Another one of Obama's administration nailed by Beck

[Zombie Acorn]

So far it sounds as if she has played this first as a quote by someone else, and then as a joke.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/beck.dunn/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House communications director Anita Dunn fired back at criticism from TV commentator Glenn Beck on Friday, saying that a Mao Tse-tung quote Beck took issue with was picked up from legendary GOP strategist Lee Atwater.

"The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don't get my progressive friends mad at me," Dunn told CNN.

As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing."

On Thursday night's program, Beck showed exclusive video of Dunn discussing the communist leader, who was responsible for a cultural revolution in 1966 that included re-education camps and setting the army and students on witch hunts against his opponents.

Millions of Chinese suffered or died, most notably teachers, writers, political opponents or anyone deemed a "reactionary."

Dunn, taped in a speech in what appears to be a church, said the leader's philosophies were a guidepost for her own strategy on politics. She also praised the philosophy used by religious icon Mother Teresa.

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."


The video of her delivering the speech is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY

Warning: it is from the beck show but I couldn't find the speech from anywhere else. skip in a few seconds.

I don't think she has a leg to stand on and I am still trying to figure out why you would give a speech like this at a high school graduation, it strikes me as rather odd, not funny in the least.

[AP_piano295]

I fail to see any thing wrong with what she said. She in no way advocated Mao's behavior she merely expressed a truth she found in his philosophy.

[Zombie Acorn]

I fail to see any thing wrong with what she said. She in no way advocated Mao's behavior she merely expressed a truth she found in his philosophy.

Shes already started to back track herself and you are defending her. :D Fantastic.

I suppose if I found a truth in Hitler's philosophy it would be alright to present him as one of my favorite political philosophers to a high school class. Never mind that Mao had thousands of political adversaries killed, thats the kind of person I want someone presenting to my kid on graduation as an inspiration.

There is something seriously screwed up if you are even bringing up mass murderers in an inspirational speech directed towards high school kids..

[CaptMurdock]

^Repeat after me: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been..."

Oooooh, scary. :rolleyes:

[mgguy]

Where does Obama keep finding these clowns?

[Zombie Acorn]

^Repeat after me: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been..."

Oooooh, scary. :rolleyes:

Instead of addressing the issue it must be easier to claim someone is trying a "red scare"/fear mongering. This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with someone thinking it should be fine to bring up a mass murderer in an inspirational speech to high school grads. Im starting to think Obama initiated his recruitment from mars because some of these folks seem to be out there.

[hulugu]

Instead of addressing the issue it must be easier to claim someone is trying a "red scare"/fear mongering. This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with someone thinking it should be fine to bring up a mass murderer in an inspirational speech to high school grads. Im starting to think Obama initiated his recruitment from mars because some of these folks seem to be out there.

Well, first, as always Beck plays fast and loose with the truth by clipping the video.

Secondly, I think mentioning the "red scare" is apt. While I disagree with Dunn's choice for 'favorite philosophers,' what's really the issue here?

Of course, I do seriously question Dunn's judgement for mentioning Mao in a speech since that's undoubtably doing to become an issue for Beck to hump for the next week.

[Macky-Mac]

get to the important stuff!!! did Beck cry when he reported this???? :p

[Jack Flash]

I'm sorry, I couldn't watch the video with her smacking her lips and doing whatever the heck that was with her tongue Gyyuuchchchchch.

But really I'm sure this is fake controversy and deliberate misinterpretation.

[Zombie Acorn]

get to the important stuff!!! did Beck cry when he reported this???? :p

I didn't watch beck so he could have, I saw the article on CNN and searched the video to get some context on how she was saying the words. I found it appalling.

Well, first, as always Beck plays fast and loose with the truth by clipping the video.

Secondly, I think mentioning the "red scare" is apt. While I disagree with Dunn's choice for 'favorite philosophers,' what's really the issue here?

Of course, I do seriously question Dunn's judgement for mentioning Mao in a speech since that's undoubtably doing to become an issue for Beck to hump for the next week.

Her quote was given in the CNN article, the part that I found appalling wasn't edited. The issue here is the president appointed someone who had such a lapse in judgment.

[paddy]

Her quote was given in the CNN article, the part that I found appalling wasn't edited. The issue here is the president appointed someone who had such a lapse in judgment.

Well it would be interesting to find out her reasons to find out why she said what she said, rather than chastising her for saying it. Are things really above any form of rational, polite discourse over there? Or does everything have to generate into hysteria because of that ridiculous "news" channel that is actually taken seriously over there?

[Shivetya]

Where does Obama keep finding these clowns?

Blame his staff. They are so arrogant and full of themselves they forget to do their jobs. While I don't hold him in high regard I think his staff is even worse.

They don't vet people because they only look for those who agree with them. Their apparent reaction when cornered is to isolate, ridicule, and such, and they forget in this day and age it backfires quickly.

The big difference is that under Bush the press was confrontational as a whole, checking out all his nominees. Currently too much of the press is still enthralled with Obama and company and give his nominees a pass. Then comes the internet and suddenly it gets uncovered all the skeletons and people start wondering how person X got by.

Face it, the CBS debacle with Dan Rather right before the 2004 election proves you can't fool all the people some of the time for very long. If the press doesn't do its job the people will.

[leekohler]

Instead of addressing the issue it must be easier to claim someone is trying a "red scare"/fear mongering. This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with someone thinking it should be fine to bring up a mass murderer in an inspirational speech to high school grads. Im starting to think Obama initiated his recruitment from mars because some of these folks seem to be out there.

Bush is a mass murderer. I bet people will bring him up in the future in some inspirational speech or another. I'll await your thread discussing it.

Blame his staff. They are so arrogant and full of themselves they forget to do their jobs. While I don't hold him in high regard I think his staff is even worse.


And yet you're humble and objective. :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

I don't think she has a leg to stand on and I am still trying to figure out why you would give a speech like this at a high school graduation, it strikes me as rather odd, not funny in the least.

Other than a clip that could be wildly out of context, do we have any other evidence that Dunn is the kind of person who would speak seriously of Mao's accomplishments?

[obeygiant]

I'm sorry, I couldn't watch the video with her smacking her lips and doing whatever the heck that was with her tongue Gyyuuchchchchch.


I saw the video and you're right, she does have a strange and annoying way of talking. One could go as far as saying that its disgusting.

She was making a point about how Mao was against-all-odds early in his political career and overcame the powers that be in the chinese government to rule the country. Also something about how she admired his philosophy.

I think she could have made the same point without referencing someone who committed one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. Kind of a stupid idea if you ask me.

She certainly wasn't bringing it up as a joke, she obviously admired Mao Zedong (Tse-tung).

[kavika411]

I saw the video and you're right, she does have a strange and annoying way of talking. One could go as far as saying that its disgusting.

...

She certainly wasn't bringing it up as a joke, she obviously admired Mao Zedong.

Agreed. When she wasn't showing her tongue, she was showing a very deep-seeded admiration for Mao Tse-tung.

[Blue Velvet]

Senator John McCain quotes Chairman Mao. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w)

Ralph Reed, GOP strategist, approvingly cites Mao.

President Bush encouraged Karl Rove to read a Mao biography.

Goldwater "alter ego" said he "followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung"

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160001

Clearly, this red menace must be stopped.

[kavika411]

Clearly, this red menace must be stopped.

Clearly, since conservatives have quoted Mao Tse-tung, it is ok for the current administration to likewise quote him. So glad we got that cleared up. Let's just move on and away from the topic of the OP since we have a winner of the Race To Hypocrisy game.

[CaptMurdock]

Clearly, since conservatives have quoted Mao Tse-tung, it is ok for the current administration to likewise quote him. So glad we got that cleared up. Let's just move on and away from the topic of the OP since we have a winner of the Race To Hypocrisy game.

"I have here a list of names of conservative and liberals..."

Yes, I'm playing the McCarthyist theme again. Deal. This is a non-issue.

[Blue Velvet]

So glad we got that cleared up. Let's just move on from the topic of the OP.


So, the conclusion that I draw from your post, is that it somehow only matters if a member of the current administration refers to Mao? Why should anyone take Beck's criticism seriously in that case? What larger point does it prove? In what way is Anita Dunn 'nailed' where Republican figures are not?

[leekohler]

Clearly, since conservatives have quoted Mao Tse-tung, it is ok for the current administration to likewise quote him. So glad we got that cleared up. Let's just move on and away from the topic of the OP since we have a winner of the Race To Hypocrisy game.

Well, I'm sorry- but I find it ridiculous and HYPOCRYTICAL that you're condemning someone in this administration for something your own guys did.

So, the conclusion that I draw from your post, is that it somehow only matters if a member of the current administration refers to Mao? Why should anyone take Beck's criticism seriously in that case? What larger point does it prove? In what way is Anita Dunn 'nailed' where Republican figures are not?

Thank you.

[kavika411]

So, the conclusion that I draw from your post, is that it somehow only matters if a member of the current administration refers to Mao?

You are free as a participant/moderator to draw any conclusion you like. As I've said before and will say again, I think the purpose of the PRSI forum should be nothing but a game of showing hypocrisy on the other side, and not a forum where topics are analyzed on their own terms. If someone is called out by a conservative for doing X, but someone points out that conservatives have also done X (or are likely to do X), then the goal of the PRSI forum is accomplished and we can move on. What I think we must avoid at all costs is analyzing the current topic on its own merits. Using the current thread as an example, I would hate to see a scenario where people - as some have already done here - analyze the best they can whether she meant what she said or whether she was being ironical, or a scenario where people analyze whether it should be acceptable to quote limited aspects of a controversial leader's comments/career. Such analysis may actually make people think about the topic at hand, and that would be terrible. It is much, much better to simply show hypocrisy and call it a day. Don't you agree?

[Dane D.]

Where does Obama keep finding these clowns?
Birds of a feather, flock together. Go to any university, they are full of these idiots. Look at the backgrounds of his cabinet and advisors, left-wing nut jobs and socialists. They have no clue about life and trying to survive. They are career politicians who in their own minds think they know how we should live.

This goes for most of the Congress too. Our government is completely out of control. We need to stop them and get back to the basics of what is in the Constitution.

[leekohler]

You are free as a participant/moderator to draw any conclusion you like. As I've said before and will say again, I think the purpose of the PRSI forum should be nothing but a game of showing hypocrisy on the other side, and not a forum where topics are analyzed on their own terms. If someone is called out by a conservative for doing X, but someone points out that conservatives have also done X (or are likely to do X), then the goal of the PRSI forum is accomplished and we can move on. What I think we must avoid at all costs is analyzing the current topic on its own merits. Using the current thread as an example, I would hate to see a scenario where people - as some have already done here - analyze the best they can whether she meant what she said or whether she was being ironical, or a scenario where people analyze whether it should be acceptable to quote limited aspects of a controversial leader's comments/career. Such analysis may actually make people think about the topic at hand, and that would be terrible. It is much, much better to simply show hypocrisy and call it a day. Don't you agree?

Your sarcastic post certainly isn't helping your position.

The point is- no one here jumped on conservatives for quoting Mao when they did it, including yourself. So why is it only now that it is important to you? That is a valid point to discuss, because it reeks of partisan pettiness.

Birds of a feather, flock together. Go to any university, they are full of these idiots. Look at the backgrounds of his cabinet and advisors, left-wing nut jobs and socialists. They have no clue about life and trying to survive. They are career politicians who in their own minds think they know how we should live.

This goes for most of the Congress too. Our government is completely out of control. We need to stop them and get back to the basics of what is in the Constitution.

Links for these claims, please. In the future, it might be nice if you included something substantial in your posts. Otherwise, you'll have a very difficult time in here.

Oh wait- I see your from the place I escaped.

[obeygiant]

Your sarcastic post certainly isn't helping your position.

The point is- no one here jumped on conservatives for quoting Mao when they did it, including yourself. So why is it only now that it is important to you? That is a valid point to discuss, because it reeks of partisan pettiness.


So you're okay with referencing Mao?


In that case, "All reactionaries are paper tigers." - Chairman Mao :)

[leekohler]

So you're okay with referencing Mao?


In that case, "All reactionaries are paper tigers." - Chairman Mao :)

Never said that. I want to know why all the sudden concern from people who gave their own side a pass. As far as the Mao quote goes, I'd have to know more about the context. And honestly, no one here said anything about it when conservatives said it- no one. I suspect because nobody thinks it's that big of a deal.

[kavika411]

The point is- no one here jumped on conservatives for quoting Mao when they did it, including yourself. So why is it only now that it is important to you? That is a valid point to discuss, because it reeks of partisan pettiness.

Good point, Lee. May I suggest you start a thread, perhaps title it: "Conservatives, especially kavika411, are hypocrites for not jumping other conservatives who quoted Mao." Then again, to do so would leave the current thread intact for discussion of the current issue on its own terms as opposed to alleged hypocrisy, and lord knows we can't have that, can we?

[leekohler]

Good point, Lee. May I suggest you start a thread, perhaps title it: "Conservatives, especially kavika411, are hypocrites for not jumping other conservatives who quoted Mao." Then again, to do so would leave the current thread intact for discussion of the current issue on its own terms as opposed to alleged hypocrisy, and lord knows we can't have that, can we?

Sure we can. Answer the hypocrisy issue and we'll move on. If you won't -then all I can assume is that this is nothing but partisan pettiness on the part of the right.

Answer the question- why is it now so important to you, when it wasn't in the past? It shouldn't be that hard to answer.

[Lord Blackadder]

Beck is an idiot, a paranoid, partisan, rabble-rousing scumbag. Even if his rant contains the grain of truth that Mao is not the best choice as a source of philosophy, he is bringing the point up with bad motives in mind. He is out to get the Democrats, regardless of whether the Democrats are right or wrong. He wants to hurt the Obama administration as much as he can, at almost any cost. But he's nothing but a windbag. The White house would do well to simply ignore him.

This goes for most of the Congress too. Our government is completely out of control. We need to stop them and get back to the basics of what is in the Constitution.

You know, Mao one said Change must come through the barrel of a gun. I suggest you lock, load and take back your Constitution. :rolleyes:

But to be frank, you are living in a fantasy world. The last thing I want is for us to turn back the clock on the Constitution. We have spent generations working to improve our system of government, and if it is not perfect it is certainly better suited to modern circumstances than a late 18th/early 19th century interpretation of the Constitution would be. Stop pretending it has been corrupted. It has been improved.

[obeygiant]

You are free as a participant/moderator to draw any conclusion you like. As I've said before and will say again, I think the purpose of the PRSI forum should be nothing but a game of showing hypocrisy on the other side, and not a forum where topics are analyzed on their own terms. If someone is called out by a conservative for doing X, but someone points out that conservatives have also done X (or are likely to do X), then the goal of the PRSI forum is accomplished and we can move on. What I think we must avoid at all costs is analyzing the current topic on its own merits. Using the current thread as an example, I would hate to see a scenario where people - as some have already done here - analyze the best they can whether she meant what she said or whether she was being ironical, or a scenario where people analyze whether it should be acceptable to quote limited aspects of a controversial leader's comments/career. Such analysis may actually make people think about the topic at hand, and that would be terrible. It is much, much better to simply show hypocrisy and call it a day. Don't you agree?

Actually nearly EVERY criticism/argument can be settled by charging "hypocrisy".

Mao was a mass murderer = Bush was a mass murderer
Anita Dunn admires Mao = Bush recommended Mao's biography

Where can anyone go from there? Issue OVER!

:D

[Blue Velvet]

It is much, much better to simply show hypocrisy and call it a day. Don't you agree?

It's not a matter of hypocrisy. It's a matter of revealing the larger issue of what Beck is trying to imply and inviting other forum members to draw their own conclusions about whether Beck's arguments are valid and are made in good faith.

Since the thread's title explicitly states that Anita Dunn has been 'nailed', I ask again, in what way, where others are not? This is a germane question that I hope others, who are persuaded by the premise of this thread, can answer.

[kavika411]

Sure we can. Answer the hypocrisy issue and we'll move on. If you won't -then all I can assume is that this is nothing but partisan pettiness on the part of the right.

Assume away, Lee. Assume away. It is the purest, most obscene, partisan pettiness on my part that I never attacked McCain and the gang when they quoted Mao. Nevermind the fact that I didn't know they had done so prior to Blue Velvet's post. And nevermind the fact that I never voted for your favorite hypocrite of all, George W. Bush. And nevermind the fact that I started a thread calling out the fallen Family Values Republican politician. And Nevermind the fact I defended Obama in a post when he was nominated/criticized for the Nobel Peace Prize. Those were all just fictions, posted in drunken stupors when I didn't hold tightly enough to my partisan pettiness.

Thank goodness we continue to avoid the OP on its own terms. Thank goodness.

[leekohler]

It's not a matter of hypocrisy. It's a matter of revealing the larger issue of what Beck is trying to imply and inviting other forum members to draw their own conclusions about whether Beck's arguments are valid and are made in good faith.

Since the thread's title explicitly states that Anita Dunn has been 'nailed', I ask again, in what way, where others are not? This is a germane question that I hope others, who are persuaded by the premise of this thread, can answer.

Exactly- what it speaks to is Beck's motive. Is he really concerned about a Mao quote, or is he simply out to get Obama no matter what? Somehow, I don't think he cares about the Mao quote.

Assume away, Lee. Assume away. It is the purest, most obscene, partisan pettiness on my part that I never attacked McCain and the gang when they quoted Mao. Nevermind the fact that I didn't know they had done so prior to Blue Velvet's post. And nevermind the fact that I never voted for your favorite hypocrite of all, George W. Bush. And nevermind the fact that I started a thread calling out the fallen Family Values Republican politician. And Nevermind the fact I defended Obama in a post when he was nominated/criticized for the Nobel Peace Prize. Those were all just fictions, posted in drunken stupors when I didn't hold tightly enough to my partisan pettiness.

Thank goodness we continue to avoid the OP on its own terms. Thank goodness.

And you still continue to do so. I'll stick with my assumptions, thanks. And it is Beck's partisan pettiness to which I'm actually referring. Now- if you'd like to address BV's point...oh nevermind, I'd die holding my breath.

[Lord Blackadder]

Actually nearly EVERY criticism/argument can be settled by charging "hypocrisy".

I disagree - all of us, both liberal and conservative, should concede that Mao's quotations are widely known, as he is a major historical figure. We should also note that quoting Mao is likely to evoke references to the excesses of Maoist Communism, and may not be politically wise.

In sum, either it's OK to quote Mao or it isn't, but we should at least apply that equally to politicians of all stripes. Glenn Beck will only criticize liberals, of course, so I can't agree that he is bringing up a valid point for it's own sake.

[leekohler]

I disagree - all of us, both liberal and conservative, should concede that Mao's quotations are widely known, as he is a major historical figure. We should also note that quoting Mao is likely to evoke references to the excesses of Maoist Communism, and may not be politically wise.

In sum, either it's OK to quote Mao or it isn't, but we should at least apply that equally to politicians of all stripes. Glenn Beck will only criticize liberals, of course, so I can't agree that he is bringing up a valid point for it's own sake.

Exactly right. He doesn't care about people quoting Mao at all. He cares about sticking it to Obama any way he can.

[kavika411]

Now- if you'd like to address BV's point...oh nevermind, I'd die holding my breath.

Blue Velvet brings up the point, as does Lord Blackadder above, that - put simply - Beck is hypocritical and/or Beck selectively/partisanly goes after quoters of Mao. That is fine, well and good. And yes, Beck's name is in the title of the OP. But towards your point, Lee, it doesn't take a scintilla of effort to see that the substance of the thread is Anita Dunn, not Beck. If Beck's hypocrisy/selective reasoning is so important, then.start.a.fifteenth.thread.on.how.terrible.Beck.is. As for this thread, call Beck out, but then consider - at least consider - analyzing the substance of her speech, whether she is speaking on behalf of the White House, whether Mao should be quoted (as Lord Blackadder did an excellent job of analyzing, by the way), etc. But to do so, of course, would steer us away from the Wild World of Hypocricy.

[Iscariot]

she was showing a very deep-seeded admiration for Mao Tse-tung.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, and ask for any corroborating evidence for this claim.
So you're okay with referencing Mao?

Why wouldn't you be? There's no issue or individual that it should be not "okay" to reference given an appropriate context. While I'm not convinced that this was an appropriate context for the comment Dunn made, there's also a deficit of evidence that a) it was inappropriate and b) that Dunn has an inappropriate amount of respect for Mao.

[Rt&Dzine]

get to the important stuff!!! did Beck cry when he reported this???? :p

He cried Wolf.

Birds of a feather, flock together. Go to any university, they are full of these idiots. Look at the backgrounds of his cabinet and advisors, left-wing nut jobs and socialists. They have no clue about life and trying to survive. They are career politicians who in their own minds think they know how we should live.

Screw education! Let's get some really stupid media whores like Palin and Joe the 'Plumber.'

[leekohler]

Blue Velvet brings up the point, as does Lord Blackadder above, that - put simply - Beck is hypocritical and/or Beck selectively/partisanly goes after quoters of Mao. That is fine, well and good. And yes, Beck's name is in the title of the OP. But towards your point, Lee, it doesn't take a scintilla of effort to see that the substance of the thread is Anita Dunn, not Beck. If Beck's hypocrisy/selective reasoning is so important, then.start.a.fifteenth.thread.on.how.terrible.Beck.is. As for this thread, call Beck out, but then consider - at least consider - analyzing the substance of her speech, whether she is speaking on behalf of the White House, whether Mao should be quoted (as Lord Blackadder did an excellent job of analyzing, by the way), etc. But to do so, of course, would steer us away from the Wild World of Hypocricy.

Beck is part of the subject, so it is definitely appropriate to bring up his motives. It is also relevant to ask why Beck doesn't care about anyone quoting Mao except someone from the Obama administration.

Could it be that it really isn't that big of a deal to him? Could it also be that it isn't really that big of a deal at all? Could it be that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things?

You want to know the truth? I don't give a rat's a** if Bush quoted Mao or this woman did. It doesn't matter to me, and I find it petty and pathetic. There are much, much bigger things to worry about and criticize the administration about.



Why wouldn't you be? There's no issue or individual that it should be not "okay" to reference given an appropriate context. While I'm not convinced that this was an appropriate context for the comment Dunn made, there's also a deficit of evidence that a) it was inappropriate and b) that Dunn has an inappropriate amount of respect for Mao.

Thank you!

[NC MacGuy]

I can't be bothered with this. Watching the live C Span debates regarding my healthcare, whoops - Health Insurance Reform.:rolleyes:

Sure I'll have 5 days to read it on-line.:rolleyes:

There's a pattern here with not getting what we ordered or promised.

Transparency anyone?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

[kavika411]

She was showing a very deep-seeded admiration for Mao Tse-tung.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, and ask for any corroborating evidence for this claim.

Well, I see your point. Dunn said, "The third lesson and tip actually comes from [one of] my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung." We can't and shouldn't assume the White House Communications Director means what she says when giving a public speech.

[leekohler]

Well, I see your point. Dunn said, "The third lesson and tip actually comes from [one of] my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung." We can't and shouldn't assume the White House Communications Director means what she says when giving a public speech.

If you seem to think this matters and is important, by all means- go after this woman's job. I'm sure Beck will.

I, however, am going to continue to criticize the administration on things that really matter- health care, getting out of Iraq, lack of action on gay rights, etc. But have fun with your outrage over a Mao quote. Heavy stuff- and certainly a threat to all things American.

[kavika411]

If you seem to think this matters and is important, by all means- go after this woman's job. I'm sure Beck will.

I, however, am going to continue to criticize the administration on things that really matter- health care, getting out of Iraq, lack of action on gay rights, etc. But have fun with your outrage over a Mao quote. Heavy stuff- and certainly a threat to all things American.

If you don't care, Lee - if you really don't care - then why are you here? I don't care about Levi Johnson posing for Playgirl, but I don't go into that thread and talk about how I don't care about Levi Johnson posing for Playgirl.

[Rt&Dzine]

If you don't care, Lee - if you really don't care - then why are you here? I don't care about Levi Johnson posing for Playgirl, but I don't go into that thread and talk about how I don't care about Levi Johnson posing for Playgirl.

Does everyone have to do what you do?

[leekohler]

If you don't care, Lee - if you really don't care - then why are you here? I don't care about Levi Johnson posing for Playgirl, but I don't go into that thread and talk about how I don't care about Levi Johnson posing for Playgirl.

What I care about are idiots like Glen Beck who can't find anything substantial to criticize, so they nitpick. I'm disgusted with people like him. Rather than do anything positive or offer any solutions themselves, they waste time, energy and resources on tearing people down for no real good reason. That's what I care about and that's what p***es me off. We have serious, deep problems in this country right now that need attention. And all this this POS can do is attack people like a rabid dog.

A Mao quote? A ********** Mao quote? That's seriously all he's got? This is some massive threat to freedom and the American way? Are you kidding me?

[Dane D.]

But to be frank, you are living in a fantasy world. The last thing I want is for us to turn back the clock on the Constitution. We have spent generations working to improve our system of government, and if it is not perfect it is certainly better suited to modern circumstances than a late 18th/early 19th century interpretation of the Constitution would be. Stop pretending it has been corrupted. It has been improved.
Improved in what way, it isn't a document that needs to interpreted differently. The words written are timeless, that's the problem I have with liberals. They want to change meanings according to present circumstances.

[Gelfin]

Lots of very interesting things have been said by very bad people, as one may readily infer from Grant Fairley's famously astute quote about "the great and the good." The ability to consider multiple aspects of a person's character independently is the mark of a certain intellectual sophistication. I don't mind when Democrats do it. I don't mind when Republicans do it.

The facile evaluation Beck advances is an ad hominem attack twice over, first against Mao by reducing him to a caricature, and second against Dunn by warping her view, admittedly perhaps nuanced beyond his capacity, to infer that she idolizes his own caricature of Mao. There is no indication Beck has any idea what Dunn really said. She uttered the syllable "Mao" and that's all he needed or wanted to stimulate a tirade.

In fairness, that's probably all he could remember, and that only for three seconds at a time, but now I've gone and made myself a hypocrite too.

[Lord Blackadder]

Improved in what way, it isn't a document that needs to interpreted differently. The words written are timeless, that's the problem I have with liberals. They want to change meanings according to present circumstances.

The most obvious improvement is the concept of universal suffrage. I doubt you'd disagree. Well, we had to change the Constitution to achieve that. The "Timeless" words of the original constitution failed to give women the vote and considered black people 3/5ths of a person for population count purposes. Timeless yes, if you consider bigotry timeless. I suppose it is, actually.

The biggest problem I have with some conservatives (I will not blanket all of them with criticism as you have done with liberals) is their notion that the Constitution was perfect as conceived and any changes or additions can only mar it's wonderful perfectness...

WRONG. First off, the Constitution was created as a compromise and not one single person at the time it was created or at any time since has ever fully agreed with everything in it - so your notion that it was ever above criticism or wholeheartedly embraced by all is a total fallacy.

Secondly, the Constitution has been amended several times, and those amendments have shown that changing the constitution is sometimes necessary. It also shows that we should be careful not to change it unless it is actually necessary.

You are a rigid, literalist reactionary and a danger to the very document you claim to venerate if you categorically refuse to re-examine and re-interperet the Constitution. I have more than once been called a "traitor" by people of your ilk, and I would not be shocked at all if you think I am un-American by talking about the constitution as a flexible, living document. Well, bring it on, I say - I'm more than willing to talk compromise on most subjects but on this one I will be totally inflexible. I think I'm more a patriot than reactionaries like yourself. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[Gelfin]

Improved in what way, it isn't a document that needs to interpreted differently. The words written are timeless, that's the problem I have with liberals. They want to change meanings according to present circumstances.

Surely in your pursuit of Constitutional scholarship, at some point you became aware that such tension was built into the document. Debates such as this were going on at the time it was written.

The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The so-called "elastic clause" was thought by Anti-Federalists to offer too much opportunity to expand government power, while the Federalists believed such flexibility was necessary to keep the document relevant to the times. Both perspectives have merit, and we live in their synthesis.

Myself, I sympathize with Jefferson: "The Constitution belongs to the living and not to the dead."

[BoyBach]

Well, this is incontrovertible proof that Pres. Obama is, indeed, a Nazi. :rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

A Mao quote? A ********** Mao quote? That's seriously all he's got? This is some massive threat to freedom and the American way? Are you kidding me?

Well it is less substantial than a BJ :p.

[leekohler]

Well it is less substantial than a BJ :p.

And not nearly as fun. ;)

[NT1440]

So you're okay with referencing Mao?


In that case, "All reactionaries are paper tigers." - Chairman Mao :)

Sure, I have no problem with people referencing other people. Do you guys expect us to just never mention bad people again? Its sad and pathetic that anyone you disagree with is suddenly entirely inappropriate and everything and anything relating to them is off limits.

I found several of Hitler's paintings to be quite nice, does that make me some sort of Nazi supporter? :rolleyes:

[macfan881]

Sure, I have no problem with people referencing other people. Do you guys expect us to just never mention bad people again? Its sad and pathetic that anyone you disagree with is suddenly entirely inappropriate and everything and anything relating to them is off limits.

I found several of Hitler's paintings to be quite nice, does that make me some sort of Nazi supporter? :rolleyes:
Socalist :p I kid I kid but yeah this Czar witchhunt of fox really needs to stop did they really have a memory lost of the last 8 years and forgot how many bush had?

[Zombie Acorn]

Well it would be interesting to find out her reasons to find out why she said what she said, rather than chastising her for saying it. Are things really above any form of rational, polite discourse over there? Or does everything have to generate into hysteria because of that ridiculous "news" channel that is actually taken seriously over there?

What hysteria?

Bush is a mass murderer. I bet people will bring him up in the future in some inspirational speech or another. I'll await your thread discussing it.



And yet you're humble and objective. :rolleyes:

Bush killed his political adversaries? nice, I just thought they got elected.

[Zombie Acorn]

Never said that. I want to know why all the sudden concern from people who gave their own side a pass. As far as the Mao quote goes, I'd have to know more about the context. And honestly, no one here said anything about it when conservatives said it- no one. I suspect because nobody thinks it's that big of a deal.

There wasn't a MAO quote that was the issue, she said he was one of her FAVORITE political philosophers, the guy killed his own people and is on stature with stalin/hitler etc. The fact that you guys are trying to bypass this by pulling the right into it, or dismiss it is fairly telling. The fact is this would have been a dumb remark towards a high school grad class no matter who said it.

Again watch her speech she is trying to derive inspiration using a guy like MAO who "defeated the odds". Hitler defeated the odds too, it doesn't mean he wasn't a piece of ****.

Sure, I have no problem with people referencing other people. Do you guys expect us to just never mention bad people again? Its sad and pathetic that anyone you disagree with is suddenly entirely inappropriate and everything and anything relating to them is off limits.

I found several of Hitler's paintings to be quite nice, does that make me some sort of Nazi supporter? :rolleyes:

To make your argument parallel we would have to have Hitler killing people and mixing their blood in with the paint, then making paintings with them. See the response you get when you say he was one of your favorite artists of all time. Oh never mind he had to kill millions to make the paintings.

[Thomas Veil]

The video of her delivering the speech is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExYAre. You. *******. Kidding me?

How in the world is the subject of this thread not how nuts Beck sounds in that video? He's pointing to phones. (And what's the deal with that phone? Does he think he's Batman now? Is he waiting for a call from Commissioner Gordon?) He's slamming books. Most of all, he's taking what Dunn said and extrapolating wildly. He is taking what Dunn quoted, the idea that you choose your own path, and from that he is postulating some progressive/authoritarian (self-contradiction, I know) world that Obama supposedly wants to force us into.

Give me a frickin' break here.

Just to watch Beck in that clip, to listen to him and look into his eyes, kind of gives you an idea of the tenuous sanity of the man. He's actually rather scary in that video.

BTW, I did a really quick search, and the top hit for Napoleon quotes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/napoleon_bonaparte.html) returns a page with 104 quotes, many of which could be used in a speech. Search for Hitler quotes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html), and the top hit returns a page with 45 quotes.

And what do you know? One of 'em is a genuine truism which any liberal could quote regarding Beck and his network:

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

[Zombie Acorn]

Are. You. *******. Kidding me?

How in the world is the subject of this thread not how nuts Beck sounds in that video? He's pointing to phones. (And what's the deal with that phone? Does he think he's Batman now? Is he waiting for a call from Commissioner Gordon?) He's slamming books. Most of all, he's taking what Dunn said and extrapolating wildly. He is taking what Dunn quoted, the idea that you choose your own path, and from that he is postulating some progressive/authoritarian (self-contradiction, I know) world that Obama supposedly wants to force us into.

Give me a frickin' break here.

Just to watch Beck in that clip, to listen to him and look into his eyes, kind of gives you an idea of the tenuous sanity of the man. He's actually rather scary in that video.

BTW, I did a really quick search, and the top hit for Napoleon quotes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/napoleon_bonaparte.html) returns a page with 104 quotes, many of which could be used in a speech. Search for Hitler quotes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html), and the top hit returns a page with 45 quotes.

And what do you know? One of 'em is a genuine truism which any liberal could quote regarding Beck and his network:

I didn't watch the Beck portions and it was clearly posted in my first post of this thread to dismiss that part of the clip as it doesn't have anything to do with Anita Dunn. I don't want to discuss Beck in this thread, its already been proven he is half crazed, its his job.

Once again this isn't about the quote, this is about her using this man as an inspiration towards a graduating class that I find despicable, and if you don't I don't know what to say for you.

[Eraserhead]

Bush killed his political adversaries? nice, I just thought they got elected.

Are you forgetting the 100k killed in the war in Iraq alone (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)? And that's a conservative estimate.

[Lord Blackadder]

I didn't watch the Beck portions and it was clearly posted in my first post of this thread to dismiss that part of the clip as it doesn't have anything to do with Anita Dunn. I don't want to discuss Beck in this thread, its already been proven he is half crazed, its his job.

Once again this isn't about the quote, this is about her using this man as an inspiration towards a graduating class that I find despicable, and if you don't I don't know what to say for you.

Actually, your title mentioned that Glenn Beck "nailed" a member of the Obama administration. So this IS partially about Beck, because everything he says is prejudiced in the extreme and only a great fool would take the slightest thing he says at face value.

In other words, you are suggesting that it is not OK for Dunn to find a nugget of wisdom in a despicable man's body of quotes, and yet you are OK with a despicable man (Beck) pointing it all out to us. I don't need Glenn Beck to recognize that Mao is not the best role model.

[Thomas Veil]

All right, let's leave Beck out of it, as if lunatics making wild accusations had no relevance.

Dunn quotes Mao saying, essentially, follow your own path.

I'm supposed to get upset about this?

I'm supposed to be too stupid to be able to discern Mao's actions from his words?

Just because Mao said it, does that make Follow your own path a bad philosophy?? Is it better to just be mindless drones?

I'm sorry, but this is confusing as hell. What is the big honking deal here?

[Zombie Acorn]

Are you forgetting the 100k killed in the war in Iraq alone (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)? And that's a conservative estimate.

Yes, people die when you are involved in a war. :confused:

Post the story where Bush killed people who opposed him in the US, killed democrats who opposed him at home, etc.

[Zombie Acorn]

All right, let's leave Beck out of it, as if lunatics making wild accusations had no relevance.

Dunn quotes Mao saying, essentially, follow your own path.

I'm supposed to get upset about this?

I'm supposed to be too stupid to be able to discern Mao's actions from his words?

Just because Mao said it, does that make Follow your own path a bad philosophy?? Is it better to just be mindless drones?

I'm sorry, but this is confusing as hell. What is the big honking deal here?

You clearly didn't watch the video of her speech, she poses him as an inspiration towards kids who are graduating. He "defeated the odds", his methods do not seem to be of importance to democrats.

She said a lot more than one quote.

[Zombie Acorn]

Actually, your title mentioned that Glenn Beck "nailed" a member of the Obama administration. So this IS partially about Beck, because everything he says is prejudiced in the extreme and only a great fool would take the slightest thing he says at face value.

In other words, you are suggesting that it is not OK for Dunn to find a nugget of wisdom in a despicable man's body of quotes, and yet you are OK with a despicable man (Beck) pointing it all out to us. I don't need Glenn Beck to recognize that Mao is not the best role model.

Well clearly from the CNN article another of his administration was nailed by Beck, she was backpedaling the moment it was brought up. Why Beck is the one who has to bring this stupidity to the limelight I am not sure, you would think someone as dumb as he was wouldn't be able to dangle the Obama administration as many times. Lets not forget Van Jones was pretty much forced to resign because of Beck.

Its fairly clear Obama isn't vetting his political appointments well enough, these are recent happenings.

[leekohler]

Yes, people die when you are involved in a war. :confused:

Post the story where Bush killed people who opposed him in the US, killed democrats who opposed him at home, etc.

Not the point. Bush lied and took us into a needless, pre-emptive war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Maybe that's not murder to you, but it certainly is to me.

All right, let's leave Beck out of it, as if lunatics making wild accusations had no relevance.

Dunn quotes Mao saying, essentially, follow your own path.

I'm supposed to get upset about this?

I'm supposed to be too stupid to be able to discern Mao's actions from his words?

Just because Mao said it, does that make Follow your own path a bad philosophy?? Is it better to just be mindless drones?

I'm sorry, but this is confusing as hell. What is the big honking deal here?

There isn't one. It's just Beck being an a** once again.

Zombie- if this so horrifies you, please go after this woman's job. If you think this is so terrible and a threat, go after her job.

But honestly, I've got better things to worry about, and so should you.

[Eraserhead]

Yes, people die when you are involved in a war. :confused:

They were killed in an illegal war, which makes it murder.

[Zombie Acorn]

Not the point. Bush lied and took us into a needless, pre-emptive war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Maybe that's not murder to you, but it certainly is to me.


Yet we are still there, so Obama must be an accomplice to murder too.

I am sure congress could have stopped funding at any time now, murderers.

[Zombie Acorn]

Zombie- if this so horrifies you, please go after this woman's job. If you think this is so terrible and a threat, go after her job.

But honestly, I've got better things to worry about, and so should you.

I probably won't have to, Obama will hopefully replace her with someone that has a bit more sense.

[leekohler]

Yet we are still there, so Obama must be an accomplice to murder too.

I am sure congress could have stopped funding at any time now, murderers.

Yeah sure- should just get out now and leave it a huge mess. Yep- that's right. :rolleyes:

Umm...we are leaving, BTW. In case you haven't heard.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yeah sure- should just get out now and leave it a huge mess. Yep- that's right. :rolleyes:

Umm...we are leaving, BTW. In case you haven't heard.

I wasn't a Republican until 2008 so I can't take responsibility. I didn't see the dems doing much to stop the war though, and when we do get out, good riddance.

[Thomas Veil]

You clearly didn't watch the video of her speech, she poses him as an inspiration towards kids who are graduating. He "defeated the odds", his methods do not seem to be of importance to democrats.

She said a lot more than one quote.I did watch the video. Twice, which is two more times than I would've watched it otherwise.

I just don't see the part where she's professing her admiration for Mao's actions. I see her quoting his philosophy. I also see you

...his methods do not seem to be of importance to democrats.surmising an outrageous conclusion, much like Beck.

[Lord Blackadder]

Well clearly from the CNN article another of his administration was nailed by Beck, she was backpedaling the moment it was brought up. Why Beck is the one who has to bring this stupidity to the limelight I am not sure, you would think someone as dumb as he was wouldn't be able to dangle the Obama administration as many times. Lets not forget Van Jones was pretty much forced to resign because of Beck.

I can tell you why it is Beck that brings these sorts of things up...he is a professional muckraker.

To be honest, I'd like nothing better than to see Beck and his fellow Fox clown-pundits keep on chasing after the small-fry in the Obama Administration, while Obama's policy keeps chugging along.

Its fairly clear Obama isn't vetting his political appointments well enough, these are recent happenings.

Clear as mud. The vast majority of Obama's appointments seem solid, and so far none of them can come close to Bush disasters like Alberto "What Constitution?" Gonzalez

[hulugu]

So, the conclusion that I draw from your post, is that it somehow only matters if a member of the current administration refers to Mao? Why should anyone take Beck's criticism seriously in that case? What larger point does it prove? In what way is Anita Dunn 'nailed' where Republican figures are not?

.... It is much, much better to simply show hypocrisy and call it a day. Don't you agree?

I see your point, but in this case I think it's not Hypocrisy Hockey, but rather more salient. Beck is clearly boggled that anyone, least of all an Obama administration official, is willing to quote Mao in any positive light. However, while Beck is clearly concerned with the sudden prevalence of communist plot to destroy our precious bodily fluids he only critiques, according to MediaMatters, liberals. This proves that his concern is not because of the quote, but rather his oft-mentioned goal to eliminate Obama officials one by one, like some kind of fat-faced political celluloid serial killer. Thus, in this case, the hypocrisy does matter.


All right, let's leave Beck out of it, as if lunatics making wild accusations had no relevance.

Dunn quotes Mao saying, essentially, follow your own path.

I'm supposed to get upset about this?

I'm supposed to be too stupid to be able to discern Mao's actions from his words?

Just because Mao said it, does that make Follow your own path a bad philosophy?? Is it better to just be mindless drones?

I'm sorry, but this is confusing as hell. What is the big honking deal here?

An Obama official quoted Mao and Beck, in a homage to Nancy Drew, found a clue and has discovered that Dunn tipped her hand and it's only a matter of time before we're all enslaved and sent to the Gulags of Canada.

[Counterfit]

The big difference is that under Bush the press was confrontational as a whole, checking out all his nominees.
He sure did a great job checking out: Bernard Kriek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik#Nomination_as_U.S._Secretary_of_Homeland_Security), Spencer Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Abraham#Committee_service_and_legislation), Michael Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown#Bush_administration_service), Linda Chavez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Chavez#Secretary_of_Labor_nomination), Harriet Miers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination).

The most obvious improvement is the concept of universal suffrage. I doubt you'd disagree. Well, we had to change the Constitution to achieve that. The "Timeless" words of the original constitution failed to give women the vote and considered black people 3/5ths of a person for population count purposes. Timeless yes, if you consider bigotry timeless. I suppose it is, actually.

The biggest problem I have with some conservatives (I will not blanket all of them with criticism as you have done with liberals) is their notion that the Constitution was perfect as conceived and any changes or additions can only mar it's wonderful perfectness...

WRONG. First off, the Constitution was created as a compromise and not one single person at the time it was created or at any time since has ever fully agreed with everything in it - so your notion that it was ever above criticism or wholeheartedly embraced by all is a total fallacy.

Secondly, the Constitution has been amended several times, and those amendments have shown that changing the constitution is sometimes necessary. It also shows that we should be careful not to change it unless it is actually necessary.

You are a rigid, literalist reactionary and a danger to the very document you claim to venerate if you categorically refuse to re-examine and re-interperet the Constitution. I have more than once been called a "traitor" by people of your ilk, and I would not be shocked at all if you think I am un-American by talking about the constitution as a flexible, living document. Well, bring it on, I say - I'm more than willing to talk compromise on most subjects but on this one I will be totally inflexible. I think I'm more a patriot than reactionaries like yourself. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Bravo god sir!

And not nearly as fun. ;)

You don't get off on Mao quotes? :confused:

[MyDesktopBroke]

Do people really think Beck is worth while talking about? You can say "but he's miss-leading the public!" but anyone who would take him seriously would have to be looking to support similar views in the first place. People only watch Beck to say to themselves, "look, that man on TV thinks and acts like I do, so I'm right."

Beck can't convert people to the Republican party, but he can certainly drive the sane and civil ones away.

[Iscariot]

Once again this isn't about the quote, this is about her using this man as an inspiration towards a graduating class that I find despicable, and if you don't I don't know what to say for you.

How can you find it despicable when you've got hardly any context within which to evaluate it? Even if you ignore the dubious nature of using Glen Beck for a source, what we have is little more than a soundbite.

Additionally, to reduce Mao to little more than a caricature is to fail to learn from history.

[Zombie Acorn]

How can you find it despicable when you've got hardly any context within which to evaluate it? Even if you ignore the dubious nature of using Glen Beck for a source, what we have is little more than a soundbite.

Additionally, to reduce Mao to little more than a caricature is to fail to learn from history.

Glen beck wasn't a source, CNN was the source. Youtube only had her speech via glen beck's show, reading the first post in the thread can be a bitch sometimes though. :D

Also if you watched the youtube video the context is clear, she isn't trying to be funny (which was another one of her backpedaling excuses), her speech sucked, plain and simple.

[leekohler]

Glen beck wasn't a source, CNN was the source. Youtube only had her speech via glen beck's show, reading the first post in the thread can be a bitch sometimes though. :D

Also if you watched the youtube video the context is clear, she isn't trying to be funny (which was another one of her backpedaling excuses), her speech sucked, plain and simple.

Again- why does this matter so much to you? Seriously. It's not that big of a deal and certainly not the end of civilization.

[Zombie Acorn]

Again- why does this matter so much to you? Seriously. It's not that big of a deal and certainly not the end of civilization.

Its not a big deal until people try to defend her actions when she herself is backpedaling faster than a clown at a circus, then we get 4 pages of thread. I wouldn't mind if she had used one of his quotes if it had relevance, its the fact she went on to talk about his life as if it should be some inspiration to all.

[leekohler]

Its not a big deal until people try to defend her actions when she herself is backpedaling faster than a clown at a circus, then we get 4 pages of thread. I wouldn't mind if she had used one of his quotes if it had relevance, its the fact she went on to talk about his life as if it should be some inspiration to all.

No one has really been defending anything. We're all puzzled as to why you care so much about it. I already told you I couldn't care less either way. Plenty of other politicians have used Mao quotes in the past. Big deal. It doesn't matter. This non issue is a waste of time. None of us here picked on any other politician for this- why would we start now?

[Iscariot]

Glen beck wasn't a source, CNN was the source. Youtube only had her speech via glen beck's show, reading the first post in the thread can be a bitch sometimes though. :D

Whether or not CNN reported on the incident, Glen Beck remains the source for the video.
Also if you watched the youtube video the context is clear

There's simply not enough information. It's quote mining.
her speech sucked, plain and simple.

I don't doubt that for a second, but what's in dispute is whether it sucked enough to be "despicable" or, frankly, sucked enough to really matter.

[Wotan31]

Bush is a mass murderer.
And just when I thought I'd heard it all, you come up with something even more outlandish! LMAO this made my day!! :D

[leekohler]

And just when I thought I'd heard it all, you come up with something even more outlandish! LMAO this made my day!! :D

If you read the thread, then a lot of people must be making your day.

Please tell me what is outlandish about calling Bush what he is?

[obeygiant]

Anita Done.

White House communications chief to step down. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iS8RXdnlYgDf82UFMnJFwMhZD4GgD9BSUBM00)

[Blue Velvet]

Anita Done.

Heh. Knew someone would post this and I'm sure Mr. Beck will take credit, but it was always an interim post, her title was the Interim Communications Director.

[yg17]

Heh. Knew someone would post this and I'm sure Mr. Beck will take credit, but it was always an interim post, her title was the Interim Communications Director.


Yes, she said when she was appointed she only planned on serving around 6 months.

[ucfgrad93]

Anita Done.

Good one!:D

[mgguy]

Good-bye and good riddance. Thanks Glen. :D

[yg17]

Good-bye and good riddance. Thanks Glen. :D

Glenn did nothing. She said from the start her appointment was temporary as she wanted to spend time with her family. But of course you guys don't let facts get in the way, do you?

[CaptMurdock]

You mean the Tightie-Righties got their panties in a wad over somebody who was leaving in a matter of months? Say it ain't so!

And you all wonder why people hang this Chicken Little/Boy Who Cried 'Wolf' tag on you...:rolleyes:

[Full of Win]

Good riddance to this commie.

[yg17]

Good riddance to this commie.

I strongly suggest learning what communism actually is before you throw around that label as wildly as you do.

[leekohler]

Good-bye and good riddance. Thanks Glen. :D

Good riddance to this commie.

Good one!:D

Anita Done.

White House communications chief to step down. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iS8RXdnlYgDf82UFMnJFwMhZD4GgD9BSUBM00)

Umm... Glen Beck had nothing to do with this. You guys are really looking mighty desperate for anything these days.

[ucfgrad93]

Umm... Glen Beck had nothing to do with this. You guys are really looking mighty desperate for anything these days.

Uh, my comment was only that I liked obeygiant's play on her name.

But, I'm not sorry to see her go. Her mannerisms during the speech just freaked me out. Not sure what was going on, but I thought it was really bizarre.

[leekohler]

Uh, my comment was only that I liked obeygiant's play on her name.


Fair enough. ;)

[Thomas Veil]

For anyone who's gleeful about the departure, keep in mind that the wheel turns. You have now redefined the rules of the game. Taking people's comments completely out of context in order to define them as traitors is, according to you, peachy keen. So don't be surprised when the next Republican candidate gets condemned over some innocent comment they made years ago.

Remember, you were the ones that said character assassination was OK.

[leekohler]

For anyone who's gleeful about the departure, keep in mind that the wheel turns. You have now redefined the rules of the game. Taking people's comments completely out of context in order to define them as traitors is, according to you, peachy keen. So don't be surprised when the next Republican candidate gets condemned over some innocent comment they made years ago.

Remember, you were the ones that said character assassination was OK.

They don't care. Just like they didn't care when they tried to make it look like glen Beck was responsible for this.

I strongly suggest learning what communism actually is before you throw around that label as wildly as you do.

You expect someone who equates communism with anarchy to understand that?

[Thomas Veil]

Looks like the haters have already picked out their next victim (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/11/scozzafava-decries-vicious-attacks/).

[remmy]

For anyone who's gleeful about the departure, keep in mind that the wheel turns. You have now redefined the rules of the game. Taking people's comments completely out of context in order to define them as traitors is, according to you, peachy keen. So don't be surprised when the next Republican candidate gets condemned over some innocent comment they made years ago.

Remember, you were the ones that said character assassination was OK.

Could you really stoop to their level, its a long way down?

[leekohler]

Looks like the haters have already picked out their next victim (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/11/scozzafava-decries-vicious-attacks/).

And a Democrat won where no dem has won for 100 years,as a result. Keep going Republicans!

[obeygiant]

For anyone who's gleeful about the departure, keep in mind that the wheel turns. You have now redefined the rules of the game. Taking people's comments completely out of context in order to define them as traitors is, according to you, peachy keen. So don't be surprised when the next Republican candidate gets condemned over some innocent comment they made years ago.

Remember, you were the ones that said character assassination was OK.

What? Were you asleep from 2001 to 2008?

[leekohler]

What? Were you asleep from 2001 to 2008?

You mean when Bush and Co. were calling anyone who opposed them anti-American? Yep- sure was around for that.

Please give examples where this happened to Republicans during that time.

[obeygiant]

You mean when Bush and Co. were calling anyone who opposed them anti-American? Yep- sure was around for that.

Please give examples where this happened to Republicans during that time.

Uhhh, character assassination is as old as politics itself. Picking apart Anita Dunn's admiration for Mao's rise to power wasn't the beginning. Veil's attempt to pre-empt future criticism of republicans by saying basically, you started it, is just silly.

[ucfgrad93]

Looks like the haters have already picked out their next victim (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/11/scozzafava-decries-vicious-attacks/).

Kind of reminds me how Lieberman was treated when he decided to run as an Independent.

[leekohler]

Uhhh, character assassination is as old as politics itself. Picking apart Anita Dunn's admiration for Mao's rise to power wasn't the beginning. Veil's attempt to pre-empt future criticism of republicans by saying basically, you started it, is just silly.

Still no examples.

Kind of reminds me how Lieberman was treated when he decided to run as an Independent.

And he should have been. Ask the people of Connecticut what they think of him now. Let's hope they don't make the same mistake again.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1259

[Thomas Veil]

Kind of reminds me how Lieberman was treated when he decided to run as an Independent.I really doubt people picked through old Lieberman quotes and then edited them down so they could call him a Commie-lover.

Veil's attempt to pre-empt future criticism of republicans by saying basically, you started it, is just silly.Actually, it's my attempt to say that any Republican crying about dirty tricks will be utter hypocrisy.

Though you're right that it's not new. I recall a few campaigns ago when the Bushies tried to convince everyone that McCain had fathered an illegit foreign child. Nice.

Could you really stoop to their level, its a long way down?Actually, no. I'd rather point out the lie, so I can beat them over the head with it. I just wince at how they continually find new ways to lie.

And now a special message for the Dunn-haters: her husband just got a plum job with the Obama administration (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/13/obama.staff.shakeup/index.html). :)

Damn commies. ;)