Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

reply to post by grover


"It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest." Abraham Lincoln

I wonder if this is not a “made up” quote suitable for our times? I’m not hearing Lincoln talk much about SIN. Then I’m reminded of this famous poetry

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) This version is said to be the one preferred by the author. From Wikipedia.



Foot Note: According to Holocaust scholar Robert Michael, beliefs such as those held by Niemöller made even Nazi victims into Holocaust collaborators: "Martin Niemoeller in his radically antisemitic August 1935 sermon noted that the Jews would not be released from their suffering until they converted, Jewish suffering being 'proof' that Jesus was God.

The essential reason the Jews were cursed was because they 'brought the Christ of God to the Cross' . . These kinds of statements are a result of traditional antisemitism and beliefs such as these corrupted average people as well as the elite and made them all not just victims of Nazis but active or passive collaborators in the Holocaust." According to Dr. Michael, Martin Niemoeller agreed with the Nazi's position on the Jewish question. From Wikipedia

[edit on 9/25/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


I remember it on an anti poster in the 60's and the story as I recall it went that there were many protests in both the north and DC at the start of the war... I know there was a huge one in NYC at the time... and someone commented to Lincoln that their actions were treasonous and his response was that "It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest." It rings true to me because Lincoln did not take himself too seriously and was always questioning his actions.

It may be a made up quote but that is the tale as I understand it.

One thing I do know is you would never hear bush minor saying that.

I did take note of the media reports that Mr. Bush has been giving quiet advice to the Dem candidates. It does certainly look to me like he thinks Hillary will be taking over for him. I'm not happy to see that. I don't think its very professional. Ah well, what do I know?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I did take note of the media reports that Mr. Bush has been giving quiet advice to the Dem candidates. It does certainly look to me like he thinks Hillary will be taking over for him. I'm not happy to see that. I don't think its very professional. Ah well, what do I know?

Huh ?
Did I read that right ?
Am I missing the joke ?
Bush is giving advice the Dem candidates given Bush track record who would take any advice from him what so ever ?
Did any of the media reports appear online ?

No, you did not read that wrong. Click on this link, and be amazed.

posted by xpert11

posted by Justin Oldham
I did take note of the media reports that Mr. Bush has been giving quiet advice to the Dem candidates. It looks to me like he thinks Hillary will be taking over for him. I'm not happy to see that. I don't think its very professional.

Huh?
Did I read that right? Am I missing the joke? Bush is giving advice [to] the Dem candidates[?] Given [the] Bush track record who would take any advice from him whatsoever? Did any of the media reports appear online?

No, xpert11, you read it right, it is not a joke, and my exerts from the story follow my commentary. But first, the story is by Bill Sammon.

Here is the skinny from Wikipedia: Bill Sammon is senior White House correspondent for the Washington Examiner (having left the same position at The Washington Times in February 2006), a political analyst for Fox News Channel, and the author of: 1) At Any Cost: 2) How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election; 3) Fighting Back: 4) The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House; 5) Misunderestimated: 6) The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters; and 7) Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.

Sammon is a frequent guest on shows like Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News Sunday and Hannity & Colmes.

Note: Mr X11, if you want to know the TRUTH about Bill Sammon and this story, then you must go to www.americanpolitics.com/20030310foxwatch.html

Because I don’t like the WTimes formerly owned by Dr Sun Moon from Korea, the fellow who bewildered 1000s of Americans by claiming he was actually Jesus Christ re-incarnated, and who finally either left the country or fled the country. Once he owned 100 Rolls Royces. He was famous for holding MASS weddings for his followers and of course, being a far right winger. It can be fairly said of him as owner of the Washington Times that he never let the truth stand in the way of a story.

Also, I do not know Bill Sammons because I have all FOX channels OFF my remote so I don’t waste bandwidth. I can proudly say I have never watched FOX in my home, but regrettably, I must quietly sit by when I visit some of my friends. I have always HATED Rupert Murdoch and I avoid anything he touches. He is instrumental in dummying down the world.

From Examiner.Com, posted by [email protected] who authored a book “The Evangelical President” out of which the following article was taken. HEADLINES: Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats, says new book . .
“NEWS” Flash “1 day ago - President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.”

From the Story: To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.“Look, I’d like to make as many hard decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my successor is,” Bush said. “And then that person is going to have to come and look at the same data I’ve been looking at, and come to their own conclusion.”“The other thing is, they are being advised by smart people,” the official said. “We’ve got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.

It is my opinion this story is entirely made up by Bill Sammon. Under the landmark case, NY Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964, and the cases following, the Rule of Law in the US of A is that anyone can say anything about a public figure even if he knows it is false, PROVIDED he does not say it WITH MALICE.

That may be a good rule, but it is a bad rule as often as it is a good one. Prior to that case the laws of slander and or libel applied to all speech or writing, despite the “free speech” clause of the First Amendment. The writer or speaker always had the sure and certain defense of TRUTH but that - truth - is not always easy to prove. PLUS, the cost of going to court in America is out of sight so many small printers like Nation Magazine for example, could not print many truthful stories because they could not afford to defend themselves even if they ultimately prevailed in court. In America cf. England, the parties pay their own lawyers in most cases.

CONCLUSION: Your first instincts were ON target, Mr X11. No one and especially NO ONE in the Dems camp would take “advice” from Bush43 or Bill Sammon. Or Rupert Murdoch in any of his manifestations.

Now as J/O indicated even compulsive LIARS sometimes tell truthful things. You need to know what they are saying because there may be a kernel of truth in there if you are careful how you extract it. You read a lot you wouldn’t write.

[edit on 9/26/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Traditionally doesn't the incoming president get a tour of the White House ?
Surely that would be a time where a member of the incoming president staff could get the lay of the land as needed. Its not like Hillary has or is campaigning from a position completely out of government. Hillary voted for the war to begin with so she must have a pretty good grip on the situation. Apart from voting for the war the same goes for other policy areas .

reply to post by xpert11


Traditionally doesn't the incoming president get a tour of the White House? Surely that would be a time where a member of the incoming president staff could get the lay of the land as needed. Its not like Hillary has or is campaigning from a position completely out of government. Hillary voted for the war to begin with so she must have a pretty good grip on the situation. Apart from voting for the war the same goes for other policy areas.

Absolutely. In fact, we have codified what used to be a custom or tradition into a law. The transition from one administration to the next. Each side, incoming and outgoing, has a counterpart. The same goes for each of the cabinet departments and agencies. The FBI and CIA directors are appointed for a 10 year term and would not be involved. That story was fabricated by Bill Sammon, puppet to master Rupert Murdoch. Mainly to work mischief especially on the www where rumors exceed facts by 10 to 1.

See my earlier post for comments re Hillary and the War on Terror vote.

it is generally known but not widely talked about that incoming Presidents routinely bend the ear of out-going Presidents. From what I read, its not unusual for the new guy to have the other guy on speed dial for the first week in office.

I'm enclined to believe this story only beuase it has a historical ring of truth to it. LBJ did talk with Nixon about Vietnam...before...he lost. As far as it goes, what else is Bush going to tell anyone? "Grab the silver and run!" I don't think so.

The advice, as reported, is fairly generic. Don't paint yourself in to a corner before you see things from my point of view. Any sitting President would say that. There is also the fact that such an act of 'confidence' doesn't look very professional. W is known for his non-professional conduct.

I have no doubt that the Iraq war looks much different if you're the sitting U.S. President. Anyone who is running for that office who can't figure that out...doesn't need to be President.

It really is kinda cool...even if they get info about you that goes into a database....
www.vajoe.com...

Hmm, I matched with Gravel @ 92%...and he's the top runner. I didn't expect that.

Top Candidates
Most Top-Matched Candidates


Gravel - 14.15%
Tommy Thompson - 12.45%
Romney - 10.99%
Giuliani - 10.96%
Kucinich - 10.46%
Biden - 6.40%
Clinton - 4.69%
Cox - 4.48%
Obama - 4.20%
Hunter - 3.65%
Dodd - 3.63%
Fred Thompson - 2.66%
Tancredo - 2.50%
Paul - 2.14%
Huckabee - 2.06%
Richardson - 1.83%
Edwards - 1.33%
Brownback - 1.02%
Mccain - 0.42%

reply to post by tnangela


I clicked on one issue by mistake and I instantly got sent to the Washington Times. I guess this Virginia Joe site is sponsored by the WTimes and FOX. I guess I'll get a million scams now including those "I have $40 million I can't get out of the country but I can put it in your checking account for only a $4,905.05 handling fee. Please send your check to Box 40U Nigeria.”

My “score” with Mike Gravel - he must be sponsoring this site - was 86.29% and I don’t believe Gravel ever voted the way I answered.

Top 5 Most Important Issues * Iraq Surge * Abortion * Free Trade * Embryonic Stem Cell Research * Patriot Act *

I obviously can’t dispute the list furnished on the website. But it was interesting.

Did any of you get a chance to see the Democrat debate from Dartmouth tonight? The GOP version will be held October 9th, at the same school. I noticed that Russert was hitting just a little harder than usual with his question. Interesting too was the way in which Hillary twice said, "I won't answer that question." What says the rest of you?

reply to post by Justin Oldham



Pretty soon you will have to describe Hillary as the Teflon Kid 2. After Ronnie Reagan.

It worked well for him. He blithely but pathetically escaped the Iran Contra Affair. Bush41 was not so fortunate and he had to pardon Casper Weinberg and his 5 associates to avoid enduring prosecution and probable prison time for lying to investigators.

Ah, it is really nice to be president when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Just ask Bush43, who had to semi-pardon Scooter Liddy to keep his hind-end out of jail. Full pardon to follow in January, 2009. A belated Christmas gift! Silence is Golden!

[edit on 9/29/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Yes but did you catch that shameful and poorly attended NAACP hosted Republican debate moderated by Travis Smiley? The only ones who bothered to show up were the ones who don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination.

You don't get support or win elections by ignoring a whole swath of the electorate and it highlights once more the Republican problem with race.

The thing that struck me though is the ones who did bother attending were graciously recieved but besides that had some interesting and articulate responses to the questions. Better in a lot of ways than the Democratic ones.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by grover]

reply to post by grover


grover Yes but did you catch that shameful and poorly attended NAACP hosted Republican debate moderated by Travis Smiley?

Although 9 out of 10 writers call him Travis his name is actually T A V I S. Where he got that name I don’t know. Perhaps the people at the hospital misunderstood his mother? Or mis-spelled his name? It’s hard to say.

grover You don't get support or win elections by ignoring a whole swath of the electorate and it highlights once more the Republican problem with race. The thing that struck me though is the ones who did bother attending were graciously received but besides that had some interesting and articulate responses to the questions. Better in a lot of ways than the Democratic ones.

I did not watch it. I’m fed up with debates. I have known since 2000 that Hillary was going to run in ‘08. I was for her then. I’m for her now. I’ll vote for her in ‘08. The poor American public. They think a person can tell them what they will do in the future. I have so little regard for future-tellers that I cannot recall the name of that genre of frauds.

Psychics? There was a famous faith healer from St. Petersburg FL who was caught using a small radio transmitter operated by his wife out of sight; She read to him from just completed “prayer request” cards. He wore what the audience thought was a hearing aid. He acted as if GOD was telling him about this or that afflicted person. A reporter used a scanner to “tune in.” He was dutifully exposed. But that did not stop electronic frauds or the publics fascination with them.

Why do we Americans ask our potential leaders to do the impossible? Oh, Sweet Jesus, for a British length campaign! Not fewer than 30 days nor more than 60. Come quickly, Sweet Jesus!

[edit on 9/30/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Actually I didn't catch it so much as the TV was on while I was on my computer and I listened to it by default... I really pay little attention to the debates either, especially since they really are not actual debates rather than presentation forums.

What am I going to do in 09? I have no idea. As for what I am going to do in 08... Unless it obvious Hillary is going to win it hands down, I will hold my nose and vote for her (God I hate saying that) but if it is obvious she will win, then I will vote for some third party candidate.

I cannot bring myself to support her. At the same time the stakes are too high to let another Republican take the office.

For me this is what it boils down to... to have so many candidates running on both sides we have a piss poor choice, indeed the poorest choices I have seen in my lifetime.

Guillani make me want to throw up... Hillary has all the grace and charm of a reptile.
John McCain is too gung ho for this war... Barack Obama wants it too bad.
Romney doesn't have a chance in hell... Edwards has too little experience.
Ron Paul, I could live with him... Richardson... he has the experience we need.
Thompson is a joke, he is by all accounts, profoundly lazy.

I forget who else is running and that says it all in a nut shell.

Hey, folks. It's been a pleasure to talk with all of you. Just in case you didn't know, I'm on my way out. You've got all of my best predictions. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt we'll be celebrating that happy circumstances. Keep talking. Use your voice, while you still have it.

Cheers!

reply to post by grover


grover Actually I didn't catch it so much as the TV was on while I was on my computer and I listened to it by default. Unless it obvious Hillary is going to win it hands down, I will hold my nose and vote for her (God I hate saying that) but if it is obvious she will win, then I will vote for some third party candidate. I cannot bring myself to support her. At the same time the stakes are too high to let another Republican take the office. For me this is what it boils down to...the poorest choices I have seen in my lifetime.

Mr G, what I’m seeing is the FAILURE of democracy. We have TOO much democracy. When I go to the polls, I’m asked to vote for state reps and state senators, city councilmen in my district and at-large, judges for trial courts and appeals courts, and then to vote on 5 or 6 initiatives. it is self-delusion to think I'm casting an INFORMED ballot. Or any of my fellow citizens, either.

We are watching the same phenomenon in presidential politics. Ah, for the good days of “smoke filled backrooms” where bosses choose our candidates for us. The Dems democratized the conventions first, with 1972's George McGovern. The GOP followed in 1980 with Reagan. Gone are the wise old men who “knew” what the country needed. Andrew Jackson. Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt. FDR. Harry Truman. Dwight Eisenhower. All products of smoke filled rooms. And then it was over.

grover Giuliani make me want to throw up... Hillary has all the grace and charm of a reptile. John McCain is too gung ho for this war... Barack Obama wants it too bad. Romney doesn't have a chance in hell... Edwards has too little experience. Ron Paul, I could live with him... Richardson... he has the experience we need. Thompson is a joke, he is by all accounts, profoundly lazy. I forget who else is running and that says it all in a nut shell.

Ron Paul has a rep for being honest in his views and not embarrassed to let you know them. My issue with him is the same will all Libertarians, they have not explained how we can run a $3 t. government without a staff.

Early on I believed Bill Richardson - an unlikely Hispanic - from the West and a small state too, would be an ideal counterbalance to Hillary from NY and so on. But Barack has done TOO well to be ignored. America’s blacks have been true and faithful to the Dems since 1932. With Barack running a strong 2nd and for a long time it is inconceivable the Dems will not offer him the VP slot. Sure, you could argue Barack will not get more black votes than the Dems would have without him, but surely blacks are due a reward? And a lot of whites would vote for him, I believe. Well, not in TN but elsewhere.

Fred has proved to be a big let-down for the much anticipating GOPs. I’m thinking they were pinning too much hope on him. The turn-around kid he has not been. So far, he’s been a re-hash of Reagan. He has 4 or 5 quips to offer. He’s not Reagan and Fred can’t tell a believable story like Reagan and he surely is not as handsome. Mitt is running PRO war type ads here in FL. I guess he thinks everyone here thinks like the Central Command in Tampa? He’d be surprised at the number of pacificists I meet on Elderhostel trips.

So what’s my closing word on politics, American style? E N D U R E!

[edit on 9/30/2007 by donwhite]

From what I have seen of the Republican front runners from that NYC sewer slug to John McCain... they are all totally clueless. In fact their level of cluelessness is absolutely stunning. So unless they have a massive scheme to steal the election, they haven't a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.

Whats interesting is that the 2nd and 3rd tier Republican candidates seem to have the ideas where the front runners are totally devoid of them.

The only thing the Republicans have going for them is that the Democrats aren't much better when it comes to ideas.

Both parties are still hashing out ideas left over from the New Deal to the Great Society and scarce any more recent than that.

I am sick and tired or the same old ideas just repackaged with a new name.

The vast majority of the voters do not want anymore of this war and the Democrats need to stop pussy footing around the issue as well. That is one of the things that so infuriates me about Hillary. That and the fact that, as I have said this ping pong match between the bush camp and the Clinton camp is dangerous for our country.

As for the Liberitarians there are liberal ones and conservative ones but they really have no strength as a third party and haven't had any since the 1980 election, in which I voted for John Anderson.

As for too much democracy, I have to disagree. We have too much campaigning and not enough educating the citizens on the issues.

The parties have to get out of the business of telling us what the issues are and start listening to the people to actually determine them.

Here is a quote i came across today and it is a very timely one.

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air—however slight—lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness."

~Justice William O. Douglas~

[edit on 30-9-2007 by grover]

reply to post by grover


~Associate Justice William O. Douglas~ 1898-1980. Wikipedia says he served as Associate Justice for 36 years seven months making him the longest serving justice. Appointed by FDR in 1939 after serving on the SEC from 1934 and as its chairman from 1937. He resigned in 1975 after a suffering a stroke.

ANOTHER QUOTE: “These days I see America identified more and more with material things, less and less with spiritual standards. These days I see America acting abroad as an arrogant, selfish, greedy nation interested only in guns and dollars, not in people and their hopes and aspirations. We need a faith that dedicates us to something bigger and more important than ourselves or our possessions. Only if we have that faith will we be able to guide the destiny of nations in this the most critical period of world history. -- From his book This I Believe published in 1952

A Memorable Case. Do Trees Have A Right To Sue? In the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously and most colorfully argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

"Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases . . . .

"So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels,* otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."

*The Water Ouzel or American Dipper, is an aquatic songbird, it is seen on river rafting trips in Oregon & Idaho. From Wikipedia.

[edit on 10/1/2007 by donwhite]