SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (81482)8/23/2010 5:37:27 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
I didn't think it could get more crazy than 2008 but the Rs have really unpopped the cork this time. The crazies are out in force and they can't stop spewing their craziness. And we have two more months to go.

BTW you know the Rs are in trouble when M. Bachmann looks to be an island of sanity in a sea of craziness.

RNC Committeewoman Kim Lehman Claims Obama Told Muslims That He Was A Muslim

The Republican ranks have, by and large, cautiously avoided weighing in on recent poll numbers showing that a healthy portion of the American public believes that President Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Wary of the cultural sensitivities such discussions entail, the de facto response seems to be the one offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday: "The president says he's a Christian," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute."

There have been a few notable exceptions. Congressional candidate Tom Ganley said last week that he did not have "a position on whether he's a Muslim" only to walk back his remarks amidst the uproar. No one in the official GOP tent, however, has fully embraced the rumor. Until now.

Last Friday, a Republican National Committee woman Kim Lehman, responding to an article about the polls in Politico, accused the publication of trying "to protect Obama" by denying his true religious heritage.

"BTW he personally told the muslims that he IS a muslim," wrote the Iowa RNC member. "Read his lips."




A few Iowa progressive blogs picked up on her remarks. But beyond that they went largely ignored. Lehman, who also works for The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute, appears to be the first national committee member to fully endorse the Obama-is-a-Muslim view.

Reached on the phone Monday, Lehman stood by her initial tweet, arguing that it was during his speech that Obama let the real truth slip.

"I was watching television when he was over there talking to the Muslim world and he made it, in my opinion, clear he was partially Muslim," Lehman told the Huffington Post. "The way he was approaching that speech was, 'Hey I'm one of you. I'm with you.' He didn't have to say that... but he did."


Obama's speech in Cairo did include discussion about his father's Muslim faith. But the president also made it abundantly clear, both then and many times since, that he was a practicing Christian. Asked why she didn't believe the empirical and overwhelming evidence, Lehman replied:

"Again, going back to his speech... he would have said I'm a Christian and I'm from the Christian religion and we can work together. It didn't appear to me he said Christianity was part of his religion."

For the record, here is the relevant portion of Obama's speech (emphasis ours):


Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

huffingtonpost.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (81482)8/23/2010 11:33:27 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Greek Democracy
By Matt Osborne

Arianna Huffington -- who represents the "professional left" about as well as anyone -- says the president is "not all that into" the middle class. I don't think she's being very original or very funny. Worse, I put that sort of rhetoric in the firebagger category, as it isn't useful. There is nothing anyone can do about the president until 2012 at the earliest -- and as I have said consistently throughout the body of my work, Congress is where most of the blame lies for any progressive disappointment.

Sorry if you're turned off by the music in the video; it's loud and angry because I want the righteous anger of the just focused where it belongs, which is not on the man least responsible for legislative reform. Much more after the jump...

Arianna quotes Krugman:

"Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred?"

Actually, given how little the left has done to turn out in the streets and mobilize I'm surprised it took this long for the Press Secretary to get our attention. We've needed to have a democratic conversation with the president -- one that wasn't founded on the cognitive dissonance of right-wing insanity.

But as to the second part of that question, "wooing people who will never waver in their hatred," the answer is simple: it's what Martin Luther King or Mandela would do.

Arianna quotes Yglesias:

"The president...likes to present himself as a 'pragmatist' uninterested in questions of ideology, and his political strategy is largely organized around a posture of unctuous reasonableness in which he never loses patience with the opposition or affiliates himself emotionally with the passions that drive activists."

I like Yglesias and very much enjoy his work; but "pragmatist" hardly begins to cover it. Obama is a Neibuhrian realist and rational empiricist who never shows us the "angry black man" of Beckian stereotype, not even when Bret Baier badgers him for a half-hour. Obama's actually been quite consistent. He

"never loses patience with the opposition or affiliates himself emotionally with the passions that drive activists"

because it's what Martin Luther King or Saul Alinsky would do. You know, like a community organizer? In response, America's online and cable news "democracy" has screamed at this president to twist arms, to argue more vociferously for a public option, and otherwise save the country alone by just wanting it more than he has.

Arianna herself adds:

"those who voted for transformation can't simply sit back and wait for the man of their dreams to do it for them."

Arianna has lots of ad revenue to help arrange for buses to bring lots of progressives to Washington, DC so we can put on our street show. Yes, I know the standard progressive complaints: 'the media pays no attention' (ridiculous; we have our own progressive media. You are reading it now) and 'it's hard getting to DC.' (Did I mention buses?) Why does FreedomWorks understand this, but suddenly not the online left? You'd almost have to believe there was no such thing as a "professional left" at all. I've been writing about this bizarre progressive failure for a while, actually -- and at Arianna's website. So far I've mostly heard excuses in reply.

Which is not to say that Arianna is solely responsible for the dispirited state of the left; but she has far more power over the mood of progressives than the president, who "still wants to feel pressure from the left" even as progressives moan about staying home to teach him a lesson instead. Arianna is dangerously close to joining Ed "Anger" Schultz in the unhelpful category of left/center media figures who show up at confabs to tell me there will be no "sixties-style" street show anymore, and that this is because the coalition behind the Democratic surge of 2008 is too lazy. Or something.

I know better: if there hasn't been a progressive march on DC yet, it's because the Democrats, liberals, and progressives with the fancy websites and big organizations haven't made it happen. I keep saying that reform is hard -- that progress will be slow -- but mostly see the online left engaging in firebaggery because they're the cool kids and Obama's too square to get it done for them.

There's another analogy in Martin Luther King, who was too square for the more radical elements of the era. But unlike even Malcolm X, the "professional left" has utterly abandoned America's democratic showcase to teabaggers. Last time I checked, it took lots of us to have democracy. Heck, even with King you needed tens of thousands of people to make the Civil Rights Era happen.

Nonviolence is an active, dynamic strategy to meet determined resistance and overcome it. Nonviolence requires time, patience, and persistent courage. More importantly, the left doesn't win because of charismatic leaders but because it shows up to march, to petition, and to win. Just as the right seeks to steal their act, the American left forgets how to be angry in public? Wrong. First, because immigrants have nothing to lose and their advocates can get them to DC en masse. Second, because we do this a whole lot better than the right.

The president has applied the King formula to build a consensus for reform on health care and consumer financial protection. The left sneers at these achievements because the president hasn't farted a global green-energy socialist paradise out of his armpit. Obama does not write legislation with his veto pen because he is a constitutional law professor; indeed, he understands his appointed role only too well.

He's not enough change from the unitary executive to bother getting excited about. That seems to be the perspective of the opinion-leaders, anyway, who don't see Obama as a president with limited powers. They do not accept that against a center-right legislature he does not control, his powers are limited. That he respects those limits simply earns him no cred with teabaggers or firebaggers.

The president can be wrong. The White House can be wrong. I'd give Rahm Emanuel an earful about Guantanamo, for example, but I would do it knowing that Congress has refused to fund closure and Democrats have actively pandered to the Liz Cheney fearmongering demographic. I also know that Obama's Congressional majority is weaker than what FDR or LBJ enjoyed.

So while I'd love to talk about the president some more, it seems rather irrelevant to the question of electing a new, more progressive Congress in 2010, doesn't it? And as I'm not holding my breath for Arianna and her class of lefties to get busy, I'll be in DC Sept. 25-27 to march with Appalachia Rising because that's what Martin Luther King would do. More importantly, it's how he won.

But it's not what I'm seeing from the "professional left," which seems to think it can win by surrendering. Obama is not Alcibiades, and it would be a tragedy if the coalition that put him in office stayed home this November instead of advancing their agenda. In fact, I say they are already squandering huge opportunities and have no one to blame but themselves if the pace of reform slows between now and 2012.

crooksandliars.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (81482)8/24/2010 12:36:39 AM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
If the right wants to stop the funding of the Muslim community center in NYC, then they need to stop watching Fox News. That's right....the money partner in Fox News is also funding the community center.

Just pathetic....and embarrassing.

Jon Stewart: Fox News Omits Facts to Further Its "Fear-Driven Narrative"

Tonight, Jon Stewart discussed Fox News and its reports about the funding sources of the "Ground Zero Mosque." Specifically, Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. But Fox never mentions his name... or that he's a part owner of its parent company.

Watch video:

tv.gawker.com