Obama transferred to a Catholic school:
[T]he new family moved to Djakarta, where Obama's sister Maya was born. (Obama describes her looks as those "of a Latin queen.")
After two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school, Obama was sent by his mother back to her parents' home so that he could attend Hawaii's esteemed Punahou Academy.
Schlussel also left out Obama's assertions in the past that both his father and stepfather were "non-practicing" Muslims. From an April 5, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times article:
Obama describes his father, after whom he is named, as "agnostic." His paternal grandfather was a Muslim. His mother, he says, was a Christian.
[...]
When he was 6 years old, after his parents divorced, Obama moved with his mother and her new husband -- a non-practicing Muslim -- to Indonesia, where he lived until he was 10 and attended a Roman Catholic school.
"I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country, so I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and, at night, you'd hear the [Muslim] prayer call," Obama recalls. "My mother was a deeply spiritual person and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world's religions and talk to me about them.
Schlussel's column fits into a larger pattern in the recent media coverage and commentary regarding Obama. Indeed, like Schlussel -- who has repeatedly appeared on MSNBC in the past -- numerous media figures have gone out of their way to highlight Obama's middle name in recent weeks:
- During MSNBC's special election coverage on November 7, co-anchor Chris Matthews remarked that Obama's "middle name is Hussein" and suggested that it would "be interesting down the road."
- On November 27, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson referred to radio host Bill Press as "a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club."
- During the November 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Republican strategist Ed Rogers referred to "Barack Hussein Obama."
- On the December 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, senior political correspondent Carl Cameron told viewers: "Though he's written two books about himself already, most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama Junior's uncommonly privileged life."
- On the December 11 edition of CNN's Situation Room, correspondent Jeanne Moos noted that "[o]nly one little consonant differentiates" Obama and Osama. She then added, "[A]s if that similarity weren't enough. How about sharing the name of a former dictator? You know his middle name, Hussein."
- On the December 11 edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield compared the similarity of Obama's "business casual" clothing to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "jacket-and-no-tie look." Greenfield concluded the segment by saying: "Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread." He later explained on the CNN website that he was making "a joke."
- On December 13, Matthews teased another interview with Rogers by describing the strategist as "the one who just loves Barack Obama's middle name Hussein."
- On the December 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh gave Obama a "nickname" -- "Barack Hussein Odumbo" (in reference to Obama's "big ears").
- On the December 14 edition of Hardball, NBC's Mike Viqueira announced "a man named Barack Obama, whose middle name, incidentally, is Hussein, running for president."
According to Schlussel's online bio, she claims "unique expertise on radical Islam/Islamic terrorism and a host of other issues" and that her "online fan club is the Internet's second largest for a political personality -- behind only Ann Coulter."
From Schlussel's December 18 column:
Many months ago, readers began asking me whether Barack Obama is Muslim. Since he identifies as a Christian, I said, "no," and responded that he was not raised by his Kenyan father.
But, then, I decided to look further into Obama's background. His full name -- as by now you have probably heard -- is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali's son -- Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.
And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.
Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon, Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).
And Obama has a "born-again" affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law, when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow:
Obama's father died in a traffic accident in Nairobi in 1982, but while Obama was working in Chicago, he met his Kenyan sister, Auma, a linguist educated in Germany who was visiting the United States. When she returned to Kenya in 1986 to teach for a year at the University of Nairobi, Obama finally made the trip to his father's homeland he had long promised himself. There, he managed to fully embrace a heritage and a family he'd never fully known and come to terms with his father, whom he'd long regarded as an august foreign prince, but now realized was a human being burdened by his own illusions and vulnerabilities.
So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?
Is that even the man we'd want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn't turn down)?
NO WAY, JOSE ... Or, is that, HUSSEIN?
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 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...
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?
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.
" 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
only obfuscators and idiots could think they could fool other people by deflecting from that.
when Lieberman ran as VP under Gore, the Repubs criticized/questioned his Jewish faith.
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
Nothing to apologize for.
what position did you take when conservatives were railing against the hollywood elite for voicing their opinions in public?
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.
Too bad most don't think that way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
But we don't.
... 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.
>>"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.
and restrooms. And of course the tommy-boys will all claim it is only 'natural'.
[link to thinkprogress.org]
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.
>>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.
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.
>>"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.
---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?
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.
I should have thought of that. Will check it out and then compare it to his voting record.
I fail to see how Yurstoopid is our problem
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.
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.
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!"
...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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
...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 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.
Perfect sense and is making a valid point
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?....")
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ....
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.
May you live in interesting times!
Merry Christmas Jeter!
Merry Christmas Roundhouse!
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.
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?
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'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.
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.
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!
Glad you agree, take a look at Schlussel's website, oh it's just her opinion, no one elses, yeah sure.....
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.
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.
If you can't comprehend what I said then you are wasting my time.
Oh greatest apologies for wasting your time, let me guess.. busy plagerizing something?
you are lowering the level of discourse. can you drop it already, please? allow someone a legitimate difference of opinion.
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 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?
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.
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.
Overall, no matter how much or often we disagree, I think tommy is a good poster.
you are lowering the level of discourse. allow someone else a legitimate difference of opinion, please? just as a mark of respect for others.
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.
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!!
You're a doll, but the first printing is sold out. Ain't that cool?
Oh come on, give us a title or an ISBN or something! You know how many "Hollys" there are on Amazon?...
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.
18% buy Walter the Farting Dog: Trouble At the Yard Sale by William Kotzwinkle
Obviously, a whole genre I knew nothing about.
Kudos, 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.
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........
you're a mighty big man. I admire you.
xoxo,
Holly
Ditto back at ya.
Happy Holidays.............
Happy Ramahanakwanzamas!
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.
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.
That was exactly what I meant.
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.
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.
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...
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.
I couldnt agree more.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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)
She actually published this on purpose?
If she's not a laughingstock already, she should be one now.
Absolutely pathetic.
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 Islam, and therefore have every Muslim in the world against us when we should be saying and doing things to make them our allies against religious extremists.
Not all, but many. Many of our conservative friends like the Truth Ejector and Insane Loko would tell you that such politically correct considerations are for pussies.
Consider that her surname is Schlussel.
Consider that she looks Aryan.
Consider that our nation fought a brutal war a mere sixty-some years ago to rid the world of those bent on exterminating Jews.
I don't know about you, but I don't think it's acceptable having a Nazi. I say NO WAY JOSE... Or, is that, GOEBBELS?
Seriously, though, how many people in this country have "Hussein" in their name somewhere? I can remember several who went to my tiny midwestern college, so I imagine there are many more out there. I don't think there's any real connection between the name and loyalty to our enemies.
Would someone with a middle name "Jesus" have a chance? Considering that most people named Jesus these days are Hispanic, I kind of doubt it.
Brilliant observation and funny. It highlights the absurdity of some of our political discourse.
"I don't think there's any real connection between the name and loyalty to our enemies."
Try explaining that to Adolf Jenkins.
You've got a point. He's had a tough time.
Spock Jenkins.
... she can prove that with a name like Schlussel none of her kin (and therefore none of her loyalties) were ever inclined towards The Bund or the Nazi Party.
It may seem outrageous and stupid on the surface, but that is the point, to show how outrageous and stupid Frau Schlussel's suspicions about Obama seem to be.
From wikipedia:
"Schlussel was born in 1969 to a family of Polish Jewish descent. Her grandparents were Holocaust survivors, her mother born in a concentration camp, and her father a Vietnam War veteran, which helped form her views."
You just made my point on how stupid Schlussel is to assume that the ethnicity of someone's name is a basis upon which to hang assumptions about that person's beliefs.
Guess that should quiet the posters here with anymore Nazi references ;-)
Soooooo since we NOW know Schlussel is Jewish--is she picking on Obama BECAUSE she fears he has Muslim leanings?
Sometimes the posts here are hilarious. [not really--I'm being sarcastic]
with someone having a name like that being president, we'd be looked upon differently by the Arab world -- a more positive view I would think.
Read Schussel's background, and you'll know which side her bread is buttered on.
As is "WWIII."
During WWII, 8 millions Americans were in the military and many of them enlisted. Jimmy Stewart did. Clark Gable did. Joe DiMaggio did. FDR's sons did.
This kind of hyperbole is hysterical. Yes, the World Trade Towers fell and 3,000 people died and it was horrific, but in 1944, 30,000 people died, on average, EVERY DAY.
If this truly were the "war of our lives," millions of Americans would enlist. It's not and they don't, so such hyperbole is embarrassing. If Schlussel were woman enough, she'd be embarrassed. Because she's not, I'll have to be embarrassed for her.
Regarding names, Schlussel sounds German to me. Hey, weren't those Nazis also German? I think so. Now, it makes me nearly puke a little in my mouth to write such a thing. That's because I have a sense of decency and I only write it to reveal that EVERYONE is suspect, in one way or another.
What I don't suspect, for it's a certainty, is that Schlussel is a racist.
She's also a blond haired, blue-eyed Aryan. Hitler would have loved her and placed in her in one of those breeding facilities where prime mares were impregnated by the SS. Her job would not be to disparage or instigate, but to procreate. That's what women do, you know. That's their purpose.
I should have read the thread first. Hitler would not have bred her. He would have burned her.
She's not questioning his heritage, just his name. Therefore, you're justified questioning her loyalties based on her name.
is too questioning his heritage and making judgments about the man because his father’s family may have been Muslim which she obviously thinks is something bad to be. I don't care what her heritage is; this woman is bigoted against Muslims. I should also say that if you replaced the word Muslim with Jewish in her statements this would sound like something directly from a Hitler speech. Bigots come in many colors and nationalities. I know this woman wouldn't fly a plane into a building to kill Muslims but she's bigoted against them just the same.
Eric Jaffa dug up info saying she's Jewish, sooooooo Hitler would NOT have loved her.
IF in fact she's Jewish, perhaps THAT is what is fueling her hatred of anyone Muslim, or she suspects is Muslim.
Just a thought.
During WWII, 8 millions Americans were in the military and many of them enlisted. Jimmy Stewart did. Clark Gable did. Joe DiMaggio did. FDR's sons did.
If the "war against Islam" was half as dire as these saber-rattling TV rattle-heads say it is then movie stars and the children of prominent political figures would join the military or work the swing shift in the bunker buster factory, as would many of us who consider ourselves patriots.
But of course the American people aren’t total fools.
The majority of us see the “war against Islam” for what it is: another excuse for the government to pump mega billions of dollars into the military industrial complex so the mega rich can collect huge war dividend checks dripping with the blood of the dead, be it the blood of our troops or the Iraqis, whatever, since all that matters is a sufficiently high return on your investment.
Truman held hearings for the sole purpose of weeding out those who tried to turn WWII in their personal golden goose.
Eisenhower warned against the incipient military industrial complex and the dangers of making war profitable.
Bush, on the other hand, has nurtured the very elements Truman and Eisenhower fought to defeat, husbanded a great two-headed meat- and money-grinding leviathan of death and then has the unmitigated gall to challenge anybody who dares point out the towering monstrosity that is the Iraq war is not only his abominable creation but has turned its master and shall devour us all.
Bush’s legacy will forever be a shocking lack of basic historical knowledge combined with a frightening lack of compassion for life. Unless we’re talking the unborn, which the Decider has decidedly sided with. But once born, you’re just what he’s looking for, a fresh influx of meat to feed into the jaws of the war machine.
"...turned on its master..."
MMFA, please bring back the review function!
My guess is "no." First of all, Islam is like any religion - Christianity included - with many well-intentioned devout followers being overshadowed by extremists.
Second, just because Senator Obama has an Arabic - and we must remember that there IS a difference between the terms "Muslim" (strictly a term to describe followers of Islam) and "Arabic" (a term to describe the language and culture of the Middle East) - middle name doesn't mean that he considers himself a Muslim. (That said, Bill Orally needs to be reminded that loofah and falafel are both Arabic words.)
Lastly, I think the right, by making a point of emphasizing the Senator's middle name, are trying to tie Senator Obama to Saddam Hussein. As far as I know, Hussein is actually a common name in the Arab world - hell, I had an economics professor by that name, and I didn't think she was in Saddam's loyalties.
that I've never even heard of this woman before? I mean if she's almost as popular as Coulter, she must be really well-known. And important. After all, she's been a guest on talk shows, apparently, and therefore millions are hanging on her every word.
And I didn't even know she existed. I feel terrible.
I've NEVER heard of her either, then again if she's appearing on MSNBC which only has about 40 loyal viewers per night I'm not surprised she nearly anonymous.
IF one looks hard enough you can find Far-Right or Far-Left kooks almost anywhere spewing nutty stuff.
Take a look at her website. Really amateurish.
And even, as highlighted on the main page here, conservative bloggers are not slamming her column.
Fringe kooks have no patent anywhere.
conservative bloggers are not...........should be they are slamming her column.
I agree with Fantagor, bring back the "review" button, please!
Good point. She's basically an embarrassment to those on the Right. I'm pretty sure there are embarrassing folks on the Left as well.
They do NOT speak for the majority on EITHER side.
I sometimes think it's better to just ignore these FRINGE players and CONCENTRATE on those that have more influence.
barack HUSSEIN obama = saddam HUSSEIN = oBama bin laden ....
It really is that simple you know
Apparently, anybody with an opinion is a "pundit." Shows what the media has done to our language. When I was in high school, it was defined as "a learned man" in the American College Dictionary (yes, we had one or two female professors at the time). Now, Merium Webster online says: 1 : PANDIT [hindu title for a learned man] 2 : a learned man : TEACHER 3 : a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media. I guess that makes us all "pundits," huh?
I agree with you tommy
I heard a guy describe the republicans as Machiavellian in their dealings with the american public.
i told him he was stupid because Machiavelli has been dead for nearly 500 years and was never even a member of the republican party
that showed him !!
...These are the same people who thought Oliver North was "more patriotic" than Daniel Inouye.
I find her comments so disgusting but nothing the uptight Republican racists say ever suprises me. They are not uniters. They have gotten into power by being dividers but alas, thanks to sites like these, the PUBLIC is finally getting wise to their hatefulness.
I missed this hateful jewel by her but I have heard the neocons making such remarks for the last couple of months. However, place the smiling, kind, educated, intelligent Obama next to these creeps and you can see how stupid they look.
They have wasted any influence they might have with their their years of divisive behavior, all the while, they had a load of crooks, pedophiles, liars, war mongers, and folks far from the Doctrines of Christ. For all their chest beating about their religion, the forgot the admonition when Christ gave the answer to someone trying to trip him up. First stating our obligation to God and the "a second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbot as thyself."
So tell me, does it seem compliant to this rule for some to make off with millions and millions while making a minimum wage raise impossilble for the eworking poor?
When did we declare war on a religion?
We're kinda on the outs with Islamic jihadists. You knew that--right? Schlussel and SOME others SEEM to be at war with anyone Muslim.
Last time I checked no one ELECTED her as our exalted leader. Soooooo this is HER opinion. She speaks for herself & maybe a few others on the fringe.
She's a VERY small fish in a VERY large pond. In fact until today, I'd never heard of her.
She didn't mention jihadists and even Jihad is a misunderstood term meaning hard work or endeavor. I could go on a Jihad to educate people about Islam but I won't. Islam is the second largest religion in the world so she's pitting us against about 1.4 billion people.
Jihadists. That was just me making the DISTINCTION. She's apparently at war with the entire religion. *Islamic jihadist* was coined by someone, somewhere, and is simply a pretty much accepted term.
I agree she's got a pretty BIG fight on her hands taking on an entire religion. BUT then the lady is obviously a Far-Right kook.
While I understand MMFA highlighting her ludicrous remarks, it's really a shame we have to acknowledge her at all.
And as I understand from a interview with a Muslim man I heard yesterday, about 30% are radical to some extent. Raidcal, uneducated, ignorant, however you want to put it. Those are the ones to worry about.
`Not to mention the term radical to some extent is meaningless. The issue is violence. Not are they mad about policy or do they think radically different from this guy. I mean Ghandi could easily have been called a radical by the British but what does that really mean?
I don't think Fox News even has her on their shows. There is a bottom tier of lame pundits and it is on this tier where Debbie reigns racist - I mean reigns supreme - or both.
After all, EVERYONE, ALWAYS refers to George WALKER Bush, don't they? Every time?
You're exactly right, Olive . . . I mean, so Obama has a middle name that's the same as a former king of Jordan - what's the big deal?
This woman is an ass. She makes it seem as though there's something wrong with being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if he's a Muslim, Christian or anything else. The garbage she wrote only appeals to racists and bigots.
You all should realize that this woman doesn't speak for all conservatives. What she said in her column is absolutely reprehensible. It doesn't matter what his name is or what his father's ancestry is. She's obviously a far right kook. I'm not sure why Media Matters is even acknowledging her column. She's merely speaking for herself and nobody else. Anybody who agrees with her would have a sick and twisted way of thinking. Don't expect to see any other conservatives say anything like this, because it won't happen. This woman is a far right kook who is speaking for herself.
she sure seems to be echoing a lot of right wing smearing that's been documented here.
[link to www.tpmmuckraker.com] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think the new Muslim congressman may be in for the ride of his life.
Hello Ms. Schlussel,
I found your Dec 18 column about Barak Obama to be long on speculation and short on facts. Unfortunately your column begins with the wildly inaccurate title “ . . .we [and I take this to mean the United States] are fighting the war of our lives against Islam". This oversimplistic distortion in itself is so ridiculous it needs no further comment. You go on to expound a dubious line of reasoning that "once a Muslim always a Muslim", therefore if Senator Obama's father had a Muslim name as does the Senator, then he must actually be a Muslim - all while discounting what Senator Obama has said about his own beliefs, ignoring his history of attending Catholic school in Indonesia and the fact that his mother is a Christian. I'm glad you are not one of my students or I would have to give your essay an ‘F’, based on a clear lack of critical thinking, as well as obvious bias in your twisting of facts.
Now let us turn to you, yourself. Are you in fact a Christian Ms. Schlussel as you say you are? If so, I wonder if you are familiar with the biblical command not to bear false witness against your neighbor? Being that Senator Obama says he is a Christian, I find it rather remarkable that you would go out of your way to try and slander a fellow believer – not very Christian behavior. This brings me back to the title of your essay about the war “we” are fighting. Just whose side are you on, Ms. Schlussel?
Schlussel is the lowest of the low. Queen Libel. If she continues on her current pace, she will no doubt end up in a courtroom one day answering libel charges. That might just be what it takes to shut her ignorant and bigoted trap for good.
She libelled all the guys arrested -- and subsequently interrogated and released -- who bought up cell phones last summer in Michigan. She doesn't even have the journalistic sense to use the word "allegedly" in any of her hate-filled columns. To Schlussel, they were Muslim, they were buying Tracfones in bulk, so bingo -- they must be planning to blow up the Mackinac Bridge.
Hey, I'm all for free speech -- but when Schlussel crosses the line and libels innocent individuals solely based on religion and skin color, she's gone way too far. Shame on any news program who has her on as a so-called "expert."
She is a despicable pig. Makes Fred Phelps seem like Santa Claus. I'd say pass her nonsense by, but it's time to deal with her libel.
A loud mouth, blow hard, hair brain. A real loser of the first order!!!
...what happened to the original pic attached to this post, with the heavy lip make-up.
Knowing crybaby Schlussel, she probably threatened MMFA with a lawsuit if they used the picture in question.
Spend some time on Schlussel's website and you'll need a shower, maybe two, to get the stink off ya. The woman has no sense of decency, was raised by apes. Makes Coulter seem like Snow White. A horrendous hussy!
conservative bloggers are not slamming her column.
They're not? Odd, I've received a great deal of hits from this very site at my very conservative blog where I have done just that. (Thanks Media Matters!) Lots of trackbacks from other conservative sites in which they do the same. And I found out about the Schlussel comments from one of Malkin's sites.
Just trying to correct a misconception.
. . . is lining up to disassociate with Schlussel.
For a good laugh, read the tissue of lies she penned about Valero taking over Citgo stations. More lies and nonsense. Utter indefensible tripe.
And to think the good Lord gave her big boobs. What a waste.
. . . are calling Schlussel out on this one. Folks, that's like the toilet throwing the crap up at you instead of flushing it down.
Tommy, I just saw yours. My apologies.
I'm surprised it took this long for people to start questioning loyalties regarding Muslims in America. Hopefully people will remember the past hysterias that caused so much crap when everyone starting pointing fingers, ex. Salem witch trials, Japaneses Americans during WWII and the commie hunt. Maybe people will learn and save everyone some time and grief before that is allowed to happen.
I read your xenophobic piece on Obama. You ridicules comments make you a traitor to what made our nation great. You are an fear mongering fascist propagandist, but you'll never be like Anne Coulter.
I hope they pay you well so you can afford enough drugs to sleep at night.
Here's the text of a letter I sent to Schussel:
"Ms. Schlussel,
I realize that you are in show business, and that entertainers often say outrageous things to keep their names and faces floating at the top of the media froth.
I also realize that there is a well-funded political attack industry that probably sent you and a thousand other political operatives the same fax with talking points about how to pre-spin Barack Obama before he captures the public's attention over the next 18 months.
I also know that people like you don't give a tinker's damn what anyone left of your political philosophy thinks, including me. I have no illusions.
However, I must point out the fallacy and the abject contemptuousness of the argument equating someone's name with their religion, and hence, their loyalities to the U.S. My father's family is German through and through, and although they've been in America since the late 1800s, by your logic, with a last name of Abele, they would been sympathetic to the Third Reich in WWII. I might add that "Schlussel" is about as Germanic as can be. Were your family members sympathetic to Hitler 70 years ago? Were they loyal to the Third Reich, or to America?
Stop throwing stones when you live in a glass house, Debbie. Grow up a little, huh?
[name withheld for the MM website]"
folks, we're all a mish-mash of nationalities and religions here... how many people do you know who are 100% anything? are we going to start saying that, because a candidate may have some German roots, that he is a Nazi? I wouldn't put it past some, but it's completely ridiculous... I hope she meant this in a satirical way...
she must be an Israeli spy. How come the issue of her Jewishness is not brought up? Would she harbor as much hate and venom towards Arabs if she was non Jewish? I find her comments to be nothing more than an extreme example of the ideas that American Jews have when it comes to issues that relate to Jewish-Arab relations. I find American Jews to be Zionists first, and Americans second, and that fact clouds their thinking when it comes to right and wrong in Middle-East conflicts and personalities. The fact that she is a right winger is only a side issue. Al Franken, himself a staunch Zionist, may not say anti-Arab things as strongly as Schlussel, but when it comes right down to it, he is a Zionist and a Jew first, and a so-called liberal American second, so everything he says regarding the Middle-East is skewed. I know there are those that will comment that the above statements are not unlike hers, but the difference is that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and don't think like terrorists, but the vast majority of American Jews are Zionists and think like Zionists and so their comments like Schlussel's or the more tepid Franken have to be considered in the context of their Jewishness.
Their foriegn policy needs it but this kind of anti Semitism is unacceptable. Americans are Americans. making general insulting statements about a segment of them does no good whatsoever. Its wrong and counerproductive too. I DO think your comment is pretty much like Schlussel's, that is unconcionable and witout merit.
Where are we going when a person's religion and his name become the criteria for higher office? Fifty years ago we were afraid that a Catholic president would take orders from the Pope. JFK brought honor and dignity to the White House, a polar opposite to the current occupant, and I thought that we were well over this when a Jew almost became vice president, with barely a mention of his religion during the campaign. Obama should be judged by his political positions on issues that matter, like education, health care, poverty, and defense. Character assassination and name calling should be left in the school yard where it belongs.
Why would anyone be interested in their heritage?
who really gives a flying flip if some Muslims in other countries view Obama as a Muslim?
It's tempting to think these guys are just racists and I'm sure that's true for some...but believing this crap is giving most of them too much credit. This is just the normal Republican slime machine at work. It will keep going until enough Americans catch on to not fall for this crap.
This article is pure racism and stems from a base that has no true political representation. When will the idiot base accept the fact that the war is not for DESTROYING the middle-east, but to stablize it(regardless of how badly its going)?
They simply hear what they want. We vote for what we want.
That's why they lost in November. I love seeing them cry and whine and I enjoy seeing their raging hatred in the face of failure in the elections. Pathetic.
She is not worth a response. I vaguely knew her in college as we were at Michigan at the same time and she was in at least two of my classes. I recall talking to her as we walked to take the LSAT and she did not shut up the whole time. And it was all about Republican politics, even though she had no idea where I stood, and didn't care. In case there is still any question, she is Jewish (as am I) and grew up in an affluent suburb of Detroit that has the bulk of the local Jewish population. I laugh that she always refers to herself as being from Detroit, as if she is from the inner city. She was a trog back then and iti s apparent that she was told as a child - conservative=good, liberal=bad -- and, thus, is a conservative. Plain and simple. No thought involved. She was outspoken then about Republican politics and, I mean this with no sexism intended, it is clear that she used her big mouth and ambition as a mask for really poor looks. As for references to her as a lawyer, she has a law degree but I do not believe that she ever practiced. Or, if she did, it was for too short a time to gain any real competence or have any real impact. Her one talent, even in college, is finding ways of promoting herself, which is not hard for a spoiled Jewish girl from the burbs in the conservative movement.
reasoning/argument forever now. We tell him the same things and he still doesn't get it. He never will. I don't understand trying to reason with someone who just repeats the same mantra over and over. Just forget all the phony balony the Rush Limbaughs of the world spew....yeah, right. Now why is it that people here feel the need to legitimize Tommy? Because he is a somewhat civil time waster?
...that we were at war with Islam? I thought we went to Iraq to "liberate the fine Iraqi people". Now we are "at war with them"?
I don't think Debbie worries about articles like this impeding her ability to become known as a great thinker. I speculate that she understands her role to be a "hatchet man" and she endeavors to do that to the best of her ability.
Radio heads like Hannity and Rush serve the same purpose - cut up liberal thought as well as cut up liberals as people.
I understand their role and I understand their desire to excel in their role. I don't understand how they are able to live with themselves.
. . . how on earth does Schlussel sleep at night? What drives the misinformation, the bigotry, the hatred? What would compel someone to aspire to be Queen of the Stupid?
What is wrong with raising the question? We are at war with radical mu slam terrorist and are at war in a predominantly Muslim part of the country. If this was WWII and a Japanese man was running for President no one fault anyone for asking the same question. Whether you want to admit it or not but the fact that he his Muslim is a big deal and will probably be a major issue if he becomes the front runner for Democrat nomination.
She answers it herself in the final sentence: "No way, Jose . . .or is that Hussein?" She comes to a conclusion without even bothering to delve into Obama's character. That is bigotry plain and simple, and there is no excuse for it.
For a good laugh, spend some time on her website. The comments from her minions are equally despicable.