Dick Morris: Election hinges on whether "we believe" Obama is "sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system"
During the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing the potential for a presidential election between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, Dick Morris stated: "And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright's views?" Morris later claimed, "Now [Obama] has to be not Reverend Wright. He has to go to the Iwo Jima memorial [Unites States Marine Corps War Memorial] and talk about Americans' sacrifice."
From the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Look, any story that comes across our desk that we feel folks should know about, we're going to break.
MORRIS: My point is that the source of negatives against Obama in this race --
O'REILLY: Right.
MORRIS: -- is not John McCain. It's going to be the conservative media. And you're going -- and the liberal media is sort of out to lunch. And they only cover it after a couple of weeks, and then mess it up.
O'REILLY: Yes, but wait a minute. You're diminishing the liberal media; that's a huge machine. NBC, CNN, The New York Times will be outwardly rooting for Barack Obama. They will ruthlessly cut up John McCain. I don't think you just dismiss that.
MORRIS: There will be a lot of that, but John McCain is a given in this race. The variant is Barack Obama. John McCain is like the lever in the middle. And Obama's positives and negatives seesaw. And that will determine the race. And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with Wright's views?
And that dialogue is going to be the key event that's going to be going on over the summer. And Obama has to win that dialogue. The reason Obama won North Carolina and almost won Indiana was not that his campaign was great or Hillary was bad or nobody bought the gas tax. It was that he answered Reverend Wright. And that answer really was effective and productive and really good.
Now -- but it's not going to stand the test of time. Because this guy, who used to have to convince people he wasn't a Muslim, now is electable only if he can convince people he never goes to church. Because he has got to persuade people that he wasn't in the pew when Wright talked about his stuff.
[...]
O'REILLY: Interesting. Now, if you're advising Barack Obama, he's got to, as you said -- and I agree with you. I don't think it's Reverend Wright. I think Reverend Wright's over, unless there's some other crazy thing that comes out. But I do think it's a race -- a race thing.
MORRIS: Well, the way --
O'REILLY: How do you handle that thing?
MORRIS: Obama got into the election and was popular because he was not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
O'REILLY: That's right.
MORRIS: Never mentioned their names, but he said, "I'm the other guy."
O'REILLY: Right.
MORRIS: Now he has to be not Reverend Wright. He has to go to the Iwo Jima memorial and talk about Americans' sacrifice.
O'REILLY: Well, what about his wife?
MORRIS: He has to --
O'REILLY: Doesn't his wife have to do that, too?
MORRIS: She does, too, but he has to take -- he has to go and celebrate American action on AIDS, celebrate --
O'REILLY: So on the Fourth of July, he's got to be everywhere.
I want to see Obama personally furious and openly display his anger at this offensive line of attacking that is coming his way, from the slimy likes of Dick Morris and the rightwing onslaught that he will face, far into the fall campaign.
This is where I see Obama's reticent nature and tentativeness as being a weakness. I want to see some fist-pounding, calling them out by name, old fashioned blood boiling pissed-off anger for suggesting that he is somehow unAmerican, or some "sleeper agent". It does appear, to his credit mostly, that he tries to rise above this stuff and gingerly answer it back, taking the high road so to speak. But these people live on the low road, and I sincerely hope that Barack Obama puts himself right in the middle of it and fights back hard, hit them in the gut with this crap and expose it for what it is.
Otherwise, it could just beat him and beat the life out of him.
"Obama is one of the best counterpunchers I've seen."
Disagree. I wish he was.
But when he's put on the defensive, he stammers, he slows down, he says 'ah' all the time-- he's not quick on the uptake-- which is the reason why he wouldn't debate Hillary in a real non-moderated "debate."
The Right's going to marginalize him as an outsider-- and it's going to work. This election is going to turn into a referendum on the 60's, on Vietnam, on race-- the works.
You guys honestly think the corporate media is going to allow a Democrat to get elected? A Black guy running against a supposed 'war hereo'?
Read your C. Wright Mills.
This election is going to look like it was broadcast on TMZ. An Obama nomination is going to be a disaster, and it will take in-denial Democrats years to do a post-mortem on what happened.
carlileb wrote:
>>An Obama nomination is going to be a disaster, and it will take in-denial Democrats years to do a post-mortem on what happened.
Oh please! Another fanatical Hillary shill. Are you still standing by your prediction that Obama will lose by 15 to 20 points? That prediction alone shows your fanaticism has clouded your judgment.
I find it comforting that Limbaugh has utterly failed to rally his thugs to unseat Obama.
Maybe it's a sign of things to come?
Imagine Limbaugh becoming a drug addled, irrelevant, ego shattered, babbler of incoherent eliminationist rhetoric. It could happen.
which is the reason why he wouldn't debate Hillary in a real non-moderated "debate."
LOL
When two more Democratic debates were announced this month, both Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama quickly accepted the invitation to meet in Pennsylvania on April 16. But Mrs. Clinton, unlike Mr. Obama, has not yet agreed to participate in a North Carolina debate on April 19.
As a lukewarm Hillary supporter,
- carlileb5935 / Thursday May 8, 2008 3:52:42 PM EDT
LOL
Face the music. Hillary and her team have been a disappointment.
Also, you act as if Obama will be all by himself in the middle of the Republican s**t-storm this election season. That couldn't be further from the truth. He has a massive, organized, dedicated grassroots movement to get his back in the general.
Quick question (and don't look up)...
Who does Dick Morris claim "has to go and celebrate American action on AIDS"?
Is it a.) McCain, b.) Obama, c.) Wright, or d.) Hagee?
They don't have to do anything. All they have to do is show pictures of Michelle Obama, and talk about what kind of 'first lady' she'd make, and their work is done.
I simply cannot believe the gullibility of so many Democrats. Obama's going to lose, miserably.
And guess who's going to get blamed?
That's right. Hillary!
They don't have to do anything. All they have to do is show pictures of Michelle Obama, and talk about what kind of 'first lady' she'd make, and their work is done.
What the hell do you mean?
Governor wrote:
>>What the hell do you mean?
Good question. Just keep in mind that Carlileb is an angry Hillary shill.
Tommy,
I wish it wasn't so but I agree with Nerzog. I think the racial climate in America is better than it ever has been or Obama would have never gotten this far in LIFE ,BUT this campaign season has shown me there are still a whole lot of folks looking through a prism of race and some of those folks cover the news and some of those folks vote and a few of them have the surname of Clinton. Now I don't think the Clintons are bigots but they seem to believe that a WHOLE lot of White people are and they have desperately tried to capitalize on that and use it as an argument with the Super D’s to make them the nominees. Anyway as unfortunate as it is Obama has to be very conscience of playing into any stereotypes; but he in my opinion is fully capable of answering this non-sense forcefully without being accused of being overly angry; but he has to be careful.I don't think Obama is of the same caliber as MLK but I know he has that same ability to settle the dust. His calm but firm resolve will only make the thugs look ridiculous. Unlike Kerry, Obama does hit back. He just does it with an open hand.
.They don't have to do anything. All they have to do is show pictures of Michelle Obama, and talk about what kind of 'first lady' she'd make, and their work is done
As opposed to Bill?
They don't have to do anything. All they have to do is show pictures of Michelle Obama, and talk about what kind of 'first lady' she'd make, and their work is done
Carlileb says that Republicans will have an easy task of beating up on Obama by just showing pictures of Michelle Obama. He obviously forgot all the dirt the Republicans have on Bill and Hill. Hillary and Bill would be an easy, Republicans already have plenty of material and over the last 8 years I'm sure they'd just gathered more, keep in mine, truth does not matter to Republicans. Their goal is to place doubts in the mind of voters. Bill & Hill are much easier targets than Michelle..
Bruce,
I don't know any who take him seriously. He needed Hillary to win in order to be relevant. Once Obama wins the nomination, Morris will be bye bye.
Someone should take Dick Morris, Ann "The Man" Coulter, Michael Savage, and Bill O'reilly and lock them away in a padded room together.
And throw away the key.
These are very important signals to Sen. Obama and his supporters.
With his win in the North Carolina Democratic Primary, we might say that we are seeing the ceremonial first pitch being thrown out in the campaign, by those who intend he shall never be the 44th President of the U.S.
He's a Muslim, he's unAmerican, he's some kind of "sleeper agent" or "Manchurian candidate"... if you read these MMFA pages, then you've heard it all before, just about everyday... but the ballgame has just now begun, this week, and the first pitch is a curveball, an unbelievable curveball...
Time for Sen. Obama and his supporters to get seriously to work, and hit this pitch.
I suggest humor, a healthy dose of it, for this particluar business of "he's a Muslim, or an agent etc."... because to respond to such idiocy seriously, lends a seriousness to it... but to make a joke about it (and Stephen Colbert is the perfect role model in these kinds of things) is a good idea, because there is just enough of the element of laughable ridiculousness to the whispering (of being a Muslim), as to take it with humor and make a joke of it, turning suspicion (however ignorant) into laughter.
Interesting take, hit it through humor, not a bad idea at all......in whichever tactic Obama uses, it is of course smart to hit it square on its head.....not shy away from it in any fashion.
And those that suggest he just ignore it, or not "stoop to their level" are of course misguided and naive.......just look at what damage the swiftboaters did to Kerry for proof of how effective being virtually non-responsive is. For the attackers end up controlling the message, and that is just political suicide.
If Obama attacks these charges too agressively, then he'll be typecast as an "angry black man." This seems to be the current wingnut slime for his wife.
He's going to have to walk a fine line between ignoring the charges and responding too forcefully, but I am sure he can do it. If I were him, I'd get some coaching from Donna Brazile.
Dick Morris has been stating as fact for the past 36 months that Clinton will be our next president. Is he flip-flopping?
I understand what you are saying, but I would welcome an angrier Obama at stuff like this. This is questioning his patriotism, his core beliefs, that deserves to met head on with aggression and force, as far as I am concerned.
This isn't about policy or issue disagreement, this is about his character and a hideous and slimy attack on it......I would like to see him passionately fight against that.
Well, Tommy, that's because you're a conservative. Folks on the right value anger as a means to control. Liberals believe in healing the wounds conservatives have carved into the body politic and the culture with their anger and eliminationist rhetoric of "Dems are traitors and unpatriotic."
You know I get mad. You know I get angry here but I'm realizing that everytime I get like that the conservative worldview is reinforced and you guys win another small victory.
So, no. Obama doesn't need to act like a rightwinger to render them mum. He needs to as he does; kill them with kindness.
You may reject this notion but civility and kindness are true strengths and forceful anger is a terrible weakness.
I sincerely hope the Obama campaign is not as naive as you are.
But since you don't read my posts, you won't see this.....never mind.
No I don't. I assumed from reading a lot of your other posts. I shouldn't have jumped out there like that. I apologize. But again, this isn't about our personal opinions. Barack is going to shove the BS they've fed Americans through propaganda news outlets so far up their arses they'll have flashbacks of Regan in office. IF YA SMEEEELL WHAT BARACK IS COOKING!!
August,
It has not been the Republicans who have played the race card. It's been the previously sacrosanct Clintons and Obama's own wife and Pastor.
Willing to forget?
I'd say he's desperate to forget.
Obama himself may be able to stay above it to some degree, but the Democrats have to get out there in the media and forcefully denounce this bullsh*t for what it is.
Now you're talking. This is the only way for Barack to attack. To stay above the slime and let us, his supporters do the dirty work and call the media out on the bs they're pushing.
So August, you cannot envision a scenario where Mr. and Mrs. Anyone in America are sitting around casually watching this campaign and trying to decide if it's McCain or Obama, and they are being hit with all sorts of these "sleeper agent" stories about Obama, seeping into the coverage - and they either see him being tentative in his response to it, or else they see his handlers or spokespeople out there denouncing it, But, wait, where is Obama? Why isn't he out there fighting against it? Wow, is he scared to take it on or something?, could there be a shred of truth in it?
Doubt is planted, independents or moderates move to McCain......
I see this as a very real possibility if Obama reacts the way you are suggesting.
Nerzog,
I don't really care what someone from Obama's campaign has to say in his defense, when one's patriotism is questioned, then the ire and direct response should come from the candidate's mouth himself. It is a scurrilous accusation, and if this line of attack manifests itself into the narrative and becomes some rightwing talking point screaming loudly throughout this election, then Obama needs to get out in front of it, forcefully and to the point.
I don't care what Dick Morris says either, for that matter.......he is irrelevant, but if this seeps from people with a better reputation and slickly becomes a supposed winner for the Republicans, you will see how they get this out there, with a slyness that only their attack machine can muster, and then the radio hosts run with it.......before it gets there, Obama needs to fight back, and hard, in my opinion.
The problem, as you indicate, is the insidious methods they will use to get it into the conventional wisdom. The viral e-mails are already out there, and slugs like Morris are throwing it out there in casual conversation. McCain will disavow it, of course, but the whisper campaign is going to take a lot of stomping to kill it.
Yeah, if you view everything through a racial prism and pander to people by patting them on the head, then you are right.
Thankfully, that ain't me......is it you?
Since Wright was a Marine, he is in a much better spot to talk about the Iwo Jima memorial and the sacrifice of Americans than the toe-sucker or O'Reilly.
And listen for...
USA! USA! USA!...
Irony,
You are entitled to your opinion. However it is the symbolism of removing the lapel pin from one who wants to be President to which I am referring.
You can see Obama's campaign trying to offset that symbolism by routinely lining up flags behind him when he speaks.
I don't doubt Barack Obama's patriotism one bit. That's my opinion.
And symbols of patriotism are greatly overrated. That's my opinion, too.
But AA, all three of them do that, all of the time.
Do a google image search for "(candidates name) speech." I guarantee the first page will have at least 3 photos of the candidate with flags behind them.
However, I could see how that could be the perception. But people should realize that every candidate does it, and has done it, for the past 100 years.
DB,
I agree with you. In Obama's case, I do believe his reliance of multiple flags in the background started after Rev. Wright's video's hit the air. (Correct me if I am wrong.) I certainly started noticing it then. No doubt Obama used the symbolism of the flag to express his anti-war sentiment when he took off the pin and he's using the symbolism of the flags behind him to try and counter that anti-patriotic symbolism.
This is yet another example that Obama simply another run-of-the-mill politician who exploits the flag for his political gain.
Flag pins. Yes.
Multiple flags. No
Alright. Check.
I'm taking notes so if you have anymore suggestions for the Senator, I'll email them post-haste.
Round,
No I am not. He can do whatever he wants. I have said that repeatedly. I do not care.
I am just talking about how symbolic this particular act of Obama publicly removing his lapel pin turned out to be for a lot of people. Nobody here wants to admit it but the flag is a symbol of patriotism and love of country for many here in the United States. Many, although not all, of those people reacted negatively toward Obama because of it.
I would bet my meager wages that fewer people gave a second thought to the flagpin flap than cared about the Wright situation. Something like 33% of voters disapproved of the Wright deal. It's a paltry act of desperation to keep pushing this patriotism angle.
Seriously, the right is out of bounds trying to define the contours of what it means to be a patriot but whatever. From New Orleans to Iraq to the recession, conservatives have sullied their credibility on what it means to love America.
Reasonable folks are far too concerned with kitchen table issues to worry about what some handful of ultraconservative hyperventilators have to say about Obama's patriotism or my patriotism for that matter. That's just the way it is. I'm really sorry for you that the right has lost its way but it's plain as day that you guys have no standing with mainstream Americans anymore on this issue.
Did you radical rightwingers really think you could keep calling your fellow Americans unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, defeatists and all that rot without seriously damaging your own soul when the vicious cycle came full circle? I'm guessing you all were too caught up doing whatever it took to win. I'm guessing you all just couldn't control your venal urges to savage anyone who didn't see things your way.
It's sad really. I feel sorry for conservatives. So many righties I know are just salt of the earth, caring people. You guys have been manipulated by some very powerful, very angry, very fearful self-centered authoritarians who have no interest in serving your interests.
I suggest that you take responsibility today, stop the cycle of hate and accept that not every great patriot fits the narrow minded rightwing defintion of patriotism.
Someone who has been questioning the patriotism of others for as long as I can remember.
I questioned the symbolism of taking off the pin to make a political point. Whether lefties like it or not, Obama's pin removal was interpreted by many as slap against what the flag stands for. The ridicule by many here for Americans who think of the flag as a symbol of patriotic support shows what I believe to be the arrogance of the left.
I don't care one way or the other whether Obama wears a flag pin. It is the symbolism behind the taking it off that helps form an overall view of Obama along with his relationship to his pastor and Bill Ayers, the comments by his wife, and his unguarded comments regarding small town Midwesterners, plus other comments, and his limited voting record that show Obama to be too far left for many Americans. Feel free to disagree.
Solon,
Thanks again for the rant. Do you have it saved and simply cut and paste? If not, it would save you a lot of time for it seems that is all you post. :-)
I am not attempting to be the patriotic police. I am simply mentioning that Obama has used the removal of the lapel pin as a symbol for his anti-war views. That is fine. I don't care. Obama can do what he wants. As much as many of you consider that very patriotic you discount completely that that symbolic act is seen by many as the exact opposite of patriotism.
You can name call and howl all you want about me or Republicans or anyone else you want over this issue. It is for naught. Your rants do not change the perception by many who have great respect for what the flags stands for regarding our government and our country. To them, Obama's lapel pin removal was a symbolic insult to our country.
To me it is like removing one's wedding band after a few months of marriage and explaining to your spouse that your actions will show your commitment. It may very well be true, but it does put some doubt into the mind of the spouse.
Had Obama not gone into such a labored explanation regarding his taking off the lapel pin, it never would have been an issue. But he did and the symbolism of removing that pin leaves those who believe the flag symbolizes patriotism, feel somewhat like a jilted spouse.
This whole flag pin thing is BS from the right. The fact that you tie patriotism to the wearing of a flag pin proves that you really don't know what patriotism is.
AA,
I assume you think the same of McCain whose flag pin was absent during his interview with ABC George, right?
Frankly, if we are going to debate patriotism, should we examine the patriotism of a man who refuses to support the new GI Bill (still waiting for his alternative), or the man who only showed up for 4 of the 14 votes on the Iraq War, what about the guy who got slammed by the Disabled American Vets?
If Americans are only symbolism based, we are in more trouble than I thought, or maybe not. Maybe all the Dems have to do is show that picture of McCain hugging Bush because that represents that he loves him and his policies at a time when Bush has a terrible approval rating.
Fried,
I'm not debating patriotism and what defines it. I'm simply pointing out the symbolism Obama ignored by making a political point in removing the pin to a large number of people.
Whether we like it or not, symbols do carry meaning. The flag represents patriotism to many, although it appears not to many here. We all know how the flag is used to drape the coffins of deceased servicemen and the respect shown to it by honor guards and soldiers and many others. To simply ridicule, as many here are doing, people who feel that the flag does represent patriotism, shows what I believe to be a willful denial of the symbolism the flag and the flag lapel pin represent.
AA,
Here's the problem, a symbol is only that. Where was McCain's pin on ABC a few wks ago? Guess he isn't patriotic.
To Another American:
If symbols are so important in the perception of one's patriotism why isn't that true for all the prominent politicians that have supported the displaying of the rebel flag despite its history of being the symbol of a group that fought a bloody war against the USA.Then it has long been a symbol used by hate groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis (along with a swastika)..Yet national politicians have come out forcefully in support(e.g. Mike Huckabee's what to do with the pole comment) and get no real attack for the perception that its not supporting the American ideals...as symbolized by the stars and stripes...Way beyond double standards and hypocrisy!!!!I guess its a hard definition of patriotism we struggle with!!
So, what's up AA?
It really doesn't serve any purpose to denigrate those who feel the flag represents patriotism and love for our country. Just because you don't feel that way does not mean it is wrongheaded for others to feel the opposite.
By "many", are you referring to the dimwits who still believe that we found WMD in Iraq, or that we invaded Iraq to avenge 9-11, or that Saddam was involved in 9-11? If so, I fear that we'll have to run the country without them. They won't be missed.
AA's list of unpatriotic Americans who REFUSED to wear a lapel flag pin during time of war:
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan
et. al.
RTW,
I wasn't aware of it. Can you provide a source that proves you assertion that these President's refused to wear a flag lapel pin? Frankly I think you are being silly but I could be wrong. :-)
"Obama put his anti-war agenda ahead of patriotism."
The classic, most perfect wingnut talking point: if you're opposed to the war in Iraq, you're unpatriotic. According to latest polls, that puts the percentage of patriotic Americans at less that 35%.
AA:
The flag pin issue is a bogus one for real people outside of Planet Wingnut and the Limborg, IMO.
A lot of folks aren't impressed by people who wear a flag lapel pin while pooping all over everything the flag is supposed to stand for.. :)
However genuine and heartfelt it may have been Obama's public dismissal of the lapel pin in a time of war serves as a symbolic reminder to many that Obama put his anti-war agenda ahead of patriotism.
The folks ranting about the flag pin and patriotism are the very one who were to freaking lazy, scared or dumb to go out and put there lives on the line to serve the country they claim to love. Republicans and conservatives who have the nerve to define what patriotism is or is not for others NEVER served.
Sean Hannity: did not serve
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve
Michael Savage: did not serve
Joe Scarborough: did not serve
George Will: did not serve
Bill Bennett: did not serve
Britt Hume: did not serve
Pat Buchanan: did not serve
Bill Kristol: did not serve
Michael Medved: did not serve
By this list I'd sat NONE have the right to define patriotism for anyone!
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth". John F. Kennedy
Well Pearl, what did you expect from the same group who's solution to race relations was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
You know, I won't ask if you're black if you don't tell me you're black. ;)
Well Pearl, what did you expect
I know, I know.
There must have been some kind of affirmative action involved in the draft back then that favored giving all the good jobs in the military to minorities.
According to Tom DeLay ""so many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself".
And those damn non-American loving minorities and cowardly white men turned their tails and hid out in South East Asia until the whole thing blew over.
And those damn non-American loving minorities and cowardly white men turned their tails and hid out in South East Asia until the whole thing blew over.
King, the sad thing is this is NOT about race. It's about a group of cowards claiming to set the standard for patriotism, something they don't have a damn clue about. Men of all colors came when their country called. Some men enlisted and other's came when their draft number was called. They didn't choose an asinine excuses like I have a cyst on my fat a** or I'm a student and a new father, How many children never knew their fathers because their country called and their fathers answered.
AA calling Rev. Wright anti-American makes my blood boil. NO ONE who served their country should EVER be labeled anti-American by someone who NEVER served himself.
Now that ranted, I think I'll have a glass of wine. ;-)
Pearlene,
I do hope you enjoyed your glass of wine.
I respect the sacrifice Rev. Wright made by being in the armed services. He has my gratitude for that. I'm not referring to his military career but his pronouncements from the pulpit that we all have heard. You should know that.
Saying "GD-America" and "US of KKKA" are hardly pro-American utterances. Accusing the United States Government of genocide against blacks by creating and spreading AIDS is not pro-American. If you want to argue that they are, go right ahead.
Pearlene wrote:
"NO ONE who served their country should EVER be labeled anti-American by someone who NEVER served himself."
What about
Benedict Arnold?
Aaron Burr?
Jonathon Pollard?
Timothy McVeigh?
Terry Nichols?
Lee Harvey Oswalt?
Can only those who served label these men as anti-American?
I'm getting real sick of this BS that is thrown out regarding the "Goddamn America" quote.
AA, I challenge you to provide the full paragraph that contained that quote and then explain to all of us how it is in any way unpatriotic. Until then, shut the hell up about this stupid non-controversy invented by people who are merely intent on dragging a candidate down. You are being disingenuous and your faux outrage is pathetic.
The flag pin "controversy" is almost identical. I'm so sorry that nobody in the real world gives a damn about that issue. The only people who care, or pretend to care, are those who want to damage Obama's reputation and the media who love to talk about things they don't need to think about. Unfortunately for you, you're not going to get the average American to care about such a stupid, childish issue just because you keep bringing it up. All it does is make you look silly.
Jaw,
Okay. Take a long deep breath. I am so sorry to offend you delicate sensitivities. :-)
I am not going to take your challenge to provide Rev. Wright's full "GD America quote". Not because I can't, and not because I don't actually know the quote but simply because it is up to you to prove your point to me and not the other way around. If you want to provide the full quote, be my guest.
I have more than once explained why I think it is anti-American rather than your contention that I think it is unpatriotic.
I suggest if you don't like what I post, please feel free to ignore it much the same as I do posts like yours that are full of venom and rant but really say nothing.
Apparently there are others here who feel like commenting on the subject even if it so distasteful to you. Are you also going to try to bully them with cheap insults into conformance of your will?
This is simply a discussion thread. I am only posting my views and responding to others who are doing the same. I am sorry you have such a hard time comprehending that simple fact. Take another deep breath and move on my friend.
I respect the sacrifice Rev. Wright made by being in the armed services. He has my gratitude for that. I'm not referring to his military career but his pronouncements from the pulpit that we all have heard. You should know that.
AA, yet you still can't just leave it at that. You continue to try to justify your calling him anti-American. YOU DO NOT have the right! It's just that simple. You can dislike many of the things Rev. Wright said but YOU CANNOT continue to call anti-American.
Solon,
I am not sure why you are so eager to mis characterize my points. Earlier you Posted "Strawman Alert". I think that goes for just about every post you've made this thread.
I have never said anyone has to accept the flag or the lapel pin as a sign of patriotism. I have no problem with Obama not wearing a pin. I have no problem with him standing in front of 20 American flags during a press conference like I saw recently. He can do what he wants.
Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that to many, (not all,) the flag and by extension, the lapel pin, does represent patriotism and love of country?
It is the act of publicly removing it by Obama because of his political stance that is what the controversy is all about. To many the flag and what is symbolizes should be above politics.
If you feel differently, that is fine by me. Inventing "straw men" in order to sling your oft-repeated aspersions is getting pretty stale.
To many the flag and what is symbolizes should be above politics.
LOL
AA, watch this, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5LZI50dMbM
Enjoy your libation, Pearlene and have one for me.
I couldn't agree more. How did we get to this point, where love of country is defined not by service and action, but by words and ornaments?
I'd be the first to admit that service was not my choice or the choice of most of the people who answered their letters that read "greetings From The President of The United States". But when called, we did what was necessary.
For many of us, what we received for our sacrifice was to be called cowards and traitors by those who did not answer the call. All because we questioned our government.
I know who the real cowards are. They're the ones who today define patriotism for the rest of us. They're the ones who use their audiences to promote wars without end. They're the ones who worship flags and pins.
They're the ones who can excuse any and all acts of un-Americanism by todays leaders while at the same time crucify anyone who voices opinions contrary to the talking points of the NeoConservatives.
We've got our share of them here. They hold candidates accountable for the opinions of their preachers and excuse lies by our leaders that have resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000.
If, as many of them believe, there is a vengeful God, they're going to have to do some explaining to do.
Worrier,
Implying that because some people disagree with your political opinion that they are subject to a wrathful God is astounding. If a conservative had implied that here what do you think the reaction would be?
You're cherry picking again AA.
The key word in my final paragraph, which you ignored was "IF".
I never said that it's what I believe.
But a wrathful, vengeful God seems to be in the news a lot lately coming from the agents of intolerance. They blame parades for hurricanes.The ACLU was blamed for the attacks on 9/11.
Did you castigate Falwell or Hagee when they made these claims?
These comments were made by conservatives. These hateful religious con men were never held accountable for their hatred, yet you've been decrying Rev. Wright since his scandal was originally broadcast.
Keep up your hypocrisy, AA. You wear it well.
Worrier,
If you'll take the time to look you'll see I never defended Hagee's statement so your charge of hypocrisy is ill informed. Nice attempt at a putdown but wrong just the same.
I think his Katrina quote was as outlandish as yours invoking a vengeful God on others based on your political views. The "if in your statement does not take away from your assertion.
As an aside, you should know by now that Hagee apologized for that quote. Here it is so you don't make the same mistake again.
“As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses,” Hagee said in a statement issued through his public relations firm. “But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us."I have no idea what the other quote is that you are referring.
Sorry for the small print. I'll try again with Hagee's apology.
“As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses,” Hagee said in a statement issued through his public relations firm. “But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us.
Being a one term anti-war Senator from Illinois is one thing. Being President of the United States is another. A President represents to the world and to the country the people of the United States. However genuine and heartfelt it may have been Obama's public dismissal of the lapel pin in a time of war serves as a symbolic reminder to many that Obama put his anti-war agenda ahead of patriotism.
I disagree. What Obama was sa6ying was that true patriotism and love of country goes much deeper than wearing a lapel pin. And never forget the famous words of Sameul Johnson - "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Wz,
I realize that is what Obama said. But that observation was lost on many because the lapel pin flag, to them, symbolized love of country post 9/11 and transcended political ideology. I feel Obama's removal of the pin sent a message to many that he did no longer believed in the symbol.
We are in a recession inducing occupation of a foreign land. War we are not in.
“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”
-Barak Obama October 4th 2007
What Obama and many here do not realize that patriotism is not simply explaining one's far left political ideas. The symbolism of his pin removal and his words are that people who were wearing the pin were somehow guilty of false patriotism. I doubt it has never occurred to lots of people here that a person could be patriotic and wear an American flag lapel pin at the same time.
The symbolism of his pin removal and his words are that people who were wearing the pin were somehow guilty of false patriotism.
AA, either you really don't get it or your choose to not get it. Obama speaks for himself. The flag pin doesn't define HIS patriotism.
The proof that you love your country does not lie in the flag pin. Unfortunately, Republicans started that crap after 9/11. They decided to redefine what "patriotism" is. They controlled all branches of the government so their message made news. Pouring French wine down the drain and calling french fries "freedom fries" and wearing a flag pin were the ways Republicans choose to define patriotism. NONE of that was patriotism!
Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' by individuals and groups. The 'fatherland' (or 'motherland') can be a region or a city, but patriotism usually applies to a nation and/or a nation-state. Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and culture, the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the culture, and identification with other members of the nation. Patriotism is closely associated with nationalism, and the terms are often used synonymously. Strictly speaking, nationalism is an ideology - but it often promotes patriotic attitudes as desirable and appropriate. (Both nationalist political movements, and patriotic expression, may, yet need not, be negative towards other people's 'fatherland').
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines patriotism as: love for or devotion to one's country
Did it ever occur to you that your narrow-minded, rigtwing extremist views have almost completely deteriorated your cognitive abilities? He's denouncing the fervor that got completely out of hand in that moment (think context.) He's also expressing his genuine beliefs on the matter. Since they prefer to be toyed with emotionally by their politicians rightwingers may chafe at Obama's honest approach but the rest of us find his candor refreshing.
"What Obama and many here do not realize that patriotism is not simply explaining one's far left political ideas."
I think you might have written that sentence because you like the look of insulting phrases but are too prudish to actually insult people. Anyway, you may have inadvertently stumbled onto something true without realizing it cuts both ways. Patriotism is also not simply a matter of explaining one's radical rightwing views. It's about defending each other's right to exhibit their patriotism as they see fit.
Dick Morris - you don't believe in our system - you believe in slime.
The Toe Sucker better hope and pray for Barack to get the nomination and win in November, because he had previously vowed (on more than one occasion) that if Hillary Clinton were elected president, he'd leave the country.
Wiz,
I'm amazed that anyone even pays attention to this jerk. If Morris says something or makes a prediction he usually turns out to be dead wrong. I mean this is the guy who wrote an entire frigin book about a Hillary vs Condi Presidential race.
I bet you can't even find that trash in a book store bargain bin ;-)
So, in other words, the election will be determined by whether the country has been completely taken over by the lunatic fringe? That makes me proud to be an American... ;>)
What kills me is that in hearing this kind of talk there is no sense conveyed that it is a bad thing that the electorate might actually be that stupid. And they accuse Democrats of being so power hungry that they'll do anything to win? Yea, right...
Of course, if that's the new model, why not fire all the "reporters" and just send cameramen out there.... sort of like C Span.
Coulter was the first dim bulb from the Republican's overflowing supply closet of dim bulbs to suggest the "sleeper" angle, even going so far as to say Manchurian candidate without recall the plot of said movie revolves around a soldier, like McCain, who was taken prisoner, like McCain, and brainwashed by his captors, like...McCain...?
They really need to shut this one down, out of respect for THEIR candidate.
Randy
i hope obama doesn't believe in what our system has become.
why do pundits insist on praising a clearly flawed system?
"[W]who really doesn't believe in our system..."
By which he means, “Someone who doesn't admit the indisputable wisdom of the commentators like me!”Here's my little fantasy.
Ms Clinton comes out swinging at Mr. Morris. She is the one that show anger about the offensive things that Mr Morris has said. She explains that he has slimed her and her husband for years and has nothing to offer in the way of intelligent discussion about the primary or the election. She says that Mr. Obama is a excellent candidate, dedicated senetor and true American. No equivication.
Mr. Obama responds by thanking her for her support and states that although he and Ms. Clinton have some differences they both truely want what is best for America. Questioning any of the candidates, including Mr. McCain's commitment to America is appaulling, small minded and beneath what should be the dignity of the press. Questioning on the issues must continue, Questioning about trivia should not.
The democratic party shows unity against the small minded of the media. a healing moment, the campaign contiues with less vitriol and we inagurate a Democrat in January.
Like I said, I live in a fantasy world.
skipp if you will let me add to your fantasy world. Intelligent people will see the Rupert Murdoch companies for what they are--distortors of the truth for an agenda. The same could be said of all media but their slant is more distorted than the rest.
"sleeper agent"
OMFG, get real. People listen to idiots like this guy?
Why does anyone listen to a man who let his hooker for the evening listen in on phone calls to the White House? The only people who listen to this fool are other right-wing fools.