Hot Fudge Sunday February 27

Sundays bring us the political talk shows. If you see something interesting on one of them, jump on the comment board and talk about it. This week, coinciding with the National Governors Association‘s annual winter meeting, everyone’s got a governor (though three shows have to share the same one). Governors have been in the news this week, anyway, so it works out just fine. According to Politico, here is the lineup for this week’s shows:

Meet the Press (NBC) — Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is staying home instead of going to the conference, so he’s being interviewed via satellite from the state Capitol. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out what he’s going to be talking about. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will also be a guest, and is expected to talk about Libya and the way Obama is handling the situation. The political roundtable includes Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

Face the Nation (CBS) — Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey will be talking about states’ financial troubles, and probably some coy “maybe I am, maybe I’m not” comments about running for President.

State of the Union (CNN) — McCain pops in here, too, along with his 2008 endorser, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. And since this week wouldn’t be complete without at least one Governor, Rick Scott, the Florida Republican, and Dan Malloy, the Connecticut Democrat, will be talking about state fiscal policy.

Fox News Sunday — Two-for-one: Governors who are also running for President in 2012. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, will be on the show.

Newsmakers (CSPAN) — Governor Scott shows up here, too.

Political Capital (Bloomberg TV) — Great Scott! Yes, Rick is on three talk shows this week. He wouldn’t be secretly running for President, would he? Naaaaaah…


About Michael Weiss

Michael is now located at http://www.logarchism.com, along with Monotreme, filistro, and dcpetterson. Please make note of the new location.
This entry was posted in Hot Fudge Sunday and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Hot Fudge Sunday February 27

  1. Monotreme says:

    A whole panel of five people on Meet the Press, and no one I agree with. I might agree with Rep. Cleaver, if they let him talk.

  2. Monotreme says:

    Nope. Don’t agree with him, either.

  3. dcpetterson says:

    @Monotreme

    That’s one of the insidious things about those shows. You have a whole panel, of five people, with a range of views. One could get the impression that these are the only views. Rather than open and expand the public debate, it is possible for these shows to limit it, by helping to limit the thinking of the public. I don’t know what the alternative is, though. (Well, maybe I do — online blogs?)

    FOX goes a step farther, by presenting only a single viewpoint, thus giving the impression that there are exactly two views — theirs, and the Enemies of Democracy. At least MSNBC has Pat Buchannon and Joe Scarborough.

  4. Mainer says:

    Hey guys would some one rescue a comment to the Gaddafi thread. I think I got thrown in the spam locker.

    There is zero sense in watching the Sunday shows any more. You know that liberal all controling media is……..hmmmmmm apparently only open to allowing right wing blow hards be thrown softball questions with no follow up or challenge on lies.

    Why bother to watch. I spend the time e-mailing their sponsors. They don’t give a shit either but I just like to remind them of one more lost customer. I never new the money of a progressive had no value. Oh well I have always hated to shop as it was.

  5. filistro says:

    I really like Lawrence O’Donnell. He’s a sound thinker (and a great writer) and while not bombastic, he’s prepared to be a pit bull when he thinks the issue is important enough.

    And he really has a deep, almost arcane understanding of how Congress works.

    I could listen to him all day. With O’Donnell, it’s about the ideas. With Olbermann, for instance, I always have the feeling it’s more about Keith.

  6. Monotreme says:

    @fili:

    I like O’Donnell, I just can’t agree with him on Wisconsin or the budget battles in Congress, at least what he was saying on MTP this morning.

  7. mclever says:

    I agree with filistro about O’Donnell. I would rather listen to an intelligent, rational person discussing ideas I happen to disagree with than listen to bombast even if I happen to agree with every word.

  8. filistro says:

    @mclever… I would rather listen to an intelligent, rational person discussing ideas I happen to disagree with than listen to bombast even if I happen to agree with every word.

    YES!!! Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Sorry for the effusiveness. It’s just so exciting to see one’s own thoughts enunciated by someone else with such perfect clarity 🙂

  9. filistro says:

    How fascinating to see yet another schism within the poor old broken, floundering, dying GOP. This new one is between the neocons and the social cons.

    Fareed Zakaria asks Paul Wolfowitz about the right’s nervousness regarding Mideast upheaval, and the Republicans’ apparent fear that this turmoil will give rise to a dangerous new “caliphate” that spans the continents. Has Republican fear of Islam replaced their urge last decade to establish and support democracies around the world, Zakaria asks?

    Wolflowitz responds “I believe the right thinks too much about that sort of thing. Foreign policy should not be determined on a “right or left” bias.”

    I think it may well be the first time I’ve ever agreed with Paul Wolfowitz. Put another mark on the wall. We are indeed living in turbulent times.

  10. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    If only Wolfie had had that philosophy when in an administrative position. (sigh)

  11. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Glad to hear that it’s not just me getting very tired of the blandness. Putting on a couple of five competing views is NOT journalism. Seems that the journalist is afraid of pissing off the guest.

    Journalism is doing one’s homework, knowing as much about the guests position as they do, asking questions to probe the position and reason thereof, NOT allowing the guest to hide behind talking points, even if means repeating a question several times.

    I would love to see a journalist, after a second time at the well without an answer, tell a guest: “We’ve got 7 minutes left in this segment. I am going to continue to ask the same question until you get off your talking point and answer. Either you can answer or you can be shown to be a waffler or worse, mendacious? Now we’ll try once again.”

  12. rgbact says:

    Disagreement = healthy debate if its the Dems, a schism if its the GOP, eh?

    A better question for Fareed is why his reporters aren’t questioning MidEast protestors on their views of the West, women, Christians, gays–to guage whether this is a democracy movement or just Islamic rage. If you want to disprove someone’s crazy theories—use facts, not insults.

    Liked Candy Crowley’s tough questions for Kent Conrad on the shutdown. Guess he can’t agree to $62B in short-term cuts but he’s all for entitlement reform—after he retires. Reporters often hate going in the weeds on the budget–but hopefully we get some real analysis rather than the simple “The GOP is heartless and now seniors won’t get their Soc Sec checks”.

  13. filistro says:

    @Max… If only Wolfie had had that philosophy when in an administrative position. (sigh)

    Hi Max!

    Isn’t it weird… the same party that sacrificed a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand lives to “establish democracy” in Iraq is now apparently wringing its hands over the scary prospect of democracy in other Mideastern nations.

    I’ve been traveling for a month and it’s hard to pay close attention, but I’ve yet to see somebody address this contradiction to my satisfaction. (Mind you, I haven’t read the archives here… it’s probably been discussed with great thoroughness by all you Smart People… 😉

    But how DO the righties justify their current reluctance to see freedom in the mideast when just a few years ago they were willing to sacrifice so much to achieve that very same goal? Surely it’s not just because Obama might get credit for it?

    I find this bizarre policy stance even more mind-boggling (and politically self-destructive) than most of the other insane nonsense that’s presently happening on the right.

  14. filistro says:

    @rgb… A better question for Fareed is why his reporters aren’t questioning MidEast protestors on their views of the West, women, Christians, gays–to guage whether this is a democracy movement or just Islamic rage.

    Like I said… the mind boggles.

    IT BOGGLES!!!

  15. Monotreme says:

    I love Fareed Zakaria. And filistro.

  16. filistro says:

    I love prickly little quasi-mammalians 🙂

  17. rgbact says:

    Filistro-

    Nice example of replying with an insult, rather than facts to respond to my post. Us righties want democracy, but we aren’t naive.

    I agree, MTP’s panels are a bunch of talking points. Gregory is weak–Russert was so much better. I wish’d they’d give Chuck Todd that job. Stephanpolous was also good on “This Week”—Amanpour needs to bone up on domestic issues.

  18. Monotreme says:

    @rgbact:

    Us righties want democracy, but we aren’t naive.

    Us lefties want hegemony, but we’re naïve.

    “There you go again.” — Saint Ronald Reagan

  19. filistro says:

    @ rgb… Nice example of replying with an insult,

    Insult you? Honey, I don’t even KNOW you 😉

    Seriously… how do you, as an obviously intelligent voice from the right, explain the contradiction I outlined above?

    How can it be worthwhile to impose democracy on a Muslim nation by force and at great cost, but be scary when a democratic movement develops organically within a Muslim nation?

    I truly don’t understand the reasoning.

  20. mclever says:

    filistro,

    It’s simple. If it’s organic and self-directed then we aren’t the ones in control of the process.

  21. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    fili,

    Hi, and I hope you got that technical treatise on ship to shore internet whilst on your travel day.

    “with great thoroughness by all you Smart People…” I know y’all weren’t talkin’ ’bout this here iggnernt ole redneck. I ain’t got no clue! As you will note, a point that several of my debate opponents are quick to find out and will gladly point out to ya.

  22. fili,

    With O’Donnell, it’s about the ideas.

    Without context, this can be a really funny sentence. Think of the first name of “Christine” with it. 😀

  23. dcpetterson says:

    rgbact
    A better question for Fareed is why his reporters aren’t questioning MidEast protestors on their views of the West, women, Christians, gays–to guage whether this is a democracy movement or just Islamic rage.

    The interesting thing here is that we could ask some of our own US conservatives about their views on women, Christians, and gays, and get some answers that, put into the context of the Middle East, would sound anti-democratic.

    As examples – the almost unanimous opposition from Republicans to the rights of a woman to sue her employer when she is raped in the workplace. Or the right of a woman to have safe an unrestricted access to abortion — covered by her insurance.

    On Christianity, I trust I don’t need to document the feeling of many on the right that ours is a “Christian” nation. I can’t truly see how that differs from the desire of many Muslims to form “Islamic” nations. The desire to force Christian theology into the classroom for instance (creationism, anti-evolution stances), or into the public square (such as the judge who wanted the Ten Commandments displayed in his courtroom) certainly stand as examples of an attempt to impose Christian extremism. And this doesn’t mention the un-official actions, such as the murders of doctors who provide abortion services.

    Finally, on gays — need I say more? is there, or is there not, opposition from the right to repeal of DOMA and the recognition of same-sex marriage?

    My point is that to imply protesters in the Mid East are not “democratic” because they don’t agree with us, is also to imply that some segment of America is not”democratic” because it doesn’t agree with another American segment. Democracy rests in self-rule, not in the specifics of any particular decision or position.

  24. filistro says:

    @Max… … this here iggnernt ole redneck. I ain’t got no clue!

    Yeah, right…. as many of your former opponents have discovered to their sorrow. There are still inert bodies scattered around the place who were foolish enough to misunderestimate that good ol’ boy persona of yours. You, my dear, are nothing less than a force of nature.

    (And cute as the dickens in your Texas Ranger outfit, too 😉

  25. filistro says:

    Michael… I LOVED Christine O’Donnell’s ideas. Why, I could talk about them by the hour!

  26. filistro says:

    dc… wow, when I read rgb’s concerns, it didn’t even occur to me that the American right-wing stance on “women’s rights, gay rights and freedom of religion” are also questionable at best.

    What a knife-edge, incisive intellect you have. I stand in awe. Truly.

  27. rgbact,

    Disagreement = healthy debate if its the Dems, a schism if its the GOP, eh?

    Yes. Republicans have long prided themselves on being harmonious with each other on issues of policy. Contrast that with Will Rogers:

    I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat!

    Democrats are notorious for their constant disagreements within the party.

    So the disagreement within the Republican party represents a substantial departure from the past.

  28. Monotreme says:

    fili sez:

    I LOVED Christine O’Donnell’s ideas.

    …and for my part, I LOVED the idea of Christine O’Donnell. The reality, not so much.

  29. fili,

    Isn’t it weird… the same party that sacrificed a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand lives to “establish democracy” in Iraq is now apparently wringing its hands over the scary prospect of democracy in other Mideastern nations.

    I believe it’s out of concern over what type of democracy. After all, Hamas was democratically elected. What if the people in Egypt choose a government that wants to invade Israel? Or what if the Libyan people choose a government that wants to keep all of their oil for themselves? A democracy is much messier than a totalitarian monarchy when dealing with them diplomatically.

  30. mclever,

    It’s simple. If it’s organic and self-directed then we aren’t the ones in control of the process.

    Ahh, yes. Just as it was in Vietnam.

  31. filistro says:

    @Michael… A democracy is much messier than a totalitarian monarchy when dealing with them diplomatically

    I suppose so.

    What do you think, then, was REALLY the Republican goal in Iraq? Just to establish a malleable puppet ruler?

    Clearly they didn’t really want a democracy, despite all of Dubya’s flowery rhetoric.

  32. filistro says:

    @Michael… What if the people in Egypt choose a government that wants to invade Israel?

    Then I guess they will do it, won’t they?

    After all… the people in America chose a government that wanted to invade Iraq.

  33. rgbact says:

    Filistro-

    Thanks for the moral relativism. I get it, the GOP is no better than Al-Qaeda. When Obama gets asked about Muslim Brotherhood–“oh, they have some moderate voices”. No need to focus on the non-moderate voices. Course, John Boehner needs to repudiate the birthers–cuz clearly they are the bulk of the angry voices in the GOP.

    For MSM and you its – GOP=focus on the loonies, Middle East=focus on the Obama loving peace lovers, Iraq=focus on how they all hate Bush and Saddam wasn’t so bad.

  34. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg, “Thanks for the moral relativism. I get it, the GOP is no better than Al-Qaeda.

    Quelle dramatique!

    “When Obama gets asked about Muslim Brotherhood–”oh, they have some moderate voices”. No need to focus on the non-moderate voices. Course, John Boehner needs to repudiate the birthers–cuz clearly they are the bulk of the angry voices in the GOP.”

    I sure hope you are trying to be ironic, otherwise the inconsistency is too much! Because, you sure don’t have a clue about the makeup of the Moslem Brotherhood and it’s position in Egyptian politics as compared to the birthers and those who think our President is a Muslim within the GOP!

    rg, Michael has been trying to get you to demonstrate your basis, your spouting of typical talking point as such does not serve you well around here.

    Thanks

  35. filistro says:

    rgb… you seem awfully touchy and defensive. Have the regulars here not been treating you well in my absence? Perhaps I need to take them to task… 😉

    Meanwhile, let’s unpack your various statements…

    I get it, the GOP is no better than Al-Qaeda.

    Actually, I think the GOP may for various reasons have have lost its way as a political party, but its individual members are generally sincere, patriotic and dedicated to what they perceive as their country’s well-being.

    When Obama gets asked about Muslim Brotherhood–”oh, they have some moderate voices”. No need to focus on the non-moderate voices.

    On the contrary, EVERYBODY is worried about the non-moderate voices and where they might plan to take their countries.

    Course, John Boehner needs to repudiate the birthers–cuz clearly they are the bulk of the angry voices in the GOP.

    I have spent most of the past two years intensively studying birtherism. It is my belief that true birthers are a small portion of the GOP, and are constantly being repudiated (or at least chided) by thoughtful Republicans.

    For MSM and you its – GOP=focus on the loonies, Middle East=focus on the Obama loving peace lovers, Iraq=focus on how they all hate Bush and Saddam wasn’t so bad.

    Really? Those are my opinions? When we’ve just met today and exchanged… what? Three or four posts? You clearly have a lot to learn about me. I look forward to our developing friendship 🙂

    Meanwhile you haven’t yet answered my relatively simple question, which was this:

    How can it be worthwhile to impose democracy on a Muslim nation by force and at great cost, but be scary when a democratic movement develops organically within a Muslim nation?

  36. rgbact says:

    Max-

    Not dramatic. I asked quesions about MidEast intolerance—the response was a list of ways the GOP is intolerant. Think it was DC, not Filistro though.

    You’re right, I don’t know about the Muslim Brotherhood. Thats why I watch the news—to get my questions answered. However, when the media asks more questions about extremism in the GOP than in the MidEast protests—I feel I’m getting propoganda, not answers.

  37. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rg, then I would point out that you also watch Al Jezeerah to get an non-American viewpoint. Not only of the MB but also fo the view of America from the outside in.

    Thanks

  38. dcpetterson says:

    rgbact
    I asked quesions about MidEast intolerance—the response was a list of ways the GOP is intolerant. Think it was DC, not Filistro though.

    If the positions I outlined strike you as intolerant, then perhaps you should distance yourself from them. I merely pointed out, as several others have, that democracy is messy. To criticize the possible choices of another nation, simply because you disapprove, and to imply they are, therefore, not “democratic,” is to deny the whole concept of democracy.

    You contrasted “democracy” with “Islamic rage.” What I said was, “Democracy rests in self-rule, not in the specifics of any particular decision or position.” We are allowed to disagree, and even to disapprove. But do not make the mistake of imagining that decisions you don’t like are due merely to “rage” and not to “democracy.”

  39. filistro says:

    The protesters in Wisconsin are refusing to vacate the Capitol building.

    I find it instructive to see what deep reverence the Freepers have for the constituitional rights of Americans to freedom of speech and assembly:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2680997/posts#comment

  40. Mr. Universe says:

    My favourite Freeper post on how to clear the capitol building in Wisconsin:

    This is too easy. Tell them Obama is outside with Barbara Streisand and free cupcakes and then lock the doors behind them.

    I think this is supposed to be Freeper humor. I don’t get the Streisand reference though.

    And I noticed that the Freepers have a moderator who removed a comment. Given the tenor of the other comments, that particular comment must have called for a visit from the Secret Service.

  41. filistro says:

    @Mr U… Given the tenor of the other comments, that particular comment must have called for a visit from the Secret Service.

    It could also have been a post defending their right to protest. Freeperville is not all that tolerant of dissenting viewpoints.

  42. Mr. Universe says:

    Late to the game. Been out all weekend and haven’t watched any of the Sunday shows.

    RE: Fear of a democratic outcome.

    Iraq wasn’t really a show of democracy unless you define democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun. People often presume that when a country has an opportunity to become a democracy that they’ll immediately become just like us because we are so awesome. That didn’t happen in Gaza though. And it might not happen in Libya.

    But as Wisconsin proves, democracy can be messy.

  43. Monotreme says:

    Mr. U:

    The poster is trying to paint the protesters as effete and possibly gay with his/her Streisand reference.

  44. rgbact says:

    Filistro-

    You’re assuming it will grow organically. That was pretty much what we thought would happen after Gulf War 1. No need to topple Saddam, people will rise up and overthrow him. We waited for 12 years for the current protests we’re having to happen…..but they didn’t.

    Lacking basic security–democracy stands little chance against organized thugs. The history of these things is not good without security – Cuba, Iran, Russia. Bush committed to helping Iraq with this. I don’t understand how you have the Libyan people wanting peaceful democracy –yet Iraqis were forced into it at gunpoint? In fact they hated democracy so much, they fought us harder than they ever fought Saddam. Are Iraqis so much different?

    That said, Libya is smaller and isn’t a regional threat, so I would not send troops there.
    I’m also interested in this vast birther research you’ve compiled.

  45. Bartbuster says:

    I don’t understand how you have the Libyan people wanting peaceful democracy –yet Iraqis were forced into it at gunpoint?

    You really don’t understand the difference between letting the Libyans solve their own problems and the decision to invade Iraq? Seriously?

  46. Mr. Universe says:

    I take a slightly different view on O’Donnell and Olbermann. I find it uncomfortable and embarrassing when O’Donnell goes into attack dog mode. And he isn’t nearly as eloquent as Keith. Yes, Keith has a supersized ego, but I generally find that he is dead on more often than not. I do appreciate O’Donnell’s political bona fides, however. But he also has a sort of Captain Kirk delivery that bugs me.

    I just recently began watching Ed Shultz. He seems to be MSNBC’s FireDogLake. MSNBC is like a kettle on the stove; starts out conservative in the morning then slowly boils to raging liberal by the evening. But for me the most well researched, intelligent observations is still Rachel. She rocks my world. {{{sigh}}} If only I were a lesbian.

  47. Mr. Universe says:

    @Treme

    If the commenter had said Cher instead of Streisand I might have gotten the joke. I didn’t know Streisand was associated with the gay community.

  48. filistro says:

    rgb… I’m not sure you’ve answered my question yet. Of course we don’t know whether these drives toward self-rule will continue to grow organically and peacefully. Progressives are nervous about the eventual outcome just as they were in Iraq. The anomaly that puzzles me is how conservatives were gung-ho to force democracy on Iraqis, and seemed serenely confident their experiment would go well… and yet they now have all kinds of fears about other Muslim countries striving on their own toward freedom. I just don’t understand that, and nobody has yet explained it to me… well, except for mclever, whose explanation, while cynical, may (sadly) be the correct one.

    As for my study of birtherism… I’m a writer. I do research, and then I write. The subject of my current research is the effect of social conservatism on American politics in the last 5 decades… and as it happens, many social conservatives are also birthers. What would you like to know about them?

  49. fili,

    What do you think, then, was REALLY the Republican goal in Iraq? Just to establish a malleable puppet ruler?

    In a sense, yes. Saddam Hussein was supported by the United States in taking control of the country because he was anti-Communist at a time when the US foreign policy divided the world into the two categories of pro- and anti-Communist, with the latter people being treated as allies. He was further considered an ally in the “enemy of my enemy” mode, following the Islamic Revolution in Iran (where we were supporting another of our totalitarian allies).

    The people who later became considered the leading Neocons in government were the ones who supported Hussein’s rule in Iraq. But he decided after a while that he didn’t want to be beholden to those people. Perhaps it came from the Iran/Contra affair, when it became clear that the de facto US policy involved double-crossing him. It sure would have been an eye-opener to me if I were in his shoes at that point.

    In any case, he decided he no longer wished to be friends with them. I suspect that enraged the Neocon Group, who felt that Hussein was being ungrateful, after all they did for him. So the ultimate goal was to get rid of him. They had a candidate who they thought would be a shoo-in to take over the country after the invasion, someone who they thought would make a fine puppet. Didn’t quite work out that way, but by the time they figured that out it was too late.

    Clearly they didn’t really want a democracy, despite all of Dubya’s flowery rhetoric.

    I think they did at first, in the same way that their counterparts of a generation before thought that democracy in Vietnam would result in a government friendly to the US.

  50. filistro says:

    Michael… that’s a thoughtful answer. Thank you.

    One point… when I saud “clearly they didn’t really want a democracy”… I was speaking of an ACTUAL democracy, not a puppet figurehead installed by the Bush administration.

    Because the evidnece of current events is that Republicans are actually frightened by the prospect of actual democracies in the Mideast… not elated.

    They wanted a “democracy under our direct control”… which is nothing but a rather cumbersome oxymoron.

  51. dcpetterson says:

    I think the conservative fears about the self-directed steps of Muslim nations are pretty straightforward.

    I think they fear the possibility of Muslim-dominated countries. I honestly think conservatives dislike the idea of Muslim nations. Partly, it’s a religious thing; Islam is not Christianity. Partly, it’s fear; they have bought the rhetoric that all Muslims want the death of America.

    I certainly could be wrong on this, and I would be happy to be corrected. Any conservative who would be perfectly happy with the idea of a self-created, self-directed Muslim state should feel free to tell me I’m mistaken.

  52. rgbact says:

    We weren’t “gung-ho”. I think I was against it in the beginning even. Its a high-risk judgement call, no doubt. Normally, I say let people just kill each other, but Saddam just proved to be such a destabilizing force in the region and Iraq had a good chance at success with him gone (education, oil wealth). Clinton even passed a law calling for his removal. Our skepticsm is cuz thugs so often jump into power vacuums unless there is basic security and an established opposition. Plus, the MSM seems to be cheerleading, and not asking questions.

    What % of Repubs are birthers and is it greater than the % of Dems that think Bush blew up the WTC? Your book sounds interesting.

  53. filistro says:

    rgb… thank you. Finally you have given me an answer that is honest and reasonable. I even agree with most of what you said except the part about the “MSM cheerleading,” which I am perhaps prejudiced against because I see so much of that kind of baseless knee-jerk animosity toward the press at right-wing sites. I find it really offensive mostly because a lot of serious journalists are risking their lives at this very moment just so you can know what’s going on over there.

    As for how many Republicans are birthers… the answer according to a poll released last week is 51%.

    Personally I don’t believe that number. It is my opinion that the Republican approach to birtherism is sort of a combination of wishfulness and groupthink. In their secret hearts they almost all KNOW he was born in Hawaii but they think, “Jeez, wouldn’t it be cool if he wasn’t?” Also, it’s kind of a nudge-wink thing, as in, “This is something we have to say to belong to this club. It’s like the club handshake… childish and silly, but we have to do this stuff in order to belong. “

  54. rgbact,

    What % of Repubs are birthers and is it greater than the % of Dems that think Bush blew up the WTC?

    False equivalency. The question regarding Bush (at least the one I’ve seen) was whether people believed he knew about it before September 11. The evidence is pretty compelling that he did know something was imminent. Did he know that it was going to be a handful of commercial jets flying into various buildings on September 11? I don’t think so. But based on the wording of the question I saw, I’d say “yes.”

    Compare that to the evidence regarding Obama’s birth. The two are not comparable.

  55. Jean says:

    rgbact,

    IMO, the US mainstream media is not a good source to understand international, especially middle east, events. Instead read the BBC, the Guardian-UK, al-jazeera and other sources.

    From al-jazeera’s Libya live blog today:

    11:28am

    Al Jazeera’s Tony Birtley, reporting from the eastern city of Benghazi, says people in the city “realise that at the end of the day, they are going to be responsible for the liberation of their entire country and they are taking steps to do that”.

    “There was a big meeting of the former justice minister who is leading this process and the tribal elders,” he said.

    “If anything signals the downfall of Gaddafi it’s the fact that these tribes are coming together and they’re showing unity and solidarity.”

    Miscellaneous thoughts and comments from other than the MSM:

    from azhaq:

    “Yesterday it was Egypt, today Libya and tomorrow another country. Unfortunately in each country including Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya protests against dictators have led to loss of life. Is love of power more worth than life of a human being? If it is not then shouldn’t other dictators in the Arab world give up their power NOW for a government which is chosen by its people? Or do we have to lose more life before they give up their power?

    Saudi kings intends to handout 40 billion dollars to Saudi’s. But whose money was it in the first place? This hereditary transfer of power should end. Countries should be established with “the proposition that all men are created equal.” Government are created to protect the rights of its people and not to take them away. Another serious problem in the Gulf countries is that the “foreign” workers are given very little rights. There is no process for “naturalization.” A person can be born in live these gulf countries for 40 years and still remain a foreigner. Many workers are essentially working these countries as slaves. Yet, these countries cannot survive without these foreign workers. Compare that to United States where a person born to foreign parents has the opportunity to become the president.”

    and a comment from I am People:

    “I wll say it again:

    DROP FOOD, WATER, MEDICINE, CHIPS, SATELLITE PHONES, BATTERIES…

    Why a answer has always to be a violent one? why always sanctions and troops? why those sanctions don´t applied before to banks and companies whom saled guns and ammo to the pshyco Gaddafi?”

  56. Jean says:

    An interesting perspective from Mahmoud Al-Nakou, writing at the Guardian:

    “While Gaddafi’s partial grip on the capital Tripoli remains in place, people now realise that they have passed the point of no return: either topple him or be killed. They also realise that Gaddafi’s recent speeches and tactics show a desperate dictator who has almost entirely lost control. This opportunity will never come round again in their lifetime.

    Over the last week, a steady stream of former leaders of the Gaddafi regime have deserted him and declared allegiance to the Libyan people and to the revolution. Many have spoken of their utter disgust at his order to shoot and kill demonstrators. A number of generals appeared on camera stating their disbelief at the orders to launch fighter jets against unarmed civilians demonstrating on the streets.

    Despite the heavy sacrifice they are offering every day, Libyans utterly reject any foreign intervention, even for their defence and protection. From the outset, Gaddafi warned his overthrow would make Libya the same horrific, chaotic arena that Iraq and Afghanistan are today. But the people are adamant that this revolution is theirs alone.

    There is little doubt this determination and resilience comes from the transformation in spirit and atmosphere across the Arab region after the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. This new spirit is locally produced and nurtured, refusing to be western-driven or influenced. Its aim is not only to return Libya to a state where transparency, democracy, pluralism, freedom and fairness prevail, but to restore its standing in the world. Its relations with the west must be based on mutual recognition, shared and common interests and parity, not the old ways of a relationship built on corrupt dealings, fear and abuse.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/libya-democracy-freedom-extremists-gaddafi

  57. filistro says:

    Oh dear… howling and wiping tears from eyes…

    This is SO FUNNY…

    LOLOLOL!!!

    OOps.. link doesn’t seem to work.

    try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnxNnJYziMY

  58. Montana says:

    To all the “Chicken Littles” or should I say “Chicken Hawks” that keep saying that the sky is falling, and the Unites States will fail, never bet against the United States of America, we are coming back and you and the rest of you phonies are wrong!

    The birthers just HATE and can’t debate, where is there proof you might asked? Up where the sun don’t shine, HA, HA, show some proof birthers or people will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?

  59. mclever says:

    For those following the 2012 Republican Primary trail, I’ll note that Mike Huckabee has had several appearances in Iowa, including one today here in Iowa City.

    I don’t know for sure that he’s running, but frequent appearances in Iowa tend to imply that he’s at least got some feelers out for how his ground game might shape up in this all-important caucus state. (Others recently seen include Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Haley Barbour.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s