Governor Palin Supports Jews for Jesus

So, you know how Palin keeps talking about how they can’t let another Holocaust happen? It’s not out of respect for the humanity and distinction of the Jewish people. It’s just so we can die in the rapture.

Well, OK, that, and making the relentlessly Left-Wing, Progressive, pro-civilization and Democratic Jewish population of America waver in their support for the best Democratic Presidential candidate in my lifetime.

In August, just eight weeks ago, Governor Sarah Palin sat in her church, the Wasilla Bible Church, and listened to their honored guest, David Brickner, describe how the challenges Jews face in Israel is a result of their having rejected Jesus as their personal lord and savior. The talk was entitled, “The Jerusalem Dilemma.” That’s code for “The Jewish Question“.

If you’d like, you can download the audio file or read a PDF of the sermon.

If Jews have anything to fear from the upcoming election, it’s not that Barack Obama might be a Muslim (he’s not). It’s not that he’s black (that’s good). It’s that John McCain selected someone who believes that we should be converted en masse by being lied to. If you are, or know, Jews in Ohio, Florida, or any other swing state, make sure they know this. There’s been some ugly racism showing in polls of Jews, and it needs to be made clear which side the bread is buttered on.

Vote Barack “The Butter” Obama.

16 thoughts on “Governor Palin Supports Jews for Jesus”

  1. Thank you for posting links to the complete sermon that David Brickner of Jews for Jesus delivered at Sarah Palin’s church, so that your readers can hear his remarks in context. I think the link you provided to “David Brickner” gives your readers a good summary in his NBC interview of his response concerning whether he thinks terrorism is God’s judment on Israel” ”That’s not what I was saying,” he said. “That’s not what I believe. The violence is evidence that sin has marred our human condition and because of sin and non belief, God’s judgment rests on all humanity. And that’s why God had to send Jesus, the Messiah to deal with the problem of the sin. And actually he became sin, and God judged him.… “I believe that violence is the natural outcome of the human condition, that sin has blinded the whole world to the truth of God in Jesus Christ.”
    Please also take a look at Brickner’s comments concerning his message at Wasilla Bible Church, as well as interviews by Christianity Today and the one with MSNBC with Brickner about this issue, at Among other things, Brickner says, “The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event, whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a biblical prediction of judgment. I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way.”

  2. Matt, lemme make something clear:

    I don’t care about your religious beliefs as long as you use them for your own betterment, however you define that. But your right to make a fist ends at my nose.

    Proselytization is spiritual violence. You commit a moral crime when you bring it to Jews. You align yourself with the Inquisition, the Pogroms, and other self-proclaimed solvers of The Jewish Question. (Like, say, Sarah Palin.)

    I have no obligation to treat your crackpot religion with anything but contempt such as that you show mine as a matter of institutional mandate. We’ve survived millennia of desperate, racist, imperialist people like you. Your crappy pamphlets and goggle-eyed realization that theological argument is interesting is a little bit like a 15-year-old “discovering” the Ramones and thinking that they know Punk now, and they’re going to start a band, and they’re going to rock so much harder than Avril Lavigne.

    You have no idea what Judaism is about. You couldn’t possibly. You don’t have the philosophical underpinnings, you don’t have the sense of evolution of the culture. You’re under the impression that Judaism is an ancient unchanging thing on the one hand, and is Jackie Mason, old people in Florida, and bagels on the other. There is obviously no room for r. A. Kaplan or the RaMBaM, or the BeShT.

    Here’s something you may be unaware of: we are forbidden to proselytize. It is a violation of law given by God. When that law has been violated, the consequences have been severe. If you accept Judaism, its traditions, its heterogenous philosophies, and its moral stances, then you will never again attempt to convert someone. You will discover that your confidence in your answers is in inverse proportion to your respect for the truth, and you will find yourself running and returning, never again so naïve and self-important to think that you hold an answer in the palm of your hand and should convince others that your infinitesimal understanding of the Universe is the whole picture.

    You are not following that important tradition. Instead, you are following the catholic belief that, if everyone was the same, everything would be OK.

    Here’s another one: the idea that the person of God could be seen and perceived is anathema and clearly, obviously idolatry. And yet you say that God was a dude who came to Earth. That you can paint a picture of God, or even say God’s name would make your claims to Judaism laughable, were they not soaked with the blood of Jews who had refused to convert (and often, those who did) in the past.

    You are frauds led by a charlatan trying to destroy Judaism because you think it wins you points with God. You’re as Jewish as any other Christian with a star of David on their T shirt and, if I’m to understand my Christian friends, a good deal less Christian, lacking humility in the extreme.

    I make no misinterpretation of Mr. Brickner’s intentions. Here’s a direct quote from that sermon that Sarah Palin went to:

    Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the
    television. It’s very real.

    When Isaac was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of
    people. Judgment—you can’t miss it. And Jesus talks about it, but He didn’t leave us there. There’s a promise of a return from this judgment. Jesus concludes His message there in the temple by saying this—‘…you will not see Me again until you say, until you’re able with conviction to articulate, these words:
    “Baruch hab-ba bashem Adonai—Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”’

    He just said, right there, that the people in those cars, Israeli Jews, were judged by God and killed by a Palestinian guy in a bulldozer. Jews, killed by a Palestinian were judged by God. There’s no moral agency on the part of the Palestinian, apparently. There’s no obligation on the part of Israelis to treat their neighbors with humanity. There’s just magic God judgement at work. You believe that, because you believe that since you’ve got your hammer of Belief in Jesus Christ, this must be a nail. It is not. It’s humans, desperate for the wellbeing of their children, hurting each other. It is moral tragedy that will be solved by human agency or not at all.

    I don’t know what God wants. None of us do, and to say otherwise is false prophecy and vituperous lie. But I want you and your kind off my doorstep and off my blog. You shame my Christian friends and insult my family.

    PS: check out Brickner’s apologism on the Jews for Jesus website. At least he’s calling himself an evangelical Christian in the article. Now if only that honesty would seep into the name of the brand.

  3. Can I get a witness?

    Another thing that may be unclear from my post up there: Even if Obama were a Muslim, that would still be good for Jews in America. Members of minority religions can stick up for each other, you know. It’s how we can get by and get ahead. He’s a highly intelligent man with a high degree of education who understands very, very well the value of the Constitution. Our Christian Fundamentalist and Corporatist overlords seem to have a much poorer grasp on that.

  4. I’m voting for Obama but I do think this post is grossly unfair to Sarah Palin and if we argue that Jews shouldn’t vote for Sarah Palin simply because an invited guest at her church was a member of the Jews for Jesus then people should either write in a third party candidate or vote for John McCain as the lesser of two evils.

    I say this because for starters as much as most Jews may object to the Jews for Jesus, I’m sure they object even harder to Louis Farrakhan and his ilk who were regularly invited to speak at Barack Obama’s church. Now if Barack Obama attended the church every Sunday the odds of him NOT being present for some of those speakers, including Louis Farrakhan himself are virtually zero.

    Furthermore, James Meeks, an Illinois State Senator and pastor of one of the largest black churches in Chicago regularly was invited and he’s well known for making highly controversial sermons against gays and other groups whom he feels threaten the black community. He led a campaign against the showing of the movie Brokeback Mountain in Chicago which he blamed on “Hollywood Jews”.

    I certainly consider Meeks at least as offensive as Brickener and I can guarantee you that if you poke around you’ll find Obama has closer ties with Meeks than Palin has with Brickener.

    They’re both politicians and politicians come into contact with a wide swath of people. Condemning Meeks in Chicago would have been political suicide and I suspect Palin would face similar problems if she started denouncing every Christian loon who said something wrong.

    Moreover, let’s remember Brickener was not her Pastor and as far as I can tell she’s no more met the man than I’ve met Michael Moore(heard him speak once).

    By contrast, Obama’s pastor whom he considered a close, personal family friend for years, whom he had marry him and Michelle, whom he had baptize his children, and whom he titled one of his books after, is far closer as far as we can tell to Obama than Brickener was to Palin and he has said things that I think most Jews would find at least as offensive as anything Brickener said.

    Leaving aside his strong endorsements of Louis Farrakhan and his insistence that Louis Farrakhan’s terming Judaism “a gutter religion” and claiming that 75% of slaveowners in the South were Jews was not anti-semitic lets remember that Reverend Wright posted an article in his newsletter claiming that Israel and South Africa were collaborating to build “an ethnic bomb” that would kill only Arabs and blacks.

    I suspect most Jews would find that suggestion at least as offensive as Brickener’s claims.

    Also, while it doesn’t specifically pertain to Jews, I don’t think there’s much difference between Wright insisting that God condemned America and hit America with 9/11 and other disasters and Brickener’s comments about terrorists being willed by God to hit Israel.

    As I said, I support Obama, but this is definetly not a line of attack to pursue and I think the only people who would be persuaded by it are those already fully onboard in support of Obama, not the swing voters we want to get to come over.

    One last thing, sorry if this came across as a bit harsh, I didn’t mean it to be, but it’s late and I’m tired. My point is, there are reasons to attack Palin, but this isn’t one of them.

  5. ” It’s that John McCain selected someone who believes that we should be converted en masse by being lied to.”

    Again, not to beat a dead horse, but this is like saying “We shouldn’t be worried about Obama because he’s a Muslim(he’s not) but because he blames Brokeback Mountain on ‘Hollywood Jews’ and believes that Israel is trying to create an ethnic bomb that kills only Arabs and blacks”

    There’s no evidence Palin believes that Jews are to be converted en masse. Or at least not unless you consider evidence that she belongs to a church which invited such a speaker there.

    If so, a lot of Presbyterian politicians are going to have problems considering some of the things guests at Presbyterian churches have said about Israel.

  6. Near as I can tell, Obama has had to answer for crackpots who showed up to speak at his church, and he has done so with dignity and aplomb. Are you arguing that the dead horse of Wright needs to be further beaten, while Palin’s associations are unfair fodder? Cuz that’s what you’re doing here.

    Palin brought up “support of Israel” and the Holocaust a lot during her debate. She should have to answer for the fact that six weeks before, she was just attending the sermon by the well-known founder of an antisemitic organization.

    Furthermore, let’s look at a famous quote of Wright’s:

    “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

    What the hell is wrong with that?

    “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

    “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

    These statements are only controversial if you don’t believe that our government is answerable to its people.

    By contrast, Brickner is saying that Jews were killed by Palestinians because they hadn’t accepted Christ. One is an ethical question about the responsibility of a nation to its citizens in the ways that it uses violence and its answerability to those citizens for its treatment of them. The other is proselytic accusation of blood-libel.

    Obama has already addressed the issues with Wright in public and constantly. Palin wouldn’t dare. She’s got no defense.

    It’s because the more you look into her religious views and that of her church, the more you find this shit. Her pastor said that voting for Kerry would send you to hell, too.

    Guilt by association might be a specious argument, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  7. apparantly I hit a nerve which I didn’t mean to hit so let me apologize for starters.

    That being said, I do need to address some points you made.

    “Near as I can tell, Obama has had to answer for crackpots who showed up to speak at his church, and he has done so with dignity and aplomb.”

    AFAIK, Barack Obama has never once been asked why he stayed with the Church for literally years when they invited representatives of the Nation of Islam to speak there.

    Moreover, he has never once been asked about his relationship to James Meeks, the Chicago pastor and State Senator who blamed Brokeback Mountain on “Hollywood Jews”.

    Yes, he eventually, under heavy duress, distanced himself from Reverend Wright but to suggest that Brickener’s relationship with Palin is anything like Wright’s with Obama is absurd. In fact, she doesn’t have a relationship with Brickener.

    “Are you arguing that the dead horse of Wright needs to be further beaten, while Palin’s associations are unfair fodder? Cuz that’s what you’re doing here.”

    No, that’s not what I was doing. I was simply pointing out that if you’re going to condemn Palin simply because of someone her Pastor invited to speak at her church, then you’re in an awkward position because Obama is guilty of the exact same thing RE Meeks and others.

    Also, your quotes from Wright completely miss the point. They weren’t what I was referring to. Reverend Wright has specifically said at a press conference in Washington while channelling Jerry Fallwell, that God(whom he claims is good, just and does nothing bad) specifically caused 9/11 because America had refused to apologize for slavery.

    Now, as far as I’m concerned claiming that the innocent people killed on 9/11 were deliberately killed by God is IMHO at least as offensive as what Brickener said.

    Similarly, I have no problem saying “racism” when Sharon Stone publicly said that the earthquake in China which killed thousands of innocent people was because of China’s policy towards Tibet.

    If you think I’m unfair to Ms. Stone or insist that what she said was not as offensive as what Brickener said, well, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.

    Also, I think you’ll agree that Wright’s insistance that Israel and South Africa collaborated to build an “ethnic bomb” that would only kill blacks and Arabs was outrageously anti-semitic.

    “Obama has already addressed the issues with Wright in public and constantly. Palin wouldn’t dare. She’s got no defense.”

    Well, for starters, as I said before you’re comparing apples and oranges. Wright’s relationship with Obama was nothing like Brickener’s relationship(if one even thinks there is one) between Palin and Brickener.

    Beyond that, it wasn’t untill Obama had been campaigning for almost a year before the media started asking him about his relationship to Wright. Christopher Hitchens had written almost a year ago about Wright and his whacko church mentioning about the books the church sells which among other things supported creationism, but the media completely ignored that untill the youtube videos of Wright became so widely viewed that they had no choice but to ask him questions about it and in fact, he didn’t denounce Wright, but instead said he didn’t agree with him.

    He only fully distanced himself from Wright almost two months later when Wright decided to come to DC and started making a number of whacko speeches and among other things insisted “Barack agrees with me, he just can’t say he does”(quoting from memory so may not be exact but at least words to that effect.

    Now, that being said, am I saying that Obama is a closet radical or an anti-semite?


    Do I regret donating $200 dollars to his campaign? No.

    Will I be cheering when he wins? Yes.

    My point is that there are legitimate reasons to criticize Palin. But to suggest that she’s somehow unfit for office simply because of a guy invited to speak at her church makes no sense to me and is guilt by association on a massive scale that is virtualy unparallelled in American political history.

    If you think I’m wrong ask university professors if they’ve agreed with every single thing speakers invited to their colleges have said. For that matter ask people who go to church or Synagogue if they agree with everything that some guest speaker said.

    Anyway, hopefully I haven’t bored you to death reading this and hopefully I’ve clarified my position.

  8. Here’s my feeling: there’s a constant internal pressure among Liberals to play fair, play nice, look at both sides of the issue. This is a great plan when dealing with policy. But we have to learn something if we’re going to win some elections: if Conservatives throw in a cockpunch, they need to know that there’s a cockpunch coming back at them.

    Conservatives seem to get a pass on being deeply nasty. You’re saying that Obama should have to answer for these things. I’m saying that, because he was made to, Palin will have to answer for her own pastor, who came to Jesus through Brickner.

    What I’m really decrying here is the short-sighted racism of certain Jews who look at Barack “The Lightning Bolt” Obama and see a Black Muslim, and then becoming blind to the Right-Wing Christian conservative that his opposition has put up. It’s not like the Jews for Jesus thing is the only element, either. She has as little understanding as Matt up there about what Jews are.

  9. “Here’s my feeling: there’s a constant internal pressure among Liberals to play fair, play nice, look at both sides of the issue.”

    I’m reminded of the saying of a famous Rabbi, “Many are able to point to the speck in someone else’s eye, while completely missing the mote in their own.”

    The idea that liberals somehow play nice and “fight fair” is a complete myth. Liberal have always been able to play just as dirty if not dirtier than the worst of conservatives.

    Remember, that conservatives may have used Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis, but Horton was first brought up and used as an attack issue by Al Gore who’s arguably the most popular politician around among the netroots.

    Beyond that, let’s take a look just at this campaign season.

    Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Attorney General, the son of Mario Cuomo, one of the most distinguished liberals of the Party, and one of Clinton’s closest confederates after Clinton won New Hampshire bragged, “She won because in New Hampshire you can’t shuck and jive in someone’s living room.”

    I have never, ever heard the phrase “shuck and jive” being used when it didn’t refer to black people and this is such an archaic phrase that Cuomon had to have chosen it purposefully to send a message.

    Similarly, during the Iowa Caucuses, Bob Kerrey, formerly one of the most prominent Democratic Senators as well as being a former Democratic Presidential nominee during an interview repeatedly made references to “Barack Hussein Obama” and the fact that Obama had attended a “Madrassa” while in Indonesia(a lie he hadn’t).

    At the same time John Shaheen, the Co-Chairman of Hillary’s New Hampshire campaign, husband of Senate candidate and former Governor Jeane Shaheen, and one of the more prominent Democrats in New Hampshire talked about Barack Obama’s past as “a drug dealer”(again false. he used drugs but he wasn’t a dealer).

    And lets not forget Bill Clinton, a former President rather derisively referring to Barack Obama, a 46-year-old black man as “kid”. Keep in mind that Clinton grew up in the Jim Crow South where black men, when they weren’t referred to as “nigger” were always referred to as “boy” or “kid”.

    Let’s not forget him after Obama won South Carolina cracking “well Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina” and ask exactly what was he trying to imply.

    And of course, let’s not forget Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful leaders of the Democratic Party bragging about how she was more popular among “working Americans, white Americans” when asked on 60 Minutes if Obama was a Muslim saying “not as far as I know” which is a very Clintonian answer.

    For that matter, just recently John Kerry, former Democratic Presidential nominee during a speech said that John McCain didn’t wear “boxers or briefs” but instead wore “depends”.

    Now, call me PC but making an adult diapers joke about a senior citizen to me is as noxious as making a “watermellon” joke about a black man.

    Now, find me some Republican Senators who this year have made the kinds of offensive and openly racist comments about Obama that have been made by Democrats.

    I don’t mean some loudmouth on the radio or the internet. They don’t count. I mean leaders of the Party.

    Compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

    Also, keep in mind that the response of the Democratic party establishment to every one of those attacks was deafening silence.

    Also, ask yourself if say Dick Cheney had made a reference to Obama “shucking and jiving” or “eating watermellons” if the media would have completely ignored the attacks they way almost every attack I pointed out was largely ignored by the media.

    In fact, while I do think the McCain campaign in about the past month has started making questionable attacks keep in mind that it was Hillary Clinton who first brought up William Ayers and he has refused to mention Wright while she repeatedly attacked Obama using Wright.

    Furthermore, while I may object to the whole “we have the support of the pro-America” parts of the country and it’s pathetically obvious that McCain everytime he speaks is reacting like a dog being forced to take a bath, that was the strategy proposed for Hillary Clinton by Mark Penn, one of the most prominent democratic strategists.

    You can check it out in an old issue of the Atlantic Monthly where in memos he outlines a strategy even worse than the one pursued by the McCain campaign which was designed to emphasize Hillary’s “Americaness” and Obama’s “UnAmericaness”.

    Hillary tried the strategy but then quickly abandoned it because they didn’t think it would work.

    Now, perhaps you feel the Obama camp should adopt the same policies as the Clintons, but I certainly don’t and as far as I’m concerned I’m damned glad to be rid of two of the major reasons why I am not a democrat, but ethics aside, it didn’t really work for her did it.

    Similary, the McCain campaign was doing much better BEFORE it started to try and push Ayers and the whole “pro-America” message.

    Hell, up untill about a month ago, this was hands down the cleanest Presidential campaign in living memory and even with the recent attacks it’s still probably been cleaner than any other since I can remember.

  10. Now, call me PC but making an adult diapers joke about a senior citizen to me is as noxious as making a “watermellon” joke about a black man.

    Show me an institution of vigilante murder of old men on account of their age and I’ll agree with you.

    Your points actually support mine: Liberals are actually really good at eating their own. It’s appalling. Note that none of that is pointed by a Liberal, Progressive, or, (if we have some) a Lefty, at a Conservative.

  11. “Show me an institution of vigilante murder of old men on account of their age and I’ll agree with you.”

    If you honestly don’t think ridiculing people simply for being old isn’t as offensive for ridiculing someone for being black or at the very least ALMOST as offensive, than there’s little I can do to change your mind, but let’s see what I can do.

    Are you saying that a group of teenagers teasing and insulting someone who’s mentally retarded doesn’t disgust you as much as a group of teenagers teasing that same child for his or her race or ethnicity?

    If you honestly think the latter is signifigantly worse than there’s little I can do to change your mind.

    That being said, there are no “institutions of vigilante murder” of women simply for being women, but I’m going to assume that you find sexist jokes as offensive as racist jokes.

    I certainly do.

    Also, historically speaking Jewish Americans have never faced remotely the level of bigotry or discrimination that was heaped on blacks or Asian-Americans, but again I doubt you think that anti-black jokes are dramatically worse than anti-Jewish jokes or, for that matter, anti-Italian jokes.

    “Your points actually support mine: Liberals are actually really good at eating their own. It’s appalling. Note that none of that is pointed by a Liberal, Progressive, or, (if we have some) a Lefty, at a Conservative.”

    Actually, I think you’re changing the goalposts. You began by complaining liberals were afraid to fight dirty and now you seem to say, well yes they fight dirty but only with each other.

    Take a step back and think about that. Do you think Hillary, Bill Clinton etc. would make all sorts of dirty attacks against Obama, but as soon as they faced McCain they’d suddenly decide “ok, time to play by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules”.

    Hell, ask conservatives and centrists if they buy that arguement.

    As for liberals using really low tactics to come up with a few just off the top of my head,

    Well, when Clinton aide Sydney Blumenthal during the 90s decided to start revealing the names of some of Ken Starr’s aides to the press whom he claimed were closeted gays(he used a different word) that’s pretty gutter level. Maybe one could argue it shouldn’t be seen as homophobic had they been trying push through anti-gay legislation or block pro-gay legislation but they weren’t doing any such thing and no one thinks that Blumenthal was motivated by concern for gay rights.

    Simily, a few years ago when as he was retiring Ernest Hollings, a prominent member of the Senate, complained that the Republicans might very well steal the Jewish vote because Jews supported the Iraq war because they cared more about Israel than the US.

    Several Congressmen have made similar statements.

    Nor let’s forget when Lindsay Graham was elected to the US Senate, his democratic opponent claimed during a debate “My opponent has been endorsed by Rudy Giuliani a man who lives with two homosexuals, a transvestite and a shitzu. Do we want someone who represents our values or someone who represents ‘New York’ values. In that same election, the Chairman of the Democratic State Party said, “Lindsay Graham is a little light in the loafers to be in the Senate.”

    Let’s not forget Senator Kerry’s repellant joke about John McCain.

    And of course, look at many of the attacks on Sarah Palin.

    She had left-wing and pro-Obaman websites like Kos, Talkingpointsmemo, and Andrew Sullivan trying prove that her son, Trig, was actually her grandson. She’s had lies spread by respected people claiming she doesn’t believe in dinosaurs or believes the earth is only 6,000 years old and she’s been subjected to the kind of attack that male candidates aren’t.

    For example, Howard Gutman, the head of Obama’s finance committee, went on the Laura Ingraham show representing the campaign and insisted that Palin was unfit for the office because “she should be home caring for her newborn”.

    Do you think for two seconds a male politician would have been asked that? No, and that’s why it’s sexist crap.

    Did the Obama campaign apologize or criticize this? No.

    And let’s not forget Mel Carnahan, one of the most prominent Dems in the House while introducing Biden declaring, “For all his tough talk [McCain] buckled to the right wing of his party in his choice. Picked someone with zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick”.

    Can anyone imagine if McCain had made such a comment about Obama, say “There’s no way to dress up Obama’s record or lack of experience, no matter how much bling you use.”

    If you want to try and argue, that Palin’s pitbull joke opens her up to such an attack, well, ok, Obama has repeatedly referenced the fact that he enjoys playing basketball in his speeches.

    Does that mean, it wouldn’t be grossly offensive if some prominent Republican said, “Just because Obama has great moves on the basketball court is no reason to think he’ll make a good President.”

  12. For example, Howard Gutman, the head of Obama’s finance committee, went on the Laura Ingraham show representing the campaign and insisted that Palin was unfit for the office because “she should be home caring for her newborn”.

    Do you think for two seconds a male politician would have been asked that? No, and that’s why it’s sexist crap.

    Yep. It’s true. Sexist crap. I’ve always thought that was reprehensible and a good way to endanger the support of Feminist Democrats.

    So, your position here is that Obama supporters like me should be more polite? Is that your thesis? When she’s calling Obama a terrorist and implying that he’s a crypto-Muslim Arab, it’s not OK to call her an antisemitic bigot?

  13. “So, your position here is that Obama supporters like me should be more polite? Is that your thesis? When she’s calling Obama a terrorist and implying that he’s a crypto-Muslim Arab, it’s not OK to call her an antisemitic bigot?”

    When on the internet? Yes. To a certain extent, whether we like it or not, when we talk about Obama on the net we reflect not only on ourselves but on him.

    However, my point isn’t be polite, it’s to make constructive attacks.

    Follow Obama’s lead. Has he ever resorted to the Rovian tactics in this campaign? Never.

    Has it hurt him? Considering that he buried Hillary Clinton with all the advantages she had and it looks like he may win the Presidency by a landslide it certainly doesn’t hurt him.

    During the last debate, when McCain threw Ayers in his face, Obama didn’t throw and a hissy-fit and start accusing McCain of being a Manchurian candidate. In fact, he didn’t attack McCain at all.

    He just smiled, laughed, said he didn’t agree with what Ayers did, then explained his relationship with Ayers and moved on. He was calm and cool the whole time and through his body language and tone of voice sent the message that “this is a non-issue my opponent is putting forth because he’s desperate” and was smart enough not to say this out loud but to let people figure it on their own.

    When it comes to politics, Obama is like a Judo master. He doesn’t believe that a “cockpunch” should be responded to with a “cockpunch” but that the cockpunch should be deflected and then the force of it should be used against the guy who threw it.

    McCain was trying to get Obama angry. Trying to rile him and it failed and, figuratively speaking, he wound up being flipped over Obama’s shoulder, landing on the mat and having the win knocked out of himself.

    Ironically engough, when it comes to politics that’s been McCain’s style as well. He just forget the first rule of a fight between Judo masters; whoever throws the first punch loses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *