Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In a Democratic primary, mainstream candidates can and should attack Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and William Donohue and make hay of it.

No question. But they should be very careful to separate these guys from other "Christians". If they were going after these guys they should have used their names and not made general comments about Christians and Catholics, or mainstream Christian and Catholic dogma.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
I asked Taxwonk a question. How was that eating his lunch?

You shouldn't complain. He usually has a really, really nice lunch

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
No question. But they should be very careful to separate these guys from other "Christians". If they were going after these guys they should have used their names and not made general comments about Christians and Catholics, or mainstream Christian and Catholic dogma.

Yeh, I don't see either Hilary or Obama refering to God's hot sticky stuff any time soon.

But, you gotta enjoy the Democratic primaries more - we separate the wheat and chaff with much more entertaining stuff than the Rs, who just behead anyone who is pro-choice or has been seen in public with anyone who is gay (unless they are a repetant preacher from a Red state).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What is lost in all her clamouring is that the rightie blogs initially took her to the woodshed because she went back and edited a fair number of "controversial" blog entries - not including the one's that just disappeared - right after she joined the Edwards campaign.

Her (disgusting) anti-Catholic and anti-Christian vitriol was seized upon later on by the MSM as being at the heart of the matter, but that is not really where it started.

Now Marcotte is dismissing all of that as "server error" - which, although ludicrous, would seem to infer that she shouldn't exactly be the person in charge of the blog for a serious Presidential candidate.

PS - You actually think she writes well? To me, she reads like a HS newspaper columnist.

Like I said, I'm biased. Reproductive rights are a big deal for me, and the post that caused her the most trouble was one where the catholics were wrong and she was right.

ETA:
Misinformation on these sorts of things piss me off.

Thanks to misleading information like the pamphlet Marcotte was criticizing, I live in a state where it's mandatory to give false information to women at abortion clinics about the link between breast cancer and abortion. The fact that such a link does not exist isn't mentioned in the literarture that's handed out. Motherfuckers.

ETA2: And this is also charming:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...umPageOne.html

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...umPageTwo.html

Warren Chisum is one of the most powerful members of the state legislature.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
That said, I have little doubt the campaign staffers could be stupid enough to have reviewed the blog entries in question and not found them offense. It has to do with the type of person that wants to work on liberal campaigns. They tend not to get bent out of shape over people insulting the religious.

BTW - this is an excellent point.

And scary that the left has possibly become so inured to Christian mockery that this would merely go by as de rigueur

[Adder]

Let the condemnation begin:

Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart's column on John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?

Or, you know, perhaps not.

link

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
BTW - this is an excellent point.

And scary that the left has possibly become so inured to Christian mockery that this would merely go by as de rigueur

Note that I made a distinction between people who vote for liberal campaigns and people who volunteer/work for liberal campaigns.

I suspect a similar distinction should be draw on the right, but I have less personal experience there.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Let the condemnation begin:



link

Actually - here is the original Variety article

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...egoryid=1&cs=1

What I find interesting about this, is how anti-Isreal can one be in the mainstream of the Democrat party? Is this statement going to hurt Edwards among the Democrats? After the attack on Lebanon, it seemed that even though the press went after Isreal the Dem leadership in Congress (including Pelosi) backed Isreal. It used to be that most Jews were in the Democrat party and that they formed a strong pro-Isreali lobby. Is this not the case anymore? Or are many Jews in the Democrat party not backing Isreal as much as they did before? If Isreal attacks Iran will Democrat presidential hopefuls criticise Isreal?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
BTW - this is an excellent point.

And scary that the left has possibly become so inured to Christian mockery that this would merely go by as de rigueur

I'm sure there are corresponding/parallel charges which could be levelled at staffers for right-wing campaigns.

S_A_M

P.S. "Islamofascist" and "Christofascist" are precisely equal in offensiveness. Your argument is really just that one term is more appropriately used than the other -- or applies to a much broader group of people.

Even using your criteria, "Christofascists" do exist.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
Even using your criteria, "Christofascists" do exist.

Really? "Death" or "Forced Conversion"?

Do you have a recent cite for this?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Note that I made a distinction between people who vote for liberal campaigns and people who volunteer/work for liberal campaigns.

I suspect a similar distinction should be draw on the right, but I have less personal experience there.

Yes. The volunteers for the campaigns are much more extreme than the averge Republican. That is why vetting who gets to speak for the campaign is so important. In well run campaigns, staffers and especially volunteers are told over and over again that they are not to speak for the campaign. All communication needs to go through the communications staff. In fact, on some statewide campaigns in California, since TV commercials and and earned media are so important, and the press is constantly hunting for gaffs and screwups, volunteers are often seen as more of a liability than useful (because they can open their mouths and screw things up), that volunteers are actually turned away.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Really? "Death" or "Forced Conversion"?

Do you have a recent cite for this?

Ann Coulter.

[SlaveNoMore]

Cletus Miller
Ann Coulter.

She killed someone recently?

I mean, other than a debate opponent, and rhetorically speaking?

[SlaveNoMore]

A curious article. Worth the 2 minute read:

Is Giuliani "White" Enough?

...But I'd like to flip the question about Obama in a way, just to see what we might come up with here. So, instead of asking, "Is Obama black enough?" how about asking, "Is Rudolph Giuliani white enough?"

Huh?

Well, just as "blackness" is an identity we invent and impose on each other (a "socially constructed concept," as they say), so is "whiteness." And "whiteness"--or the "lack" of it--might also have important political ramifications.

Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III is a proud Italian-American; both his mom and his dad were immigrants. He was mayor of New York City--perhaps the world's greatest experiment in diversity. And he's running for president in the Republican Party, a party that even former chairman Ken Mehlman has acknowledged faces genuine problems reaching out to non-whites. In 2000, George W. Bush won 62 percent of white males--and lost the popular vote. Bush won 60 percent of the white male vote in 2004--and just 50.7 percent of the overall vote. As any GOP strategist will tell you privately, the Republican Party has become too dependent on white male voters.

So what does this have to do with Giuliani? He's a white guy, right? Well, yes and no. Who counts as white in America has been a fluid concept in our history, and Italians have only recently--and perhaps incompletely in some quarters--been admitted to the racial club....

the whole thing is here

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually - here is the original Variety article

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...egoryid=1&cs=1

What I find interesting about this, is how anti-Isreal can one be in the mainstream of the Democrat party? Is this statement going to hurt Edwards among the Democrats? After the attack on Lebanon, it seemed that even though the press went after Isreal the Dem leadership in Congress (including Pelosi) backed Isreal. It used to be that most Jews were in the Democrat party and that they formed a strong pro-Isreali lobby. Is this not the case anymore? Or are many Jews in the Democrat party not backing Isreal as much as they did before? If Isreal attacks Iran will Democrat presidential hopefuls criticise Isreal?

I did not link to the Variety article, as I didn't think there was much else interesting in it.

As for the quote, I am not sure that it is anti-Israel. He doesn't say that Israel would be wrong to bomb Iran. He says that that is the most likely non-peaceful event on the horizon. He is probably right.
o