Larry Klayman: “Put the kool-aid down….”

@Redteam:

I was checking the language in the Constitution, and I couldn’t find any mention of speech making and political thought as ordained by the results of Pew Research. I don’t personally care what the results of a Pew questionnaire would be on what I think politically. I don’t form my opinions based on ‘popularity in polls. I’m sure if Pew did a study on whether persons like free stuff, the answer would be yes, but it wouldn’t necessarily tell them that what they were getting for free, has to be paid for by someone.

You’re creating a strawman and circumventing my argument.

Polls are always taken with a grain of salt; but it’s funny how polls are much beloved when they support your agenda and beliefs and much poo-poo’ed when they don’t. [and if you were retire, I’d add the disclaimer: I don’t mean “YOU” personally!” 😉 ]

@retire05:

As a whole, conservatives DO hold themselves to a higher standard. I don’t see/hear Republicans calling anyone on the left “anarchists, wife beaters, the Taliban, traitors, etc.” yet that seems to come from the left with great frequency. The vitriol coming from the left is over the top and way out of line, yet conservatives do not retaliate. But we do need to start fighting fire with fire, and not just stand there and take it and say “Well, at least we are taking the high ground.” Taking the high ground does no good if you throw away your weapons and ammunition and refuse to fight back.

Name-calling is simply childish and only reflects badly upon the name-caller. I don’t believe Democrats calling Republicans “arsonists” and comparing them to jihadists is what sways voter support from those who are in the middle.

In 2012, Harry Reid, acting as a mouth piece for the Obama campaign, accused Mitt Romney, without proof, of not having paid his tax liabilities. That, Word, is pure Alinsky. Lobbing an accusation, but not proving the accusation, and then ignoring any questions demanding proof, is Rule #12 in its purest form. Going back to ’08, the Obama campaign, via a reporter, “leaked” that John McCain had had an extra-marital affair, cheating on his wife, Cindy. It was not true, and McCain had to take to the cameras to deny it, but it came from the Obama campaign just as the Obama tried to smear Hillary when Bill Clinton said off camera “They tried to pull the race card on me.” Pure Alinsky on the part of David Axelrod and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Excellent examples! But it’s still assumption (and not at all without logic) that the Alinsky playbook is consciously being used in all cases.

Medved is wrong. While weakened, and crippled, the Whigs continued to exist as a national party until it disbanded in 1860. Here is the tip off: ” joined by a few anti-slavery Democrats and former Free Soilers, they launched their new national organization.” Key words being “new national party.”
Just because the Whigs were weakened doesn’t mean that they did not still exist.

But they existed as THE third party by the time Republicans rose to power. The Republican Party was the major opposition party to the Democratic Party. They were never “the third party” but the opposition party to the left/right dynamics of American politics- essentially a two party system.

Some of them even migrated to the “new” American Party who ran Millard Fillmore in the 1856 election.

Which was the third party alternative, as irrelevant as the third parties that run today: The Green Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party…

The majority of former Whigs were now the Republican Party. The Whigs had collapsed and there never was a Republican-Democrat-Whigs 3-way.

I do have a problem with 3rd parties because it’s a road map to losing future elections.

Why? If a third party can pull candidates that can win, starting with state elections, it could become just as viable as the Republicans did in 1860, years after it was organized. If the majority of Americas become so disillusioned with the current parties that they can no longer hold their noses and vote for the offerings, a 3rd party could become a serious player. Most elections take only a simple majority. In a three-way split, that would be 34%.

Medved again has some of the best arguments as to why third parties don’t work in American politics:

This mounting passion to escape the confines of the big party duopoly will, however, produce only more frustration and despair when it collides with one unassailable (and unavoidable) obstacle: the Constitution of the United States.

That Constitution mandates that public opinion doesn’t determine the next president; the Electoral College does. Hundreds of millions of voters won’t decide who controls the White House; 538 Electors will.

This means that it counts for nothing if a third party contender wins a significant portion of the popular vote because the only way to win the presidency is carrying enough states to win a majority of the Electors. In 1992, Ross Perot became the most successful independent candidate in recent history by spending more than $12 million of his own money, campaigning in 16 states and drawing an impressive 19% of the total vote – while racking up a perfect zero in the Electoral College. Though he finished second in two states (Maine and Utah, with a grand total of nine electoral votes) he didn’t come close to winning either state, or placing any points on the one scoreboard that mattered.

The last time a third party candidate registered any Electoral College support came 44 years ago, when the racial backlash campaign of Alabama’s segregationist governor, George Wallace, carried five Southern states. He earned 46 Electoral Votes but did nothing to block Richard Nixon’s triumph in carrying 32 states worth 301 Electors.

American political history sends a clear message on this question: even the most popular and dynamic third party candidates stand no chance of leaping over the Constitutional hurdles to win the presidency. Three former presidents tried to capitalize on their personal popularity and ran third party campaigns (Martin Van Buren in 1848, Millard Fillmore in 1856, and Theodore Roosevelt in 1912) but none of them came vaguely close to victory. TR ran the strongest race among the ex-Presidents with his “Bull Moose” Progressive campaign, drawing 27% of the popular vote (an all-time high for a minor party candidate) but Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson crushed him in the electoral college, 435 to 88.

~~~

Even the most optimistic Third Party dreamers acknowledge the near absolute impossibility of any candidate other than a Republican or a Democrat winning an outright majority of Electoral votes. What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states to deny either of their rivals the 270 Electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives (as described in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution). At that point, the Third Party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyper-partisan alternatives.

This foolish fantasy ignores an obvious but inconvenient truth: every one of the members of the House (yes, 435 of 435) who’ll make this decision was elected as either a Republican or Democrat and will feel the most extreme reluctance (intensified by massive partisan pressure) to abandon his party when needed most. Oddly enough, the House doesn’t even boast the two nominal Independents currently serving in the Senate (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both of whom have always caucused with the Democrats).

Moreover, if the final presidential decision actually went to the House (an outcome last achieved in 1824, when John Quincy Adams won a controversial victory over Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford and Henry Clay) the structure of the decision process clearly favors one party: the Republicans. For one thing, the District of Columbia (which provides three automatic electoral votes for the Democrats every four years) plays no role in presidential balloting if it goes to the House. What’s more, each state gets only a single vote (determined by a majority of that state’s Congressional Delegation) so that the support of Wyoming’s one House member counts just as much in the final decision-making as the support of all 53 members from California. Under any vaguely plausible scenario, the GOP will continue to control Congressional delegations in at least 28 of the 50 states and would promptly choose the Republican nominee as the next president.

Despite a likely shutout in the Electoral College (and certain irrelevancy if the choice went to the House), a minor party candidacy could influence the outcome in hotly contested states in a close election. If Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian nominee, for instance, he could certainly take votes away from the GOP candidate and tilt the election in Obama’s direction — just as Ralph Nader took liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 and swung the election in Florida (and with it the Electoral College) to Bush. But damaging the candidate who comes closest to sharing your own values and positions is very different from saying you can move the election in the ideological direction your supporters purportedly prefer –let alone claiming a real-world chance to carry enough states to secure the electoral votes to win the presidency.

While expressing the frustrations of many patriotic Americans who feel deeply disgusted at the current state of our partisan gridlock, honest advocates for a fresh insurgent party ought to acknowledge that they can’t possibly advance their agenda without first abolishing the Electoral College. That reform would require a Constitutional Amendment–with a two thirds vote from the Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate, and then majority votes in at least 75 of 99 state legislative houses, where Democrats and Republicans also wield exclusive control. In other words, there’s no chance whatever to alter our current Constitutional arrangements by 2012, and only the remotest possibility of changing the time-honored system in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, if the purpose of a new party is to break the hyper-polarized logjam in Washington is it really a good idea to promote further divisions with new political organizations? The experience of multi-party Parliamentary democracies (like Israel, Italy, or Canada for instance) strongly suggests that competition between three or more major factions doesn’t necessarily produce more unity and cooperation than ongoing competition between just two.

The worst possible outcome for new Third Party initiatives would be to generate enough support to worsen, not cure, the dysfunctional and divisive operation of our federal government. The best conceivable outcome (and by far the most likely result) would be another irrelevant and distracting race that abused the faith of dedicated followers and contributors in one more complete, pathetic waste of time.

From the earlier Medved link:

3. IT’S EASIER TO BUILD A MAJORITY WITHIN A SINGLE PARTY THAN TO WIN OVER THE WHOLE COUNTRY

The essence of political success – whether based in the real world of the electoral mainstream or even in the fantasy land of third party purists – involves persuading enough people to vote for you or your point of view so that you’re actually able to win elections.

In this context, it makes no sense whatever to believe that it’s somehow easier to reach and convince the large number of voters in a general election than to convince the relatively small number of voters in party primaries.

In general elections, any new party faces huge challenges getting on the ballot, raising money, earning press attention and competing with the established parties in terms of substance or credibility.

Primary elections, on the other hand, provide far more openings for challenging and orthodox candidates and ideas. In part, it’s a simple matter of arithmetic. Typically, primaries draw only about one fourth the voters as general elections. The self-identified partisans typically represent only about one-third of registered voters (with another third in the other party, and another third unaffiliated or independent). Meanwhile, general elections always draw much higher turnouts than primaries – so the same number of committed supporters who could bring victory in a primary will fall far short of a majority (or even a plurality) in the general election.

This simple but obvious logic obliterates the most frequent justification for third parties: the claim that we’re “shut out” of one (or both) of the established parties so we have no choice but to run an insurgent, independent campaign. But the question is if you don’t have enough support to win a party primary, how will you ever draw enough backing to beat the far more formidable competition (among a far larger group of voters) in the general election?

If you can’t mount a persuasive campaign for the Republican or Democratic nomination, how can any rational politico expect to conduct a successful campaign among the voters at large?

These questions count as particularly pertinent concerning presidential campaigns. Because of the disproportionate importance of small state contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate can conceivably assure himself the nomination with a tiny number of votes: in a split field, a combined total of 100,000 backers can easily carry the day in either major party. In 1992, Ross Perot almost certainly could have won the Democratic (or perhaps even the Republican) contest in independent-minded New Hampshire, and gone on to become the nominee of a major party and (heaven help us) President of the United States.

If you mean to mobilize an army of committed activists to advance your political prospects, it’s inarguably more plausible to do so in specific primary states than in general election contests in fifty separate states all across the continent.

Consider the baleful example of Pat Buchanan, who enjoyed some primary success as a protest candidate against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and then actually won the GOP New Hampshire primary (in a tight three way race with Bob Dole and Lamar Alexander) in 1996. As a Republican, Pitchfork Pat managed to mobilize “The Buchanan Brigades” and to draw literally hundreds of thousands of supporters (if not a majority). When he left the party in 2000, however, his appeal quickly disintegrated, and the hard-core of enthusiasts that had made him competitive in Republican primaries counted for nothing in the general election (and yes, 0.4% — despite taking $12 million of federal campaign funds – counts as just about nothing).

~~~

5. FRINGE PARTIES GENERALLY DISCREDIT RATHER THAN ADVANCE THE ISSUES THEY EMBRACE

Apologists for minor parties regularly defend their odd-ball activism with the claim that they’re gradually, inexorably building support for their unconventional ideas. The Libertarian Party in particular insists that it’s made steady progress for its philosophy of limited government with its thirty years of tireless campaigning.

In fact, the electoral record shows dramatic deterioration in the party’s electoral appeal rather than any discernable increase in influence, as the once trendy Libertarians have morphed into the goofy and sophomoric Losertarians. The Party reached its all-time peak of success with its second major Presidential campaign under Ed Clark in 1980. Running against Ronald Reagan, Clark drew 921,000 votes and a rousing 1.06% of the electorate. The next time out, the Libertarians did barely half as well and after that the party’s fortunes continued to slide. In 2000, Libertarian nominee Harry Browne won only 0.36% and in 2004, the hapless Michael Badnarik did even worse, with less than 0.33%.

In other words, after a quarter of century or propaganda and party-building, the Libertarians succeeded in alienating two thirds of their never significant support – looking back on their 1% showing of twenty-seven years ago as a matchless achievement that’s never even come close to replication.

The traditional definition of insanity involves repeating the same self-destructive actions again and again but somehow expecting a more beneficial result. After twenty-four years of frustration, futility, and consistent public rejection, on what basis do Losertarians suddenly expect a brighter future?

Among the faceless cavalcade of Libertarian losers, one of their Presidential candidates manages to stand out – not because of his strong showing (he drew only 0.47% of the vote) but because he drew the right message from his embarrassing experience. Texas obstetrician Ron Paul carried the fringe-party’s banner in 1988 but soon thereafter returned to the Republican Party, won election to Congress, and conducted a dynamic and much publicized campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. Dr. Paul garnered vastly more attention for his ideals and proposals as a contender for the Republican nomination than he ever did as the Libertarian nominee—a living demonstration of the ill-considered idiocy of fringe party campaigns.

Rather than advancing unconventional ideas, fringe parties most often discredit them through association with quirky political organizations far outside the political mainstream. The Prohibition Party, for instance, took opponents of alcohol out of the major parties and concentrated them in a marginal political organization which, during 134 years of fielding candidates, elected one Congressman from California (1914) and one Governor of Florida (1916) but almost nothing else. In terms of Presidential politics, the party managed its best showing ever in 1892 (2.25%), some 27 years before temperance advocates finally succeeded in achieving Prohibition through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Predictably, Republicans – rather than members of the Prohibition Party actually were the effective leaders in bringing about this historic change. The Prohibition platform succeeded, in other words, only when true-believers entered one of the established parties, leaving the fringe party and watching its electoral support decline.

By the same token, Populists saw meaningful progress for their national agenda only after the party largely collapsed and its most gifted members migrated into the Democratic Party beginning in 1896. Somehow, even crack-pot ideas (like the bizarre Populist obsession with “Free Silver”) look less menacing when they’re advocated by leaders of a well-established political organization rather than by a turbulent fringe group.

6. YOU CAN’T INFLUENCE A PARTY BY LEAVING IT

One of the most bizarre arguments for third parties involves the suggestion that walking out of one of the established parties will force it to move in your direction.

This reasoning constitutes sheer madness, of course: what sort of maniac honestly believes that he’ll exert greater impact on a political organization after he’s abandoned his membership?

In 2000, when Pat Buchanan abandoned the Republicans for his disastrous “Reform Party” race (in which he selected an LA teacher with his history of mental disability as his running mate), he took with him some of his fellow GOP advocates of a more protectionist trade policy. The result, predictably enough, was a Republican Party more unanimous than ever in support of free trade. Why should Republicans take protectionist arguments more seriously when the few supporters of such arguments have already left the party?

Party walk-outs don’t produce some sudden desire for reconciliation any more than marital walk-outs serve to strengthen a fraying relationship. When a faction abandons its major party home, it’s rarely welcomed back into the fold – especially when the party disloyalty has produced a major defeat. Take the case of Ralph Nader, for instance, with his incontestably destructive impact on Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential bid: even if the gadfly wanted to re-enter the Democratic Party, the deep resentment of his role in the election of George W. Bush would make it impossible for him to assume a position of respect or influence.

7. LOSING CAMPAIGNS DON’T SHAPE GOVERNANCE OR POLICY

For third party purists, rejection by the general public confirms their sense of moral superiority and martyrdom: winning 0.03% with uncompromising principles feels somehow nobler than winning an election through the normal compromises and actually changing the direction of politics. In this sense, fringe party activism represents the ultimate in masturbatory politics: giving intense pleasure and passing thrills to the individual participants but exerting no impact whatever on anyone else.

On those rare occasions when third parties play some decisive role in close elections, they almost always damage the candidates who more closely resemble the independent contenders. Former Republican Ross Perot, for example, destroyed Republican President George H.W. Bush, leftist Ralph Nader damaged Al Gore, and “limited government” Libertarian Senate candidates in Montana, Washington, Georgia and other states recently swung elections to big government Democrats (and in 2006 tilted at least three close elections to give Harry Reid his one-vote Senate majority).

By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them.

Most Americans have come to understand this cruel and dangerous game, so that even the most ballyhooed fringe candidates fail to live up to their promising poll numbers. In 1980, moderate Republican John Anderson believed the surveys and pundits who said he could establish himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to the outspoken conservative Ronald Reagan and the failed liberal standard-bearer, Jimmy Carter. In the end, Anderson drew only 6.6%, fading fast in the last days before the election as the American people began to focus on the true stakes in the choice before them.

This pattern repeats itself in almost every election: even the most intriguing third-party flirtations abruptly turn sour in the “getting serious” phase that precedes a final decision. With an evenly divided electorate providing see-saw victories for Democrats and Republicans, an individual can change history far more readily by voting for one of the major candidates than by giving his support to a laughably irrelevant fringy. A shift of 0.5% can alter the outcome of many elections, but it changes nothing if a Constitution Party candidate gets 0.7% vs. 0.2%.

In this context, the American people remain too sensible to accept the fulminations of brain-dead blowhards like Lou Dobbs. “All that seems to remain of the Republican and Democratic parties is their partisanship, their labels, and their records of intransigence and ineffectiveness over the past forty years.” Over the past forty years, Mr. Dobbs? Since 1967? The Reagan Revolution, which won the Cold War and slashed top tax rates from 70% to 28%, represented only “intransigence and ineffectiveness”? Welfare reform and balanced budgets, achieved by the Gingrich Congress in collaboration with the administration of Bill Clinton, amounted to nothing more than “partisanship”?

Third party purists say they refuse to accept a choice between “the lesser of two evils” – a wretchedly misleading line that suggests that any public servant with whom we disagree is, indeed, evil and not merely wrong. In truth, very few working politicians, Republican or Democrat, honestly qualify as “evil”: the need for winning and retaining office won’t eliminate all mediocrities, but almost always rids us of any truly malevolent individuals. The notion that electoral opponents constitute “evil” of any kind – either the lesser or greater variety – serves only to poison our politics, and to prevent mature choices between major party candidates who, while invariably flawed, give us a chance to serve our country by selecting the better of two imperfects.

The Gormogons:

There has never been a third major party in the United States for reasons of very simple math.

Today’s two parties—uh, the Republicans and Democrats—are really extensions of original early 19th Century politics. The Republicans are basically the Whigs (with some additional coalitions), who came out of the National Republican Party, who split from the Democratic-Republican Party, who came from the Federalist party that went back to 1791.

The Democrats were a reaction to the start of the Federalist party, and took the name Democratic-Republicans. When the Federalists folded, the more bigger-government Andrew Jackson reformed the Democratic-Republicans under his wing—causing the more right-wing members to form the National Republicans. Got it?

The point is that there has always been a left-wing/right-wing component to American politics. Today’s parties are just continually evolving variants of previous parties.

And what did Dreadnought do? When the Tea Party (according to him) took up social issues that did not agree with his “moderate” and “socially liberal” viewpoints, he bailed on them. Ironic that you profess your belief in conservatives holding themselves to a higher standard, then accuse me of “Inquisition-style” mentality. That makes you a bit of a hypocrite.

I think the larger point he was making was that the original Tea Party formation was comprised of people from both the left and the right who did not bring their social issues differences into it; but united on the common ground of runaway spending and taxes; responsible, limited government. Where did Dreadnought express his position on social issues as to be deemed “moderate” and “socially liberal” or otherwise?

So would the GOP have won in ’08 and ’12 if only we had a “true” conservative on the ballot?

Perhaps.

I think otherwise.

There is no “silent majority” of conservatives, sitting on their hands. Elections are won and lost by influencing those in the mushy middle.

Obama won because he was able to motivate his troops.

It was so much more than that.

1-The excitement of seeing the glass ceiling shattered
2-Timing of the financial crisis
3- 8 yrs of Bush-fatigue

McCain is hated by most core conservatives (especially after the McCain/Kennedy Shamnesty Bill) and Romney held all the appeal of a day old dead fish.

True. Yet many of those conservatives still came out for Palin. And held their nose and voted if not for Romney, then against Obama.

As to the comparison between ’04 and ’08: Obama rallied the youth (18-30) vote like no one ever has since JFK and the black vote was a record.

It’s not so much the “youth” vote as it is the minority vote:

Republican soul-searching about what went wrong in the 2012 election often focuses on the youth vote, suggesting that Democrats will continue to win among young voters unless conservatives abandon their traditional positions on social issues.

But this argument ignores the fact that among the big majority of voters 29 and younger who identified as white, Romney won decisively—by a comfortable margin of 7 points. Romney still lost badly among young voters overall because non-white voters comprised 39 percent of the youth vote, compared to 28 percent of the electorate at large. In other words, the core Republican problem isn’t with young voters, it’s with those classified as non-white voters, young, old and middle-aged.

Until Republicans can make progress attracting more support among Latinos, Asians and blacks, they will continue to lose young voters—as well as nationwide elections.

GOP support among 18-29 year old voters actually went up sharply from 2008—from 32% to 37%:

Even more startling, young people who happened to be white still comprised a big majority (61%) of all voters below the age of 30 and delivered a shocking, counter-intuitive verdict on the choice between the ineffably cool Barack and the hopelessly square Mitt: going for the Mormon grandfather of 18 by a decisive, near-landslide margin of 7 points. In fact, the entire basis for Barack Obama’s strength among young voters in general stemmed from the disproportionate presence among them of blacks, Latinos and Asians—groups that tilted lopsidedly toward Obama. Non-whites comprised 39% of the youth vote but only 28% of the overall electorate, so it’s hardly surprising that Romney would score a smaller overall percentage of these ballots from under-30 citizens. Romney’s loss of young voters, in other words, reflects racial politics far more plausibly than any universal surge of youthful progressivism.

Going forward, the GOP clearly faces a crucial challenge in broadening support in communities of color, since white voters will never again comprise 72% (or more) of the overall electorate, and no candidate can possibly expect to do better among whites than did Romney (winning this component of the population by a crushing margin of 60-40%). Republicans don’t need to win majorities among blacks, Latinos or Asians but they do need to compete: if Romney had fared only as well among these minority groups as did Bush in ’04 (with 11% of blacks, and 44% of both Asians and Latinos) he would have won decisively—even with a far less white electorate.

In exit polls, 34% of voters identified themselves as “conservative” in both ’04 and ’08. Just as many conservatives voted for McCain as did for Bush. Actually, if going by percentage, then more who identified themselves as conservative came out to vote in ’08 (44,627,000) than in ’04 (41,571,000). Not less.

In 2012, 35% identified themselves as conservative.

Where McCain lost traction that Bush had won, is in winning over moderates (down from 45% to 39% support). Romney also lost the support of moderates to Obama.

It’s a right-wing fantasy to believe that we’d win the general election if only we ran a more conservative candidate. Yet how is it that the more conservative candidate fails to win even in his own primary?

Elections are won and lost not by which candidate can steer hard to the right or hard to the left. Elections are won by winning the support of moderates (of which 44% of the electorate identify themselves).

@ilovebeeswarzone:The “Koran words on it” may indeed be Arabic. But the language is that of Mordor which I will not utter here. In the common tongue it says, “One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all and in the darkness, bind them.”

@ilovebeeswarzone: *Palmtofaceslap*

@Redteam: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don’t believe religion figures significantly in President Obama’s personal life. He identifies as Christian, but might be fair-weathered and not a regular, devout, church-goer. If he were a devout Muslim, why would he hide that?

Are you serious about your religious test?! It baffles the mind that you’d use his public statements as a politician, where he’s spoken on the topic of Islam in a similar vein to how George W. Bush has had to speak on it.

Where is the evidence that President Obama faces Mecca on a prayer rug 5 times a day? You can’t argue down a good conspiracy theory though, I suppose, no matter how much evidence points to the contrary (or lack of evidence and logic to his being Muslim).

Unless of course, you mean to imply that President Obama is Muslim in the “metaphoric” sense. *Snicker*

@Redteam:

I said he faces Mecca 5 times a day? really? Nope,

Did I say you did? Really? 😉

Glad I didn’t elaborate on that with more questions on his “Muslimness” (or lack thereof….)

You and I both know quite a number of non-Muslims on this very blog who can quote their favorite passages from the Quran.

We can dig up a number of quotes from Bush regarding Islam and the Quran that is made in a similar spirit and context to when Obama mentions Islam and Muslims…and the Quran.

@ilovebeeswarzone:

I AM MAD AS HELL AND I WON’T TAKE IT ANYMORE,

Look out everyone! bees is in the warzone!

@retire05:

So what price has Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Allen Grayson and the rest of the Democrats paid for their out-of-line comments? You already admit that those comments have no affect on the voter that is in the middle.

I think they do have an effect on voters in the middle and that most Americans are turned off by negative attack ads, name-calling, mudslinging, etc.

What I do agree with, is that some of these stories do not get the airplay they richly deserve because there is bias in the media.

Excellent examples! But it’s still assumption (and not at all without logic) that the Alinsky playbook is consciously being used in all cases.

And I said Alinsky playbook is used in ALL cases where?

Ok, fine. 🙂 Let’s take out the word “all”. Let’s highlight the word consciously. Waiting on the evidence. Not denying that Alinsky might be at play. But what you’re showing me are examples of tactics that can be described from the Rules; not that they are following “the Rules”. Alinsky rules are not unique unto Alinsky. Are we clear yet?

But they (the Whigs) existed as THE third party by the time Republicans rose to power.

You might want to rethink that statement. “by the time the Republicans rose to power” says it all.

Ok, let me put it this way: The Republican Party replaced the Whigs. They were never rivals. The GOP never had to compete with the Whigs for power. That party had already collapsed and was no longer a political force of consequence. There was no challenging for power.

Medved again has some of the best arguments as to why third parties don’t work in American politics:

And so the rest of your entry is basically a bunch of cut and paste from Michael Medved. Are you trying to drive traffic to him? You seem to put a lot of stock into what he says, but frankly, if I am interested in Medved’s opinions, I can find my way to his articles on my own.

Well, you’re welcome. Some conservatives could use a little help in finding their way. 😉

It’s easier to quote Medved as he is pretty thorough in covering the whole history and fascination of third parties and why they fail in American politics. His book on the “10 Big Lies About America” covers third parties in one chapter. I figured I was doing you a favor by satiating your intellectual curiosity in linking to his articles. 😉

I think the larger point he (Dreadnought) was making was that the original Tea Party formation was comprised of people from both the left and the right who did not bring their social issues differences into it;

Word, when you have to add “I think” to clarify someone else’s statement, that means you are trying to form your opinion of what Dreadnought said by what you “think” he meant. Doesn’t fly.

You think so? 😉

I believe you faulted me earlier for writing “imo”.

Will you take umbrage now for my insertion of “believe”? 😀

That is your right. But I will promise you this; as long as the GOP offers up mushy middle and left leaning candidates like Dole, McCain and Romney, the GOP will continue to lose presidential elections.

How do you explain Bush in ’00 running on “compassionate conservatism” and ’04?

Primaries provide an opportunity for you to get your conservative dream candidate on the ticket. in ’08, McCain was not the favored Party Establishment candidate. Remember when it was “anyone but McCain”? He did not start out as the front runner; and in January of ’08, his campaign was broke and was not receiving support from the major GOP contributors.

Why should someone who is a centrist vote for Liberal Lite when they can vote for the real deal?

You’re presuming that a centrist is already left-leaning. A center-left moderate might; but he and blue dog Democrats might just as readily vote for someone center-right who does not look like a crazy fringe conservative ideologue. Just as some center-right conservatives might vote for Democrats.

And don’t confuse the increase in Independents with the fact that the nation is still a center right nation of mostly conservatives, both financially, and socially.

I believe that quite a number of those who fancy themselves independent voters are actually conservatives.

There is no “silent majority” of conservatives, sitting on their hands. Elections are won and lost by influencing those in the mushy middle.

Sure there is. It is those “silent majority” of conservatives that go to work everyday, pay their bills, care for their children out of their own wallet and don’t depend on the government for anything more that what is Constitutionally mandated, that are silent because neither party represents them anymore. They used to be called the “common man” and are now called the “silent majority” because they are too busy being responsible adults to march on D.C. or pitch tents in some park, carrying a placard.

It actually sounds like you are describing mainstream American moderates in the mushy middle. 🙂

many of those conservatives still came out for Palin. And held their nose and voted if not for Romney, then against Obama.

But not in great enough numbers. I just showed you the voting numbers were down.

Voting numbers in ’12 were down more for Obama supporters who elected him in ’08 than for Romney; Romney dreew more conservative voters than any previous Republican candidate. In exit polls, 35% described themselves as “conservative” compared to 28% who pulled the lever for Reagan in ’80. In ’80, 24 million conservativves mobilized; in ’04, 42 million; in 2012, 45 million. So who sat out? The handful of angry all-or-nothing conservatives who would rather lose an election and call it “standing on principle”?

And you just claimed it was the middle that determined elections and the middle did not care for Sarah Palin. So which is it?

The conservative base was highly energized by Palin on the ticket. Don’t you remember? But she and McCain lost the votes of moderates to Obama who campaigned as a moderate-left-centrist. Through the course of the general election campaign, Palin- fairly and unfairly- was damaged by the liberal “lamestream” media.

Romney took 1.1 million fewer votes than Bush in ’04.

And 2.8 million less than McCain in ’08. 57.1 million. And how many votes less than in ’08 did Obama receive in ’12? 69.4 million voted for Obama in ’08 and in 2012, 59.8 million.

Question is, how many of those less votes for McCain and Romney is on account of voters who identify themselves as conservative purists who couldn’t bother holding their noses and so sat out the election?

McCain and Romney did not lose because they weren’t “conservative enough”. They lost on account of other factors at play.

Now, please, if you intend to respond to me again, ditch the Medved cut and paste.

Sounds like Medved’s analysis hit a nerve.

Thanks for letting me know that if you want to read Medved, you know how to look up his articles yourself. Very helpful.

If you don’t have his book, “10 Big Lies About America”, I have the book and audio files. I’d be more than happy to send you mp3s of the audio. Like I said, a whole fascinating chapter on the history of third party races. 🙂

@Redteam:

“As the Holy Quran tells us: Be conscious of God and speak always the truth” Quote from Obama.

What?! Where are the sword verses, dammit! “Truth”?! Why isn’t he quoting something or other about Taqiyyah?! He’s lying!

Now give me ANY quote from George W. Bush where he refers to the “Holy Quran” and quotes from it.

I did find one time that he referred to the Holy Quran, but he was only quoting what someone else said about it, (ie, “According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur’an to the prophet, Muhammad,” he himself did not refer to it as the Holy Quran. In all the speeches I could find that Bush referred to Muslims etc, he never quoted the Quran itself.

Extracted from an old post:

One element of the discourse was Obama’s portrayal of himself as a man comfortable with faith. He quoted from the Qur’an, the Torah and the Bible, and this will go far in undoing the widely held Muslim perception of America as a God-less materialist society.

Bush isn’t “a man comfortable with faith”?

Bush didn’t quote from the Quran, the Torah and Bible in speeches?

“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.”

President Obama wasn’t the first American president to selectively cite this passage.

November 16, 2001:

The President’s message includes brief quotes from the Koran, and refers to Islam as a religion that values charity, mercy and peace.

Mr. Bush notes the Muslim population of the United States is growing rapidly, with millions of American believers. He says they are a diverse group that serves in every walk of life, including the U.S. armed forces.

Sound familiar?

President Bush visited a mosque days after the events of 9/11.

In his socks, as is Muslim practice, Bush padded through the ornate mosque on Washington”s Embassy Row and heard stories from his hosts about Muslim-American women afraid to leave their homes for fear of prejudiced backlash after last week”s terrorist strikes.

“Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don”t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior,” Bush said, his back to the brilliantly tiled prayer alcove facing Mecca.

He quoted from the Quran and fervently defended the Islam faith: “Islam is peace. These terrorists don”t represent peace, they represent evil and war.”

President Bush embraces religious expression in all faiths. He is religiously tolerant, unlike many militantly secular extremists.

Not only has he visited mosques and temples, but held dinners and visits to the White House, celebrating Ramadan and lighting menorrahs.

But I guess if it’s Bush doing it, these things just don’t count because they defy the BDS stereotype. Even when he said this on September 20, 2001…

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam … [Islam’s] teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah …The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

…somehow President Bush is still a hate-monger, warring against Muslims and conquering their lands.

November 1, 2001:

Thanksgiving is not the only holiday this week at the White House. On Monday night, Bush became the first president to host a traditional Ramadan dinner, or iftar.

The event was attended by representatives of 53 Muslim countries and senior U.S. officials. The Pentagon and State Department plan Ramadan meals for next week.

Continuing the interfaith message that Bush has repeated since the start of the war on terrorism, Bush told attendees that Ramadan, Christmas, and Hanukkah are opportunities for nations to celebrate together and understand one another better.

“America respects people of all faiths and America seeks peace with people of all faiths,” the president said at Monday’s dinner. “I thank you for your friendship and I wish you a blessed Ramadan.”

Also found in WaPo’s On Faith, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, writes:

The historic significance of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. Obama directly enlisted a religion to build global peace and to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, end nuclear proliferation and stop terrorism.

In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the “Clash of Civilizations,” which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved.

Perhaps most important, he put religion at the core of the peacemaking process. For too long, Americans had come to fear Islam as an intolerant, violent religion. Obama cited examples from the Quran that belied those stereotypes. He emphasized the core similarities among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism,” he said. “It is an important part of promoting peace.”

To Muslims, that was a powerful statement. “Islam is the solution” is the mantra of many Muslims. They believe their religion can and does solve problems.

The position of the American government as non-hostile to the religion of Islam itself even as we collide with the mullahs in Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is nothing new:

While the intensity of the current debate is new, the substance of current U.S. government statements on Islam is not. The latest statements develop the themes and arguments of a policy articulated over the past decade. That policy has four main elements, each of which has become a policy mantra: There is no clash of civilizations. Terrorism is not Islamic. Islam is compatible with American ideals and adds to American life. Americans must learn to appreciate Islam.

~~~

President Bush’s speech to a Muslim audience during his visit to the Islamic Center in Washington: “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. … The face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”²⁸ White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went further, calling the attacks “a perversion of Islam.”²⁹ Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same point even more emphatically, casting the hijackers not only out of Islam but even out of Arabdom; their acts, he argued, “should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists.”³⁰

This distinction between Islam and terrorism, however it is made, has a profound implication for the post-September 11 concept of the enemy: the United States is fighting a war “on terror,” not on militant Islam or any type of Muslims. President Bush told Congressional leaders “we don’t view this as a war of religion, in any way, shape or form.”³¹ According to Powell, “this is not a conflict against Arabs or Muslims or those who believe in one particular religion.”³² Terrorism “is a threat not only to our civilization but to theirs as well,” explained Department of State spokesman Richard Boucher. “We don’t see this as an effort against Arabs; we don’t see this as an effort against Muslims.”³³ More succinctly, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz declared that “our enemy is terrorism, not Islam.”³⁴

Even the judicial branch now has views about terrorism not being Islamic. At the sentencing of Ramzi Yusuf, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Judge Kevin Duffy berated the defendant: “Ramzi Yusuf, you are not fit to uphold Islam. Your God is death. Your God is not Allah. … What you do, you do not for Allah; you do it only to satisfy your own twisted sense of ego.”³⁵

Rather than coddling and pandering, infantilizing and talking down to his audience, here’s a more sober speech Muslims need to hear, delivered by the American president who liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny and repression:

June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON – President Bush visited a mosque yesterday, removed his shoes in respect, and challenged Muslim clerics to more aggressively denounce terrorism.

“We must encourage more Muslim leaders to . . . speak out against radical extremists who infiltrate mosques, to denounce organizations that use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund acts of violence,” Bush said at the rededication of the Islamic Center of Washington.

Bush also urged leaders to do more to thwart the notion held by many “young Muslims – even in our country and elsewhere in the free world – who believe suicide bombing may some day be justified.”

That call to sanity comes after a nationwide poll released last month showed that one in four young Muslims in the United States believe suicide bombings that kill innocents in the name of Islam are OK in some cases.

The Islamic radicals are “Islam’s true enemy,” Bush said, and ticked off some of the atrocities they have committed against fellow Muslims and even their own holy sites.

“In Iraq, they killed a young boy and then booby-trapped his body so it would explode when his family came to retrieve him,” Bush said.

“They put children in the back seat of a car so they could pass a security checkpoint and then blew up the car with the children still inside.”

The terrorists have beaten and killed teachers in Afghanistan, bombed a wedding reception in Jordan and blew up a hotel in Jakarta, the president said.

“Men and women of conscience have a duty to speak out and condemn this murderous movement before it finds its path to power,” the president said.

“We must help millions of Muslims as they rescue a proud and historic religion from murderers and beheaders who seek to soil the name of Islam.”

Moderate Muslim leaders, he said, “have the most powerful and influential voice.”

Bush thanked those who have already aggressively condemned radicalism and noted the outpouring of American goodwill that has been spent on Muslims around the globe “in times of war and natural disaster.”

Specifically, he cited the 2004 tsunami that devastated Indonesia, the U.S. intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo and efforts to stop genocide in Sudan.

Yesterday’s speech, marking the 50th anniversary of the Washington Islamic Center, is part of a White House move to recast the war on terror as an effort to “rescue” the Muslim faith from extremists who use religion as “a path to power and a means for domination.”

Bush also sought to improve America’s image among Muslims worldwide and said their real enemy is not America but Islamic radicals.

“I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism and claim their liberty and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace,” he said.

If Muslims around the world want to understand what America’s about, Bush suggested they look no father than the mosque where he was speaking – it’s located down the road from a synagogue, Lutheran church, Catholic parish, Greek Orthodox chapel and Buddhist temple.

Each, he said, has “followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace.”

Bush’s visit to the Muslim center on Embassy Row was the third of his presidency. His first visit came six days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when he visited the mosque to denounce prejudice against Muslim Americans.

Of course if President Obama can make successful inroads by his methods, by his tone, by his charisma, by his background, by his cult of personality, by his charm offensive, then more power to him.

But it’s a lie to believe President Bush hasn’t reached out to the Muslim world and sought to make them partners in the war on terror to marginalize the “violent extremist” takfiri terrorists murdering in their midst, in the name of Islam.

I just don’t think the case can be made that GW Bush’s feelings about Islam is equal to Obama’s.

No, of course they aren’t equal. Their life experiences are vastly different. I get the sense that President Obama is not highly religious; tends to use religion and his connection to Islam in his youth wherever and whenever it serves him politically (as well as deny or minimize his early connection to Islam when it suits him).

President Bush, on the other hand, is a man of deep faith; and a respect for all faiths.

Collection of quotes where President Bush talks favorably of Islam:

In the President’s Words: Respecting Islam

The United States is a nation dedicated to religious tolerance and freedom, and President Bush has acted to ensure that the world’s Muslims know that America appreciates and celebrates the traditions of Islam.

# “Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation’s ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace.”

Remarks by the President on Eid Al-Fitr The Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. December 5, 2002

# “Over the past month, Muslims have fasted, taking no food or water during daylight hours, in order to refocus their minds on faith and redirect their hearts to charity. Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need. Charity tables at which the poor can break their fast line the streets of cities and towns. And gifts of food and clothing and money are distributed to ensure that all share in God’s abundance. Muslims often invite members of other families to their evening iftar meals, demonstrating a spirit of tolerance.”

Remarks by the President on Eid Al-Fitr The Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. December 5, 2002

# “America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all.”

Presidential Message Eid al-Fitr December 5, 2002

# “Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind.”

President’s Eid al-Fitr Greeting to Muslims around the World December 4, 2002

# “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for, and hate the freedom of the Czech Republic. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we’ll prevail.”

Press Conference by President Bush and President Havel of Czech Republic Prague Castle, Prague, Czech Republic November 20, 2002

# “Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush in a statement to reporters during a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan The Oval Office, Washington, DC November 13, 2002

# “We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to God’s call on Abraham. We share your belief in God’s justice, and your insistence on man’s moral responsibility. We thank the many Muslim nations who stand with us against terror. Nations that are often victims of terror, themselves.”

President Hosts Iftaar Dinner Remarks by the President at Iftaar Dinner State Dining Room

# “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. October 11, 2002

# “Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. October 11, 2002

# “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith — face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

President George W. Bush Holds Roundtable with Arab and Muslim-American Leaders Afghanistan Embassy, Washington, D.C. September 10, 2002

# “If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government. I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations.”

President George W. Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership The Rose Garden, Washington, D.C. June 24, 2002

# “When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.”

Remarks by the President George W. Bush at the 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy West Point, New York June 1, 2002

# “America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practiced and protected here, because we are one country. Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because we’re one country. Race and color should not divide us, because America is one country.”

President George W. Bush Promotes Compassionate Conservatism Parkside Hall, San Jose, California April 30, 2002

# “We’re taking action against evil people. Because this great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil. This is clearly a case of good versus evil, and make no mistake about it — good will prevail.”

Remarks by the President George W. Bush at a Town Hall Meeting with Citizens of Ontario Ontario Convention Center, Ontario, California January 5, 2002

# “Eid is a time of joy, after a season of fasting and prayer and reflection. Each year, the end of Ramadan means celebration and thanksgiving for millions of Americans. And your joy during this season enriches the life of our great country. This year, Eid is celebrated at the same time as Hanukkah and Advent. So it’s a good time for people of these great faiths, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to remember how much we have in common: devotion to family, a commitment to care for those in need, a belief in God and His justice, and the hope for peace on earth.”

Remarks by the President in Honor of Eid Al-Fitr The Diplomatic Reception Room December 17, 2001

# “The teachings of many faiths share much in common. And people of many faiths are united in our commitments to love our families, to protect our children, and to build a more peaceful world. In the coming year, let us resolve to seize opportunities to work together in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. Through our combined efforts, we can end terrorism and rid our civilization of the damaging effects of hatred and intolerance, ultimately achieving a brighter future for all.”

President’s Message for Eid al-Fitr December 13, 2001

# “According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur’an to the prophet, Muhammad, during the month of Ramadan. That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.”

Remarks by the President George W. Bush At Iftaar Dinner The State Dining Room, Washington, D.C. November 19, 2001

# “The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur’an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace.”

President George W. Bush’s Message for Ramadan November 15, 2001

# “This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims.”

President George W. Bush Addresses the Nation World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia November 8, 2001

# “All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush to the Warsaw Conference on Combating Terrorism November 6, 2001

# “I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan The Oval Office, Washington, D.C. September 28, 2001

# “Americans understand we fight not a religion; ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil.”

President George W. Bush Remarks by the President to Airline Employees O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois September 27, 2001

“The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.”

President George W. Bush’s Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. September 20, 2001

# “I’ve made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It’s a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush and President Megawati of Indonesia The Oval Office, Washington, D.C. September 19, 2001

# “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. September 17, 2001

President Obama to Oklahoma tornado survivors:

“I want to urge every American to step up. If I’ve got one message for folks here today: Go online, donate to the American Red Cross…,” Obama said, and recalled a story “that really struck me in the press.” It was about a Bible, open to Isaiah 32:2, that was found in the rubble. The verse read, “A man will be as a hiding place from the wind, and a cover from the tempest.”

“And it’s a reminder, as Scripture often is, that God has a plan, and it’s important, though, that we also recognize we’re an instrument of his will,” Obama said. “And we need to know that as fellow Americans, we’re going to be there as shelter from the storm for the people of Moore who have been impacted.”

Families suspect SEAL Team 6 crash was inside job on worst day in Afghanistan:

Questions haunt the families of Extortion 17, the 2011 helicopter mission in Afghanistan that suffered the most U.S. military deaths in a single day in the war on terrorism.
Every day, Charlie Strange, the father of one of the 30 Americans who died Aug. 6, 2011, in the flash of a rocket-propelled grenade, asks himself whether his son, Michael, was set up by someone inside the Afghan government wanting revenge on Osama bin Laden’s killers — SEAL Team 6.

“Somebody was leaking to the Taliban,” said Mr. Strange, whose son intercepted communications as a Navy cryptologist. “They knew. Somebody tipped them off. There were guys in a tower. Guys on the bush line. They were sitting there, waiting. And they sent our guys right into the middle.”
Doug Hamburger’s son, Patrick, an Army staff sergeant, also perished when the CH-47D Chinook descended to a spot less than 150 yards from where armed Taliban fighters watched from a turret.
He asks why the command sent his son into Tangi Valley toward a “hot landing zone” in a cargo airship instead of a special operations helicopter. The souped-up choppers — the MH-47 and the MH-60 Black Hawk, which SEAL Team 6 rode the stealth version of to kill bin Laden — are flown by Night Stalker pilots skilled in fast, ground-hugging maneuvers to avoid detection.

“When you want to fly them into a valley, when you’ve got hillsides on both sides of it with houses built into sides of the valley, that is an extremely dangerous mission,” Mr. Hamburger said. “The MH, the new model, they’ve got radar that will pick up an incoming missile or incoming RPG. They’re faster. They’re quicker on attack. They’re more agile. So there was every reason in the world to use the MH that night.”
Sith Douangdara, whose 26-year-old son, John, was a Navy expeditionary specialist who handled warrior dog Bart, said he has lots of unanswered questions.
“I want to know why so many U.S. servicemen, especially SEALs, were assembled on one aircraft,” he said. “I want to know why the black box of the helicopter has not been found. I want to know many things.”
Not all families believe the fact-finding investigation, conducted by Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt covered all issues. Gen. Colt, who has since been promoted to major general, told commanders that his job was not to find fault and his report did not criticize any person or decision.
“I want people held accountable,” said Mr. Strange, a former union construction worker who deals blackjack in a Philadelphia casino.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which overseas the war and conducted the probe, declined to answer the families’ questions and referred a reporter to Gen. Colt’s report.

More than two years later, more answers may be forthcoming.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, is making inquiries after meeting with some families.
Larry Klayman, who runs the nonprofit watchdog group Freedom Watch, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Pentagon, as well as the Air Force, Army and Navy. He wants a judge to order the military to turn over an array of documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. He said the Defense Department stonewalled his written requests, so Freedom Watch went to court last month and succeeded in forcing the government to turn over records.

For the first time, Mr. Klayman allowed The Washington Times to view the military’s investigative files turned over to family members two years ago.
“The families of our fallen heroes, who I am proud to represent, need closure to this tragedy,” Mr. Klayman said. “There are many unanswered questions and the military’s explanations of the causes of the crash do not add up.”
He said families also want changes to the military’s restrictive rules of engagement that made it more difficult for U.S. helicopter pilots to fire back at the Taliban fighters they believed brought down the Chinook.
“The families also want our military’s rules of engagement to be changed, as a testament to and in honor of their dead sons,” Mr. Klayman said. “When our nation enters into battle, it must be to win the battle, not the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Islamic jihadist enemy and the Muslim civilian population it uses as human shields.”
He also wants to know the identities of Afghan soldiers onboard, and why the aircraft’s black box, washed away in a fierce rainstorm, was never found — even though it has a homing device.
“We want to make sure our fallen heroes are respected and that answers are provided,” he said.
About an possible insider betrayal, he says: “We’re not saying that happened, but it needs to be explored because increasingly Americans are being killed at the hands of Afghans.”
Even some military personnel involved that night questioned the operations afterward.
The navigator aboard the AC-130 gunship that loitered for three hours over Tangi Valley expressed in 2011 what the families are thinking today.

“One of the other things that we did talk about — kind of what you’re hitting on, sir, is about the fact that, you know, for three hours we had been burning holes in the sky,” the officer told Gen. Colt’s team. “You’ve got [Apaches] flying around, so there’s a lot of noise going on and, basically, this entire valley knows that there’s something happening in this area. So, to do an infil on the X or Y, you know, having that element of surprise in the beginning of an operation is good, but by the time we’ve been there for three hours, and the party’s up, bringing in another aircraft like that, you know, may not be the most tactically sound decision.”
The mission
After Gen. Colt’s report became public in September 2011, the military arranged for him to brief next of kin Oct. 12 in Little Creek, Va., home to Naval Special Warfare Development Group, popularly called SEAL Team 6. The crash took the lives of 17 SEALs and five special warfare development group operators, making it the worst one-day loss in the history of U.S. naval special operations.
The chopper’s manifest included five Army soldiers, three Air Force airmen, seven Afghan soldiers and one Afghan interpreter. All 38 died. Twenty-two of them, such as Petty Officer Strange, were thrown from the aircraft. The rest died inside the fireball.
The military morgue at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware reported that all succumbed within seconds. Gen. Colt said they were “most likely rapid fatalities.”

President Obama went to Dover to receive the fallen and console the families.

6 more pages, if you click the link.

So you “think” again?

You mean…you don’t?! 😀

What proof do you have that anything negative said by the left has ever come back to bite them at the voting booth? Hell, Alan Greyson was reelected and he is a certified fruit cake.

By golly, you’re right! I guess I wasn’t thinking after all!

Voters often express how they hate negative ads and negative politics; yet they nevertheless have proven effective in influencing voters.

Point conceded!

Mud has been slung in presidential elections since the Adams/Jefferson race.

Yup! 🙂

Moving the bar again, Word?

More like moving the bar back to where it was. Just trying to help out your comprehension of what my point is. 🙂

Let’s see; you have managed to post a lot in the last two days, showing that you know how to type. Are you “consciously” using the method you were taught when you first learned how to type, or has it simply become, due to practice, second nature? I doubt, considering how much you have entered in the last couple of days that you use the “hunt and peck” system of typing. Once something become second nature, as in typing, or driving a vehicle, it is no longer a “conscious” decision to put your fingers in the proper place on the key board, as taught, or to turn the key in the ignition before you try to put the vehicle in gear. It has become second nature to you and you are not aware of what that typing teacher/driver’s ed/parent taught you.

Er….okaaaaay. What rabbit hole are you taking this conversation down, now?!

What you are wanting is for me to prove that every leftist that has ever used Alinsky tactics thought “Hey, I’m going to use Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in this instance.” I don’t have to see air to know it exists.

As I stated earlier, simply because you ID something as fitting the description of one of the Rules, doesn’t mean they’re consciously following the Alinsky playbook. Ridiculing someone is a common human tactic.

You do this constantly; although in your case, you are an Alinskyite follower who consciously loves applying the Rules….I think. 😉

You think so?

I believe you faulted me earlier for writing “imo”.

Did I? Perhaps. Show me where.

Recall:

How much favorable influence do you think Sheehan won with the American public? Not much, imo

So your opinion trumps all others? COOL. I guess we can just give up all blogs, news media, tv shows and just contact you for an “opinion.” What a time saver.

That one hurt my feelings. 🙁 Very Alinsky of you. 🙂

I don’t believe “power” was the issue. You seem to, once again, want to change the bar.

Or move it back. 🙂

Bush was certainly more right wing than Clinton, or Al Gore who was his opponent.

Gee…ya think? 😉

And he certainly is more right wing than either John McCain or Mitt Romney. But Bush was also a “progressive” with his “compassionate conservatism” stich.

Hmmm….iyo? Think or know? What qualifies you to judge who is and who isn’t a conservative? To label others RINO?

As frustrating as McCain is, doesn’t he vote more often than not with conservatives? His ACU rating in 2010 was 89.7, making him one of the most conservative members of the Senate that year. In 2006, it was 82.3%. I suppose Party purists expect 100% and deem anyone else a RINO (“KICK THEM ALL OUT!!!“, they shrill!). If you can’t trust an objective record of legislative voting record, what do you trust? Emotions?

McCain, Romney,and Bush may not be the kind of conservative “True conservatives” and the base like, but they are conservatives.

He was, and remains, a “big” government kinda fellow.

What do you make of government growth under Reagan?

If he was conservative, it was only in foreign policy and his willingness to take on radical Islam.

Is Bush not also a social conservative?

In what ways is President Obama similar to Bush in “taking” on radical Islam? And in what ways do they differ?

Please explain the math you used to claim that Romney took 2.8 million fewer votes than John McCain.

Can’t remember where I got the numbers but the sourcing was most likely dated. Thanks for correcting me on it!

Question is, how many of those less votes for McCain and Romney is on account of voters who identify themselves as conservative purists who couldn’t bother holding their noses and so sat out the election?

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask your hero, the former speech writer and staffer for Democrats,

Touchy, touchy….Was Reagan ever a former Democrat?

Michael Medved, since you seem to think he has all the answers.

Wow! Thanks for that wonderful suggestion. I went with it, just to humor you. 🙂 Why didn’t I think of doing that in the first place? Here’s Medved:

First, Romney did NOT get a lower popular vote total than did McCain: He polled almost a million votes more (983,000 more, to be precise) and earned 33 additional electoral votes. It was Obama whose vote totals went down sharply, with 3,592,000 fewer votes than the first time.

The mistaken talking point about the “missing Republicans” came from the slow nature of the counting process. In the first few days after the election, millions of votes remained untallied, but even after the completed numbers came in, showing more GOP voters than 2008, few of the conclusion jumpers bothered to correct, or even adjust their post-election remarks.
Moreover, exit polls show that the electorate featured an unusually high percentage of both Republicans and conservatives, rather than offering any scrap of evidence for complaints over a disengaged base. In 2012, self-identified Republicans comprised precisely the same percentage of the electorate as in 2008, and gave even more overwhelming support (93% compared to 90%) to their party’s nominee. What’s more, conservatives not only made up a slightly higher percentage of the voters in 2012 than four years earlier, but even turned out more strongly as a percentage of electorate than they did for the victorious George W. Bush in 2004.

I don’t discount other factors. But the truth is that neither McCain, or Romney, motivated the conservative base. And they could have run the most fantastic campaigns in the history of the national elections, but with out the excitement and motivation of core conservatives, they were going to lose. And lose they did.

I believe (is it okay for me to use the word “believe” without being Alinsky’ed for it?) Palin generated a lot of excitement and energy amongst movement conservatives who were otherwise appalled by McCain’s nomination. Core conservatives were motivated by “Obama is destroying America” if not “Rah Rah Romney”. Romney ran a lousy campaign and the 47% quote hurt him significantly with moderates.

🙂 Our hero and cultural crusader, Michael Medved 🙂 writes:

Such projections of doom portray Mr. Romney as the dreary second coming of John McCain—a hapless moderate foisted on the disillusioned rank and file by the GOP’s country-club establishment, with no real chance to rally the conservative base or draw clear distinctions with Barack Obama.

This analysis, endlessly recycled on the right, relies on groundless assumptions about recent political history. Three myths in particular demand rebuttal and rejection as a prerequisite to GOP success in 2012 and beyond:

1) Many analysts cited by the New York Times, Washington Times and other prominent media sources continue to blame the Republican defeat in 2008 on the millions of conservative true believers who allegedly stayed home rather than vote for the notorious “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) John McCain. In fact, the exit polls showed that the 34% of all voters who described themselves as “conservative” in 2008 precisely matched the portion of the electorate that saw itself as conservative for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. Because of the much larger overall turnout in 2008, this meant that far more self-identified conservatives (44,627,000) showed up at the polls for the McCain-Obama battle than in the prior duel between Mr. Bush and John Kerry (41,571,000).

~~~

Mr. McCain lost because he performed more feebly than Mr. Bush among moderates (winning only 39%, down from 45%) and particularly among Hispanics (down to 31% from 44%), according to the exit polls—and not because right-wingers refused to vote or capriciously abandoned the Republican cause. Election Day 2008 saw the biggest turnout of self-described conservatives in American history, and Mr. McCain drew an even larger portion of those voters (78%) than did Ronald Reagan (73%) in his landslide over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

~~~

Barry Goldwater electrified Republicans with his delineation of “The Conscience of a Conservative,” but he lost 44 states to the unspeakable Lyndon Johnson in 1964. More recently, tea party-affiliated candidates won several high-profile primary victories in 2010 and went on to ignominious defeats in easily winnable Senate races in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado and Alaska.

The big Senate gains for Republicans in 2010 came mostly from establishment figures like John Hoeven in North Dakota or Dan Coats in Indiana, along with unapologetic moderates like Mark Kirk in Illinois. The two most celebrated tea party victors in Senate races, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, actually won lower vote percentages in their states than Mr. McCain did two years earlier.

In short, the electoral experience of the last 50 years does nothing to undermine the common-sense notion that most political battles are won by seizing and holding the ideological center. In the last two presidential elections, more than 44% of voters described themselves as “moderate,” and no conservative candidate could possibly prevail without coming close to winning half of them (as George W. Bush did in his re-election).

The notion that ideologically pure conservative candidates can win by disregarding centrists and magically producing previously undiscovered legions of true-believer voters remains a fantasy. It is not a strategy. At the moment, it is easy to imagine Mitt Romney appealing to many citizens who would never consider Rick Perry or Herman Cain. It is much harder (if not impossible) to describe the sort of voter—Republican, Democrat or independent—who would refuse to support Mr. Romney (over Barack Obama!) but would somehow eagerly back Messrs. Perry, Cain or Gingrich, let alone Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Didn’t hit a nerve. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about Medved. He’s just another left coast left winger that hopped on the conservative bandwagon when it was advantageous to do so. Perhaps that is why his radio show concentrates so heavily on having Democrats as guests. Frankly, I distrust anything that comes out of the Left Coast.

Because the east coast swings so overwhelmingly to the right? 😀

Why do you suppose Medved has on so many Democrats as guests and callers? Why does he invite on so many liberals?

You would be better served reading The Federalist Papers, along with the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Those are awesome! 🙂 But I thought we were talking about apples, here? :/

And, by your following entries, it seems that you, and Dreadnought, have the same task; to simply post the musings of others. All Dreadnought does at Lucianne is link to the work of others, just as you do.

Golly…I tried to search for where Medved might address this point, but couldn’t find any entries.

Well, earlier you went off on a tangent complimenting me on my beautiful, excessive, typing style. Now I’m faulted for blockquoting others. There’s no pleasing you! 🙁

Yeah, I never do my own original cartoons for Sunday Funnies. Just cut-and-paste. 🙁

Blockquoting are my favorite types of posts, retire! I’m sorry I don’t have more time on my hands as a non-professional blogger to feed you original writing. Just think of my blogposts where I link to the brilliant writings of others, interesting news items of the day, as the finger pointing to the moon. You’re welcome! 🙂 After all, there are many types of blogposts and not all have to be an original essay.

Medved’s on in one hour!!!! Can hardly wait to hear what he has to say!

Have a great day retire, in this, the greatest nation on God’s green earth!