}

Jesse Undermines All The Work of the Big Schlep with one Sentence

Seventy years ago, in Evian France, the Allied countries decided that they could not take in any refugees (Jews) from Austria and Germany. Today, Jesse Jackson came to Evian to do his best to undermine the Obama campaign. Yes, my friends, after so many young Jews made a schlep to convince their relatives to support Obama-Biden, Jesse Jackson, who, if Obama is elected will perhaps become a persona non grata and lose a good portion of his outrage-based income stream, criticized Zionists in America and said that an Obama presidency will be very different in the Middle East.

Jackson reportedly said that “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end. “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” will lose their influence in an Obama White House, according to Jackson, a demagogue who is NOT affiliated with the campaign and did not even support Obama in the primaries.

THANKS JESSE! Geeeez.

The Obama campaign already distanced itself from his comments and the American Jewish Committee was quick to criticize Jackson.

47 Comments

  1. Sheela

    10/14/2008 at 10:59 pm

    “Jessie Jackson, who, if Obama is elected will perhaps become a persona non grata…”

    “Jackson, a demagogue who is NOT affiliated with the campaign and did not even support Obama in the primaries”

    “The Obama campaign already distanced itself from his comments and the AJC was quick to criticize Jackson.”

    Well, I guess it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand Rev. Jackson’s real agenda.

    Let’s just hope all those bubbehs and zaydehs in Florida can figure it out. I’m sure there’s at least one retired brain surgeon among them. ; )

  2. ck

    10/14/2008 at 11:08 pm

    Larry: Links please? I took the liberty of adding some in but I don’t have time to find the AJC’s response. That having been said, I don’t think Jackson undermined much of the Great Schlep’s work as it were. As the New York Times reported, only about 100 people actually made the trip to Florida. Organizers are expecting dozens more to follow before election day.

    Dozens more!!

    So far they’ve raised $24,110. To send 100 people to Florida to visit their grandparents. With dozens more to follow.

    Clearly something went wrong. They have cash, a great web site, an insanely viral video seen by over 7 million people just on YouTube… something must have gone wrong on the organizational level. After all that work and effort – 100 people?? Geez that sucks!! There’s nothing Jesse Jackson could have done that could have made it worst as it was already pretty bad.

  3. DK

    10/14/2008 at 11:40 pm

    If Obama wins, Jackson’s job as black nationalist shyster is over. No wonder he wants Obama to lose. He definitely cares more about his ability to blackmail corporation than he does about the welfare of this country.

  4. Hila

    10/15/2008 at 12:28 am

    Im sorry, but this whole schlep thing is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of. I can’t even believe it’s real.

  5. themiddle

    10/15/2008 at 12:31 am

    There is nothing organizationally wrong. It was simply a really stupid idea.

  6. froylein

    10/15/2008 at 12:52 am

    It was a really stupid, really arrogant, really patronizing idea.

    There was a really interesting documentary by Ilan Ziv on arte last night in which he portrayed how religious feelings in the US have influenced elections and likely will in the upcoming election.

  7. Felix Frankfurter III

    10/15/2008 at 1:01 am

    What troubles me is the anti-Jewish crap that periodically emanates from the Obama camp or the odd anti-Israel quote by an aide or advisor. So far his campaign has been quite successful at distancing itself from the embarrassing figures in his past life like Rev. Wright (what with his support for Palestinian terrorism and his admiration for Louis Farakhan and Malcolm X); they’ve been quick to get rid of aides espousing radical anti-Israel views.

    Then, there’s Zbigniew Brzezinski, advising Obama on foreign policy, one of the few public figures to defend the debunked Walt-Mearsheimer anti-Israel book “The Israel Lobby.”

    Most Jews in N. America are out of touch or just plain don’t care about these things, it’s tradition to vote liberal. And they’re American first, they’re not Israeli. So the majority will vote Democrat, despite the fact the Palin-McCain are unwavering in their support of the Jewish State.

    Does anyone actually know for sure if Senator Obama voted against legislation to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and did he or did he not express willingness to meet with Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad? Did he not say “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” as dozens of rockets fell wantonly on the south of Israel?

    And Joe Biden, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee thinks Hamas was elected in the West Bank.

  8. ck

    10/15/2008 at 1:19 am

    Hamas wasn’t elected??

  9. larry

    10/15/2008 at 1:20 am

    mea culpa.. i will add links in the morning after the lulac gets shaken not stirred. Thanks for your help. I have the AJC response.

  10. Tom Morrissey

    10/15/2008 at 3:32 am

    Jesse Jackson, Felix F…. these guys are a buzz kill. Can’t they keep their mouths shut until at least after the election?

    If Felix wanted to be constructive, he’d mention how France and the US cleared Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.

  11. Tom Morrissey

    10/15/2008 at 3:37 am

    ck, Hamas elected in Gaza not the West Bank, no?

  12. GoyWonder

    10/16/2008 at 10:05 pm

    Relax, no matter what happens, you’ll get your Zionist President. When haven’t you?

  13. ck

    10/17/2008 at 12:21 am

    Tom Morrisey: No. Hamas swept Hebron, took a big chunk of Jerusalem etc. They won parliamentary seats in both Gaza and the West Bank. Google it.

  14. Ephraim

    10/17/2008 at 1:13 am

    Well, at least there’s one phony black politician with presidential ambitions who’s telling the truth.

    Too bad it’s not the one who’s running now.

    Let’s hope you’re right about that Zionist president thing, Goy Boy. It’d be a shame to spoil a good thing.

    ck, I think FF III means that Hamas isn’t running the “government” in the West Bank like it is in Gaza.

    Not yet, anyway. But soon. Abbas will be out of there by next January at the latest, if he lives.

  15. ck

    10/17/2008 at 2:22 am

    In the West Bank Hamas won 4 out of 6 seats in the Jerusalem District, 2 out of 4 seats in Jenin, 2 out of 3 seats in Tulkarem, 1 out of 1 seats in Tubas, 5 out of 6 seats in Nablus, 0 out of 2 seats in Qalqilya, 1 out of 1 seats in Salfit, 4 out of 5 seats in Ramallah (!!), 0 out of 1 seats in Jericho, 2 out of 4 seats in Jericho, 11 out of 11 seats in Hebron.

    So Hamas’ West Bank Seat totals are 33 seats out of 44. It’s safe to say that Hamas was indeed elected in the West Bank. FF III should be clearer in his criticism.

  16. Ben-David

    10/17/2008 at 2:52 am

    Samantha Power is likely to be Obama’s Secretary of State. She is a fan of Walt-Mearshimer who favors:

    1) Cutting all funding to Israel, shifting the money to Palestinistan
    2) “Imposing” a solution on both parties – even if that means “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import”

    – which is just a more elegant way of saying “Hymies”.

    The Obama campaign is thick with thinly-disguised anti-Israel zealots. Most of whom hardly bother to hide their underlying anti-Semitism – because they’ve grown up in left-wing hothouses in which these sentiments are normal and acceptable.

    Links:
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/2093

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

    http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2018399%3ABlogPost%3A9391

  17. themiddle

    10/17/2008 at 4:49 am

    Well, Obama may be harboring Walt Mearsheimer sentiments, but it’s probably too late for McCain to come back. Unless something super duper bad happens in the next week or so, this election is Obama’s. Who’d a thunk it?

  18. Batya

    10/17/2008 at 6:23 am

    Spin all you want. Jesse writes his own material, and it’s worth reading instead of hoping…

    I wish American Jews would wake up and call the dems what they really are. And you can start with FDR.

  19. Larry

    10/17/2008 at 11:06 am

    BatYa: American Jews are awake. And they do call Dems what they are. They are the best hope of the current choice for a better American society, better education, better healthcare, a better environment, and more. Just because a foreign policy does not match the policy of the Likud Party and the Jerusalem Post, does not mean the policy platform is anti-Israel

  20. Ephraim

    10/17/2008 at 11:14 am

    Of course the policy platform is anti-Israel, Larry. The American Jews who will be voting for Obama just don’t care enough about Israel for it to matter to them, that’s all. Whether you think this is good or bad is beside the point. But it is the truth.

    Of course, when the government of Israel itself is anti-Israel, it’s hard for Jews in the US to be more pro-Israel than Israel’s own government.

  21. Tom Morrissey

    10/17/2008 at 12:53 pm

    Middle calls the election for Obama. Beware the Dewey Defeats Truman syndrome, my friend. This election’s not over by a long shot.

  22. Larry

    10/17/2008 at 1:37 pm

    Ephraim. I do not know what is truth or not. The elected government of Israel can be anti-Israel? I guess it depends on how you define a current Israel and its future definition. You think that American don;t care anough… Maybe American Jews who vote for Obama care More than enough, just as a friend with a health proxy can recommend to a friend risky surgery to save their friend’s life and quality of life.

  23. themiddle

    10/17/2008 at 2:00 pm

    Tom, I’ve been wrong before…but the Republicans are pulling back ads in some markets and Obama is attacking in key Republican states. The allocation of resources tells the story.

  24. Ephraim

    10/17/2008 at 2:03 pm

    For my sister, Roe v. Wade is more important than Jerusalem. To her, being Jewish mainly means seeing herself as a “good liberal”. Her fear is not that, chas v’shalom, an Obama administration with Samantha Power as Secretary of State will be down on its knees suckling Iranian dick and telling Israel to bend over and grab its ankles because she’s going in without any lube, she’s afraid that a McCain Supreme Court will tell her she can’t have an abortion whenever she wants one.

    What “risky surrgery” are you referring to?

  25. Kung Fu Jew

    10/17/2008 at 3:24 pm

    Those Jews who vote for Obama just don’t care enough to become single issue voters, eh, Ephraim? Heaven forbid we not sell the baby down river to afford the casket, I mean basket. But I suppose you’re right.

    I think Israel will learn to enjoy the anal sex that Ephraim describes. He uses the word like it’s a bad thing.

  26. Larry

    10/17/2008 at 4:05 pm

    When I first posting this blog item, I hesitated, and then hesitated again. First, it appeared in the NY Post, which is a tabloid not known for its fact checking. Next, it was written by a columnist (and not a report) also not known for his fact checking. But since the AJC weighed in, I went with it. Now, Jackson reports that the columnist may not have even been in the room when Jackson spoke in Evian, and Jackson claims that he never said those words. EIther way, he is still an idiot and dangerous if he ever gets near genitals

  27. Ephraim

    10/17/2008 at 7:18 pm

    Any Jew who votes for Obama doesn’t really care about Israel very much, no matter how much they might think otherwise. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

    Also, there are plenty of good old American reasons not to vote for Obama, depending on how you feel about top-down government mandated socialism. If you think it’s a good thing, go ahead and vote for him.

    Just don’t insult people’s intelligence by pretending you think the kind of changes in US policy towards Israel and the Middle East in general an Obama administration will try to implement will be good for Israel.

    You may like getting fucked in the ass. I really don’t know. But I doubt Israel will.

  28. Ephraim

    10/17/2008 at 7:24 pm

    You might like getting fucked in the ass, KFJ. I don’t think Israel will.

    I know that a lot of Jews will be voting for Obama. They should just not pretend that they have Israel’s interests at heart when they do it or pretend that there is no difference between the candidates when it comes to their Israel policy.

    An Obama administration will almost certainly be the most anti-Israel administration ever. No one will be able to say that they didn’t know.

  29. David H.

    10/17/2008 at 9:51 pm

    “after so many young Jews made a schlep to convince their relatives to support Obama-Biden.” Sarah Silverman must be soooo pissed.

  30. montana_urban_legend

    10/17/2008 at 10:48 pm

    I’m kind of worried about the degree to which so many Jews are obsessed with the idea of America not being sufficiently “pro-Israel”. There are certain red-lines that no decent nation should ever cross, and that America and most others never will cross; and sponsoring the dismantling of a legitimate nation-state is pretty high on that list.

    Other than that, we (America) can and should support Israel as enthusiastically as we can, especially militarily and economically, and yes, diplomatically. But we shouldn’t impose or think we could impose political solutions on Israel or its neighbors in the Arab world as a general course. Treaties have to be sponsored primarily by the parties in question. And as for our broader rhetorical support for Israel and pro-Israel propaganda by the candidates and the parties, yes, that’s very heartening and nice to hear. But if America lacks the moral standing in the world that it once had, such support won’t mean much to anyone other than to Jewish egos, while polarizing everyone else by virtue of the toxicity of America’s ever-diminishing brand.

    Jesse’s toxic. He’s also irrelevant. What we don’t want is an America that’s so toxic and irrelevant that the only people who are impressed by the morality and argumentative strength of America’s support for Israel are other extremely insecure Jews and fundies. It might feel good to make allies with fundies (and you don’t have to try very hard to do that, they’ll support Israel no matter what – maybe that’s why some of you are so easily seduced by them), but they’re nuts. And they’re the ones who will lead Israel into a military nightmare. It’s a catch-22 because they provide the most accessible grass-roots, emotionally appealing constituency for supporting Israel. But they don’t have a fucking clue how to make Israel more secure in any way, shape or form. And why should they? Their ideology precludes it. I sincerely await the miraculous moment when someone on this site stoops to acknowledging that very simple fact.

    As much as everyone here hates Zbig and Mearsheimer/Walt, the fact of the matter is that they should be engaged and challenged in an intellectually serious way or their ideas could prevail. And I’m not sure that Powers is a disciple of either one. But sticking one’s head in the ground and saying “I’m with the party of the fundies so Zbig et al can screw off” seems like an impossibly lost, and dare I say it, incredibly stupid strategy.

  31. Tom Morrissey

    10/18/2008 at 4:53 am

    Samantha Power is a multilateralist and a fervent believer in the United Nations. Her views are those of her ex-boss, who wants to legitimate US policy on Iran, Israel, Iraq etc. by seeking Security Council approval. Obama differs strongly from McCain in this regard (see., e.g., their comments on Iran during the debates).

  32. montana_urban_legend

    10/18/2008 at 10:34 am

    Who are you referring to as “her ex-boss”? Obama? Her mentor, Richard Holbrooke? I’d certainly be open to his advice any day of the week. What’s wrong with getting the Security Council to legitimate US policies on Iran et al?

    If you’re implying that US (and Israeli) interests take primacy over those of multilateralism for the sake of multilateralism alone, then I’d agree, Tom. I had few if any qualms on invading Iraq on principle alone. But to prop Power or anyone you’d like to associate with her as a paper tiger for UN fecklessness, seems incredibly desperate. Her writings, for which she won a Pulitzer, on using military action to achieve moral aims speak volumes in and of themselves.

    But let’s not make a false dichotomy and deny that there are consequences to strident unilateralism. The emboldening of Russia would be one of those consequences. And even France’s assertion that there would be a return to “multipolarity” was a prescient one that speaks to that outcome.

    I don’t think any world order would emerge that would challenge US dominance at this time. Which puts us back into the perfect position of finding a way to reclaim leadership of it. Surely there’s got to be a way to repair damaged alliances and longstanding foreign policy aims without letting UN fecklessness get in the way. And with Iraq decreasing in importance and the installation of conservative governments in France and Germany, even moreso.

  33. Ephraim

    10/18/2008 at 9:47 pm

    Her writings, for which she won a Pulitzer, on using military action to achieve moral aims speak volumes in and of themselves.

    Exactly so.

    Considering Powers’ stridently anti-Israel views, it is precisely this belief that should concern anyone, Jew or gentile, who is a supporter of Israel.

    What’s wrong with getting the Security Council to legitimate US policies on Iran et al?

    You’re joking, right? In what universe do you think that will happen?

  34. montana_urban_legend

    10/19/2008 at 7:41 am

    “What’s wrong with getting the Security Council to legitimate US policies on Iran et al?”

    You’re joking, right? In what universe do you think that will happen?

    One where the US president is a competent diplomat.

    Considering Powers’ stridently anti-Israel views,

    Evidence?

    And you do realize you’re twisting a point that has to do with supporting intervention in, say, the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq and other neo-conservative pet projects, don’t you? But if those are scary positions to a supporter of Israel, then perhaps you’ll want to take issue with the reflexive habit on the part of Obama’s discontents here to ally themselves with the American Right.

  35. montana_urban_legend

    10/19/2008 at 7:52 am

    Oh, ok. Here’s where you likely got your distortions. Not that the authors, who are in a much better position to address them, agree with you or anything:

    In Defense of Samantha Power
    Max Boot – 02.26.2008 – 10:49 AM

    Obama`s top adviser says does not believe in imposing a peace settlement

  36. Ephraim

    10/19/2008 at 11:48 am

    You’ve seen the video of her interview, right?

    The fact that she has tried to weasel out of what she once plainly said, or the fact that Max Boot thinks it’s a “pipe dream” doesn’t she isn’t smoking that particular pipe. What she’s saying is that if she had her druthers, she would cut off aid to Israel and give it to the Palestinians and put a huge foreign force on the ground, presumably to “protect” the Arabs from Israeli genocide.

    The fact that a lot of Israelis want someone else to protect them is hardly proof that this policy is not anti-Israel. And I see no possibility of NATO agreeing to such a mad scheme or any European country being willing to risk its troops to protect Jews. One dead soldier and all we will hear is “Why should our boys die for the Jews?” The force will be withdrawn and the Arabs will attack an Israel that has allowed itself to be weakened by relying on other people will protect them.

  37. Tom Morrissey

    10/19/2008 at 1:10 pm

    A wondrous thing, this never-ending, unrequited amour fou our lefties have for the United Nations.

  38. montana_urban_legend

    10/19/2008 at 1:22 pm

    What video?

    Provide a link or I’ll assume that you have no evidence to back-up whatever innuendo you’re bending and stretching to fit, piecemeal, into what you want to believe.

    Rosner debunks every bit of your inital, garbage assertion. “Stridently anti-Israel”? Those were your initial words. Now who’s trying to weasel of of what was plainly said? Coming up with an off-the-cuff suggestion that wasn’t pre-approved by AIPAC hardly makes someone anti-Israel. You might not think third-party military forces to be a good idea, and she clarifies her remarks in such a way that shows that she was hardly offering a doctrinaire philosophy, but an incredibly unremarkable idea at a time when events were much more fluid and much more violent on the ground.

    If this is all you have to offer in order to brand someone as “stridently anti-Israel” then good luck finding any advisors with the independence to actually, critically, analyze events rather than to just tell you what you want to hear. The whole reason that the Bush administration has brought the Republican party down in flames is because, in their paranoid obsession with absolute loyalty, they mistook propaganda for sound advice. Fortunately, the Israelis are smart enough to not structure their politics and military strategies in this way – even if you don’t realize that.

  39. montana_urban_legend

    10/19/2008 at 1:39 pm

    Well, Tom, where would the right-wing be if they didn’t have supporters like you who also can’t tell the difference between propaganda and a sound argument? Or perhaps you’d like to clarify your snippy little remark. Last thing I’d want to believe is that you’re a dittohead who confuses competent diplomacy with unrequited amour fou for the United Nations. I don’t think even Rush Limbaugh is that “un-nuanced”.

    And why do you always resort to such simple little potshots? I addressed in detail, and hardly in a way that fawns upon the UN, the trade-off between unilateral action in Iraq and the rise of Russia and her friends. If you can’t address a well-accepted and entirely non-partisan assessment on the survival lessons taken by dictatorships, then just own up to that, instead of retreating with a fatuous little smear against “the left wing” at large. Your (and their) hatred of the UN won’t make America or Israel any safer than will the left’s alleged “love” for it.

  40. sheela

    10/20/2008 at 11:18 am

    “Any Jew who votes for Obama doesn’t really care about Israel very much, no matter how much they might think otherwise.”

    Just who is insulting whose intelligence?!

  41. Tom Morrissey

    10/20/2008 at 1:00 pm

    Ephraim insists on hunting down advisors, rather than trusting (like everyone else) in Obama’s lack of a record.

  42. Ephraim

    10/20/2008 at 1:06 pm

    Yeah. I’m kinda paranoid that way.

    Can you think of any way to characterize Powers’ position as set forth in that video other than the way I have described it?

  43. montana_urban_legend

    10/20/2008 at 7:28 pm

    Well, I clearly think she’s off the mark in that; she seems too eager to apply her expertise and background in genocide to a scenario in which it doesn’t fit. That said, I don’t see how it’s anti-Israel. Nowhere does she say that Israel’s security doesn’t matter, even if she seems to think it’s a better idea to invest money into a Palestinian economy. Shimon Peres and many other prominent Israeli and Palestinian businessmen and political leaders agreed with that in principle (see Peres’ book “New Middle East” for details). The fact that Oslo called for joint industrial development zones doesn’t bolster that straw man either. Economic prosperity and the rise of middle class, as well as democracy are all linked to peaceful coexistence according to any intelligent political analysis – even if among the Palestinians, separation and waiting for them to build credible legal institutions before re-engaging turned out to be the wiser course, and one that I agree with.

    That said, perhaps you take issue with her remark about “domestic constituencies”. Even that isn’t something I see as anti-Israel. It might be a bit misguided, in my book – but to imply that the Israeli people are all hawks or that they think AIPAC or the Jewish lobby in America speak for them at large is a mistake. The democratically-elected Israeli government speak for them, and its composition and policies change as they see fit.

    Unlike Bush, I don’t think Obama is going to make decisions just based on what any one person, in the position of advisor or not, tells him. Tom may feel that you’ve “hunt(ed her) down”, but I think this clip just shows a bit of a glib overextension of her work, rather than a damning drive to crush Israel into oblivion or to allow it to fall into a military abyss. Blind trust in one’s advisors is clearly not a characteristic that Obama has ever displayed – no matter how much Tom identifies with that (incredibly discredited) approach.

    For now, I’m willing to see the interview as the sort of aberration that a young and ambitious talent such as Power would be expected to make, and one that is less relevent today now that the situation on the ground as changed. However, if it isn’t, then I’ll have a bigger problem with it.

    Thanks for the video. It deserves airing, and she deserves to be questioned on it. Should the Obama administration aspire to craft a comprehensive and active Israeli-Palestinian strategy then they should be pressed to clarify it and take into account the sort of objections statements like this will raise. But in the meantime, I think Obama will have enough on his plate, he won’t be driven to create a peace-making “legacy” a la Clinton, and I’m more than content with the status quo of butting out of the dispute while continuing to support Israel while leaving it to the parties to decide when they’ve achieved the collective responsibility necessary for more active US diplomatic intervention to be of any significance whatsoever.

    In case you haven’t guessed, though, I’m not a single issue voter. Nor do I have some kind of stubborn resistance to being proven wrong on something. I just don’t think there’s a solid case to make that Obama will usher in the destruction of Israel. Call me naive, but I’d like to see more proof before swallowing a single-issue voter’s entire worldview on that. After all, I obviously don’t swallow Power’s view. Nor do I feel threatened by it, and especially not by anyone who thinks that any one suggestion calls for absolute allegiance or absolute renunciation.

    Tom, you really think that Obama’s statements to Birzeit students in 2006 regarding America’s commitment to Israel are to be brushed aside? If your whole point is that you can’t believe him (the extreme left has been just as pissed by his stances), then you don’t really have much of an argument either for what he would do. You just try to discredit his commitments, which is fine. But the fact that you can’t ever seem to discredit his judgment says something as well.

  44. Tom Morrissey

    10/21/2008 at 4:08 am

    Thanks for pointing out “aberrations” for us, MUL. Ephraim, meanwhile, can find reassurance in Joe Biden’s remarks, reported yesterday, about Barack’s excellent foreign policy adventure (this courtesy Jake Tapper):

    “Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee said at a Seattle fundraiser Sunday, “it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

    “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said, including the Middle East and Russia as possibilities, “and he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

    The garrulous Biden said that he’s “forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it. This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

    …Now. There’s nothing whatever to worry about, Ephraim.

  45. montana_urban_legend

    10/21/2008 at 4:57 pm

    I didn’t point them out, Tom. Ephraim did. All I did was to note that they were aberrations once placed into the context that neither of you bothered to provide or engage, including this.

    I hate to tell you this, Tom. But your apparent penchant for courtroom drama isn’t drawing me in much, and neither is Biden’s. But then again, neither is McCain and Gingrich’s. Some context for the quote would have been nice, (as would a link. What is up with all the laziness on providing links the first time around with you guys? If these fussy snippets are so damn important then why wait to attribute the report directly?) But if context is less important to you than drama and innuendo, then I can see why you’d prefer to just let Biden’s latest gaffegasm dangle – as every serious analyst will likely do. They’ll just do that without drawing some silly and premature political conclusion from it – much to the chagrin of some.

    Tom, just curious. Why would an Irish-American lawyer be so concerned about whether or not Israel is “allowed to” (or encouraged to) attack Iran? I don’t understand what sort of stake you have in perpetuating all the standard and amateurish Mid-East right-wing fear-mongering other than when I recollect your pro-“life” comments to Yonah months back and speculate on some sort of possibly ulterior domestic political motivation on your part. Again, just curious.

  46. montana_urban_legend

    10/21/2008 at 5:30 pm

    Tom – totally unrelated topic, but I hope you have more confidence in Palin’s understanding of how the US government actually works than you have in whatever Biden’s gushing enthusiasm for Obama’s ability to handle unspecified foreign crises somehow reveals. We already knew that Palin’s enthusiasm for Captain Maverick The Unhinged Presidential Candidate is about as manufactured as is the latter’s ability to handle pressure generally.

    Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

    PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

    I’ll gladly agree to this compromise with you. Biden knows at least (or as little) of foreign policy and statecraft as Palin does of the (f*cking!) Constitution. Sound about fair? Depending on whether you think Alaska’s proximity to Moscow (or is it Siberia?) provides Palin with the foreign policy credentials she and her team claim it does, this gives her an advantage in at least one crucial area of knowledge.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: