Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
To answer Bob (and Glenn's) question...
And it's a heck of a thing that it even has to be asked.
By Moe Lane Posted in Anti-war liberals | Courage to the Sticking Point | Democrats | Marines — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
...the question being, "Will the media ask Senators Obama and Clinton about Berkeley's insult to the United States Marine Corps:" the answer almost certainly will be "no." (Background info here) [UPDATE: They probably won't ask if either Senator supports Senator DeMint's proposal, either.] [UPDATE: And more here. Quite the collection of petulant man-children these Obamaniacs are turning out to be, huh?] [UPDATE]: And, in the credit-where-it's-due category, both have already indicated that they'll be enforcing the Solomon Amendment. So they've got no reason not to condemn this outrageous attack on our military, yes?]
This is more of an indictment of the media than it is of the Senators in question, who would probably respond that they aren't in the habit of volunteering to throw rocks at hornet nests. Still, it's a pity that Senator Clinton won't address this particular insult; she has less of an excuse than Senator Obama, who after all just scored an endorsement from a group whose hardcore members default to hating Marines.
Those wishing to dispute that point are welcome to provide me with a formal statement by MoveOn.org forcefully condemning the actions of Code Pink against the Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, CA. I will put that statement on the front page. I will gleefully put that statement on the front page, with as many eye-catching HTML bells and whistles that I can figure out. I will even alert about ten or so of the other top right-wing bloggers, who will probably also just as gleefully put that statement on their front pages as well.
You may wish to contemplate the implications of that.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The man knows his audience: ignorant and hateful — Comments (26) »
To answer Bob (and Glenn's) question... 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
By the way, I, personally, think Berkeley's actions...
by A Rational Liberal
...are silly boarding on petty and pointless.
There is the difference
by Joliphant
None of those words come to mind for me. Traitorous,criminal and a few questions about the enforcement of laws specifically related to the moral of serving military during time of war come to my mind. The nicest I get is they are deranged.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
He wants me to consider him for my vote, yes?
by Moe Lane
The buy-in's the repudiation of all those nasty parts of the antiwar movement. And even if you don't think that I'd ever seriously consider voting for him, there's plenty of people who might... if he starts distancing himself from the crazies.
Alternatively, he can stop pretending to be anything except a fairly doctrinaire antiwar liberal. Either's fine.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
No, I was trying to do the math from...
by A Rational Liberal
...Berkeley to Code Pink to Move On to Obama.
That seems like a lot of math.
When's the press conference?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
But like you, I understand the jujitsu of politics...
by A Rational Liberal
...and when you don't have to say something, you don't.
My guess is, if asked, ABOUT BERKELEY, he'll take a "I disagree, but they have their first amendment rights." I honestly hope he is asked though and hope he understands (as he SEEMS to) that we like him less for towing the party line and more for being realistic.
His answers on health care, for instance, and the fact that he understands the problems with fully universal care (which the party wants) was a nice moment for him.
...something that he needs to politically respond to, then? That's one of those questions where you really need to sit down and contemplate the implications of a "yes" answer.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
From Berkeley, California?
by A Rational Liberal
No. NEEDS? Probably not. And certainly not because you (or I) or a bunch of pundits think he should. This is essentially the action of a bunch of folk who are two steps up from dog catcher throwing a hissy fit.
But SHOULD he? Yes, probably. This is a battle that he can probably step into without confusing his central issue (that the war was wrong) from the Marines (who had nothing to do with the choice to go to war).
Will he... certainly not before Super Tuesday, then we'll see,
:shrug: Politicians. Whaddya going to do? <NT>
by Moe Lane
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
They do the right thing. More to the point, they know that sticking up for their men and women, publicly, is vital for the morale of their command. Or, their future command.
Perhaps Obama's handlers can tell him that.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"I'd rather lose an election than lose a war" - John McCain (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Hillary might condemn it since MOVEON endorsed Obama
by BatMasterson
you never know about the Clintons they are Liberal one day and play like moderates the next.
I guess it depends on which way the wind blows with the Clintons it's all calculated.
Oh to return to the days
by PhxG
Oh to return to the days were federal senators were elected by the state legislators and served to support states rights.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
I disagree
by Marcus Traianus
It's a complete indictment of both Senators who stand for everything, but nothing. The electoral BS is so disgusting, I can smell it from here.
If I hear one more time how Obama, who has done zero and couldn't even call babies born alive - human, is going to change the dialogue in Washington I will wretch.
The new line from dolts like Marvin Kalb, is Obama can bring Republicans into the fold; really, who is that Marvin, Chafee lost his seat?
So anyway, I bet one of these great pretenders steps up. Neither ever misses a chance to use our military as stepstools.After all, who else are their Stalinist followers going to support? They'll be back.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Actually
by straight shooter
Both Hillary and Obama would be likely to condemn this. If you remember in the debate both slammed IVY league colleges who wanted to bar military recruiters from their campus b/c of dont ask dont tell.
aw, c'mon.
by Troy Art
If Obama and Clinton should disavow Berkeley lefties, does that mean McCain, Huck and Romney need to issue statements that condemn Rep. W. T. Mayhall, Jr. in the MS state house?
Mayhall (R) has introduced legislation that would ban the obese from being served in restaurants:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2008/pdf/history/HB/HB0282.xml
This nation is facing serious challenges, but I don't think Berkeley's city government is one of them. Even in the Bay Area, the mere mention of that town makes many people roll their eyes and sigh.
Your disinclination to try to make them take sides against their own, anti-military lunatics is likewise noted.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Berkley
by ulnac101
[Bad spellers for Ron Paul unite! – NS]
I support Berkley in their effort to starve the military-industrial complex. We need Ron Paul to starve the beast.
A rhetorical question is not a tacit admission.
by Troy Art
I posed a few questions to illustrate my point: frontrunners have little to gain from issuing statements condemning the behavior of fringe party elements.
Why would McCain or Romney want to spend even 10 seconds on a Sunday talk show stating their position on Mayhall's Mississippi food police? That's entirely off-message.
I can see Huckabee getting some laughs out of it, however, considering his dramatic weight loss.
...affiliated with the Democratic Party, not dumb[expletive deleted] petty nanny-staters affiliated with the GOP. Please learn the difference.
Moe
PS: Reply To This is likewise an easy skill to master, so do that, to.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Very true
by civil truthCafeteria benefit plans address your concerns
by civil truthHe does need to learn
by jonlesterI get your rhetorical effort
by jonlesterWe're close. I don't know
by FlagstaffIs there a country on the
by Linus BernNot to mention CT
by simpson316Immediate apology to Nobama.
by jonlesterIf only...
by jonlesterInteresting question about recess appointments
by civil truthBecause you are a very recent RS registrant
by jonlester"Bartender, I'll have what he's having"
by SIConservativeB and not B?
by jonlesterMe too, but Barack is a lying McGovern
by JSobieskiThere is no question that he
by Linus BernMad-Lib logic? I disagree
by FlagstaffWin by any means nuance-able <nt>
by jonlesterHee Hee Hee. So Obama is in
by DAKGEOStill not something you'd leave to just anyone.
by jonlester
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
...meaning when do you HAVE to say something and (as I've seen Red State rightfully state in the past) are you not required to say anything at all?
Meaning are you, here, The Free Republics keepers? Bill O'Reilly's keepers? You link to Michelle Malkin, but does that make you responsible for everything she says and does?