The Palin Speech did everything it needed to do, but Rudy Giulliani ripped Obama several new ones.
[McCain] had earned a life of peace and quiet, but he was called to public service again, running for Congress and then the Senate as a proud foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution. His principled independence never wavered. He stood up to special interests, fought for fiscal discipline, ethics reform and a strong national defense.
"That's one man.
"On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer, and immersed himself in Chicago machine politics. Then he ran for the state legislature - where nearly 130 times he was unable to make a decision yes or no. He simply voted "present."
"As Mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote "present." And you know, when you're President of the United States, you can't just vote "present." You must make decisions.
"A few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He won and has spent most of his time as a "celebrity senator." No leadership or major legislation to speak of. His rise is remarkable in its own right - it's the kind of thing that could happen only in America. But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business.
"He's never had to lead people in crisis.
"This is not a personal attack....it's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything.
"Nothing. Nada.
"The choice in this election comes down to substance over style. John has been tested. Barack Obama has not.
"Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on the job training.
"It's about who can answer that crisis call - yes, Hillary, at 3:00 in the morning.
"Well, no one can look at John McCain and say that he is not ready to be Commander in Chief."
Governor Palin nonetheless hit a homerun. Even Bob Schieffer of CBS and Katie Couric agreed.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Vice Presidential Debate.
Biden's toast.
81 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We're a strange species.
...As it happens, Obama does have substantive legislative achievements. I have written more about them here. A few highlights, all of which became law:
* Ethics Reform: Obama was the Senate's point person on ethics reform, and sponsored or co-sponsored the bills that made up what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." I'm also a fan of this bill, which I think of as the Journalists, Bloggers, and Citizens' Muckraking Empowerment Act: it creates a searchable database of recipients of federal grants and contracts.
* The Lugar-Obama initiative to strengthen the Nunn-Luger framework for securing loose nukes, and to extend it to securing and destroying stockpiles of conventional arms. (For instance, shoulder-fired missiles that could be used against passenger airlines, fired at our forces, or used to make any number of ongoing conflicts more deadly.)
* Various bills concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina, including an amendment putting strict limits on the use of no-bid contracts after disasters, requiring planning for the evacuation of people with special needs and senior citizens, creating a National Emergency Family Locator System, etc.
There are also a lot of good bills he worked on that did not make it, including the compromise immigration bill and a proposal to create an independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, and some that are on the Senate calendar now, like a bill to criminalize various deceptive election tactics, like deceptive robocalls, providing misleading information about where to vote or what conditions you have to meet to be eligible to vote, etc.
"Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know...
"It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it. For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."
I know people who think that lies about Reaganomics and the insinuation that John McCain's ignorant -- all premised, furthermore, on a false picture of an imploding economy -- make for a historic speech that should unite the country.
I know people who think that complaints about the media's treatment of Palin are unwarranted. Never mind that this is the same media that did as much as it could to bury the John Edwards affair as long as possible. Never mind that Richard Cohen compared the Palin nomination to Caligula's making a horse his consul, that Andrew Sullivan demanded DNA testing for Palin's youngest child, and that the smear campaign extends even to US Weekly, which two months ago published a worshipful cover story on the Obama's.
And, never mind that -- after a single long weekend since Palin's announcement -- we now know more about the sex lives of the Republican VP candidate's children than we do about the Democratic presidential candidate's long-standing political relationship with an admitted and unrepetenant domestic terrorist.
(I guess news depends on novelty. Everybody works with someone who planned to murder soldiers and their loved ones by planting a bomb at a military dance, but a teenage girl getting pregnant is truly unprecedented.)
The people I know not only discount the charge of bias, they create gross caricatures of the charge, creating a strawman argument, repudiating the claim that there is a conspiracy involving "secret meetings" when the campaign advisor made no such claim.
Heck, I know people who call themselves Christians, who engage in vicious and easily repudiated slander and have their hindquarters handed to them for it, and who then refuse to take any responsibility for their words.
None of this proves that we're a strange species. It just indicates that some members of this species value truth more than others.
And that's an old, old lesson, going back to Pontius Pilate and earlier.
And I might point out that criticizing a political opponent for "not getting it" and being too far removed from normal people by their wealth to understand normal problems is not the same as baseless shrill demonization of "LIBERALS!!" (AND THE ELITE MEDIA CONSPIRACY!!) who want to destroy people, undermine national security, make gov't bigger and increase everyone's tax burden. These sorts of comments are distortions of truth and, in this case, Obama's actual positions.
So, I'm wondering: What can you specifically point to that support your charge of "ugliness and hatefulness of Democrat speakers last week"?
You're in no position to rail against demonizations and distortions of truth, when you continue to lie and engage in strawman arguments.
For instance, let's take "ethics reform" and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which the blogger highlighted. In a Senate of 100 members, the bill had forty-seven co-sponsors, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, who joined co-sponsorship the same day Obama did, and the same day the bill was introduced. The bill was so non-controversial that it passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and it passed the House by voice vote.
This is hardly leadership.
From a memo by Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser.
While it's not wholly monolothic, the mainstream media remains fairly insulated and broadly more supportive of Democrats than of Republicans. They are not immune from groupthink, and they've demonstrated groupthink in the past. A conspiracy is as unnecessary in explaining the media's attempt to destroy Palin, as it is in explaining rioters' attempts to ransack a city block. And, logically necessary or not, the campaign rep didn't assert the existence of a conspiracy.
By ridiculing a conspiracy theory that Schmidt never presented, you're attacking a strawman.
McCain: The vetting controversy "is a faux media scandal [sounds like he's talking about two or more persons] designed [designed; planned, plotted] to destroy [evil, treacherous, surrepitious] the first female Republican nominee for vice president...
"The Media" that elite media "boys' club" that everyone loves to hate have "designed" a "faux scandal" to "destroy" this female.
Sounds like it fits the definition to me. IF we're concerned about the meaning of words. I guess you could suggest that the McCain camp meant that "the media" (composed of thousands of individuals from across the political spectrum) individually "designed to destroy" this female candidate. But if that's what they meant, why didn't they say, "Many individual reporters have decided to destroy this female candidate" - why identify it as "the media" that "designed" this faux scandal?
By saying "MEDIA," McCain was lumping them all into one group - that group which designed to destroy this candidate. And that meets the definition of conspiracy.
You see, what the Republicans are doing is striving to create an Us VS Them atmosphere. The "Media Elite good old boys club" who want to destroy Sarah Palin because she's a woman (and it is good to hear that the Republicans are finally recognizing the reality of sexism, it's just a shame that they're manufacturing a faux charge for their political benefit; "liberal Washington" who wants to create a bigger gov't, big brother sort of atmosphere (forget that it's the Republicans that have actually done this in the last few administrations). Be Afraid! THEY are out to destroy us!
That is what the gist of the speeches were last night. An attempt to divide the country.
That is why Obama is likely going to win. We're tired of the politics of division and fearmongering and hatred. We are one people. One nation. Under God, if you're of the sort to believe such.
My conservative neighbor is not a monster, nor is my liberal neighbor. They are merely my neighbors and people who I need to work with on a daily basis.
And don't bother saying that "But, but, but you're name-calling and being divisive by pointing out the Republican's faults!!"
If I have a neighbor that defecates all over the yards in my neighborhood and I proceed to point it out and suggest it's wrong, that's not the same as my joining in with him.
I didn't understand that earlier; hence, my writing, "nor has anyone charged that Obama 'want[s] to destroy people.'"
But now I see.
And I might point out that criticizing a political opponent for "not getting it" and being too far removed from normal people by their wealth to understand normal problems is not the same as baseless shrill demonization of "LIBERALS!!" (AND THE ELITE MEDIA CONSPIRACY!!) who want to destroy people, undermine national security, make gov't bigger and increase everyone's tax burden.
In that list at the end -- destroying people, undermining national security, etc. -- Dan listed charges that were mostly targetting the Obama campaign and included charges aimed at the media, blurring the line between the two.
("These sorts of comments are distortions of truth and, in this case, Obama's actual positions," he wrote, further blurring the distinction between the candidate and the media.)
It's still the case that the campaign isn't speculating about some vast conspiracy, but if Dan means that the campaign is criticizing the media for wanting to destroy people, I concede that particular point.
And I will note that their criticism is accurate. If this past weekend wasn't a media feeding frenzy, then nothing is.
Again, a pundit compared Palin to Caligula's horse, they've been jumping on every rumor involving Palin's daughter when they hid John Edwards' affair as long as they could. And, after just a weekend, the media has told us far, far more about Palin's daughter's sex life than they have about Obama's long political association with an admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist.
To criticize the media for their reprehensible behavior isn't a dishonest distortion. Dan seems to understand that, when he writes in his own blog, "It's entirely possible that one could have a neighbor that shat all upon his yard. Pointing out the bile would not be the same as joining him."
But his existence as a two-faced partisan hack is so thorough and so complete that, regarding the media and their coverage of Palin, he not only doesn't criticize the media sharks in the least, he attacks the victim for self-defence and even employs strawman tactics to slander the victim.
What Dan means is what Dan said: That the campaign is not merely criticizing some in the media (these stories about Palin are unfair because...), it is demonizing it as a group that has "Designed to destroy" Palin.
And that goes hand in hand with the RNC's efforts to paint Obama as an elitist, a communist, one who wants a Big Brother type of Gov't, etc.
As I have always maintained, I am fine with criticisms. I engage in criticism all the time and welcome it on my opinions.
What I am opposed to and what I am criticizing the RNC (and others) for is the demonizations, slander and twisting of truth in the guise of criticism.
That is the difference between the Obama camp and the McCain camp and it is one reason why I suspect that Obama will win this election.
The people are tired of the politics of division and arrogance ("I know best what they think, therefore, listen to what I am telling you about Obama's position, not what Obama himself is saying.")
It's an ugly way to campaign any time any group does it (and the Dems have certainly been partakers, too) and both parties would do well to understand how disgusted we are with that approach and how harmful it is to our great Republic.
Dan, you attempt to accuse the McCain rep of conspiracy mongering is assinine.
Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
McCain: The vetting controversy "is a faux media scandal [sounds like he's talking about two or more persons] designed [designed; planned, plotted] to destroy [evil, treacherous, surrepitious] the first female Republican nominee for vice president...
"The Media" that elite media "boys' club" that everyone loves to hate have "designed" a "faux scandal" to "destroy" this female.
Sounds like it fits the definition to me.
That's because you're ignoring the most salient feature of any conspiracy, secret collaboration. That is to say, the idea that people conspired to accomplish something, and that idea of secretly working together, which is so essential to a conspiracy, is the one part of the definition that you didn't even try to shoehorn into what Schmidt wrote.
While I'm at it, it was Schmidt who wrote that, not McCain. For all your supposed interest in linguistic precision, you seem uninterested in being quite precise yourself.
"McCain: The vetting controversy 'is a faux media scandal...'"
"By saying 'MEDIA,' McCain was lumping them all into one group - that group which designed to destroy this candidate. And that meets the definition of conspiracy."
It wasn't McCain who said "MEDIA."
And about your stirring words of national unity, of our being one nation under God -- "if you're of the sort to believe such" -- you're ignoring the divisive rhetoric that Obama's employed.
"For over two decades, [McCain has] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."
The call for unity is pretty wrapping paper hiding the same class warfare the Left has been waging for literally decades.
Unity in Denver meant nothing more than rallying around Obama, just as every subject that's inconvenient to his campaign is dismissed automatically as a distraction.
What I am opposed to and what I am criticizing the RNC (and others) for is the demonizations, slander and twisting of truth in the guise of criticism.
This is pure horse manure, because you still haven't even attempted to take responsibility for your vile and pathetic attempt to slander me personally.
In attempting to dismiss me as a troll, you accused me of providing not a single answer to any of your questions, which was easily demonstrated to be false; and of being generally unwilling to address questions that you raise, which is patent nonsense given our months of conversations.
I took you to behind the woodshed for that idiotic smear, and rather than either try to defend the smear, or apologize for lying about me, or even just retract the comment, you just apologized to ELAshley for "for taking us down this road" and have taken no further responsibility for your words.
You're a serial liar, Dan Trabue, and your concern for truth is only a reflection of the truth's perceived utility in advancing your radical political agenda. The moment the truth becomes inconvenient, you do the same thing that you do to the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, the writings of our founding fathers, the concern for civility, and the principles of conservatism: you discard it.
Your soul may well be saved, and I certainly hope that it is. You may be growing in Christian maturity as you relate to your church and your family, and I have no evidence to the contrary.
But, in the political arena and in this medium of blogging, I think you're a two-faced hypocrite and a moral degenerate.
And I think you have absolutely no moral standing to criticize political parties for engaging in "demonizations, slander and twisting of truth."
As long as you're on topic, I may respond to you. Don't assume that because I've not responded to your smears that that means you "won."
I am attempting to make comments on topic, not have a contest with a troll. I've done that enough with you.
Continuing to attack me personally while insisting that you're committed to sticking to the topic at-hand is yet another demonstration of your hypocrisy.
You tried to slander me yesteday, Dan. As I quite easily proved, you lied about me, and you have yet either to defend your smear or truly apologize for it.
Since you're now asserting that you're standing against the GOP's "demonizations, slander and twisting of truth," I think it's quite relevant to point out that your opposition to slander is a fleeting thing.
But beyond whether that point is relevant to this thread in particular -- and I'll notice that GOP dishonesty wasn't EL's topic -- your personal dishonesty is entirely relevant to your moral character as a Christian.
You praise to high heaven the teachings of Jesus Christ -- "Jesus' Way," as you put it -- when it suits your purposes, when you can invoke his ethical teachings to promote so-called "social justice."
(His teachings regarding the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, the reasons we were made male and female, and the theological implications of His death: those you don't emphasize quite so much.)
You supposedly revere the Sermon on the Mount in particular, and there Christ taught to make reconciliation a more immediate priority even than worship.
Well, now we see just how much you really love and obey His teachings.
By invoking the lame question of whether the subject is on-topic to this particular comment thread, you are abdicating your personal Christian responsibilities to honesty, reconciliation, and simple decency.
For my part, I am sorry we can't communicate any better than we do.
Dan Trabue apologizes, but not for slandering me or even for misstating, the latter of which would entail essentially a retraction of his smear.
"For my part, I am sorry we can't communicate any better than we do."
What in the world does he mean by this? Is he sorry for his clumsy grasp of the English language or is he sorry for my supposed communication failures?
Context is everything, and while Dan very rarely retracts what he writes, he has -- quite recently -- put the blame for communication issues squarely on my shoulders.
"And, to any visitors here who may be normal people who are not familiar with Bubba's MO, he has this thing where he likes to go around, telling me what I think, that he knows better than I do what my opinions and positions are...
"I'm not so sure that he is a habitual liar and slanderer, but rather he appears to have deluded himself into thinking that he knows what I think better than I do."
I suspect, very strongly, that Dan is apologizing for my supposed deficiencies, not his own, but he's doing so carefully enough not to make that crystal clear. By airing this suspicion I'm leaving myself open to his usual charges of mind-reading and megalomania, but even if he levels those charges, I doubt he will actually clarify his apology.
Dan can be quite passive-aggressive, and I believe this is an excellent example of his sinful misuse and abuse of language.
Amid all his other character problems, that is a big one, his abuse of the English language. Where language should be used to illuminate, he obfuscates; where it should be used to reveal, he conceals. Though Christ is clear that our language should be as clear as possible -- letting our ayes be ayes and our nays, nays -- Dan uses language as a tool, not to communicate ideas, but to score cheap rhetorical points.
Palin rocks in a serious way. I haven't seen conservatives so hyped since Reagan. Seriously.
It is alternately maddening and amusing seeing the libs go insane over her and make up all sorts of false accusations. As biased as the media is, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot. They really helped crank the ratings up and draw more attention to her, and many people are seeing the bias and the whining by Obama.
I am waiting for the MSM to criticize the "eloquence" of the messiah:
"Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I’ve passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak indicates to extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect."
Please, give this guy his teleprompter back!
Seriously, even when her teleprompter had problems she didn't miss a beat - unlike Giuliani, who despite a great speech stumbled at times.
Neil, I actually agree with the idea that, regarding the Presidency, speechmaking skills are not sufficient. They are probably necessary, especially now in the age of telecommunications, but they aren't enough.
The thing is, however valid that argument is, those on the Left who try to put forward that argument to undercut the Republican VP candidate are doing at least as much damage to the top of their own party's ticket. I therefore welcome that argument and think that choosing Palin as the Veep nominee is proving to be absolutely brilliant.
It's causing leftists, like Ben here, to make the most strained arguments about Obama's experience. Why, Obama co-sponsored an ethics reform bill that was co-sponsored by nearly half the Senate (including his opponent) and passed by unanimous consent! That's amazing!
I don't know if Palin would make a great President if called to serve, I don't know enough about her political philosophy to see her as Reagan 2.0 -- or a young, attractive Alaskan Thatcher -- and I don't know whether McCain will win in November.
But, gosh, it's fun to watch the Left soil themselves over her, and I hope we have years and years of this.
I keep reading statements like this but I have yet to see Dems or Liberals do anything but laugh at how poor a choice McCain has made.
Do you have an example of Dems actually doing anything but celebrating this awful choice?
Good one!
Do you have an example of Dems actually doing anything but celebrating this awful choice?
The celebration I see is not based in reality. It's delirium based on desperation.
You're a particularly amuzing example.
Not only do you run with an off-the-record audio clip of Peggy Noonan that the pundit has already clarified, you're bringing up the Alaskan secessionists.
Why, Palin attended two conventions of the Alaskan Independence Party, whose founder has a fierce hatred of the federal government!
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," Vogler said in a 1991 interview. "And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."
You didn't exactly give a list of questions that should be asked and answered about Palin's connections to the AIP, but clearly you're concerned:
Given the tone of the founder's comments and what has been reported about it, these are entirely reasonable questions to ask and to expect to have answered, don't you think?
Well, gee, the response writes itself, doesn't it?
JEREMIAH WRIGHT.
I'll see your "attended a convention for a party whose founder hates the government" and raise you with "spent twenty years listening to a man who called on God to damn America and accused the government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide; gave tens of thousands of dollars to this preacher; made him his spiritual mentor and asked him to serve on his campaign; named his bestselling book after a phrase from one of his sermons; had him conduct his wedding; and had him baptize his children."
Let's talk about the AIP, and we'll make sure that certain chickenssss. Will come home. TO ROOST!
Inexperience? Eloquence without accomplishments? Questionable associations?
Any dart that stings Palin has pure poison against Obama.
Any thrust that cuts Palin kills Obama.
The Left should be on notice, that whatever rhetorical weapon any of you produces against Palin will be used against Obama. We'll take it away from you, stick it up his eloquence, and pull the trigger till it goes CLICK.
Okay, just wishful thinking on your part, I get it. Can't blame y'all. Your candidate is not likely to win because his policies mimic the already failed Bush policies and this strategy of divisive politics and the people are sick of it.
Perhaps it's time for a new approach?
Get over it. Everyone else has.
And are you clamoring now for Palin's pastor's sermons to be made available? I have noticed that whereas they WERE online before she got nominated, all those sermons have been removed.
Where is the demand that we investigate 20 years of HER sermons? Or is that tact just a hypocritical attack that the Religious Right uses on Democrats?
No need to answer, I'm guessing the answer is pretty obvious.
Now's the time for a little bumbper music. How 'bout that old standard by the liberal band, Supertramp - "Dreamer...nothing but a dreamer..."
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markbrickman/gG5rK5/commentary
What a joke.
As I noted, criticizing the fact that she may not have written her speech is another.
His circular reference that him running a presidential campaign qualifies him to run for President is proof that clear thinking is not his forte' (he brought this up when many pointed out that Palin has real executive experience and he does not).
From what I've seen, the stories sound credible and, if so, that's problematic for many of us.
Hey, go for it. Keep hope alive.
Because if you have followed the story it is something so silly that Snopes wouldn't even need to explain it.
Here's a contrast: Most conservatives seemed to think that Biden was a lame pick for VP. I sure did. (Sure, Barack, what a great change agent he makes! He didn't even "change" the biography he plagiarized enough to make it believable). So we sort of chuckled and moved on. No insanity, no derangement. Just a big thank-you for not picking Hillary, which would have made it impossible for him to lose.
Then watch the lib reaction to Palin. Watch the unbelievable media bias, a la US magazine.
Methinks they dost protest way, way too much. As usual, it is backfiring on them. They don't realize they'll generate sympathy for her and that the more people hear her speak the more they'll like her.
Obama might still win, but picking Palin was a brilliant move no matter how one measure it, and as the post pointed out the speech was impressive.
Here's the link to the Obama site which is still treating the list as legitimate. It is the exact same list: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markbrickman/gG5rK5/commentary
What a bunch of clowns. They should at least come up with a better hoax.
I tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he said to lay off her kids, but it is obvious now that he is just milking the situation. He is letting his Kos Kids do whatever they like and then trying to act like he is taking the high road.
And when someone points out the lame attempt at a hoax, they get accused of being pro-book banning. Pathetic.
Yep, Palin's been a busy gal, banning virtually every book that has ever been banned in the U.S.! Shame on her.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/09/05/official-obama-website-repeats-fake-banned-book-list-and-embellishes-the-story/
What you're pointing to (from "stoptheaclu" - not the most reliable of sources) is suggesting that Obama was pointing to a list that was a hoax. Understand that perhaps THE LIST is a hoax.
That Palin tried to get books removed from the library remains to be seen, but seems to be a true story.
So, are you protecting Palin and accusing Obama of falling prey to a hoax for partisan reasons or do you have some evidence that Palin did NOT try to have books removed?
If someone is nominated as the Vice President and that person's history is not well known, then it only makes sense that concerned citizens are going to research that person.
It may take a while to sort things out and we ought to be careful to not accept every negative thing that we hear about Palin (or any candidate) as factual. BUT at the same time, it would be foolish to treat every positive spin by Palin (or any candidate) as true.
Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think that the fact that she says she's pro-life and Christian and Republican is good enough and we ought not ask questions?
I would think that responsible citizens certainly ought to treat an unknown candidate as someone worth investigating.
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
A similar story is found in the Anchorage Daily News.
Is it absolutely true? Too soon to tell.
Is it reasonable enough that we ought to be asking questions?
Absolutely.
Unless you're a partisan hack who doesn't want YOUR candidate to answer troubling questions.
And how about her pastor's sermons, Neil (or anyone)? Are you the least bit curious about what is in them? Are you wanting them to be pored over like Obama's pastors was?
No, Dan, I'm just showing how we know for a FACT that this is a hoax, and it is another in a line of nonsense made up by the Kos Kids and perpetuated by people like you who don't have all the facts and don't appear to have any interest in the facts.
Maybe she tried to get something banned. Maybe. My wife is a librarian, and I am quite familiar with the process used to ensure what books are appropriate for libraries. We could discuss this at length, or we could wait until some real, live facts are vetted. Or, better yet, I'll go back to shunning you and save some time.
All we know for sure is that Obama's own website has a preposterously false list of books she is alleged to have banned. That is one indisputable fact.
Thanks for proving our points about the silliness and gullability of the Obama team.
Have great weekends, all!
But let whispers start about Obama having terrorist connections...
I understand. When your candidate is losing you tend to grasp at straws.
Still, as Christians, I'd expect a bit more.
Good point. The terrorist connections are real, and well documented, and your guy is trying to cover them up and shut down free speech. Shades of things to come? Hopefully not.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/08/28/obama-campaign-tries-to-shut-down-chicago-radio-show/
"Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City’s most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn’t like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama’s ties to local terrorist William Ayers."
Hope you enjoy them. Maybe you'll get some sound doctrine for a change and see the light.
But didn't you already decide that a "sermon" that called for God to damn America was irrelevant, as are all the other non-Gospel nonsense he spewed?
And Barry threw him under the bus along with his Grandma, anyway, didn't he? Loyalty isn't important, I suppose.
And you can also find her testimony online.
As to the point I was making, here's the rundown:
1. Obama's website made the statement apparently that Palin has been reported to have attempted to ban or censor some books from the library.
2. This, thus far, appears to be true. Palin has not denied it and there are multiple reports from multiple legitimate sounding sources.
3. Instead of questioning whether or not this is true, Neil suggests that it's all an obvious hoax and offers as evidence that Obama's website apparently pointed to a list of books that were supposedly attempted to be banned.
4. It appears that we do not know what books, if any, were troublesome for Palin, but that Obama may have the books wrong does not negate the apparent reality that Palin attempted to ban some books. THIS is the main point, not which books were in question but that books were asked to be removed.
5. If it's a total fabrication and never happened, Palin could say so. No harm, no foul. We have not heard this from her camp yet.
6. That the media and Obama's camp follows up on this alleged incident is not desperation but merely doing one's job. I'd suggest most Americans don't support the notion of the gov't banning books.
7. Neil has maintained that it's an obvious scam with no evidence to support it other than the possibly mistaken book list.
8. I'm wondering if Neil is not concerned about this because he has no problem with banning certain books? I don't know that to be the case but he doesn't seem troubled by the reports and it seems like that may be one possible explanation.
9. Of course, another possible explanation is that he is a partisan hack, blindly defending his Party's nominee because he likes her and that's good enough.
10. Or perhaps he has another reason for defending her, who knows?
Y'all feel free to stop by my place, too. Any of y'all. You're all welcome.
Yes, I am not especially comfortable with looking into the sermons of our candidates' pastors and spiritual leaders. BUT, if we are going to do it for one, ought we not do it for all? Or is there some reason you want to look for any and all possible ways to discredit one candidate but give a pass to the others?
Blind partisanship, perhaps? Hypocrisy, maybe?
I don't know. You tell me: Ought we look into the sermons of our candidates pastors or not? We can let your decision stand, if you'd like.
I reckon turn-about is fair play in politics. But what is not "fair play" is fabrication.
1) CNN reported "as news" the bogus story about Palin's recent non-pregnancy; in effect, citing as news a rumor on a kook website. And yes, the Daily Kos is a kook website.
2) The banned book list is a list of books that have been "Banned at One Time or Another in the United States"
3) No evidence has turned up to support the allegation that Mrs Palin banned or desired to ban books.
Think what you will of Michelle Malkin but she at least provides evidence for her assertions. Which is more than I can say for the Obama campaign by allowing this story to remain on it's website.
What's different about the attacks on Obama by the Right, and the attacks on Palin by the Left is that Obama DID have a relationship with Ayers. He DID have a relationship with Rezko. He DID sit for twenty years under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright who is a racist, an America hater, and a blasphemer. He DID publicly lie about his vote in the Illinois senate on the Infant Born Alive Protection Act.
You and others on the Left accuse us on the Right of buying too much into the rhetoric of politically conservative voices, yet you yourselves buy too much into the rhetoric of politically liberal voices. For the sake of comity between us you're going to have to scrutinize your sources as much as we do ours.
You specifically... and I type this without the slightest bit of rancor... have perpetuated this lie of book-banning without bothering to fully investigate it for yourself-- simply searching the internet for voices that compel your internal ideological/political bent, and trusting what you read, is simply not good enough. Offering what you find as compelling because you trust the voice is simply not good enough.
I can't tell you how many times I've WANTED to make a point here on this blog; how much I WANTED to use evidence I found online, only to end up rejecting what I found because after studying the "evidence" I concluded it was anything BUT conclusive-- a small voice in my head saying, "Dan/ER/Ben will tear this up, and I'll look like a fool."
Yes, I listen to Rush Limbaugh-- he and I are ideological Siamese-twins. But even at that I'm not so foolish as to take everything he says, every assertion he makes, as gospel.... believe it or not, I can and do think for myself. Ben likes Andrew Sullivan. I'm sure you have your favorites too. The question is, however, do you trust what they tell you implicitly? Or do you take what they say as a starting point to your own fair and balanced research? I often quote Rush here, but I do not set up what he says as pure unadulterated gospel. I appreciate his take, but... he doesn't speak for me, or tell me what to think or believe.
Back to the business at hand:
This business about book-banning is ridiculous-- on it's surface and to its depths. You may not see the Left as being scared of Sarah Palin's nomination. Bravado, after all can mask any number of emotional states. You yourself may not see anything to fear in Mrs. Palin, but that doesn't mean others do not. CLEARLY SOME on your side of the political divide DO feel fear at the mention of her name. Some clearly do fear her nomination, and they're inventing scandals to discredit her, malign her, destroy her... take you pick.
If you can prove that Sarah Palin banned or desired to ban books, please provide us all with compelling evidence; and be assured we will scour such evidence to determine its credibility. But if you can't, is it remotely possible that you have been led to believe a lie because you either a) want to believe it to be true, or b)you want to believe the reporters have maintained their integrity and told you the truth?
Again, we know for a certainty that Obama has had some questionable relationships, and we know his voting record of specific issues.
Are you absolutely certain that the liberal media is NOT deceitfully targeting Gov. Palin for political and personal destruction?
Respectfully Dan, I am at times disappointed in you. You're very good at what you do here and elsewhere, but in the spirit of the parable of the rich young ruler, "Yet lackest thou one thing..."
No need to elaborate, you know where I'm going. Let's be honest with each other. And I don't mean simply in how we treat each other. Let's endeavor to ensure that our arguments are as free from taint as possible. On both sides.
A lot of what is missing in political discourse today-- and not just in our sphere of blogging --is intellectual honesty. We all get that you believe Obama is better for the future of this nation than McCain. We all know that I and others here disagree. Let's stop slinging arrows without first testing their efficacy... the grain and straightness of their shafts. Are we certain the arrows we loose will fly true?
Honest, self-restraint is all I ask.
Naturally, I believe you have some catch-up work to do in this regard.
["... he said with an honest smile."]
No evidence has turned up to support the allegation that Mrs Palin banned or desired to ban books.
? What do you mean? There HAS been evidence. Time magazine reports that former Mayor of Wasilla, John Stein says that this is what happened.
Now, is it true? I don't know for sure but it has been reported and it is an important issue and it comes from a credible source and the media ought to follow up on it.
What I'm not getting is why are you all so quick to denounce it as bogus? You say "No evidence has turned up" but that is not, in fact, true. I just provided you with the evidence. I provided you with the evidence earlier.
"According to news coverage at the time..." the story from the Anchorage Daily newspaper tells us.
What do you mean "no evidence"?
No disrespect intended but it sounds as if you all are sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you! There's no evidence! nya nya nya nya nya nyaaaa!!"
Then you go on to suggest (and I fully believe you when you say "with no rancor intended") that I spread a lie. I did NOT do so, Eric. I reported what multiple news organizations are reported: A legitimate concern based on credible claims.
If you all have reason to think it's NOT credible, then by all means, elucidate. But don't simply ignore the very real evidence and then claim that others are lying and spreading rumors.
As I have said: We certainly SHOULD NOT believe every little rumor spread in these days after this total unknown comes on to the scene. That would be a mistake and I am not doing that.
However, it would be just as big a mistake to dismiss every report that you hear as a rumor, even when there's evidence to support it.
Both of those actions (heeding every rumor and dismissing every report) are the actions of blind idealogues, not of adults interested in the truth.
You're very good at what you do here and elsewhere, but in the spirit of the parable of the rich young ruler, "Yet lackest thou one thing..."
No need to elaborate, you know where I'm going.
No, I'm sorry. I don't know where you're going. If you would like me to understand your point, you will have to elaborate.
The one thing that the rich young ruler lacked was that he was too attached to his material wealth and he had to sell it all. But that doesn't seem to make sense in this context, so I have no clear idea what one thing I lack.
But you can tell me, if you'd like.
But if you can't, is it remotely possible that you have been led to believe a lie
1. I've provided you with the evidence. What say ye?
2. Just because I've produced the evidence does not mean that I believe it's ironclad. It is sufficient, however, to ask Palin about it: DID this event happen?
3. I believe the evidence is sufficient also to find the librarian in question and ask her.
4. Why don't you find the evidence in question enough to warrant investigation? Could it be you've been led to believe a lie because you want to believe your Republican allies?
Again, we know for a certainty that Obama has had some questionable relationships
Yes, and those questions have been raised and answered? What of it?
You said:
is that Obama DID have a relationship with Ayers. He DID have a relationship with Rezko. He DID sit for twenty years under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright who is a racist, an America hater, and a blasphemer.
Are you not engaging here in exactly the thing that you wrongly suggest that I'm engaging in?
Yes, Obama knew Ayers and Rezko.
NO. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on Obama's part. He knew them, what of it? It's troubling IF AND ONLY IF there's evidence of wrong-doing. It's been investigated and there's nothing.
For some on the Right to keep pushing innuendo and implying that there's something wrong there LACKING ANY EVIDENCE is exactly what you're suggesting I'm doing. Will you cease to do so or provide evidence of wrong-doing?
I've provided evidence.
And your opinion on Reverend Wright is just that: Your opinion. YOU THINK he's racist, hates America and "blaspemed." I think that is utterly ridiculous and unfounded. You are welcome to your opinion. I'd suggest that most Americans have gotten past it. It's been investigated and there's nothing there.
First, removing books from a library is not banning them. There are a number of places where these books could be obtained other than a public library. As a matter of course libraries decide on a regular basis what books to carry and what books to "ban". Sorry, there is no right or law that mandates that every public library carry every book published.
Second, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that the books were books that were not the most appropriate for a public library. Or at a minimum could be restricted as to who they are available to.
Third, even if the books were removed from the library it is not a free speech issue. The author's right of free speech is not being abridged. The public's "right" to posses these books is not being infringed. They simply have to find these books elsewhere. In these days of the internet surely that's not a great hardship.
It is asking a librarian (and possibly with some threat of job loss, that remains to be seen) to remove some books from the local library.
Many of us tend to short-hand call that book-banning, but it is not that literally.
Nonetheless, many Americans are opposed to that sort of behavior by the gov't. We don't want city hall stepping in and asking librarians to remove books.
You are free to disagree, I'd suggest that it is behavior that most Americans find distasteful in the extreme.
And many of us are inclined to find this report a reasonable likelihood, because we have seen such behavior from others on the Religious Right. It smacks of being true.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that there are some here who wouldn't mind gov't telling libraries to remove some books from their shelves. Anyone care to admit that?
Of course, Palin can help by addressing this point herself. DID she do as the reports suggest? If so, what books did she ask to have removed? If not, how does she explain the reports?
Again, I'd hope we could all agree that these are entirely reasonable questions to ask.
By all means: Have Palin come clean and admit that she tried to have some books removed. Present it as a positive thing. Go ahead and give the list of books she didn't approve of.
Let the American people decide if it's a good thing or not.
I suspect, Marshall, that unless the library had pornography or How-To Build Bombs book that Palin may have tried to remove, that you will find yourself on the wrong side of American sentiment and, I'd suggest, what's right on this issue.
Of course, I don't know what Palin tried to remove or even if she DID try to remove books. Seems like she'd let her side of the story be known if it were a marketable position.
However, many on the Religious Right have tried to have books removed (Harry Potter, anyone? Heather Has Two Mommies?) merely because it offended their religious sensibilities. So, when this Palin story comes up, it strikes many of us as being entirely likely and further entirely likely that it is books of this sort that may be the offending books - especially given her silence thus far.
I'd suggest that if this were so, Palin and her supporters are on the wrong side of the American people on that subject.
I call that an impasse... rumor-mongering, borderline 'bearing false witness'
Eric, I have pointed to at least two separate news stories that present evidence from eye witnesses. I have not said this attempted banning happened. I have said that it has been reported and we ought to be concerned about it.
Where in that are you disagreeing?
Do you think, "It HAS been reported, but I see no reason to accept that report as probably true."?
If so, why? On what basis do you think you should not accept this eyewitness news report as true? Or at least worthy of concern and something that should be addressed?
Merely saying, "I don't think it's true." is not a response.
The evidence HAS been presented. I've pointed it out to you (and pointing out news reports on valid concerns is NOT rumor-mongering, get real!). What say ye to the EVIDENCE?
"The stories are all suggestive, but facts are hard to come by."
"Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed."
"Palin might have become a household name in the last week, but Kilkenny [Wasilla, AK resident], who is not a Palin fan, is on her own small path to Internet fame." Emphasis mine
This reminds me of a comment you posted here. What was it you said? Ah, that's right!
"Well, then, it would behoove us as citizens and Christians to encourage other [sic] not to take Obama's words out of context and imply something that isn't there. That would be dishonest."
As it is dishonest to make accusations of book bannings that no records can confirm, just innuendo. And hearsay from someone who is not a Palin fan.
And I believe it is you, brother Dan, who is our constant reminder of us all on the evil of 'bearing false witness.'
Which reminds me of another such episode:
"Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said..." Matthew 26:59-61a
Now no one, least of all me, is suggesting Sarah Palin is the divine daughter of God, but if you expect me to accept Obama's Christian faith and insist I and others do not besmirch his faith and character, might I kindly request that you and others refrain from the same in regards to our sister in Christ Sarah Palin?
Is that too much to ask?
Are you not curious? Concerned that she may have tried removing books from the library?
Our protection of our freedom of speech strikes to the core of what makes us Americans and this story raises the question enough AT LEAST to cause concerned citizens to want to know: What's the story? Did she or did she not do as this news account reports?
Why are you not concerned? She has not denied it. It would be one thing if it was a he said/she said kind of thing where we had conflicting reports. So far, we have accusations and no defense. And, as I said, since this has been a problem for some on the Religious Right in the past, it smacks of truth.
Still, I'm more than willing to listen to her side of the story.
What I'm not willing to do is ignore this story.
And asking that she answer this charge is NOT besmirching character. How could it be so?
What if she were charged with incest or adultery by a reasonably credible source? Would you blindly assume that there was nothing to it? What if it were Obama being charged with no evidence, just innuendo ("HE KNEW A TERRORIST!!") Why is that good enough for you and your pals here but an eyewitness news account is not enough to warrant an answer?
Bill Ayers IS an unrepentant terrorist. Obama DID have a cozy relationship with him. Not innuendo. Ton's of proof.
Continue to eat that cake, Dan. You'll find you've been fed all kinds of lies and innuendos come November. It'll sit heavy and bitter in the pit of your stomach the day after. At which time you'll have nothing nice to say about McCain or the process by which we elect Presidents.
Obama is not going to win.
I actually agree with one thing you said. That there are books that you would probably like to ban from public libraries. Not only that, your only real complaint here is the fact that it was a conservative "trying to ban books". Books are removed or not purchased for library use for anumber of different reasons. You just don't like who was allegedly doing it in this case. I would love to hear your views on the "Fairness Doctrine" which the dems would love to reinstate. Soly to ban speach they don't agree with.
Eric,
I'm glad you brought up the concept of "community standards" it used to be pretty settled communications law that "community standards" was the deciding factor in what a community would allow. (Mom and Dad, thanks for the BA in Mass Comm so I could respond to a point on a blog)
Now the concept is probably moot because of the internet and cable/staellite bypassing the public part of the community and bringing content directly into peoples homes. What we are talking about here is a public library funded with public money, there should be some threshold that would keep some things out. I get your point but I'm not sure I really even care that much about this, I think it is amusing that this kind of stuff is the "smoking gun" that is going to doom Palin. I also know Dan was overreaching in labeling this a free speech issue.
Like the "Republican Welcoming Committee" in St. Paul last week... the weekend before the convention began a plot was uncovered and numerous items of "free speech" were confiscated: Molotov Cocktails, Bags of Urine and Feces. Real fun stuff.
Point is, it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Heather Has Two Mommies has no place in a public library where the public agrees that such a book is both offensive and unsuitable for children.
To quote myself from my previous blog
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
I'm impressed you knew about the welcoming committee since the national media didn't cover it much. We got our fill here though. There are even DFL city councilmen on the DFL controlled city council trying to exert pressure to let these guys off. At Dan's he did make an impassioned arguement that (much like the agruement he accuses us of making here) that if they were going to use violence (and damage property etc) at least they were using it against the right people. Agreed that there are limits to free speech, but this doesn't limit free speech in any way. This is one more non issue that will get beaten to death.
In addition, I hardly think that any politician is oblidged to answer every little charge that is leveled against them, either directly or indirectly. They assess such things based on perceptions regarding possible outcomes. A story such as this "book banning" comedy would be easily ignored, but stories regarding associations with race-baiters and unrepentant terrorists are attention grabbers for sure. They also carry greater or more impactful considerations.
But you keep lookin' Dan. Find something that provokes more than yawns and then we'll talk. Maybe she's got a Rezko.
At Dan's he did make an impassioned arguement that (much like the agruement he accuses us of making here) that if they were going to use violence (and damage property etc) at least they were using it against the right people.
Hold on there, Craig. Let's not misrepresent what a brother's said.
I DID NOT say that "if they were going to use violence at least they used it against the right people." That is absolutely NOT what I said AT ALL.
It was not what I said, nor was it my intent, nor can I even see how you got that out of what I said even if you skipped every other word and inserted words of your own choosing!
I said that they targeted the RNC because the RNC most represents what is wrong with our nation in their minds. To them, they targeted the right people. I was not suggesting that I thought they were targeting the right people. In fact, I said clearly they were in the wrong for their misbehavior.
Just to set the record straight.
Nor did I say this.
I said that she probably wouldn't have much complaints from the public if she came forward and owned up to her actions (if indeed she tried to have books removed) and let us know what books were involved. If they were pornographic or some such, the public would probably not have a problem with her actions.
However, IF it happened, I would be willing to bet $10 to the RNC that she was not targeting pornographic material. Instead, she was probably targeting a book like Heather has Two Mommies, which our own Eric has owned up to saying he'd like to see removed from libraries.
("Heather Has Two Mommies has no place in a public library where the public agrees that such a book is both offensive and unsuitable for children.")
Bingo.
THIS is why people don't trust people like Eric or Palin to be in office. They find a children's book offensive and would like to see it removed from the library.
We don't trust your judgment on this point and we don't want people like you making that call.
So, encourage Palin to tell us what she did. This IS an issue and you all can hide it as much as you'd like, but cover-ups just make the garbage stench smell worse.
???
WHAT public?
If you mean, "Where Eric and Sarah Palin agree that it is offensive..." you may have a case. But you ain't the whole of the public, brudda.
Heather has two mommies: Mama Jane and Mama Kate. When Heather goes to day care, she learns that families come in all shapes and sizes: Joshua has a mom, a dad and a step-dad; Miriam has a mom and a baby sister; David is adopted. Heather also learns that "the most important thing about a family is that all the people in it love each other."
The most important thing.
Love each other.
Radical stuff, that. Wouldn't want to pollute the minds of our children with that horrific sort of indoctrination.
What's that other book that teaches the same thing? The Bible?
How you feel about removing the Bible from library shelves, Eric?
Why not? Liberals have succeeded in removing the Bible and prayer from the public school, why not the public library?
"Heather Has Two Mommies" teaches that homosexuality is fine so long as children are loved.
The Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong in ANY circumstance.
Liberals would ban the source of codified morality from public education [and they already have], but they'd keep everything that endorses immorality. Why then bother putting filters on the library's computers? Let the kids eat porn.
It's interesting to note the outrage at "perceived" book banning-- though no such banning occurred --by a Republican candidate for Vice President, but not an eyelash is batted at the very real banning of moral teaching [via the codified instruction for Godly living we call "The Bible"]in public schools. The Bible HAS been banned in public schools. Sarah Palin did not do this. Democrats, Liberals, did this. They and the indifference of good men.
For what it's worth, Dan's comment that Eric "ain't the whole of the public" is ironic because, when Dan was thoroughly hammered on the question of the meaning of the Constitution's welfare clause, he himself resorted to presuming to know the will of "the People."
Dan's supposed concern for the truth -- "So the truth means nothing to you?" -- is absolutely laughable in light of his unwillingness to acknowledge Obama's public and longstanding association with a known, admitted, and unrepentant domestic terrorist. While dismissing as "whispers" what is thoroughly documented (funny enough, the public records that detail the relationship aren't being released from the Daley Library at Illinois-Chicago), he is far more interested in the thinnest threads of a rumor about Alaska libraries limiting the books they stock. As I noted earlier, the issue must be novelty: Everybody works with someone who planned to murder soldiers and their loved ones by planting a bomb at a military dance, but -- just like the news of a teenage girl getting pregnant -- the idea that a local library doesn't carry literally every book in existence is truly unprecedented.
And isn't funny how Dan is no longer interested in posting poll numbers? There was a while just last week when Dan couldn't help posting poll after poll after poll. Of course, we're still a long way from Election Day, and anything can happen, but Gallup now shows that -- after Obama reached a (one-day) high point of 50% support among registered voters -- Obama's eight-point lead has now become a five-point deficit, as Gallup reports that McCain now leads, 49-44. Isn't it funny how Dan's no longer taking the time to share the latest from the newswires.
But all that's a bit of a digression from this "Heather Has Two Mommies" business, which is proof positive that it's impossible to parody someone who is as ridiculous as Dan, and which is a good indication that there is truly nothing he could write that would cause him shame and embarassment.
Dan, I believe it's obvious that theologically and politically conservative Christians find no great offense with the message that "the most important thing about a family is that all the people in it love each other."
What we strongly criticize is the message that homosexual relationships are morally equivalent to the one-flesh relationship between husband and wife.
The book in question teaches both the former and the latter, both the non-controversial emphasis on love and the quite controversial attempt to normalize homosexuality.
Even if the book makes clear that the former is more important -- and that claim is quite contentious given the book's title -- it does not mean that the latter either is absent or, if present, is undetectable.
From the fact that a book may contain some benign messages, it obviously does not follow that it must necessarily contain nothing but benign messages.
Your attempt to suggest that critics of "Heather Has Two Mommies" must also likewise criticize the Bible is not only illogical, it's illogical in the extreme. It's embarassing, the result of such sloppy thinking that it seems almost necessary that it was the result of your being so ludicrously concerned with the results of your comment -- i.e., scoring rhetorical points against ELAshley -- that you have thrown to the wind all concern for truth, facts, and simple logic.
Dan, you're behaving like a jackass. You ought to be embarassed. It's getting so bad that it really would be preferable for you to write nothing at all than to display such muddled thinking. It is now clearly a futile effort to attempt to engage you for your own sake. We might point out your illogical arguments for the sake of edifying others or for our own entertainment...
(If nothing else, it is quite entertaining to see you ask what you apparently think is a pointed question -- "How you feel about removing the Bible from library shelves, Eric?" -- when the argument behind that question is so pathetic.)
...but I think you personally are beyond any hope for any earthly help when it comes to your tendency, now as habitual as breathing, to forward the most appalling nonsense in support of your political philosophy.
Love hurts.
You say contentiousness is fine, as long as it is worthy of a hearty touche, but does that only apply to your pals on the Right?
Bubba can repeatedly and repeatedly go on and on and on making false claims about me in not especially clever ways and that's okay, but I make a crack at Brother Bubba's expense (he DOES seem sorta sweet on me, don't you think, the way he seems to dwell on my every word?) and it gets excised?
I see the way you swing, here.
Allow me to clarify what I said, I said that "there are probably books you would like to ban from public libraries", this is my opinion based on your previous comments here and elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I bet we could come up with a few you'd like to see gone.
However, my point remains, this is a nonissue and we are seeing more evidence of that. Please keep beating the dead horse. Have at it until your arm bets tired. This particular "issue" is a non starter.
As far as your other comment. It was late, and I probably should have been more clear. You set the record straight and I'll leave it there.
Since you didn't respond at your place I'll try here.
You and Eric are both masters of your respective domains, with that I have no issue. But you seem to have a serious double standard going here. You are upset with Eric for allowing Bubba to go on, and yet you allow Alan to go on as well. Without rehashing the whole thing, it seems as though you expect Eric to behave differently that you. Again, you guys set the rules for your own blogs and I'm fine with whatever they are but at least be consistant.