Memorial Day 2011, Memorial Day 2010, Memorial Day 2009, Memorial Day 2008 – a day set aside so that at least once every year we remember the fallen in service to this country.
Once a year those who gave “the last full measure of devotion” are remembered and honored. We as a nation, decorate their graves and pay our respects to “those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.” As President Lincoln stated, “It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”
There are those who have not completely died. For these there is partial death – the emptiness that only memory occasionally salves.
The poet John Milton, discussing his blindness, understood that “They also serve who only stand and wait.” That meaning is not lost to families at home suffering for an absent loved one.
For some families the wait is long, but the loved one does return. Their service ends in bursts of joy.
Barack Obama and his crew of thugs had tried to explain the timing of his treacherous attack on Israel last week as a carrot Obama could offer to the G8 leaders in order to forestall a September vote at the United Nations granting the Israel hating Palestinian leadership formal recognition as a state. That rationale is an outright lie which we will address further below. Today Canada demonstrated leadership at the G8 and clobbered Barack Obama and his Israel hating buddies:
“Canadian delegation blocks mention of 1967 lines in Group of Eight leaders’ joint statement calling Israel, Palestinians to return to peace talks.
Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said on Friday.
Canada’s right-leaning Conservative government has adopted a staunchly pro-Israel position in international negotiations since coming to power in 2006, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying Canada will back Israel whatever the cost.
Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel’s pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders’ final communiqué, even though most of the other leaders wanted a mention.
“The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week,” one European diplomat said.”
The Palestinians know they cannot beat Israel militarily. The Palestinians have demonstrated bad faith again and again in their negotiations with Israel – the ultimate proof was their rejection of President Bill Clinton’s initiative to create a Palestinian state with the full support of the Israeli government. What they cannot gain militarily, what they will not provide in recognizing Jewish Israel as a legitimate state, the Palestinians will try to gain with treacherous assistance by Barack Obama. Today, via the Jerusalem Post, the President of the United Nation’s General Assembly proved Barack Obama is a liar and an incompetent, both:
“The Palestinians cannot circumvent the UN Security Council to avoid a likely US veto if they try to join the United Nations as a sovereign state later this year, a top UN official said on Friday.
But the official made clear a US veto would not put the issue of Palestinian statehood and UN membership to rest.
Some Arab diplomats in New York have suggested it would be possible for the Palestinians to bypass the UN Security Council and go straight to the 192-nation General Assembly to win approval for a planned UN membership application.
The UN charter says that new members are admitted by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the 15-nation Security Council, where the United Sates, Britain, France, China and Russia are permanent members with veto powers.
The current president of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss of Switzerland, was asked by reporters if there was a way for the Palestinians to become a UN member state if its application was vetoed by the United States, which opposes the idea. Deiss said, “No.“
Barack Obama’s flimsy excuse that he had to give the Pearl Harbor style treacherous attack on Israel speech in order to be able to prevent a September recognition of a Palestinian state has once again been proven to be a lie. In our previous three articles on Barack Obama’s treacherous attack on Israel we noted how bizarre it was for Barack Obama to attack Israel treacherously in a Thursday speech, knowing full well that the Jewish powerhouse AIPAC was meeting that very weekend and that not only would Obama be addressing AIPAC but so would Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In addition Barack Obama knew that Netanyahu was scheduled to address both houses of the American Congress while he, Barack Obama, was flying off to Europe on a “pub crawl” as Tim Pawlenty described it.
“Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 2 1/ 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the back, and then with the blood dripping knife in hand attempted to pretend he had not just attacked Israel. It was a blatant lie from a blatant liar:
“Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.“
Barack Obama repeatedly stabbed Israel in the back with that single speech. On the “so-called right of return” Barack Obama sided with Arabs/Muslims against faithful ally Israel. Arabs’ lawyer Obama’s version of a two state solution is the destruction of Israel:
“Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.”
“The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.”
Barack Obama’s policy is born of a history of Obama treachery (which we have documented starting in December 2007) and as we have also noted Barack Obama is a Boob (except when it comes to career advancement). The boobery was self-evident as we noted above regarding the bizarre timing of Netanyahu in the United States while Barack Obama flew off to European booberies and embarrassments.
“Body language expert Tanya Reiman told Bill O’Reilly tonight that Obama lied and was no friend of Netanyahu. Reiman said that Obama has “contempt in his eyes” and displays it with his body language when he is with Benjamin Netanyahu. [snip]
“No, I would say that is a very big lie, when they talk about being friends… They don’t like each other. I’m adamantly convinced that they don’t like each other.”
“When you look at two people who are friends you don’t see contempt in the eyes of one. So, President Obama is looking and as you see him he starts to grab his chin really hard and he’s staring and he gets that glare in his eye and he’s squeezing his chin as he does this.”
The “one” with the “glare in his eye” is treacherous Barack Obama.
“It’s doubtful that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his wildest, most optimistic dreams, would have dared to imagine when he set off for the United States last week that Israelis would respond to his six-day trip so enthusiastically: According to a new Haaretz poll, they are giving the visit high marks, considering it an overwhelming success.”
“Lawmakers gave Binyamin Netanyahu 59 rounds of applause as the Israeli prime minister addressed a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday. But more revealing was the whisper I heard while watching the speech from the House gallery.
It came as Netanyahu repeated his rejection of the notion, floated by President Obama last week, that peace talks with Palestinians should be based on Israel’s smaller, pre-1967 borders.
“Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967,” Netanyahu thundered. “Jerusalem must never again be divided,” he roared.
“Go, Bibi!” the woman next to me said, sotto voce.
It was the voice of Inna Graizel, my daughter’s 21-year-old Israeli au pair, who is spending a year with my family, learning about America.”
Milbank notes that Inna Graizel, the au pair, was not a Netanyahu supporters until this past week. Milbank “saw through her eyes how badly Obama bungled his Middle East speech.” Milbank saw that Obama had make “the remote prospect of peace that much more distant.”
“Of this, Inna herself is evidence: Though she’s a moderate who was suspicious of the uncompromising Netanyahu, the episode turned her into a supporter. [snip]
She voted for the centrist Kadima party in the last election because she didn’t share the militant views of Netanyahu’s Likud. [snip]
Obama and his defenders argued that this wasn’t really a new policy, but, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler expertly documented, the statement “represented a major shift.” Later, after the damage had been done, Obama qualified his statement, saying the border should be “different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”
Inna was stunned. “Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank, the 1967 lines? It’s crazy,” she said. “It’s impossible.” Holding her thumb and forefinger an inch apart, she added, “They’ll be this close to Tel Aviv.” The phrase about “agreed swaps” changed nothing.
To Inna’s ears, Obama had issued an existential threat to Israel, and it put her in an unfamiliar place: in lockstep with Bibi. When he told Obama in the Oval Office that the 1967 lines were “indefensible,” Inna celebrated. “Now, he’s our guy,” she said. “He’s the voice of Israel.”
“An existential threat to Israel” is exactly right. Canada sees it. Netanyahu sees it.
“I mean, what I find fascinating, thinking about this 1967 border stuff, is whether he intended it as a conscious shift in U.S. policy that would alarm the Israeli government, or whether with the casual arrogance of his half-wit 12 year old speechwriters, it just somehow got in there, and he finds himself standing up there saying it. That’s what I don’t understand.”
What is there to understand? Barack Obama is a treacherous boob. How many times do we have to write it?:
“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”
Binyamin Netanyahu understands. Canada understands. Barack Obama must be opposed forcefully.
Last week Netanyahu came to the rescue. Today Canada came to the rescue. On this beginning of the Memorial Day weekend let us hope the American electorate comes to the rescue of the land of the free, home of the brave.
What does Hillary Clinton think about the Barack Obama attacks on Israel? There is a concerted campaign of lies and deception about Hillary Clinton and it’s coming from Israel haters, Hillary Clinton haters, and Barack Obama lovers. The attempt is to glue Hillary Clinton to the Obamination which is Barack Obama’s treacherous speech last Thursday attacking Israel.
We wrote about why Barack Obama went to the State Department to deliver his TelePrompTer attack on Israel. It was an attempt to create the impression that Hillary Clinton was on board with his treacherous attack on an ally as well as an attempt to shut down any State Department/Hillary Clinton pro-Israel moves.
The hausfrau foreign policy non-expert Israel haters and the professional Israel haters are lying about Hillary Clinton and Israel. Furious because Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show declared that Hillary Clinton would never have said what treacherous Barack Obama said last Thursday, the Israel Haters resorted once again to lies.
“We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
In 2009 Hillary stated the Palestinian position and the Israeli position, not the American position. It was “through good faith negotiations” that the Israelis and the Palestinians would arrive at an outcome beneficial to both parties. That quote and context is very different from the “We [support]” lie that Obama apologists, Israel haters and Hillary Clinton haters are trying to manufacture.
What Hillary Clinton said is extremely different from the treachery of Barack Obama: “What Obama did in his speech was make the Palestinian goals of a “viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps,” the American goal as well.”
“With his Cairo speech, a speech in which for the first time an American president went to the Middle East without a stopover to consult with our Israeli allies, Obama signaled to many in the Arab world that he is on the Arab side. Obama snubbed Israel and the whole world saw that snub and were encouraged in their aggressions.
Indeed Obama has made it clear he wants to be the Arabs’ lawyer.
This dangerous Obama goading of Arabs and Muslims against American ally Israel has led to the current politics of Hopium and delusion we are now in. [snip]
“Obama’s new focus, and the intense pressure his administration has placed on Netanyahu, have stirred deep concern among Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill, they say, because it represents an acceptance of the Arab narrative that Israeli intransigence lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. And some observers see it in the context of a subtle, but major, shift in American strategy toward resolving it.” [snip]
“The new model drawing attention from Democratic foreign policy hands, he said, is to build support among Arab leaders for a U.S. plan and then present that to Israel — to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer, rather than as Israel’s, in one formulation used to describe the effort in the region.”
“Obama explained the logic of his actions in a private meeting with Jewish leaders that July, explaining the need to give Arab leaders “credibility” with their “street,” according to detailed notes taken by a participant in the meeting, “by creating space between us and Israel.”
Barack Obama had a TelePrompTer with him when he spoke last Thursday. Barack Obama did not misspeak or ad lib what he said. What Obama said last Thursday was on the TelePrompTer and the words were calculated to create “space between us and Israel” so that Barack Obama could be the Arabs’ lawyer.
One year later, last Thursday, JournoLister Ben Smith and his cohort attempted to hoodwink the American public with high praise for Barack Obama boldness while at the same time saying not much had changed. Almost immediately however the narrative broke apart. Some of Barack Obama’s strongest supporters essentially gave the game away:
“This is the first clear statement by an American president that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed territorial swaps,” said former Rep. Robert Wexler, who now leads the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.
Though former presidents and secretaries of state have referred to those lines, widely assumed to be central to the shape of a final settlement, “it’s different because now it is the official policy of the United States of America,” Wexler said.”
“[T]he president’s comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will lead nowhere. It is striking that he suggested no action: no meeting, no envoy, no Quartet session, no invitations to Washington. About the new Fatah-Hamas unity agreement he said this: “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.” Indeed they must, and they won’t, so this is perhaps an acknowledgment by the president that negotiations are simply unrealistic right now.”
By Friday, the JournoListers were routed by logic and reality from the “Obama gave a brilliant and bold speech that really didn’t do much but was prudent, wise, and stated what everyone knows and what a great leader Barack Obama is and he gives a tingle to our nether regions” defense of the boob:
“Glenn Kessler today has a good explanation of why, for many — and contrary to my immediate reaction and that of many other close observers — Obama’s words yesterday represented, in a narrow context, a big deal:
He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.
Obama did not go all the way and try to define what his statement meant for the disputed city of Jerusalem, or attempt to address the issue of Palestinians who want to return to lands now in the state of Israel. He said those issues would need to be addressed after borders and security are settled. But, for a U.S. president, the explicit reference to the 1967 lines represented crossing the Rubicon.”
For those that think these are just word games, think of the difference between describing someone as African-American, black, or the “N” word. Words matter and in the Middle East they matter with energy.
“For people not trained in the nuances of Middle East diplomacy, the sentence might appear unremarkable. However, many experts say it represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and it is certainly a change for the Obama administration.
As is often the case with diplomacy, the context and the speaker are nearly as important as the words. Ever since the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, it has been clear that peace with the Palestinians would be achieved through some exchange of land for security. [snip]
So, in many ways, it is not news that the eventual borders of a Palestinian state would be based on land swaps from the 1967 dividing line. But it makes a difference when the president of the United States says it, particularly in a carefully staged speech at the State Department. This then is not an off-the-cuff remark, but a carefully considered statement of U.S. policy.”
“From an Israeli perspective, the de facto borders that existed before 1967 were not really borders, but an unsatisfactory, indefensible and temporary arrangement that even Arabs had not accepted. So Israeli officials do not want to be bound by those lines in any talks.
From a Palestinian perspective, the pre-1967 division was a border between Israel and neighboring states and thus must be the starting point for negotiations involving land swaps. This way, they believe, the size of a future Palestinian state would end up to be — to the square foot — the exact size of the non-Israeli territories before the 1967 conflict. Palestinians would argue that even this is a major concession, since they believe all of the current state of Israel should belong to the Palestinians.”
The Obama words come straight out of the Palestinian playbook and Israel has been stabbed in the back. Kessler also notes that the lack of the word “the” from United Nations Resolution 242 means that the land Israel won in the Six Day War is not necessarily all at play. If Resolution 242 had stated “from the territories occupied” instead of “from territories occupied” the Palestinian case would be stronger. But Resolution 242 does not employ the word “the”. As Bill Clinton well knows, words matter, even little words like “is” or in this case “the”.
Kessler performs a service by publishing quotes from past presidents whose goal was not to be the Arabs lawyer:
“Nevertheless, until Obama on Thursday, U.S. presidents generally have steered clear of saying the negotiations should start on the 1967 lines. Here is a sampling of comments by presidents or their secretaries of state, with some explanation or commentary.
“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.” — President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968
“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.” — President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982
“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.” — Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988
Starting with President Lyndon Johnson, right after the Six-Day War, U.S. presidents often have shown great sympathy for Israel’s contention that the pre-1967 dividing line did not provide security.
“I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli’s security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks … To make the agreement durable, I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.” — President Bill Clinton, January 7, 2001
In his waning weeks in office, Clinton laid out what are now known as the “Clinton parameters,” an attempt to sketch out a negotiating solution to create two states. His description of the parameters is very detailed, but he shied away from mentioning the 1967 lines even as he spoke of “territorial swaps.”
“Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.” — President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002″
American Presidents, until the treacherous Barack Obama, have supported Israel. Kessler discusses the W. Bush exchange of letters with Sharon “that supported the Israeli position that the 1967 lines were not a useful starting point.” Barack Obama, Kessler notes “has refused to acknowledge the letter as binding on U.S. policy.” Treachery.
Kessler also discusses the Hillary Clinton comment from 2009 which Obama apologists are twisting in a perverse attempt to steal Hillary’s golden glow and her vast knowledge (and that of Bill Clinton) of the Middle East into some twisted sort of support for Obama’s latest treacheries:
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nov. 25, 2009
When the Israeli government announced a partial settlement freeze, Clinton responded with a statement that specifically mentioned a state based on 1967 lines, but as a “Palestinian goal.” This was balanced with a description of an “Israeli goal.”
“In the context of this history, Obama’s statement Thursday represented a major shift. He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.”
The Obama apologists, Hillary haters and Israel haters have also attempted to link Hillary to Obama’s Thursday speech. Bill Press and others are saying that by delivering the speech at the State Department this is clear proof that Hillary helped write the speech. But, as we have noted, that was the deceptive aim of treacherous Barack Obama, not what really happened. Indeed, it is well known that Hillary enemy Tom E. Donilon also known as “Obama’s enforcer” was the writer of the Obama speech, not Hillary. The New York Times has confirmed much of what we have long written about the war between the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department.
The Harper government of Canada has refused to join in the Israel hate initiated by Barack Obama. More surprising than our best friends to the north refusing to participate in Obama’s treacheries is Harry Reid’s appearance last night at AIPAC:
“The most powerful Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on Monday night publicly rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to use a recent speech to lay out aspects of a potential peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else,” Reid declared in a speech to an annual gathering in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.”
When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.
Aaron David Miller, who can be counted on to find something good to say about Obama at any time, makes excuses but adds that the Obama boobery is too apparent:
[I]t’s about whether the Obama administration is acting dumb or smart, and let’s just say events of the past several days suggest the president isn’t being real smart. [snip]
To pick a fight with the Israelis on the eve of the visit of an Israeli prime minister with whom you don’t have a relationship (but who you need if you want to get anywhere on the peace process) is dumb; to put out June 1967 lines without any backgrounding after the speech is dumb; to take a position in non-existent negotiations and identify your position as a would-be mediator is dumb; and to send a message to the Palestinians that “you really have me sacred about your virtual statehood initiative so maybe I’ll identify my position on Jerusalem next” is dumb. [snip]
Right now the president has gotten the worst of all worlds: He’s pissed off the Israelis, failed to satisfy and preempt Palestinians from their initiative and given the Republicans a ready-made issue to hammer him. And for what? Applause from the Europeans at the G-8? That’s not smart.”
What Miller does not understand is that Obama lives for applause to fill his shrunken little boy emptiness. It’s all about applause. It’s all for applause.
“In a region where women are stoned, gays hanged, and Christians persecuted, Israel stands out…free press, open courts, rambunctious Parliamentary debates.” [snip]
“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is RIGHT about the Middle East. [snip]
A Middle East that is GENUINELY democratic will be truly of peace. But while we work/hope for the best, we must recognize that powerful forces opposes this future, oppose modernity, oppose peace. Foremost is Iran.”
Attacks troops, subjugates people, sponsors terror worldwide, nuclear threat. Militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its own demise…The threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand.” [snip]
“When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.”
Clarity: The debate over a Palestinian state is not really about the existence of a Palestinian state. It’s about opponents undermining the existence of a Jewish state.”
Like that heckler, Barack Obama tried to shut down Netanyahu and Israel last Thursday. But Barack Obama failed to understand the American character and ideas such as trust and loyalty. Obama also failed to understand the concept of Judeo-Christian values which both America and Israel share.
America will not abandon Israel – that is yet another simple truth that Barack Obama does not understand.
Some in the hausfrau left applaud Obama’s flog and flee tactic as some sort of brilliant move. They applaud as some sort of three dimensional chess move Obama’s odd behavior. Obama knob polisher Steve Clemons is cited as somehow on to hidden wisdom when he wrote, “I get Barack “Rocky Balboa” Obama now He’s letting Netanyahu kick crap out of him round after round & wearing Bibi down. Obama stays in ring.” Somehow these rarely traveled backyard foreign policy experts do not understand the reaction against Obama’s words is, according to Gallup “overwhelming and bipartisan because support for Israel in the United States has almost never been stronger and is trending towards Israel even more so:” Barack Obama and his Big Media allies think they can fool Americans, but as of a month ago at least 63% say “stick with Israel” not “stick it to Israel.”
It is difficult to discern what the Obama apologists are defending. On the one hand some of them say that Obama said nothing unusual. On the other hand they write that Obama has leveled a masterstroke of foreign policy. The knee-pads clad Peter Beinart rejoiced in the masterstroke contingent of Obama worshipers. Beinart wrote a near incomprehensible essay extolling Obama’s genius which declared “In his Mideast speech, President Obama rejected Bush’s blind allegiance to Israel and put himself squarely on the side of human rights.”
On the side of human rights? Tell that to gay people and women Petey.
Obama defenders really want to have it both ways. They say Obama said nothing new but at the same time it was a brilliant and bold speech and realignment of American policy. Which is it? Even the JournoListers are perplexed and trying to figure out what Obama means or intends to do:
“The tension here is that while Obama advanced the new framework out of “urgency” — and while perhaps, in the medium term, that will be borne out — there’s no accompanying action, no plan or institutional move to restart the peace process and make it real.”
“WATCHING President Obama deal with the cascading uprisings in the Middle East this year has been a little like watching the Army Corps of Engineers try to stay one city ahead of the Mississippi River floodwaters. Every week, it seems, has brought a new decision: [snip]
The contradictory approaches have startled some of America’s allies. [snip]
Now, as Mr. Obama heads to Europe, the question is: Which American president are they dealing with? The hard-headed pragmatist who bombed Benghazi to prevent a massacre and then violated Pakistan’s sovereignty to knock off Osama bin Laden? Or the former law professor who has now promised 400 million people — among them dissidents in Bahrain and Iran who say they have been abandoned — that “if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States”?
“This is only part of a doctrine,” said Vali Nasr, who left the State Department a month ago after working with the late Richard Holbrooke on Afghanistan and Pakistan. “It explains the ideal, but he has to couple it with an implementation. [snip]
Mr. Obama’s bet, it appears, is that half a doctrine is all he needs right now. It is a moment when American policy needs coherence, even as Mr. Obama insists that a consistent set of tactics is impossible. [snip]
Still, comparing the Arab uprisings to the American Revolution or the civil rights movement is not without risk.“
We also know that Barack Obama, because of the logic of his statements, demands that Israel be cut in half. By demanding that “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state” Obama was in effect saying that Israel could not be a contiguous state – it would have to be dismembered If Gaza and the West Bank are made “contiguous” it would require a territorial link that would chop Israel in half. Israel would have to be dismembered.
“”For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines,” he said, as Obama gazed intently with a hand under his chin. “It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”
A number of lawmakers have echoed those concerns, including Reps. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) – who warned that the 1967 borders “were were simply not defensible” – and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who said the move would threaten Israel’s security. [snip]
Another critic, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), has promised to introduce a resolution rejecting Obama’s position on Israel’s border lines.
“This is not only ridiculous, but dangerous,” Hatch said this week.”
“Ridiculous” and “dangerous” are good words to describe what is happening in the world while Barack Obama occupies the White House and Air Force One.
Saudi Arabia, disgusted with Obama’s behavior during the Egypt crisis is now looking for new strategic partners, including China. Pakistan too is running away from the United States. “Pakistan has asked China to build a naval base at its south-western port of Gwadar and expects the Chinese navy to maintain a regular presence there, a plan likely to alarm both India and the US.” The Pakistani defense minister referred to “our Chinese brothers” when he confirmed the very provocative move of a naval base near India.
Not only is this an audacious move by China, a port far from Chinese shores, it is a direct challenge to India – nuclear armed India. Obama’s response: proceed with the European vacation.
When Barack Obama went to Cairo in 2009 he deliberately snubbed Israel as he hopped from Arab capital to Muslim capital bowing and scraping before potentates. Obama equated American slavery with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians too. At the time we quoted Ricki Lieberman:
“Let’s be really honest, Mr. President. The obstacle to peace is the lack of a critical mass of Arabs who will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and work for a Palestinian state which both guarantees Israel’s security and benefits from the regional prosperity that will accompany peaceful co-existence. To acheive [sic] peace, this is where the real work needs to be done. Until this happens, the rest is a distraction…”
We noted then how President Bill Clinton tried to bring about, with the full cooperation of Israel, a Palestinian state only to be rebuffed by the Palestinian side. The Palestinians, almost as proof of their bad faith tactics, only accepted the Clinton proposal after it was too late. A few days after the Obama Cairo speech we again addressed the Obama treachery and placed it in historical terms, namely the Sudetenland.
To understand what happened yesterday is to ask where it happened. Unlike the exotic locale of the first Obama treachery speech yesterday’s treacheries happened at the State Department. Why the State Department? One aim was to attempt to squash any rebellion within the State Department and send the message to Israel and Arab/Muslim states that Obama is directing the State Department and that there will be no “good cop” Hillary that will be able to come to the rescue. Obama knows and fears Hillary will defend Israel and Obama does not want anyone to attempt to get Hillary on board a sub rosa “help Israel” campaign.
The New York Times reports today that before the speech Prime Minister Netanyahu called Hillary Clinton before the speech and he was “furious”:
“As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel heads to the White House on Friday for the seventh meeting since President Obama took office, the two men are facing a turning point in a relationship that has never been warm.
By all accounts, they do not trust each other. President Obama has told aides and allies that he does not believe that Mr. Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of big concessions that will lead to a peace deal.
For his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained that Mr. Obama has pushed Israel too far — a point driven home during a furious phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning, just hours before Mr. Obama’s speech, during which the prime minister reacted angrily to the president’s plan to endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian state.”
The news account relates that Barack Obama intends to stab Israel in the back this September by not helping to get European allies to reject a United Nations resolution unilaterally establishing a Palestinian state. The Times notes that Obama “the son of a Muslim man from Kenya whose introduction to the Arab-Israeli conflict was initially framed by discussions with pro-Palestinian academics.”
Barack Obama knows that Israel and her supporters wisely do not trust him and he does not want a back door communication with Hillary Clinton by those supporters. So Obama went to the State Department to attempt to create the impression that Hillary Clinton is on board with his treachery. [We’ll discuss Hillary in our promised forthcoming article.]
This year, Netanyahu received word that Barack Obama planned new treacheries in a speech – the one from yesterday. Netanyahu was invited by Republicans to speak to before a joint session of Congress in order to lay out his plans for Middle East peace. Barack Obama, in order to humiliate Netanyahu then scheduled his treachery speech for yesterday (“So White House officials timed Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday to make sure he went first.”)
“Normally these Oval Office grip-and-grins begin with a few minutes of blah-blah from the president about America’s enduring bond with the other leader’s country, followed by a minute or so from that leader about the “productive discussion” they just had, and that’s it. Not this time: Netanyahu takes off here for a good seven minutes, parts of which are so cutting — the conclusion about history not giving the Jewish people another chance is simply devastating — that it’s hard to believe it was extemporaneous. In fact, by the end he’s facing Obama and addressing him personally, just to add to the theater. Bibi knew this would be his golden opportunity to pay Obama back for yesterday’s speech, and darned if he didn’t seize it. It’s riveting. O was probably completely blindsided by it too, but no doubt realized quickly that this little history lesson would soon go viral in the media and online. Hopefully no meaningful agreements were reached earlier in their private meeting, because if they were, you can forget about ‘em now.”
Prime Minister Netanhahu and every supporter of Israel must understand that Obama is an enemy of Israel. In 2009 after the Cairo speech we wrote:
“The Jew baiting is taking place in the context of Barack Obama’s speech last week when he parroted Arab theories against Israel, as Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu prepares to deliver a response speech on Sunday, and as Iran votes on Friday.”
Not much has changed from back then. Only the locale of the treachery from Barack Obama is different. Again, why did Obama speak at the State Department yesterda? Why didn’t Barack Obama go on another of his expensive traveling extravaganzas and speak to Muslims and Arabs in a Muslim or Arab country? The answer is this was not really a speech “to the Muslim world”, as advertised, this was a Pearl Harbor style attack on Israel.
Barack Obama did not go to the Middle East to talk to Muslims because he is not interested in upsetting Arabs or Muslims. Barack Obama did not go to the Middle East for his talk because his interest was to attack Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Barack Obama’s speech must be seen in the same context as speeches from Muslims and Arab leaders who say one thing in Arabic and another thing entirely when they communicate in English.
What should Obama have said and where? Barack Obama should have gone to a Muslim and Arab country and told them outright that the problems in their societies are of their own making. Their problems are not due to the Jews or the United States or anyone else. Barack Obama should have told the Muslim and Arab world that their fates are in their own hands. They can author an Arab Spring or an Arab Winter. Stop blaming others for your own deficiencies. Stop blaming Israel. Stop blaming the United States. An American president concerned about American interests would have told the Muslim and Arab world that we are allied with Israel and if they want progress they need to stop trying to destroy Israel and put all efforts to building up their own societies. That’s what a president of the United States should have said.
The United States has known, until treacherous Barack Obama, that you can only negotiate in good faith. When the United States violated Pakistan sovereignty it did so partly because Pakistan could not be trusted to help capture Osama Bin Laden. The United States went into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden but somehow Israel is supposed to ignore its national security interests. Israel will do what it needs to do to survive and the United States should make it clear to Muslims, Arabs, and Europeans that America stands with Israel. That’s how to get peace.
As stupid and uneducated as it is, there are still some people who are so stupid and uneducated, that they do not believe the smart and educated view that Big Media is protecting Barack Obama. These dolts think Obama is somehow under assault by Big Media and their overgrown dummy is helpless to defend himself from the Big Media bullies.
In addition, these stupid and uneducated people think it is only “racist and evil” Republicans who attack their golden calf. It is hard to educate these stupid people. Fortunately, today, some examples of Big Media corruption and a leftist critique have come to light which might help these dolts understand reality.
“Several veteran and prize-winning journalists who covered presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush say that the current crop of White House correspondents are too timid and deferential and have played a role in killing the impact of presidential news conferences.
“If you watch an Obama news conference, and watched a Bush news conference previous to that, where correspondents sit in their seats with their hands folded on their laps, [it’s] as if they are in the room with a monarch and they have to wait to be recognized by the president,” says Sid Davis, the former NBC Washington bureau chief who covered nine presidents. “It looks like they are watching a funeral service at [Washington funeral firm] Joseph Gawler’s and it shouldn’t be that way.”
Adds Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Haynes Johnson, “It’s all very stale, very structured, very pale.”
And longtime NBC and ABC reporter Sander Vanocur: “You want to know what’s wrong with the press? The press is what’s wrong with the press.”
It’s pretty bad when these lapdogs for previous presidents call out today’s much worse lapdogs. It’s gotten so bad for two reasons: (1) the proliferation of variety of media outlets means that Big Media must be much more overtly and glaringly partisan if Big Media is to sufficiently influence the population; (2) what used to be the cultural opposition is now the cultural establishment – and yes that means the left, the gentry left that despises the non-coastal white working class and it’s “bitter” and “clinging to guns and religion” belief systems.
One-time leftist hero Ted Rall today discusses the RISE OF THE OBAMABOTS – Stifling Liberal Dissent Under Obama. Cartoonist Ted Rall in the 1990s was published “in Time, Fortune and Bloomberg Personal magazines and over 100 daily and alternative weekly newspapers.” Rall was a “staff writer for two major magazines.” After 9/11 Rall lost most of his jobs and he blames his unemployment woes on George W. Bush and the Republican right:
“The media gorged on an orgy of psychotic right-wing rhetoric. Flags everywhere. Torture suddenly OK. In a nation where mainstream political discourse was redefined between Dick Cheney on the right and libertarian Bill Maher on the not-as-right, there wasn’t any room in the paper for a left-of-center cartoonist. My business was savaged. Income plunged. [snip]
McCarthyism–blackballing–made a big comeback. I had been drawing a monthly comic strip, “The Testosterone Diaries,” for Men’s Health. No politics. It was about guy stuff: dating, job insecurity, prostate tests, that sort of thing. They fired me. Not because of anything I drew for them. It was because of my syndicated editorial cartoons, which attacked Bush and his policies. The publisher worried about pissing off right-wingers during a period of nationalism on steroids.
Desperate and going broke, I called an editor who’d given me lots of work at the magazines he ran during the 1990s. “Sorry, dude, I can’t help,” he replied. “You’re radioactive.“
Those wicked Republicans! How horrible! Can anything or anyone be worse than those wicked Republicans? Yes, Barack Obama can – be much worse – is much worse:
“It was tempting, when Obama’s Democrats swept into office in 2008, to think that the bad old days were coming to an end. I wasn’t looking for any favors, just a swing of the political pendulum back to the Clinton years when it was still OK to be a liberal.
This, you have no doubt correctly guessed, is the part where I tell you I was wrong.
I didn’t count on the cult of personality around Barack Obama.”
Uh, oh. We can hear the yelps and mockery already from the stupid and uneducated members of the overly-educated-to-the-point-of-stupidity-Obama-cult-left. The “racist” charge will soon be hurled at Ted Rall. But Ted Rall has an history:
“In the 1990s it was OK to attack Clinton from the left. I went after the Man From Hope and his centrist, “triangulation”-obsessed Democratic Leadership Council for selling out progressive principles. Along with like-minded political cartoonists including Tom Tomorrow and Lloyd Dangle, my cartoons and columns took Clinton’s militant moderates to the woodshed for NAFTA, the WTO and welfare reform. A pal who worked in the White House informed me that the President, known for his short temper, stormed into his office and slammed a copy of that morning’s Washington Post down on the desk with my cartoon showing. “How dare your friend compare me to Bush?” he shouted. (The first Bush.)
“It feels a little weird to write this, like I’m telling tales out of school and ratting out the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. But it’s true: there’s less room for a leftie during the Age of Obama than there was under Bush.
I didn’t realize how besotted progressives were by Mr. Hopey Changey.
Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal.
It got worse after that: Obama extended and expanded Bush’s TARP giveaway to the banks; continued Bush’s spying on our phone calls; ignored the foreclosure crisis; refused to investigate, much less prosecute, Bush’s torturers; his healthcare plan was a sellout to Big Pharma; he kept Gitmo open; expanded the war against Afghanistan; dispatched more drone bombers; used weasel words to redefine the troops in Iraq as “non-combat”; extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich; claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens; most recently, there was the forced nudity torture of PFC Bradley Manning and expanding oil drilling offshore and on national lands.
I was merciless to Obama. I was cruel in my criticisms of Obama’s sellouts to the right. In my writings and drawings I tried to tell it as it was, or anyway, as I saw it. I thought–still think–that’s my job. I’m a critic, not a suck-up. The Obama Administration doesn’t need journalists or pundits to carry its water. That’s what press secretaries and PR flacks are for.
Does Obama ever do anything right? Not often, but sure. And when he does, I shut up about it. Cartoonists and columnists who promote government policy are an embarrassment.
But that’s what “liberal” media outlets want in the age of Obama.“
The organized left has no credibility anymore. It has eaten its seed corn and there’s nothing left. All the supposed principles the left espoused are now ignored in favor of worship of their Messiah, their Monarch. By becoming a cult, the left no longer has an ideological critique that can be taken seriously. What the left says is just words. The words are subverted by the lack of action for the principles.
“I can’t prove it in every case. (That’s how blackballing works.) The Nation and Mother Jones and Harper’s, liberal magazines that gave me freelance work under Clinton and Bush, now ignore my queries. Even when I offered them first-person, unembedded war reporting from Afghanistan. Hey, maybe they’re too busy to answer email or voicemail. You never know.
Other censors are brazen.
There’s been a push among political cartoonists to get our work into the big editorial blogs and online magazines that seem poised to displace traditional print political magazines like The Progressive. In the past, editorial rejections had numerous causes: low budgets, lack of space, an editor who simply preferred another creator’s work over yours.
Now there’ s a new cause for refusal: Too tough on the president.
I’ve heard that from enough “liberal” websites and print publications to consider it a significant trend.
A sample of recent rejections, each from editors at different left-of-center media outlets:
· “I am familiar with and enjoy your cartoons. However the readers of our site would not be comfortable with your (admittedly on point) criticism of Obama.”
· “Don’t be such a hater on O and we could use your stuff. Can’t you focus more on the GOP?”
· “Our first African-American president deserves a chance to clean up Bush’s mess without being attacked by us.”
I have many more like that.
What’s weird is that these cultish attitudes come from editors and publishers whose politics line up neatly with mine. They oppose the bailouts. They want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They disapprove of Obama’s new war against Libya. They want Obama to renounce torture and Guantánamo.”
These are not really “leftists”. These are cult members formerly in the American left. And the overt racism of “our first African-American president deserves a chance…” is beyond the capacity of these overly educated uneducated stupid people to comprehend. It’s a cult, a stupid, uneducated cult:
“Obama is the one they ought to be blackballing. He has been a terrible disappointment to the American left. He has forsaken liberals at every turn. Yet they continue to stand by him. Which means that, in effect, they are not liberals at all. They are militant Democrats. They are Obamabots.“
“So what should I think about [the war in Libya]?,” asks Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. “If it had been my call, I wouldn’t have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.”
That is cult behavior. It is by definition a cult when you defer to your leader and invest in your Messiah Monarch such reverence. We respect Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. We defer to them only when it concerns them. We did not think Hillary should become Secretary of State but we understood it was her decision and she knew what her situation was better than anyone because in fact the decision was about herself. We would also listen and gravely weigh the opinion of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton because we respect them and know they have great abilities. But we would never submit our will and opinions to theirs in such a cultish manner.
“Mr. Drum, call your office. Someone found your brain in the break room.
Barack Obama and the Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they don’t care about the issues and concerns that I care about. Unlike Kevin Drum, I think–I know–I’m smarter than Barack Obama. I wouldn’t have made half the mistakes he has.
So I don’t care about Obama. Or the Democrats. I care about America and the world and the people who live in them.
Hey, Obamabots: when the man you support betrays your principles, he has to go–not your principles.”
“The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote.”
I know it must be tough dragging yourself to these glitzy fund-raisers and mingling with rich people who shower you with money and affection. Who needs an unfriendly reporter shouting an unscripted question at you, or checking to see whether any of the guests are getting government contracts?
We all know Obama has an aversion to tough questions. During the campaign, he would refuse to engage with most local media, and reporters who camped out at the rope line got a stern talking-to from a campaign staffer.
But using the White House press pool to possibly punish or reward media based on what the White House considers “fair” coverage? This is taking the control freak thing to new levels. [snip]
But apparently this White House has a different view. It has a special place for perceived “unfair” media — at least 500 feet away. Even at White House press conferences, the president carefully chooses who gets to answer a question.”
“But Soros funds foundations that fund other foundations in turn, like the Tides Foundation, which then make their own donations. A complete accounting is almost impossible because a media component is part of so many Soros-funded operations. [snip]
It turns out that Soros’ influence doesn’t just include connections to top mainstream news organizations such as NBC, ABC, The New York Times and Washington Post. It’s bought him connections to the underpinnings of the news business. The Columbia Journalism Review, which bills itself as “a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms,” lists several investigative reporting projects funded by one of Soros foundations.
The “News Frontier Database” includes seven different investigative reporting projects funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute. Along with ProPublica, there are the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Investigative Reporting and New Orleans’ The Lens. The Columbia School of Journalism, which operates CJR, has received at least $600,000 from Soros, as well.
Imagine if conservative media punching bags David and Charles Koch had this many connections to journalists. Even if the Kochs could find journalists willing to support conservative media (doubtful), they would be skewered by the left.”
Can it be that the goal is actual Big Media funded by actual government? Whodathunkit?:
“Soros naturally started with Columbia University’s School of Journalism. Columbia is headed by President Lee Bollinger, who also sits on the Pulitzer Prize board and the board of directors of The Washington Post.
Bollinger, like some of Soros’ other funding recipients, is pushing for journalism to find a new sugar daddy or at least an uncle – Uncle Sam. Bollinger wrote in his book “Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century” that government should fund media. A 2009 study by Columbia’s journalism program came to the same conclusion, calling for “a national fund for local news.”
The organized left is now the party of the Royalists. The few of the principled left remaining, will have to join with the Tea Party to dump the Royalists into the deep waters. The Monarch, his courtiers, and the cult that worships him must be dethroned. The Royal scribblers will have to walk the plank as well.
Donald Trump is not running for president and Big Media is happy. Lots of Republicans/conservatives are happy too. “Hooray!” they say. “We got rid of Donald Trump.”
Big Media loathing of Donald Trump is easy to understand. Big Media will do everything to serve and protect the golden calf Barack Obama. But what was the reason for all the Donald Trump hate from Republicans/conservatives?
Republican/conservative hate of Donald Trump had several causes/reasons/sources: (1) partisans of other candidates not happy Trump got so much attention; (2) genuine disgust at a publicity seeker using the Republican nomination process as a publicity stunt; (3) real concern that Trump was detracting from the Republican “message”; (4) the always laughed at but barely disguised fear that Trump could actually win.
Assuming the very worst of Donald Trump’s intentions, who did he hurt? The Republican Party wasn’t hurt. Outsider Donald Trump going after Barack Obama with a sledgehammer hurt Obama.
Millions of Americans who recognized Donald Trump as a hit TV show host at least heard Donald Trump’s assault on Barack Obama. Many of these Americans ordinarily would not listen to a politician or participate in electoral politics, but they heard Trump beat up on Obama. You had a very well known man attack Barack Obama on a personal and policy level and the Republican/conservative response was – attack Donald Trump.
Did Donald Trump ever trash Paul Ryan and his plan the way Newt Gingrich has? Donald Trump had said that Paul Ryan’s plan was too ahead of its time. Trump’s critique of Ryan’s plan was that it could hurt in next year’s elections and that critique is accepted by many as on target. Donald Trump did not hurt Republicans/conservatives with his pronouncements. What did Newt Gingrich say? Who helped the Republican/conservative message more – Donald Trump or Newt Gingrich? Here’s what Newt said:
“White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare “right-wing social engineering,” injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party’s efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.
In the same interview Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama’s health law. [snip]
“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about a Medicare plan championed by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) as an element of the party’s 2012 budget proposal. He said he was against “radical change” on the right and the left.”
The two other reasons to attack Donald Trump are essentially based on whether he could have won the nomination. We argued that if Trump was such a weak candidate in the Republican primaries his candidacy would easily implode during the debates. But a lot of partisans for other candidates did not believe their own rhetoric about how weak The Donald was.
Today, the partisans of other wannabee nominees should be in mourning, not celebration. Donald Trump, a New Yorker, close ties to Democrats, a hit TV show which features many African-Americans – and he was attacked as a “racist”. What these other wannabee nominees and their partisans will learn is that they too, the moment they get any traction, will be attacked as “racists”. Any statement that hurts Barack Obama will be attacked as “racist”. Any examination of Barack Obama’s history or allies will be attacked as “racist.” There is no way any Obama opponent can win under this formulation.
“But while Ed seemed to make light of his chances to begin with, I think that gives short shrift to the impact he had on the nation’s political gene pool. Not only did a series of polls show The Donald at least briefly holding a lead, he did pick up some followers among the political class. One of them was Chris Barron of GOProud fame and board chairman of that organization, who took to the pages of his blog today explaining precisely what we all need to have learned from the Trump Experience.”
As anyone who has read this blog or followed my twitter feed knows, I have been a fan of Donald Trump and an outspoken supporter of a potential Presidential bid by him. Today, Mr. Trump announced that he would not be seeking the GOP nomination in 2012.
Say what you want about Trump or about his flirtation with running, the fact is that for a few weeks Trump captured the attention of the country and energized the Republican base. While the establishment dances gleefully on the news that Trump isn’t running and the main stream media does it self-serving rounds of “told you so” there are important lessons to be learned from the Trump boomlet for any candidate who hopes to be the Republican nominee in 2012. [snip]
Republican primary voters believe, and rightfully so, that our country is at a dangerous crossroads. Now isn’t the time for Washington double speak and half measures. Trump’s sometimes over the top rhetoric touched a nerve with primary voters hungry for a leader who will “take it” to Obama and the Democrats. [snip]
People thought Trump was nuts for ever touching the birth certificate issue, even though a huge block of the GOP base cared about the issue. Trump’s poll numbers went through the roof when the conservative GOP base felt like it was finally being heard. The 2012ers need to talk to the issues the base cares about, instead of telling the base what they should care about.
With Trump out, I am a man without a candidate. Honestly, no one else excites me in this field. I am sure that will change, but for now, I am happy to sit back and watch.”
It’s going to be a long sit-back. Willard Romney has Romneycare to kill him off. Newt Gingrich finished himself off with his “right-wing social engineering” message. Pawlenty is as mushy as polenta. Mitch Daniels is the Obama dream opponent. The rest are not going to win either.
What Trump informed the Republican Party is that you need to fire up the base and win the crucial independents. Trump did exactly that. Donald Trump with his attacks on Barack Obama fired up the Republican/conservative base and those like us who understand that Barack Obama must be confronted without fear. Donald Trump also did well with independents because of who he was and because they heard his message on the economy. Now there is no one.
Donald Trump is out and none of the announced candidates thus far has a chance of winning the presidency. Donald Trump’s legacy is that he showed Republicans and Barack Obama opponents the way to win: expose Obama’s history and ineffectual policies while at the same time reaching out to non-Republicans/conservatives.
Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee but neither will any of the current crop of candidates. Republicans are going to have to find themselves another Donald Trump – and this time not trash him or her.
Last night Mike Huckabee announced he was not running for president. After he spoke, Donald Trump appeared. Last night was Mike Huckabee’s night but Donald Trump had a good night also. Tonight is Donald Trump’s night too.
Lo and behold, Donald Trump appeared immediately after Mike Huckabee to wish his best to Huckabee and his family. Big Media and a lot of websites decided to deceive the public and erase Donald Trump from the night’s festivities. Here is how Pollitico covered last night:
“And sure enough, the Baptist pastor-turned-politician-turned-media-personality had scarcely finished his announcement before a measure of respect was given: Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty quickly sent out emails praising their would-have-been rival before the show even ended.
Huckabee’s supporters now become one of the most coveted voting blocs in the still-unsettled Republican contest.
The former governor was at the top of early polling in Iowa and South Carolina and also faring well in many national surveys. His strength can be partly chalked up to name recognition this far out from voting, but his demographic appeal leaves a sizable void in the field: there is now no well-known candidate for Christian conservatives and middle-to-lower income Republicans.”
Is history erasing Stalin running Big Media? Picture this, a long awaited announcement by Huckabee and Donald Trump appears immediately after but Politico, typical of most if not all Big Media outlets, discussed that Huntsman and Pawlenty sent Huckabee their best wishes. Donald Trump disappeared from the Stalinist Big Media coverage.
Big Media will protect Barack Obama from Donald Trump now by attempting to erase Donald Trump from news coverage. It’s what the JournoListers did to protect Barack Obama during the Reverend Wright “God Damn America!” scandal – swear a compact to erase Jeremiah Wright and protect their golden calf.
Donald Trump has the same firepower as Sarah Palin with Fox News and he additional has the cachet from his hit TV show on NBC. Notice that it was Donald Trump not Sarah Palin that followed Huckabee last night. We won’t speculate as to why. Donald Trump was apparently provided two scripts to read and once Huckabee’s decision was announced, Trump read the appropriate message. But why not other Fox News personalities?
Donald Trump managed to somehow squeeze that colloquy into a show that presumably had been taped long ago (in November). Somehow that episode and the uproar it caused (O’Donnell and others went nuts) has been forgotten already. If Trump managed to edit that show, couldn’t he just as easily update the final episode?
Update: Huckabee is not running. The shocker is who came on right after Huckabee. It was Donald Trump! Read what we wrote before the announcement about Trump and Huckabee. The significance is that Donald Trump knew Huckabee’s decision before many in Huckabee’s supposed inner circle. Donald Trump had to know because he recorded a message to follow Huckabee’s announcement. Read what we wrote. Trump haters beware.
We speculated about a Huckabee endorsement of Donald Trump. We firmly believe our speculation is on target. Judge for yourself. See below.
Friday the 13th leads into pot luck-y day at Big Pink. So much happened, or rather was announced to happen yesterday we have to do a buffet pot luck commentary day.
One thing we can say which we doubt anyone who is being honest will contradict: Mike Huckabee cannot stand (is hate too strong a word?) Willard Mitt Romney. Another thing we can say – which is pure speculation and probably has no merit whatsoever so therefore we will phrase it as a question: is the Mike Huckabee announcement somehow tied to Donald Trump?
But if Huckabee announces he is not running… let’s speculate further: Huckabee might be trying to block a potential Trump announcement of an announcement tomorrow. Or Huckabee might be trying to help Trump??? Huckabee met with Trump a few weeks ago and the meeting was cordial and Huckabee had some nice things to say about The Donald and declared that it was his impression Trump was going to run.
At the time of the Trump/Huckabee meeting Trump was strongly hurting Romney in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is an absolutely must win state for Romney. We would not be shocked if Huckabee would decide to endorse Trump in order to finish off Willard in New Hampshire. The benefits to Trump of an eventual Huckabee endorsement would be astronomical. Huckabee is a favorite in Iowa and with Evangelicals. Couple a Huckabee endorsement with a Franklin Graham endorsement (which Graham has almost already given) and Trump would be greatly helped in Iowa and throughout the south.
There is another Huckabee possible endorsement but let’s discuss Trump a bit. Tomorrow is the final episode of Donald Trump’s TV show. Trump might or might not say anything tomorrow (we’ve discussed this before) about when he will announce. Trump will not announce tomorrow. Trump might announce when he will make his announcement.
We suspect that yes or no announcement will come on the 23rd or 24th of May. Our reasoning is that Trump’s contract with NBC ends on May 22. On May 23rd Barack Obama goes off on his regular European Vacation. A Trump announcement for president while Obama is jetting off yet again would send the message of the vacationing absent president. Trump might announce he is not running for president but then why the very important interview with Erick Erickson of Redstate this coming Tuesday, the policy book coming this summer and the several scheduled visits to New Hampshire and Iowa?
Mitch Daniels is a formidable candidate on paper. But Mitch Daniels is quite possibly the weakest and best opponent for Barack Obama. Republicans/conservatives better listen to us about Mitch Daniels because we are Democrats and we know exactly the way Mitch Daniels will be destroyed by Barack Obama.
Let’s first discuss why Daniels is strong. Daniels comes from Iowa neighbor Indiana. Daniels therefore should be able to do well in Iowa because he is a known factor there (the same reason why Romney is strong in New Hampshire, because he was governor of neighbor Massachusetts). Daniels is a very popular governor of Indiana. In 2008 Obama won Indiana but so did Mitch Daniels who was reelected with a huge portion of the vote (18% margin of victory). Daniels turned an $800 billion deficit into a $1.2 billion surplus in Indiana.
While Mitch Daniels irked conservatives with his call for a “truce” on social issues he has mended that problem quickly by defunding Planned Parenthood. Mitch Daniels worked for Republican moderate Richard Lugar too and did not join Scott Walker during the recent Wisconsin rumble so it provides him with a patina of “moderate”. Scott Walker is on Team Mitch Daniels and understands that Mitch Daniels did much of what Scott Walker succeeded in doing this year – years ago. In short, Mitch Daniels can be sold as a common sense conservative that gets things done.
Mitch Daniels is a strong candidate on paper and someone Barack Obama wants to run against. Follow us on this Republicans/conservatives because it shows how differently we Democrats think.
The Republican/conservative worry about Mitch Daniels might be relevant for primaries but the concerns are comical to our Democratic eyes. The usually sharp (if not pungent) Ace of Spades has produced some long essays about how Daniels has a problem because he is waiting for his wife’s OK or something. We Democrats cannot really understand this type of thinking because we like men confident enough to marry strong women (and vice versa, not to mention gay couples). AceofSpades also thinks that the marriage-divorce-marriage (Cheri Daniels re-married in the interim) of the Daniels duo is some sort of problem too. Hey, we’re Democrats and we cheered Liz Taylor and her eight marriages – twice to the drunk but magnificent Richard Burton (Liz remarried in the interim too, several times).
We do see the point of concern AceofSpades has because Barack Obama is sure to do what he always does and conduct a smear campaign against Daniels. Barack Obama would go dumpster diving to get divorce records and every bit of dirt on family history from Daniels – it is what Barack Obama has always done – it’s what Republicans have always done to Bill and Hillary Clinton. But let’s not digress by indulging in “what goes around, comes around”.
In that Republican/conservative AceofSpades article there is also the silliness (to our Democratic minds and eyes that “Daniels says he’d like Condi Rice as VP. Given his situation, I think he actually needs the opposite. He can’t play further into the idea that women boss him. Huh??? We told you Republicans think differently than Democrats, even we NObama Democrats.
Mitch Daniels stupidly said that he is not ready to debate Barack Obama on foreign policy so we understand why he would say that Condoleezza Rice is his choice for VP. But the smart play for Republicans is a Latino or Latina for Vice President. A black VP choice is not going to take black votes away from Barack Obama. A Latina/o such as Susanna Martinez from the Southwest could permanently damage Obama Dimocrats. But we digress, again.
Why is Mitch Daniels the weakest of all Republican candidates? Here’s why: He is the Republican ESTABLISHMENT candidate but most importantly he would allow Barack Obama to run the race Obama wants to run.
We know Laura Bush has called Cheri Daniels to get her on board with a presidential run by her husband. We know Karl Rove and all the George W. Bush crowd is out to help Mitch Daniels. The dream is that Mitch Daniels announces after everyone else announces and then there is a Tsunami of endorsements which repeat the George W. Bush immediate capture of the Republican nomination in 2000.
Mitch Daniels is the weakest of all Republican candidates because with Daniels as the Republican nominee Barack Obama will run the campaign Barack Obama wants to run. What is the campaign Barack Obama wants to run? Barack Obama wants to run the Barack Obama Versus George W. Bush campaign of 2008.
Barack Obama will get all the personal divorce/marital problems dirt he can on Mitch Daniels. It is what he has always done. But most importantly Barack Obama will point out that Mitch Daniels is a creation of the George W. Bush campaign organization. Obama wants to rerun 2008 and Mitch Daniels is a rerun of 2008.
Why Mitch Daniels’ is so weak: Mitch Daniels directed the George W. Bush Office of Management and Budget. As the Director Mitch Daniels ran the Bill Clinton surplus of $236 billion into deficits over $400 billion. Barack Obama will use this information to destroy Mitch Daniels in the same way that Barack Obama will use Willard Romney’s healthcare mess in Massachusetts to inoculate himself against the Obama health care scam. Barack Obama will run against Mitch Daniels in a complete repeat of 2008.
“It has frequently been said about Mitch Daniels that he “turned deficits into surpluses” as governor. The only problem with this claim is that it’s not true. According to the CNBC/Forbes.com, which annually ranks states according to business climate, Indiana has a $1.4-billion budget deficit as of FY2011.
That same CNBC/Forbes.com list ranked Indiana as barely 21st out of 50 states — i.e. in the middle of the peloton, trailing Democrat-run states such as Massachusetts and Washington. Indiana is 42nd in terms of the quality of its workforce, 44th in quality of life, 26th in access to capital, and 22nd in technology and innovation. In only three categories does Indiana make it to the top ten: the cost of doing business, infrastructure (mostly due to federal infrastructure programs), and business friendliness.
This is how badly Indiana ranked in late 2010, more than five years after Daniels was sworn in as governor. A state that ranks 44th in terms of quality of life? No, thanks.
When Daniels was director of the OMB, he performed equally miserably: he turned budget surpluses (America’s first since FY1969) into deficits. He also oversaw the enactment and funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, the prescription drug entitlement, and increases of funding for the ED and the DOT, as well as the reinstatement of farm subsidies (which were largely abolished in 1996 under the Freedom to Farm Act) and the creation of ethanol subsidies (later increased by his successors). Daniels’ response to the OMB’s critics was that a balanced budget “is not the highest priority.” The deficit continued to grow during Daniels’ entire tenure, and it peaked in FY2004 at $400 billion under the last budget devised by Daniels. It was later reduced to $162 billion in FY2007 by his successors.”
Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee would take the Obama health care scam off the table. Mitch Daniels as the Republican nominee takes off, or certainly muddies, the strong attack that can be made about Obama’s budget recklessness. Are you listening Republicans/conservatives?
Mitch Daniels is also an advocate of “anthropogenic global warming” which would also help Barack Obama. In the Republican primaries this hurts Daniels. Tim Pawlenty has run away from his record on this issue as has Newt.
As we have written before: Donald Trump beats Barack Obama like a rented mule and many Republicans/conservatives react by beating up on…. Trump! Huh? Ever hear of the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, fellas/gals?
Trump is attacked by some Republicans/conservatives because as a New York businessman he donated to some Democrats and even Obama Dimocrats. The donations angle is a fair line of attack although most people understand the need for businessmen in New York City and elsewhere to bribe/donate/contribute to politicians. There are a lot of reasons for some Republicans/conservatives to oppose Donald Trump but why is he the only target of the “get out” crowd?
Consider Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is running a publicity stunt candidacy. Newt has to know that he is not going to be the Republican nominee for president. It’s not just Newt’s repulsive face either. It’s not just that Wayne Gacy “smile”. It’s not just Newt’s “baggage” – you know, the wife with cancer he dumped for another wife, the impeachment drama of Bill Clinton while Newt was getting the same treatment in parking lots from GOP wives and interns, the temper tantrums, the damaging stories that will come out.
The problem Newt has is that for all intents and purposes, if you saw his 2012 debut appearances yesterday, is running on a platform of nostalgic “bring back the Bill Clinton economy.” Good luck with that Newtie. Newt will try to take credit for the 1990s economy, and many Republicans/conservatives will accept the premise that it was Newt, not Bill, that deserves the credit – but most Americans will laugh at that notion. Newt also does not seem to appreciate the hole he is digging if he persists in praising the 1990s, with those Bill Clinton tax rates.
Unlike with Donald Trump, many Republicans/conservatives will tolerate Newt. But why is it a problem for businessman Trump to cavort with Democrats but OK for Newtie to do this?:
Consider Willard Romney. Most Americans hate the Obama health scam. Willard, as a Republican nominee, would not be able to exploit this most potent issue. He just won’t. He just can’t:
Mitt Romney used slide after slide in a PowerPoint presentation Thursday to make the case that the health care reform law he signed in 2006 isn’t much like the one President Barack Obama signed last year.
The catch, as Romney all but admitted: Almost nobody believes him. [snip]
In one PowerPoint slide, Romney said Massachusetts’s goal had been to “Help people get and keep their insurance.” Obama’s goal, he said, was “a government takeover of health care.”
But in the run-up to Thursday’s speech, voices on the right and left reached a moment of rare agreement: “Romneycare” is, in fact, almost indistinguishable from “Obamacare.”
“As everyone knows, the health reform Mr. Romney passed in 2006 as Massachusetts governor was the prototype for President Obama’s version and gave national health care a huge political boost,” The Wall Street Journal wrote in a scathing editorial.
The paper said Romney should apologize for the Massachusetts law — or just “knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.”
“The similarities between what he championed in Massachusetts and what the president has championed are about 100 percent,” Center for American Progress’s Neera Tanden, who sits on the board of the pro-reform group Protect Your Care, said on MSNBC Thursday morning.
“It doesn’t even seem fair to call them similarities, it seems like they’re identicalities,” says Michael Cannon, health policy director with the Cato Institute.”
Picture Romney with a hat and cane – he’s a song and dance man in a vaudeville hall. Yet no Republican/conservative is calling for the hook to get him off stage. The man would throw away a major issue/strategy/tactic but he is considered “serious.” Willard is seriously flawed.Willard also does not poll well with the white working class and that’s another missed opportunity as the white working class does not like Barack Obama at all.
Of course, Ron Paul is not considered a “serious” candidate either but no one (other than Donald Trump at CPAC) dares say so openly because Paul has a strong and committed army of supporters. Ron Paul is tolerated and allowed to express his view and trust is placed on Republican voters to not vote for Paul. That is as it should be. Let the voters decide.
Sarah Palin is not considered a “serious” candidate either mostly because she is thus far not running and because the Republican establishment and Big Media hates and fears her. They won’t explicitly demand she get out because Palin has an even bigger army of strong and committed supporters than Paul – and she fights like a girl, not one of these weak guys.
“We’re not fans of multi-millionaire Cain but he is playing a very shrewd game. As a successful business owner of a very popular food product (we’re not fans of his pizza either but sales figures tell us it is tasty to many), he can easily vault to the top ranks of Republican grassroots leadership as a voice that potentially reaches black voters as well as Tea Party activists. And Cain can do so with a non race based appeal even as his race will certainly be a matter of discussion.
After Republicans dump the failure called Michael Steele the shouts of “racism” will be heard. Cain will provide a valuable counterpoint when the “racism” charge is heard. Cain also fills out (in a sane manner, unlike Keyes) the diversity menu for Republicans.”
Cain is getting a lot of good press lately, but he is not considered a “serious” candidate by the Republican establishment or Big Media either. No one is going to tell Cain to get out however. He won’t be told “get out” partly because he is black and that would be a “racist” disaster but also because he speaks with a force the grassroots appreciates and he has a business background which brings a certain credibility on the economy and jobs. And they like his pizza.
Republicans/conservatives want to run off Donald Trump even though Trump is the only one who has brought excitement and pizazz to this election cycle. Trump exploded the birth certificate landmine well before November 2012 and a strong argument can be made that Obama gave the kill order on Binny in order to polish off The Donald. The Donald also “got into Obama’s head” and showed Republicans that Obama has a glass jaw and an empty, clunking head.
But they want to run him off like gray whiskered gold miners at a depleted mine. They squint their eyes at the young stranger in the wagon with a strange new drill type thingy and say “bes’ you be movin’ on stranger – we don’t want no excavator whatchamacallits here. We’ll keep diggin’ with our busted shovels and hands and someday we’ll find us an ol’ vein and we’ll be rich. Rich! So jes keep on yer way stranger.”
Waiting for the old miners to fade away or die is Tim Pawlenty. His entire strategy is to be the last man standing. Rick Santorum, who lost his senate seat in Pennsylvania and would likely lose the Keystone State in 2012, is also hoping that the frontrunners will be caught in a cave-in because he thinks he can battle with Pawlenty once the serious ones are crushed to earth and, after all, he is more serious than the non-serious like Paul, Cain, and Johnson.
Why is the Republican establishment trying to scare off Donald Trump from announcing at the end of May? To get a “serious” candidate that without serious help cannot be trusted to get voters excited and win the nomination on his own merit.
The Republican establishment has geared up to destroy Trump and Palin and Paul and eventually Cain and others. For what? Newt? Romney? Are Republicans Stupid – Or Crazy?