Oh fun. The always-awesome Max Blumenthal reports that Senator Holy Joe Lieberman still plans on headlining John Hagee’s 2008 Christians United For Israel summit this summer:
In accepting Hagee’s invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee’s summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him “an Ish Elochim,” or “a man of God.” Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year’s summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.
Hagee’s vitriolic condemnation of Catholicism, his jeremiad declaring Hurricane Katrina divine punishment for New Orleans’ hosting of a “homosexual rally,” and his generally disturbing apocalyptic theology became national news last February when John McCain accepted his endorsement in a widely publicized ceremony.
While initially resisting pressure to reject Hagee’s endorsement, McCain finally ended his relationship with Hagee when a sermon by the preacher describing the Holocaust as the will of God registered on the mainstream media’s radar (Hear the now-infamous sermon here).
We’ve heard a lot of nonsense in recent years that any left-wing Jew who doesn’t unconditionally back the Israeli government’s actions is “self-loathing.” This lazy smear has been applied to many people over the past few years, including Steven Spielberg, Avraham Burg, George Soros, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, and countless, countless others who have refused to wave the Likud pom-poms.
But ask yourselves: What behavior could possibly be more self-loathing than when someone deems that political convenience is worth tolerating the mad notion that one of history’s greatest crimes against humanity was all part of ‘God’s plan?’ Isn’t it time that we take a long look at what it actually means to be a ‘self-loathing Jew?’
My apologies if this topic has been brought up for discussion earlier, either here or on another website. The desultory poking around I’ve done on the intertubes doesn’t seem to have yielded much along these lines, and I’ve been out of it enough that I might very well have missed it if it has been.
But we – and by “we” I mean “folks who consider themselves of a liberal or left-leaning political orientation” – need to start having a serious conversation, and the sooner we start it, the better. It’s a conversation that centers around this:
The numbers at the above link will change with time, so I have a grab of what they look like today stuck up here for reference. Regardless of which Democratic candidate emerges from the current internecine warfare with the nomination, as of today the November election is polling too close to call one way or the other. If you were planning on betting on the outcome of this election, I’d urge you not to wager anything you couldn’t afford to lose.
The question I want to put up for discussion is: what does it say about the overall viability of the Democratic party if, in the wake of the single most unpopular presidency in all of American history, the best candidates the Democrats can put up can only achieve ‘too close to call’ this far out from the election? What happens to the Democratic party if they manage to lose this upcoming election?
This far out from the election, a reasonable person would be predicting a pretty big Democratic swing in the polls, simply because (as even the Republicans acknowledge) just about everyone in the country hates George Bush. People should be telling pollsters at this point in time that they’d vote for a potted plant before they vote for another Republican. The gaps in these sorts of polls usually narrow the closer to the election you get — but it’s statistically impossible for the gap in these polls to be any narrower.
It doesn’t take amazing psychic abilities to predict that the narrative from the chattering classes, as we near November, will be something along the lines of, “Can the Democratic Party be saved?” And if McCain wins the general election, this will end up being the only topic of conversation on cable news networks for approximately the next 6,734 years or so. My feeling is that we might as well start having a conversation along these lines ourselves, before the conversation gets thrust upon us by the David Broders of the world.
Hopefully, most of you are enjoying your Memorial Day with some good food and good drink, so consider this an extension of your typical backyard barbecue banter. Am I totally off base for wondering what’s going to happen to the Democrats if they can’t win the White House under the most favorable conditions for victory they’ve had in almost a century?
If the leftist naysayers and peaceniks are, in fact, onto something with their claim that US forces are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, then how about turning their arguments for withdrawal upside-down? How about just making the US armed forces a whole lot bigger?
…For the ‘Long War,’ that is. That’s the generational-war-against-whatever that includes attacking whoever-we-feel-like over a period of however-long-we-feel-like-it. A force of draftees would be a bad idea; we’ll need volunteers.
Ach, but here are the patriots at Free Republic with some special Memorial Day commentary apropos the Kagan and Donnelly piece:
To: The_Republican
The more and more post-service “rights” we give “veterans”, the worse this will get. Every “vet” thirsty after special “rights” is another possible victim for the party of victimology.
6 posted on Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:00:14 PM by bvw
Or for the “party” of “victimology,” which is worse, even.
To: bvw
I totally agree. I can’t believe the number of vet who qualify for some sort of disability. I had a neighbor get 50 percent for a voluntary hysterectomy. I did my time and then did another quarter century. I was proud to serve and I didn’t try to pull anything over on the VA. All I ask for is a small plot of land and a headstone when my time is up.
14 posted on Sunday, May 25, 2008 5:00:06 PM by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
As if adventure weren’t enough! It’s a good thing he isn’t in charge of recruiting for the million-man project. He’d make seductive promises about endless free cups of bad coffee and low prices on smokes at the PX, and wonder why the quality of the recruits seemed shaky.
But sense sometimes breaks through even at Free Republic:
To: AlaskaEric
On Memorial Day — we remember those who never became “veterans”. And every one of those remembered would have easily traded his plot of ground — no matter how famous and respected that plot — for life.
That’s the real service — to live in a way that honors the life of the honored — for they did not get that chance to continue it on their own. They left it for us to pick up the slack, and not for us to be slackers.
44 posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 11:42:32 AM by bvw
“What’s the use of four bars if nobody will take my calls?”
The ol’ Butt-Missile, John Hinderaker, whose delusional love for his “big brother” Bush knows virtually no limits, has apparently been institutionalized for the past four years and has not been able to read a newspaper:
[I]t seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.
…
2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.
2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
Oh, great and mighty Gazoogle, can you help us here?
Thanks, Mr. Gazoogle!
Are We Safer?
[I]t seems beyond dispute that something nothing has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing continued apace.
2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.
2004 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
May, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
December, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
November, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
March, Karachi, Pakistan: Four people, including a U.S. diplomat, were killed and 52 others were injured when a suicide bomber rammed the diplomat’s car outside the Karachi Marriott – yards away from the U.S. consulate.
2007 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
January, Islamabad, Pakistan: A suicide bomber attacks Marriott Hotel.
January, Athens, Greece: A terrorist group fires anti-tank missile at U.S. Embassy.
2008 So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
January, Beirut, Lebanon: An explosion apparently targeting a U.S. Embassy vehicle convoy killed three civilians and injured at least 22 others, including several employees of the American Embassy in Lebanon.
In response to my question about how the new Muslim Apostate meme got started, Gavin at Sadly No emailed with this link to Jihad Watch from David Horowitz’s FrontPage magazine. This makes sense. After all, David Horowitz has made his career out of being an apostate so it figures his project would be behind the propagation of this nonsense. It’s his thing.
We’re dealing with some very, very deep thinkers here.
1. I wrote the piece linked at Jihad Watch. David Horowitz did not. JW is a Horowitz Center operation, but I am solely and wholly responsible for its content.
This explains the name on the piece, which was ‘Robert Spencer’ the first time I read it, and was also ‘Robert Spencer’ last week, when I Googled the terms, Robert+Spencer+Obama+Apostasy.
2. In the post in question, I explained that Obama would not be considered an apostate according to Islamic law if he left Islam before puberty, as it appears he did. I have never claimed that Obama was an apostate from Islam — in fact, I have argued just the opposite — and these geniuses keep attributing just the opposite position to me.
Others including Daniel “Crack” Pipes were working the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ meme. Spencer’s innovation was in taking the claim that Obama was a Muslim as a child (which is not true), and coupling it with the observation that Islamic law mandates death for those who abandon Islam. This is a fact similar to the one that mainstream Judaism mandates death for children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9): It is widely irrelevant, and would be specifically irrelevant to Barack Obama even if he were a Muslim as a child, which he wasn’t. Juridical mumbo-jumbo follows in a cascade until Spencer achieves this startling deduction:
So is Obama under a death sentence? Probably not.
Well that’s good to hear! First we thought he was, um, not under any kind of death sentence at all, and now we learn that he’s probably not under a Muslim death sentence either.
More good news: Will Robert Spencer die of necrotizing anal fissures? We don’t think so.
We can play this game all day.
Has Spencer been caught giving blowjobs to undercover cops? Probably not.
Comme il faut, if called to account for such statements, we shall point out correctly and accurately that we never said that Robert Spencer had anal fissures or gave a single, solitary blowjob to anyone, and in fact clearly stated that we believe exactly the opposite. We said he didn’t; can’t you read?
3. Can’t Leftists read? Perry Bacon, Washington Post “journalist,” made the same mistake.
This is the notorious Perry Bacon piece where he repeated all the crazy Obama-is-a-Muslim stories. It says much about Spencer that he considers Bacon to be a ‘Leftist,’ but it says more about Spencer’s piece that everyone seems to misunderstand it so much, and to focus unduly on the kill-Obama-Muslim stuff.
Which is really quite a small portion of the total, if you’re going to count words. Can’t Leftists count? Etc.
This week Hillary gave them what they wanted: she ‘invoked’ (whatever the heck that means) the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. They’ve been waiting for something like this. The [liberal] blogs have been buzzing for months with what fellow Townhall columnist, Mark Steyn calls, “Obama assassination porn;” that is, detailed fantasies in which Obama is felled by an assassin’s bullet, often in mid-speech.
They have? Never have we witnessed such absurd and backwards behavior.
Happy Memorial Day weekend, everybody! Enjoy some LOLvets, who, when clicked upon, will show you many of the delightful ways the current Republican administration has honored our men and women in uniform.
Iran is considering a new campaign to fend off the latest threat it has faced – men’s ties.
“Imports of some apparel are not banned but serious action should be taken to stop the import of ties which contradict the nature of Iranian culture,” Asghar Hamidi, the nation’s customs bureau deputy head, told the Fars news agency.
The wearing of ties has been banned in government offices in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution because it represents a “westernization” of the Iranian culture. However, before that the U.S.-backed shah had promoted ties.
Following the shah’s fall from power, members of Iran’s Basij militia would go so far as to patrol streets with scissors in order to snip ties that men were brave enough to wear, AFP said.
Never have we witnessed such absurd and backwards behavior.
Received from Dunkin’ Brands Customer Service this morning (along with two more hate mails from Rachael Ray fans):
Thank you for expressing your concern regarding the Rachael Ray advertisement. In the ad that you reference, Rachael is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design that was purchased at a U.S. retail store. It was selected by the stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we will no longer use the commercial.
They left the same note in the comments for Exurban League, where there is a serious infestation of snarling moonbats.
Remember a few days back when we noted that Malkin always pulls the same tricks? Having implicated Dunkin’ Donuts in a jihadi neckwear conspiracy, she’s now casting her scouring fish eye upon Subway, the sandwich chain.
The Subway sandwich corporation is holding a story-writing contest for kids. You can win athletic equipment, gift baskets, or sandwich shop cash cards.
Perhaps they fear the homeschooled students will call attention to all their spelling errors. Looks like the Subway marketing department ought to hire a few homeschoolers to help them out.
Ah, but watch how the message changed when it passed through Malkin. Here’s what she left out from the contest rules:
Enter the Every Sandwich Tells a Story Contest for a chance to win great prizes for your child’s school!
Here’s what you could win:
1 Grand Prize Winner:
– Athletic equipment for your child’s school ($5,000 value)
– Scholastic Gift Bastket (sic) for your home
– SUBWAY Card ($100 value)
– See your story published on www.subwaykids.com and in Scholastic Parent and Child magazine.
(Emphasis ours, by the way.) This was not misunderstood by the homeschooling magazine from which she got the story:
The presumed rationale for the exclusion is that the grand prize is athletic equipment for a school and that “home schools” aren’t organized schools and that the equipment is intended for a community, not a family.
But when Malkin was done removing contextual information from the story, it was processed and ready for pickup by her readership of angry, paranoid buffoons. The Subway fast-food chain was discriminating against homeschoolers for no apparent reason, evidently from bigotry alone, seemingly out of petty-minded liberal spite. It was yet another example of the daily insult inflicted by liberals upon the majority of normal, decent Americans — i.e., themselves (i.e., a minority of angry, paranoid buffoons).
(Updated)Michelle Malkin reports, “The Subway sandwich corporation is holding a story-writing contest for kids. You can win athletic equipment, gift baskets, or sandwich shop cash cards. Except if you’re a homeschooled student…”
[…]
Doctor’s Associates Inc., which owns and operates Subway, typifies an American corporation with an international bent toward subverting the U.S. Constitution and acting as socialism’s change agent. Don’t believe it? Check out its “Helping Society” page, outlining its “diversity” and “going green” policies, as well as it’s commitment to to only dealing with “business partners” adhere to the same practices.
On the other hand, the real question might be, exactly how dumb is Chris Muir?
“Hokay, [snort] who order de snotchos?”
