Guilani went from bad to worse. According to Huffingtonpost.com:
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) defended his accusation that Obama doesn’t love America by arguing that Obama’s upbringing by a white mother and attendance of a white school made his statement not racist.
“Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people,” Giuliani said in an interview with The New York Times on Thursday.
All the GOP candidates now will be asked if they agree or disagree. They need to throw Rude Rudy under the bus. He was always too big for his britches anyway. How can anyone assess how much someone else loves their country? Political tomfoolery.
His 9-11 big-shotting would gag a maggot. He can’t claim to be more deeply affected than everyone else.
Giuliani keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper. Let the comedy begin.
I don’t get it, are you trying to say that Rudy was raaaaaacist for making these remarks?
He made a 100% true and correct statement.
I didn’t say he was racist. I said he was a rude jerk. I implied that he injured his party.
Your statement is as stupid as his is.
If you listen to talk radio and/or read the conservative columnists and Townhall or Nat’l Review, Giuliani’s comments are not that far out of the norm. The birthers, then they said he was a socialist, now a communist, he’s going to take away our guns, government agencies are buying large quantities of ammunition which is certainly going to be used against the American people, etc. etc. etc.
Since 2009 they have marched this route one little step at a time. Rudy is not out of line with many of the conservative talking heads. Not at all.
What El Guapo says is true. But Guiliani puts his own weird, disconnected, alienating spin on things.
Yes it does hurt the GOP. Who are wildly churning away working to alienate the whole non-white section of the US. This is supposed to be politics – you’re supposed to be making people like you. Not just the angry white ones.
I just think he sounds stupid.
I don’t understand why the GOP wants to alienate the whole non-white section of the USA. Obviously those who want to do that are very poor at math.
He was a zero on Sept 10. The stories will come out of the woodwork now. He himself created a chink in his armor and people now see the true Rudy. He had Bill Bratton resign from the NYPD because Bratton was getting the PR and Rudy was not.
It was interesting to watch Guiliani cast himself as a hero, when firefighters died because they were armed only with obsolete technology.
Not dissimilar to what GWB did. He and his NSA advisor (Rice) ignored the intel about bin Laden wanting to use planes as weapons. He hid for a few days before he had the balls to come out and start acting like a gunslinger. Which was in itself done largely to divert American ager away from Saudi Arabia, whose citizens funded the attacks as well as the Bush family coffers, and onto Iraq.
That sounds fairly conspiratorial.
My ire is directed at the City of New York who assured those who searched for their fallen friends that the air quality was not unsafe, blah dee blah. Well, it was toxic and 10 years later they all started dropping like flies from various forms of cancer linked to that kind of exposure. Then Jon Stewart had to get involved to get the freaking govt. to help pay for their treatment.
Who was the “ruler” of NY while all the assurances were being made? Rude Rudi. He had way too much swagger in those days. I expect he staged his bravado.
If it wasn’t for Obama, Rudi would have nothin’.
As a military veteran and a conservative, I and others have been labelled on paper by our own government as potential terrorists to be closely scrutinized, not to mention being described negatively by this POTUS as only clinging to our guns and our Bibles.
I have no comment on the Giuliani statement.
He said some folks as I recall. Obviously you identified with the statement. I know I sure didn’t. I would rather collect turquoise than guns. Not everyone feels as I do.
I don’t collect bibles either. I have two. One my grandfather gave me. The other is a readable bible that I bought myself years ago.
I guess I am not offended by being called a secular humanist although I don’t know what one is.
I strongly doubt that you landed on a “potential terrorist” list by virtue of being a conservative and veteran. I would suggest that you look at your other affiliations to see if they advocate the violent and undemocratic overthrow of our government. Those are the reasons you ended up on some list (if you did at all).
I am a veteran and hold a great many conservative positions – no one has ever told me that I am on some super-spooky list.
BSinVA — Push your sarc button. Apparently that DHS memo from Mama Janet never got to your desk. It was an egregious generalization. But not unusual for that crowd. Just like the most recent Washington grand conclave on violent extremism. We’ve just gotta focus on all those nasty domestic “Islamophobes” who are making life so miserable for American Muslims. Even executing little Muslim kids, according to a non-refuted guest on the Rachel Maddow show.
The other side must be eating this stuff up.
Now excuse me while I go find my guns and Bible to do a little clinging while it is still so cold outside.
I saw that copy and I certainly didn’t read the same thing into it that you did. It was a freaking profile. Considering the people coming back from the middle east war have PTSD running out the ying yang and a hugely high suicide rate, I think she might have been on to something.
That certainly was nothing to start assuming you were on the list over. GEEZ
Heh, heh, Moon. Collecting turquoise?!! Isn’t there a 12-step program for that? You might be supporting the economy of the Navajo res all by yourself.
Dang! I clean forgot that I am also a born ,bred, and hopeless White racist, as well as a flaming mysogynist, an Evangelical Christian rightwing extremist homophobic wingnut, and a capitalist oppressor of the poor. Also a former Neanderthal frat boy with rapist potential. And, at one time, even a baby killer in uniform. Professionally I was classified with my colleagues as a drug pushing assassin and liar working for a secret rogue government organization intent upon enslaving the freedom loving people of the world.
Such a burden. Getting called a running dog of the imperialists decades ago was peanuts compared to what I have to carry now.
Moon, you should push your sarc button also.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I just don’t understand why you took it as an insult or personalized it in any way. Just because I have a few attricutes doesn’t make me a candidate for some evil-doing. White, southern baby boomer doesn’t make me a KKK member. However, I bet a lot of people with those attributes might have been KKK members.
Let’s get on the same page here, blogmeister. By pushing your sarc button, I meant you reading MY post for the non-personalized sarc I put in my own comment. Sorry about that misunderstanding.
As far as Giuliani’s remark “hurting the GOP”? Nah. Here today, gone tomorrow. Although I must say that those yokels at the NY Times are now trying to turn Giuliani into a “racist.” The things you do when your media ship is sinking………..
Wouldn’t I be considered a blog-mistress? What is feminine “meister?”
“Blog-frau”?
The really odd part of what Giuliani said was not the first comment about Obama (that just seems to be of a kind with the mass-hysteria/dementia that has led so many of my Party to personally demonize Obama beyond all fact or reason), but his later explanatory comments that he couldn’t have been being racist because Obama had white grandparents etc. Sheesh.
I worked with Giuliani on a matter in the early 1980s that convinced me that he is a man capable of taking high-risk stands in favor of the rule of law despite severe political pressure. I told him at the time I would go the extra mile for him, given his principled position in that matter and have supported some of his political activities. But this was just nuts, the only explanation for which is that it has become habitual within Republican circles to favor strange personal attacks on this particular president over disciplined analytical critiques of policy. I don’t understand this phenomenon, but assume it has something to do with intellectual laziness, cheap media thrills and just plain low human behavior.
As a conservative, I was highly critical of this president before 2012. But the president has participated in his last election, so criticism of his motives should now be muted. It only gives the president a platform to rail against, which is what he really excels at. It plays into his strengths.
Whenever the president takes the wrong stand on something, Republicans should clearly explain why they disagree and then take strong action to implement their vision. The de-funding of Obama’s executive “amnesty” is a good example. The Republicans in the Senate should change the rules to prevent filibuster on budget bills (following the example of the Dems in the last session) and then put the budget for DHS minus executive amnesty on the president’s desk.
Another example is foreign policy, which has clearly been a disaster over the last 5 years. His inaction has resulted in strategic setbacks in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen to ISIS/Al Qaeda. People are clearly uneasy about the growing power and aggression of the Jihadist movement.
While the Jihadists do not yet pose an existential threat to the United States, it appears that we are not prepared to stop them. This period has the feel of the early 1930s when the Nazis were not yet an existential threat either. The Congress cannot force the Commander-in-Chief to take action, but it can restore military readiness and build up the type of forces that will be needed to take on the Jihadists. Military capabilities have atrophied by an alarming level since 2008.
Kelly, as you know, I generally support the President and I also agree with his executive decision to not depart about 5 million family members with family. However, barring those disagreements, I think you have made some extremely good points.
I disliked the personal attacks on George Bush and I dislike the personal attacks on Barack Obama. That kind of criticism is counter productive and it weakens us as a nation to our enemies. I am not sure agree with your assessment of our foreign policy but that is irrelevant.
Sequestration needs to be fixed immediately. It is hurting the economy and military readiness.
@Kelly – you seem to imply that it was OK to have these personal attacks on Mr. Obama before 2012, but since he is not running again, they are unnecessary, and the reason we should abstain is because it plays into Obama’s hands. There are better reasons.
What is your program for dealing with ISIS, and how does it differ from that of the current Administration? Do you favor re-insertion of large US combat elements in Iraq and/or Syria? Do you think the previous administration’s actions in Iraq had anything to do with the emergence of ISIS? What are your views about how we fund rehabilitation of our Armed Forces and do you feel that our military strength in 2008 was diminished over what it was in, say 2001?
@Scout
Personal comments on the President is always okay when they are accurate, as these were.
They are just unnecessary. Giuliani was trying to get to the motives of Obama’s lack of support for the US.
Instead of “attacking” Obama, the GOP needs to point out that Obama is merely the President and it was the Democrats that created the failed policies. Of course, whenever Obama attempts to overreach and try to make law…as he has done numerous times, Congress should slap him down for unconstitutional actions.
Accurate? Cargo. Those are opinions.
God, You are so blinded by politics. Tell me, did either Daddy Bush or George Bush do anything that you thought was over reaching or gasp..unconstitutional?
Rude Rudy: does it hurt the GOP?
How would it? I don’t agree with what he said but how in the world would this hurt the GOP? Last I looked he doesn’t currently hold any public office, he doesn’t head any national Republican organizations. He is just a guy with an opinion.
I think you could make a much stronger argument that Job Biden (the #2 Democrat in the country) and Debbie Wasserman Shultz (leader of the DNC) speak for all Democrats, right?
Last month DWS gave a speech in which she criticized Jews who married outside of the religion. Does that mean since the leader of the DNC has a bigoted view of religion all Democrats do? How about her most recent issue of being caught red handed telling a big Dem donor that she would support his legalization of weed agenda if he retracted negative comments about her? Does it hurt all Democrats knowing that their DNC leader is selling out her values for political support?
Then there is Joe Biden, outside of President Obama he is THE second in command. During the recent “extremist” conference he attempted to talk about Somali community in DE (for which he ended up getting 4 Pinocchios as well as a pants on fire rating):
‘If you ever come to the train station, you may notice that I have great relations with them, because an awful lot of them are driving cabs, and are friends of mine.’
Religious and community leaders, largely Africans and Muslims, let out uncomfortable chuckles as he insisted: ‘For real. I’m not being solicitous, I’m being serious.’
Does that mean that all Democrats are liars and just plain old jackasses?
Break up your questions if you want people to address them.
Let’s start with you providing links about Wasserman-Schultz. Who was her audience? I am going to suggest, without even hearing it, that this was not a political speech. Do you think Catholics like it when their flock marries outside? Trust me…as one who married a Catholic, they do not. It isn’t being bigoted.
How can Rude Rudi hurt the GOP? For starters, every candidate will probably be asked if he or she agrees with Rude Rudi. What are they going to say? The GOP, at this point, doesn’t need to be seen as far right extremist. There aren’t enough far right voters to elect a president. Its all in the math.
@Moon-howler
I thought that they did stupid things like forming the DHS.
Unconstitutional? Yes…. the NSA wiretapping/hacking…etc. Then Obama EXPANDED that program.
I felt that they did unconstitutional things and said so.
Our greatest threat to this nation is not terrorism or a foreign power. It is our own government and our representatives. It has always been that way.
@Moon-howler
As for blinded by politics…the fact that you DON’T SEE anything wrong with what he has been doing is the very definition of blindness.
You don’t know whether I do or don’t see things wrong. You think you are right so you are assuming I am wrong. that is pretty frigging smug if you ask me.
The president has made a series of statements that ridicule values that I hold dear. It has happened too many times for them to be gaffes or misstatements. So responses in kind should not be unexpected. Nevertheless, it is unproductive because it allows the media to focus on distractions rather than the important issues. That may well be the reason that he goads his political opponents.
I am not really that interested in discussing the specifics of a strategy to defeat ISIS other than to state that we need one. No cohesive political and military strategy exists at present.
Why is ISIS OUR problem. They are a world problem – and the world needs to address it. The neighbors are finally realizing that we are not going to jump in this time – they need to step up. They can no longer quietly ask the US to come in clean up while publicly denouncing our actions. Saudi Arabia – one of the wealthiest Families, err Countries in the World – Step Up. Qatar, UAE, Dubai, Kuwait – etc. They do not need our funding of the Fight against ISIS – they need to fund it themselves.
I have yet to see any instance in which the current President has evidenced a “lack of support for the United States”, Cargo. (#25). One can reasonably question whether this or that policy of any administration optimally advances US interests, but there’s no more evidence that this Administration or this President “lack support” for the United States than there is that any other administration is actively opposing US interests.
Kelly – I’d be interested in your examples of this President “ridiculing” your values. He may have different views than you on some of the issues of the day, but “ridicule” seems hyperbolic. Unless you are some sort of Muslim extremist, I haven’t seen him go on a ridicule binge, and even with regard to his attacks on ISIS, I don’t think his rhetorical device is so much ridicule as it is an effort to deprive ISIS of religious legitimacy. In this case, I think a little more ridicule might be effective, if conjoined with other approaches.
@Moon-howler
And yet, Obama breaks laws, invades countries, “makes” laws, says incredibly stupid things…but this is what you are concerned with.
It APPEARS that you approve of everything he does.
I approve of much that he does. I have never denied that. Why should I apologize that someone carries out many of the policies I voted him into office to do?
You can’t step outside your own pre-conceived ideas of right and wrong to understand that not everyone thinks you are correct? I like most of what he does, without apology. I used to hear the same people pretty much bash Bill Clinton. Obama has it even worse. If Hillary wins, she will have it also–from being a progressive AND a woman. That ‘otherness’ is a real biggie. I just heard crickets while Bush was in office.
@Scout
Just go read some of his “apology” tours when he first took office. He is always criticizing the US, apologizing for values that we hold dear, instead of holding us up as an example. HE is supposed to be our biggest supporter.
Sez who? He sounds pretty supportive to me. you can either be the biggest bully on the block, just because you can be or you can try a little humility, not act like Billy-bad-ass and try to meet people half way. It works wonders.
After a cursory look on the web, I would opine that “blogmeister” may have become a unisex term.
I sure like meister better than frau. I will go with uni-sex. Other than my turquoise, I dress fairly unisex anyway.
Be precise, Cargo. What value that you (or Kelly) “hold dear” has Obama ridiculed or apologized for? I’m not sure that anything was said in what Fox refers to as the “apology” tours that isn’t agreed to by a huge swath of the American citizenry, especially in hindsight following the catastrophe of the Iraq invasion. Perhaps you can put more of a point on that.
One of the values we “hold dear” in a democratic republic is the ability to use reason to modify failed approaches, to avoid future mistakes, to recognize past errors, and to be candid about where we have come up short in our own eyes versus our own national ideals. Talking frankly about such things, particularly in public contexts, can do much to restore lost credibility both among ourselves and with others abroad whose goodwill is important to our own security and prosperity. Criticism of policies that cost the US severely in terms of prestige, military preparedness, national security, and that created enemies where they didn’t exist previously, strikes me as being extremely supportive of the United States. For example, my default position is, at least until proven otherwise in specific cases, that Americans who criticized our Iraq policy in the 2002-2007 period were acting from the highest level of patriotic motivation. In any event, if you can cite to a specific American value that Obama repudiated that you think should be a core value of this Nation, I can engage a bit more specifically. At this point, I’m not able to dredge up anything in particular, and you haven’t mentioned anything in particular. And, just to keep things hopping, even if you can’t cite to any particular instance of repudiation or ridicule from this President, why not throw out some ideas of values you hold dear that you think our leaders should be championing, but do not. What are some examples of the United States in recent years that you think this President should hold up as examples to the rest of the world that he has repudiated or foresworn?
Separation of powers? As in: I’ve got a pen and a phone, and, if Congress does not do what I want, I’ll do it all by myself. I’ll modify laws unilaterally and ignore laws if I wish to. I’ll rewrite programs to fit my own desires regardless of the laws passed by Congress and signed by prior chief executives.
Boehner pretty much did that with his invitation to Netanyahu. Shrug.
No one could cast themselves above congress any better than FDR and Lincoln. I guess they will all push against each others boundary lines from time to time.
I suggest that separation of powers has been a pretty good thing for America to brag about. In my experience, one of the primary moves of a politician on the way to becoming a strongman has been to neuter the legislature, all the while proclaiming that he is a “Man of the People.”
Rudy hurt Walker’s chances most of all. Walker was at the event and said nothing.
What about when Obama called Bush unpatriotic? Did that hurt Dems?
Wolve gets us off to a nice start. I would certainly agree that our consitutional structure is worth bragging about, both externally and internally in our political process and our outreach to other nations. It is not something, however, that Obama has ever apologized for or spoken ill of, whether generally or with specific reference to separation of powers.
As long as the Republic under the Constitution has been around there has been tension, perhaps even a designed-in tension, at the edges between the three branches. Obama is not the first, and probably is more like the 44th to have poked around trying to find where the edge is. The jurisprudence on this has not been crystal clear over time and the boundaries tend to be stumbled over in the dark rather than flashing lights that people avoid. This is nothing new, and Obama is far from the most aggressive executive to have worked to find ways to govern when Congress is trying to make sure the Executive is not acting in certain areas.
JB – Obama said in the 2008 campaign that Bush administration policies that almost doubled the national debt from 5 to 9 billion dollars were “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”. I think a lot of fiscal conservatives would agree, at least with the first part. Giuliani didn’t say Obama’s fiscal policies were “unpatriotic”. He made a direct personal attack on Obama saying that he (Giuliani) didn’t believe that Obama loved his country. I see a difference.
In an effort to be precise, here are the values that I believe Obama has scoffed at or otherwise mocked:
1) The United States is exceptional: Obama views the US as no more exceptional than any other country might view itself. That leads to the idea of “leading from behind” and otherwise failing to take leadership in the world. This has created a power vacuum which has led to tragic results in Iraq and Libya. He has moderated these statements recently to justify his policies.
2) Separation of powers. He has openly mocked Congress for failing to act on immigration. What he really means is that Congress will not give him what HE wants, so he will act on his own. There is no justification for this unilateral enactment of law and he should be opposed in every way possible.
3) Respect for religion and gun owners, e.g right wingers who cling to guns and religion. He is not a big fan of the first two amendments. His recent statements that Christians should not get on a high horse essentially was an attempt equate the record of Christianity to Islam.
I do not expect Scout to agree with much of this. But then again, I was struck by Scout’s statement years ago that Obamacare was not a big deal. As a result, I expect our respective philosophies about constitutionally government and citizens rights differ significantly.
Kelly – Cite me to where Obama has “scoffed” or “mocked” that the United States is not exceptional. When I see it in context, I can react to it.
How is Obama’s approach to separation of powers different than Jackson’s, Lincoln’s, TR’s, FDR’s, LBJ’s, Reagan’s, or the second Bush’s? Cite me a statement where Obama “mocks” Congress. The executive has far more powers on immigration than in a lot of other areas. The courts will sort this out, but we can’t be certain yet whether Obama has crossed a constitutional line. Even the most recent Texas district court decision avoided that issue, at least for now.
You seem to be referring to the President’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. What specifically that he said do you find factually incorrect?
I am a constitutional conservative of long standing. I don’t find Obamacare to have any major unresolved constitutional issues. I don’t like Obamacare, because I don’t think it really addressed the health care issues that are facing the country. It seemed to be a tweak that benefitted the insurers more than the nation. But it doesn’t impact my conservative approach to constitutional law.
The 9-0 SCOTUS decision that three POTUS recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional because the Senate was not really in recess? Did the President not take it upon himself to decide if the Senate was or was not in recess when such a decision clearly belongs to the Senate itself? Even though educated as a constitutional lawyer, was he innocently unaware of this Senate privilege and procedure or did he deliberately try to get away with an evasion of the separation of powers, being ultimately denied by a very unusual 9-0 verdict?
Scout — I certainly wish we were counting the national debt in billions. Try $5 trillion to $9 trillion under Bush II. Now that the debt has reached 17.8 trillion or 103% of the FY2014 GDP, shall we label Obama’s fiscal policy as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”?
@Scout
Then what about the many times the Obama Administration compares Republicans to terrorists, hostage takers or suicide bombers? All of that was okay, right?
What about Nancy Pelosi saying Republicans were “very unpatriotic”?
I just don’t get what the big deal is with this, a non elected official says something stupid and it’s a lead story for a week straight. Leaders of the Democrat party say similar things, and worse, on multiple occasions and nobody seems to mind.
Thanks, Wolve, Wishful thinking on my part that it be mere billions.
JB: I’m not aware that the Obama administration has ever accused Republicans of suicide bombings or terrorist acts. If they believe such things happened, I would assume the criminal courts can sort it out. I’m surprised that news of this escaped me. It seems a big story. The idea of Republicans attacking targets wearing suicide vests, holding hostages in chains etc. is one that we might expect to make the papers. Is it possible that you are confusing an allegorical phrase like “hostage taking” (as, for example, in the context of someone holding up one piece of legislation for concessions on another) for a literal taking of a hostage with gun to the head etc.? Perhaps you might want to go back and check the context.
Giuliani wasn’t speaking allegorically. And the story has import beyond Giuliani because there has been an atmospheric within elements of the GOP since Obama became the 2008 candidate to bay at the moon about non-sensical personal issues surrounding him rather than dealing with policy issues. It’s demonstrably nuts for people to get sucked into this kind of thing. Reporters are going to ask questions of the new GOP field to try to sort out who is susceptible to that kind of derangement.
Wolve: the NLRB case was one of first impression. I happen to like the result. However, it was an issue that needed court resolution, particularly given the devices the Senate was using to maintain “non-recessed” status. The case was mainstream evolutionary Supreme Court jurisprudence. I can cite you a string of cases and examples,going back over several administrations, R and D, in which issues of executive authority or non-delegation of Congressional authority have required intervention from the courts to clarify. The beauty of the system is that these things do get straightened out in a regularized way.
JB: Did Nancy Pelosi say that George W. Bush didn’t love his country? If so, it was stupid and merited ridicule, if none was dispensed at the time. Did she say President Bush was “unpatriotic”?. Again, some context might be helpful.
You see, I have a gut feeling that a lot of this criticism of Obama on a personal level comes from a counter-factual, reinforcing feedback loop where people allow themselves to get all spun up over things that didn’t get said, that didn’t happen, or that were said and ignored. I am not an Obama supporter, but I find this embarrassing. I’ve heard Obama state on more than one occasion extremely positive things about America. I’ve heard him use terms that endorse a kind of American “exceptionalism”. I’ve heard him talk about his love for his country and how he could not have succeeded anywhere else in the world in the manner he succeeded here. There are enough substantive issues for Republicans to take issue with without being dragged down into some sort of delusional, person-based drivel world. People need to shake this off. It’s ugly, and it distracts and detracts from more important issues.
+1 Scout.
Also the Birther issue. To the extent that that spun out of control – and so called leaders just put fuel on the fire – reveals the personal attacks – even people who posted here.
No one likes ACA but they do like the EMLTA – which is the law that says healthcare providers must give life saving treatment without asking for the ability to pay. If you want to repeal ACA, repeal EMLTA also.
ACA – Perfect? – far from it. It Needs to be improved like every other major piece of legislation ever passed. But the refusal of any input from Republicans (even though Republican ideas were included) during the process is what is hurting it the most. Still no input on how to improve the ACA and no replacement options. And the Replications do not want to improve it for political purposes, attempting to let it fail – but it is not failing.
+1 Pat!
I think a lot of people like ACA, Pat. That doesn’t mean I personally think it’s an optimal solution, but it certainly gets mixed reviews and it has been helpful for some people. The universal coverage provisions are certainly a good thing. However, when people start getting tax bills for failing to obtain coverage (or, worse yet, the inevitable mistaken tax bills), then we’ll have a new source of complaint.
@Scout
I didn’t say the Administration accused Republicans of terrors acts but the admin did compare Republicans to terrorists, hostage takers and suicide bombers:
Just one example, Sr. adviser Dan Pfeiffer says the White House will not negotiate “with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAdvjhds3us
No, that really isn’t what the “administration” said. You are rumor-mongering.
Sorry, Senior Administration Adviser…. compared Republicans to suicide bombers.
There are plenty of examples of the President himself calling Republicans all sorts of name, here is one example of him calling them ‘hostage takers’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj60GKsI-Pc
Careful Jackson, thou shalt cast no aspersions upon the light-bringer: https://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/obamachrist.jpg
I explained that to you earlier, JB. They are speaking figuratively. I would expect them to arrest or shoot down anyone, Republican or Democrat, who was walking around with bombs strapped to their chests. I’ve never heard of anyone doing such a thing literally in a legislative context. You need to be a little more open to the idea of metaphor.
To expand on that a bit, Jackson (you’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who seems confused by this, so I’ll lavish a little attention on you to possibly spare you additional embarrassment), when my older, very high-tempered daughter was a little girl, she used to get into these furious rages at me and lay down ultimata that to her, at least, must have seemed in the moment to be effective bargaining ploys. In these unhappy moments, I would tell her that my policy was not to negotiate with “terrorists”. Now, you see, I really didn’t think my 8-year old was a member of an active militia or Al-Qa’eda cell or anything like that. I was using the word as an analogy, in part to turn back on her both the futility of her demands, and, frankly, to embarrass her that she might be behaving, on some very trivial level, like much more socially threatening people. Similarly, the term “taking hostages” is often used in political contexts where lines between positions have been drawn very hard, and related bills or measures are being threatened as a way to get the other side to give ground. If you followed politics much in Washington or any of the state capitols, you might have previously encountered that kind of talk.
It is certainly not confined to the present Administration or even to Washington.
@Scout
Thank you Scout for sparing me additional embarrassment, it’s truly appreciated. Then I suppose if someone from the GOP *insert name here* said that President Obama was “strapping a bomb to his chest in order to blow up the DHS” in regards to DHS funding you would be totally cool with that?
I must have been confused as to where terrorist/suicide bomber/hostage taker references end and ‘civil political discourse’ begins. Now I know
@Cato the Elder
While I do like that one Cato but this one was a HUGE seller at a DNC convention:
http://www.donotbesurprised.com/2012/09/artwork-likens-obama-to-jesus.html