Tag Archives: speech

Cable Nets Barely Cover Christine O’Donnell’s Values Voter Summit Speech

While the mainstream media have been in a frenzy to denounce Christine O’Donnell as a kook for her socially conservative statements on abstinence from the 1990s, the cable news networks had a perfect opportunity this afternoon to let her speak for herself. Collectively they gave her less than five minutes. The Republican Delaware Senate nominee gave a speech at the Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C. this afternoon from about 3:25 to 3:45 p.m. EDT. Of the three major cable news networks, Fox News showed none of the speech while MSNBC’s Chris Jansing gave viewers just under a minute of O’Donnell audio before interviewing Time magazine’s Jay Newton-Small about concerns some GOP operatives have about O’Donnell being a weaker matchup against the Democratic nominee than Rep. Mike Castle (R) would have been. Only CNN’s Rick Sanchez gave O’Donnell a substantial chunk of time: 3 minutes and 33 seconds. When Sanchez cut away from O’Donnell, he noted that she’s “getting her first taste of the national spotlight” since clinching the nomination and promised that CNN would “continue to follow as the midterms in November draws near.”

Read the original post:
Cable Nets Barely Cover Christine O’Donnell’s Values Voter Summit Speech

Wishful Thinking by Newsweek: Jon Stewart’s Mock Rally on 10/30 Will ‘Absolutely’ ‘Gain Traction’

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have announced dueling D.C. rallies on October 30 aimed at satirizing the August 28 “Restoring Honor” rally held by rival network Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck. Newsweek’s Daniel Stone is apparently stoked about it, predicting that the gimmick will “absolutely” be a success (emphasis mine): You’ve got to hand it to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert , social critics that they are, for keeping us attuned to the absurdity in our political discourse these days…. [N]either man has gone after anyone quite so ferociously as Glenn Beck , the weepy Fox pundit who’s demonstrated he can amass quite a following. Last month, Beck hosted a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, urging America to “Restore Honor”—an amorphous plea to support the troops, find God, and honor thy neighbor. About 100,000 people showed up and agreed. But do those people speak for the rest of the country? Stewart and Colbert say no (or should it be Colbert and Stewart? More on that in a moment). Neither thinks that the loudest voices should be the only ones who are heard. And, in a move that is part social critique and part hilarious satire, both men are hosting rallies next month to counter, or maybe simply mock, the Beck rally. That’s right, they’re hosting rallies. Plural. Stewart and Colbert (who, of course, was birthed by Stewart) have an antagonistic relationship made for TV. Neither wants to play second fiddle to the other, so each is having his own rally on the same day in the same location. Stewart’s rally is to “Restore Sanity .” Colbert’s is to “Keep Fear Alive .” Will it gain traction? Odds are, absolutely. The district has a bustling community of 20- and 30-somethings, who are Stewart and Colbert’s most loyal demographic. Plus any folks around the country who would come to D.C. to support the Comedy Central duo. Or maybe just to oppose Glenn Beck. One of the two. He cannot be serious, can he? Does Stone think that the age demographic most apathetic, historically speaking, about voting is going to travel on Halloween weekend to stand on the Mall to hear Jon Stewart crack a few jokes about Glenn Beck?  What’s more, isn’t the whole ethos of the Daily Show and Colbert Report that American politics is fundamentally absurd, thoroughly lame, and ultimately not worth caring too much about. While Tea Parties and the Glenn Beck rally have drawn hundreds of thousands who are fired up to vote and passionate about their views on the country’s direction, this rally purports to appeal to people who don’t really give a damn one way or the other and hence aren’t really the sort of folks to show up en masse for any cause. Does Stone really think Stewart and Colbert’s audiences have nothing better to do than drop a thousand dollars or so on airfare and lodging to come to D.C. for a non-rally rally just to spite a conservative cable news host?! If he really thinks that, whatever Stone’s smoking may be of more interest to Stewart’s target audience than the so-called Rally to Restore Sanity.

Continue reading here:
Wishful Thinking by Newsweek: Jon Stewart’s Mock Rally on 10/30 Will ‘Absolutely’ ‘Gain Traction’

Ed Schultz as Historian: Invents Speech JFK Never Gave About First Glenn Space Flight

Achtung, Sgt. Schultz — you’re making it up again. The liberal radio host and MSNBC flamethrower got carried away in his indignation Monday over controversy about whether Obama’s speech on education should be shown in classrooms. My how things have changed, Schultz pontificated ( audio here ) — I don’t know, when I was a kid, and I was a little dude when John Glenn was flying around the, in outer space, and the president was going to speak to the nation! And all the kids in the elementary school, I remember, we were all so fired up! That we were going to hear from the president! And the president was going to say something about being in outer space and is John Glenn going to get home OK?! The president was going to talk to us, we were kids! We were excited! And then when John Glenn splashed down, we heard from the president and it was so cool! It’s just not cool anymore, I guess. It’s a different country. Notice how Schultz implies Kennedy gave two speeches that day — about a space mission lasting all of five hours. Will Glenn “get home OK?” Schultz recounts Kennedy telling what surely was an anxious nationwide audience, the anxiety based on fear of a faulty heat shield imperiling Glenn during his fiery re-entry. “And then when John Glenn splashed down,” Schultz claimed, embroidering along the way, “we heard from the president and it was so cool!” Only problem is, Kennedy didn’t give this speech — or should I say, either of them. At least not according to the Web site of the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum in Boston. (known around town as “The Shrine”). A listing at the site of scores of Kennedy’s speeches from 1946 to the day of his death in 1963 makes no mention of any speech on Feb. 20, 1962, the day Glenn became the first American to orbit the globe. Moreover, another part of the library site, the “White House Diary” of Kennedy’s daily schedule, does not cite any speech that day about Glenn’s mission. This link to a different part of the diary mentions that Kennedy spoke by phone with Glenn after he splashed down and was on board the destroyer U.S.S. Noa. ( Thanks, Mr. President … loved your speech, by the way! ) Kennedy’s alleged speech on Glenn’s first space flight (he flew again on the shuttle in 1998, at age 77, and remains the oldest person to have flown into space) is also mysteriously absent from two memoirs by Kennedy hagiographers. In his 1965 book “A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House,” court historian Arthur Schlesinger did not even cite Glenn’s mission in his index. That same year, in his book “Kennedy,” speechwriter Ted Sorensen wrote that Kennedy watched Glenn’s flight “most of the day on TV,” with no mention of any speech. Presumably Sorensen would have elaborated had a speech been given, if only to point out the sweep and beauty of the prose. Which is not to say Kennedy didn’t give speeches about the space program. That he did, including one I suspect Schultz was thinking of when he made this claim. Addressing a joint session of Congress in May 1961, only a few weeks after Alan Shepard became the first America to fly into space, Kennedy pledged that the US would send astronauts to the moon and return them safely to earth by the end of the decade. The speech was given on May 25, 1961, on a Thursday at 12:30 p.m. In other words, in the middle of a school day.

Read more:
Ed Schultz as Historian: Invents Speech JFK Never Gave About First Glenn Space Flight

Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

At certain schools across the country, parents possessed the authority to pull their children from class Tuesday so as not to witness President Obama’s address to students nationwide – and Ed Schultz believes that constitutes an “opt-out for Right-wing whackos.” Schultz seemed to be not in favor of academic freedom – in this case. Decrying opposition to the speech as “perverse conservative hatred” for Obama and “motivated by race,” Schultz was apparently doubly-mad about this, as he hit the issue hard for two nights in a row on his MSNBC show. “I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students,” he insisted. Some public schools notified parents if their children would be watching the speech, while others left the decision to the teachers whether or not to show it. “If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed,” Schultz raged. “It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country.” “Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama,” he warned, sounding somewhat like a fear-mongering political TV ad. “The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle.” And why should students be forced to listen to the speech? “This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves,” Schultz claimed. However, he argued that parents should not even have a say in whether their child listens to the speech. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter agreed with him, appearing on Schultz’s Monday evening show. Alter asked if the same teachers provided an opt-out clause for parents when President Bush and President Reagan were in the White House. If not, they should be “ashamed,” he admonished. “That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President,” Alter said of conservatives’ opposition to Obama’s speech. “He’s the ‘Other.’ He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.” “Conservatives, well – they hate public education,” Schultz snarled on his Tuesday show. He added that their opposition is “motivated by race,” and that “there are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black.” A partial transcript of the two segments, which aired on September 13 and 14, at 6:48 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. EDT respectively, is as follows: THE ED SHOW 9/13/10 6:48 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama. (…) SCHULTZ: And I’m sorry to say folks across America are still suffering from the effects of Righty fear-mongering after the President – and so concerned about the President indoctrinating students. Now in flyover country, let’s take for instance in West Fargo, ND – parents have to be notified if their kids will be watching the speech. And they have to have the option to remove their child from class during the address. Down in Texas, students – well they’ve got to get their parents to sign permission slips to watch the President of the United States. This is absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Last year we saw the same kind of garbage that was thrown out there by the Righties that infiltrated into the public schools. But all the President did was urge students back then to stay in school and work hard. There was no agenda, no socialist indoctrination. The President of the United States is a prime example of how far you can go if you’re willing to work hard. Treating it as a controversial event with an opt-out for Right-wing whackos I think is appalling. I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students.   (…) SCHULTZ: Jonathan, is this a product of a lot of fear-mongering that has taken place surrounding the Obama presidency? What do you think? JONATHAN ALTER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Oh absolutely. Look, you could barely understand it last year, I mean, even though it was outrageous then, too, because you could argue, okay, maybe some of the far-Right believed some of the right-wing propaganda that he would use the occasion to indoctrinate. But then, as you said, he gave the speech, “Stay in school, work hard, follow your dreams.” So they know what the message is, so for them to ban kids from – prevent kids from seeing it this year is triply ridiculous. Because we know what he’s going to say. SCHULTZ: We have gutless administrators, in my opinion, that don’t have the guts to stand up. In some school districts across the country, they say “Oh well we’ll leave it up to the teachers, meaning the teachers will make a decision in the classroom whether the President’s going to be seen or not. The administration gives them no cover whatsoever, no leadership whatsoever. This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves, and it’s being, you know – ALTER: And a question for every one of those teachers and administrators – did you do the same when George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan gave their speeches, if you’ve been in the schools long enough? Did you do the same? If not, if not, if you didn’t give parents the chance to opt out you should be completely ashamed of yourself if you didn’t do it in this case. It’s basically saying that this President isn’t legitimate. That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President. He’s the “Other.” He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.   THE ED SHOW 9/14/10 6:00 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: I’m on fire that conservatives have taken their warped hatred of President Obama into public schools in this country. Parents are shielding kids from watching the President’s “Back to School” message. Can you believe it? What a low-point for this country. (…) SCHULTZ: The perverse conservative hatred for President Obama has infiltrated public schools all across this country. It’s a debate that’s being held in every school district. … For the second straight year, the President of the United States took time to give an uplifting, positive, forward-thinking message to American school kids for the second straight year. Conservatives, what are they doing? Well they’re trying to protect young, impressionable ears and minds from his message. Here’s the deal. In Aiken County, SC, parents were given the choice to opt their children out of the President’s education speech today. In Fargo, ND, parents were given the option to show or not show the speech. And a school near Austin, TX required parents to fill out a permission slip so their kids could watch the President of the United States give their kids this message. (…) SCHULTZ: If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed. It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country, and that’s what’s wrong with education in this country. We don’t have people who can make positive decisions. This is crazy. Now I’ve talked with parents from all over America on my talk show about this for the last two days. A woman in Colorado told me a principal at her kid’s school said that the President was too controversial! This is a low moment in America. The level of acceptance for keeping kids away from the President is disgusting. All of this is fueled by the nutjobs on the Right, Beck saying that the President has a deep-seated hatred for white people, Newt out there trying to make Americans believe that the President is from Kenya. The list goes on and on, and you know who the culprits are. The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle. It’s outrageous this kind of thinking is commonplace in American public schools. He is the President of the United States of America elected by American citizens! But, you see, conservatives, well – they hate public education. They’re afraid to ask “Where is the leadership?” I’ll ask it tonight. This is all part of villifying public education on the part of the conservatives. Superintendents who shied away from this are just walking in lock step with those who are scared. Superintendents should make the correct call, and not put the burden on the teachers. A speech like this should have been mandatory, it should have been not even considered whether it’s an issue or not. This, you know, if it was Ronald Reagan, or if it was George W. Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh – their heads would explode. They’d be screaming about the liberal schoolteachers dishonoring the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. But nobody seems to care about dishonoring the black President. I think a lot of this is motivated by race. There are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black. That’s right. What’s wrong with our country? What’s wrong with this picture? I mean, I can’t believe that liberals sit back and take this garbage. Where’s the conversation about this at the leadership level in politics? This is a kitchen table issue that I think the Democratic leadership team should speak to across this country. The story speaks to the decay of our country, the lack of respect for the Oval Office, the lack of respect for our elections, the lack of acceptance that Barack Obama is, in fact, the President of the United States. Now if you’re a superintendent, I should probably point out to you that the irony is that this President is probably one of the most academically-accomplished Presidents we’ve ever had. And his critic across the street loves to tell people that he’s a college dropout. So you make the choice. You mean to tell me that we have school administrators in this country that are so afraid of the local school board, and so concerned about their job and their security that they’re afraid to put the President of the United States, with a positive message about education, in their school? Hell, you’re no better than the politicians that take money in Washington. You’re all about your job. You’re afraid to stand up. And this is one of the problems we have in public education in this country – we don’t have enough leaders. We don’t have enough people that stand up and say “Look, this is the correct thing to do because he’s the President of the United States.” Conversely, what do you think the kind of problem that would be created if President Obama were to take this opportunity and really give a strong speech about universal health care? Or really give a strong speech about taxes and say, “Well, you know your dad makes over $250,000 a year, I think that, heck, he ought to be paying more.” You think the President would do something like that? Well, in the twisted thinking of these Righties, they think he’ll do anything. In fact, one broadcaster on Fox is now saying that President Obama is going to lead liberals to violence if the election doesn’t go their way. I guess this is why we have a segment on this show called “Psycho Talk.” It is a sad day for America, because there are other countries around the world that watch our model of entrepreneurship in developing young minds to be aggressive in the capitalistic system in this country. And what message are we sending? “Hell, they don’t even let Obama speak to their kids in public schools. America’s on the decline. We can kick their ass. Let’s see if we can get more of their jobs.” Yes, there is a ripple effect throughout the whole thing.

Visit link:
Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

After Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Unhinged Rant, Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett Begs, Fails to Get Help Watering It Down

Though its true nature was largely ignored by the local media at the event (noted on Tuesday at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), Ted Strickland’s unhinged Labor Day speech at the AFL-CIO’s annual picnic at Cincinnat’s Coney Island has, with the help of the Republican Governors Association (RGA), garnered quite a bit of statewide attention. During his rant , Strickland denounced the Republican Party as “overtaken by the zealots, by the extremists, by the radicals”; claimed that “they don’t seem to like Ohio very much, and quite frankly, they act as if they don’t like America very much,” in essence questioning their patriotism; and asked the audience to help him fight “the Tea Party radicals.” The fallout has apparently been so severe that ever-helpful veteran Columbus Dispatch reporter, senior editor, and columnist Joe Hallett felt compelled on Thursday to try to help the Governor walk it all back. In an exchange that can only be seen as Hallett begging for Strickland to give him something, anything to work with, Strickland wasn’t very helpful, bogusly played the “out of context” card, and in a very real sense doubled down on his disrespect for those who oppose him. He even went into a riff on how opponents (in context, “Republicans,” not just “some Republicans”) want to repeal the 14th amendment (huh?). The full 11:36 video of Strickland’s discussion with reporters  is here (originally posted at the Ohio Capital Blog ); the RGA’s 2:04 excerpt featuring Hallett  is here (HT RightOhio ). What follows is a transcript of the excerpt: Hallett: The Republicans are making much of the speech you gave in Cincinnati, basically saying you had a heartbeat moment, when in your speech you said that “Republicans don’t like Ohio very much, and they don’t like America very much.” Do you mean that? Strickland: Uh, yes, but you need to, you need to get the full context of what I said, Joe. I wasn’t talking about their patriotism. I went on to talk about why I was saying that. Um, um, they want to ch-, they want to change the country. They want to change Ohio. It has nothing to do with their love for the country or their love of Ohio. It has a lot to do with whether or not they like Ohio the way it is, or they like America the way it is. For someone to repeal the 14th Amendment, that’s a pretty basic thing, that’s a part of our country’s history, tradition, and, and, Constitution, um, processes. Uh, uh, Mary Taylor, uh, says that she has urged people to leave Ohio and move to Florida, uh uh, or Nevada, or to some other state. (Taylor is the GOP’s Lieutenant Governor candidate — Ed.) So, uh if, if you understand what I said within the context of, of what I was saying and how I was saying it, uh, it’s not what they’re trying to make it. So — Hallett: Well, you’ve got, you’ve got a lot of Republicans _____ in ____, they’re going to present this as, “Governor Strickland says, ‘You Republicans don’t like this country.'” Strickland: Here a-, here again Joe, I talked about the fact that moderate Republicans are being pushed out of their party, that the, that the leadership of the Republican Party now was comprised of people that I think are on the extreme right wing of that party. I was not talking about all Republicans. Th-They know that, and I-I hope you can, can just watch the, the total, uh, speech that I made rather than, uh, the particular snippet of it. Other items found in the longer video: Strickland considers GOP candidate John Kasich’s idea to gradually eliminate the state’s income tax to be “radical.” Well, how have Florida and Texas (both much larger states), as well as Tennessee, New Hampshire, and several other states without income taxes survived all these years? A Hallett softball — “You’ve seen the polls. They’re not looking good for you. Are you fearful of becoming a victim of a climate over which you have no control?” Oh, the humanity! Hallet apparently already has his Election Night column theme drafted. Try to imagine Hallett asking a similar question of a Republican trailing in the polls. I know; you can’t. Besides being justifiably outraged at the characterization of Tea Partiers, sensible conservatives in the Buckeye State are surely chuckling at Strickland’s description of Ohio’s Republican Party, which during May’s primary campaign spent large sums of money and put a great deal of effort into ensuring the defeat of Tea Party-backed statewide and Central Committee candidates in favor of its preferred go-along, get-along candidates and Central Committee incumbents. As to liking and loving Ohio and America — to specifically describe just one problem, “Ohio the way it is” has 10.3% unemployment . “America the way it is” is at 9.6% . Unless I’m missing something, nobody “likes” that (Ted, if you do, which could fairly be inferred from what you said — and would be if a Republican or conservative had said it — please let us know). One can love their state and their country and still not like high unemployment, out of control debt, a bloated public sector, high taxes, and a lousy business climate. Strickland campaigned in 2006 as the guy who would ” Turnaround Ohio .” Obviously, he has done no such thing. The clear majority of loyal, loving Buckeye Staters don’t like that, and at this point appear to want something different. The pathetically pleading Joe Hallett, who infamously wrote in May that Ted Strickland couldn’t possibly bear any responsibility for Ohio’s lost jobs (just as, Hallett noted, GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich can’t be blamed for the collapse of the economy, which happens to be true), had to come away from his rescue attempt disappointed. Sorry, Joe. This is who Ted Strickland is. You and the rest of Ohio’s establishment press mostly provided cover for him in 2006. Now that he has a record trying to actually run something bigger than his former congressional staff (which, by the way, he didn’t do vey well either), your job has become a lot tougher. Too bad, so sad. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Visit link:
After Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Unhinged Rant, Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett Begs, Fails to Get Help Watering It Down

Cincy Media Mostly Nix Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Reference to GOP as ‘Overrun by Extremist Elements’ at Labor Picnic

It’s interesting, and more than a little frustrating, to see how inflammatory words in speeches delivered by liberal and leftist politicians that might cast them in a bad light don’t seem to make much news. One such example occurred in a speech yesterday at Cincinnati’s Coney Island, on the occasion of the AFL-CIO’s huge annual picnic there. At that event, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland lashed out at the party of gubernatorial opponent John Kasich as, according to one local reporter, “overrun by extremist elements.” I don’t know that this is exactly what Strickland said, but it seems highly unlikely that veteran WLWT reporter John London would have strung those words together on his own.  Strickland’s characterization of his opposition as relayed by London, which you will find at this Bing video and also at WLWT’s own web site , “somehow” didn’t make it into the the station’s accompanying text report on the event, which, contrary to what I believe is the norm at the station, doesn’t in any way follow the script of the London’s coverage. The “overrun by extremist elements” reference also was not noted at either of the city’s two other news-following TV stations which covered the event ( here and here ), nor in Howard Wilkinson’s coverage at Gannett’s Cincinnati Enquirer. Imagine that. Here is the first 70% or so of the verbiage in the WLWT broadcast: Strickland (during speech): What we are fighting for is the middle class of Ohio and America! Jack Atherton (in-studio co-host): Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio. Labor Day usually means you get a day off from work. But too many Tri-Staters are out of work altogether, and the governor was reminded today campaigning at Coney Island. Sheree Paolello (the other co-host): Now with the poor economy and President Obama calling for another $50 billion program to improve roads and runways, people had a lot to say today, and News 5’s is John London is live with reaction to the Governor’s visit today. John? John London: Well, Sheree, he gave them matches for the bonfire. He blamed Wall Street greed for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ohio, declared the Republican Party has been overrun by extremist elements, shouted “Hell no, we won’t give the state over to them!” This was Governor Ted Strickland, gloves off, some three weeks before the start of early voting. (begin newsreel with John London voiceover) Ohio’s Governor arrived with a four-letter word on his lips: Jobs. Candidates of every political stripe can’t say it or promise it enough. Strickland (during speech): What we are fighting for is the middle class of Ohio — London: But can any of them deliver it? Erin Kramer, Director, SEIU Local 1: Our members do well when cities do well. And cities do well when people are working. London: As if to hammer home the point, many of these union workers and their families are suffering: laid-off, worried, discouraged. Here’s what Governor Strickland told us after blasting what he termed “Wall Street greed.” Strickland: This recovery is starting to take hold, but this is not a guarantee that, that we will not have a double-dip recession. London: The mood lightens out here if you let it. Pete Wagner’s orchestra sprinkled a little Dixieland into what is a combination event: one part picnic, two parts politics. Doug Sizemore, AFL-CIO labor leader: The economy that we’re in right now is due to the failed policies of the Bush administration. London: The Democrat candidates mine this turf each Labor Day — Thousands of union families within campaign reach, perhaps a little fewer this time as mid-term elections approach. As one worker put it: “There have been so many layoffs.” Strickland: Quite frankly, Ohio is starting to see signs of growth. London: And what the Governor means by that is that tax revenue in the state is exceeding projections, not by much, but by a little bit. He continues to acknowledge that unemployment remains a huge problem. … Anyone who knows anything about the hidebound Ohio Republican Party would double over in laughter at any description of them as “extremists.” The ORP was so hostile to and felt so threatened by Tea Party insurgent candidates for statewide office and its Central Committee — candidates who would only be considered unwanted “extremists” by people who also believe this country’s Founders were — that it spent large sums of money on misleading Tea Party-pretentious campaign literature and on Election Day poll watchers who handed out slate cards to defeat them in the May primary. Much of the rest of London’s report unfortunately segues to what I would describe as a “long hot summer” riff, even though summer is over, the message being that crime won’t come down until employment goes up. Going back to Strickland — It must be nice to be able to fire up the base mostly without having to worry about whether your inflammatory language will escape the confines of the venue where your speech is taking place. It’s highly unlikely that a Republican or conservative at an open event covered by the press would be that lucky. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Visit link:
Cincy Media Mostly Nix Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Reference to GOP as ‘Overrun by Extremist Elements’ at Labor Picnic

Slate: Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks. | The Taming and Domestication of Religious Faith Is One of the Unceasing Chores of Civilization

Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.The taming and domestication of religious faith is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, Sept. 6, 2010, at 11:39 AM ET A recent blizzard of liberal columns has framed the debate over American Islam as if it were no more than the most recent stage in the glorious history of our religious tolerance. This phrasing of the question has the (presumably intentional) effect of marginalizing doubts and of lumping any doubters with the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings, the anti-Semites, and other bigots and shellbacks. So I pause to take part in a thought experiment, and to ask myself: Am I in favor of the untrammeled “free exercise of religion”? No, I am not. Take an example close at hand, the absurdly named Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More usually known as the Mormon church, it can boast Glenn Beck as one of its recruits. He has recently won much cheap publicity for scheduling a rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington. But on the day on which the original rally occurred in 1963, the Mormon church had not yet gotten around to recognizing black people as fully human or as eligible for full membership. (Its leadership subsequently underwent a “revelation” allowing a change on this point, but not until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.) This opportunism closely shadowed an earlier adjustment of Mormon dogma, abandoning its historic and violent attachment to polygamy. Without that doctrinal change, the state of Utah was firmly told that it could not be part of the Union. More recently, Gov. Mitt Romney had to assure voters that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution. Thus, to the extent that we view latter-day saints as acceptable, and agree to overlook their other quaint and weird beliefs, it is to the extent that we have decidedly limited them in the free exercise of their religion. One could cite some other examples, such as those Christian sects that disapprove of the practice of medicine. Their adult members are generally allowed to die while uttering religious incantations and waving away the physician, but, in many states, if they apply this faith to their children—a crucial element in the “free exercise” of religion—they can be taken straight to court. Not only that, they can find themselves subject to general disapproval and condemnation. Advertisement It was probably the latter consideration that helped impel the majority of American Orthodox Jews to give up the practice of metzitzah b'peh, a radical form of male circumcision that is topped off, if you will forgive the expression, by the sucking of the infant's penis by the rabbi or mohel so as to remove any remaining blood or debris. A few tiny sects still cling to this disgusting ritual, which in New York a few years ago led to a small but deadly outbreak of herpes among recently circumcised babies. On that occasion, despite calls for a ban on the practice from many Jewish doctors, the vastly overrated Mayor Michael Bloomberg chose an election year to say that such “free exercise” should not be interfered with. We talk now as if it was ridiculous ever to suspect Roman Catholics of anything but the highest motives, yet by the time John F. Kennedy was breaking the unspoken taboo on the election of a Catholic as president, the Vatican had just begun to consider making public atonement for centuries of Jew-hatred and a more recent sympathy for fascism. Even today, many lay Catholics are appalled at the Vatican's protection of men who are sought for questioning in one of the gravest of all crimes: the organized rape of children. It is generally agreed that the church's behavior and autonomy need to be modified to take account both of American law and American moral outrage. So much for the naive invocation of “free exercise.” One could easily go on. The Church of Scientology, the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, and the Ku Klux Klan are all faith-based organizations and are all entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. But they are also all subject to a complex of statutes governing tax-exemption, fraud, racism, and violence, to the point where “free exercise” in the third case has—by means of federal law enforcement and stern public disapproval—been reduced to a vestige of its former self. Now to Islam. It is, first, a religion that makes very large claims for itself, purporting to be the last and final word of God and expressing an ambition to become the world's only religion. Some of its adherents follow or advocate the practice of plural marriage, forced marriage, female circumcision, compulsory veiling of women, and censorship of non-Muslim magazines and media. Islam's teachings generally exhibit suspicion of the very idea of church-state separation. Other teachings, depending on context, can be held to exhibit a very strong dislike of other religions, as well as of heretical forms of Islam. Muslims in America, including members of the armed forces, have already been found willing to respond to orders issued by foreign terrorist organizations. Most disturbingly, no authority within the faith appears to have the power to rule decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions, are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the religion itself. Reactions from even “moderate” Muslims to criticism are not uniformly reassuring. “Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,” Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness. Those who wish that there would be no mosques in America have already lost the argument: Globalization, no less than the promise of American liberty, mandates that the United States will have a Muslim population of some size. The only question, then, is what kind, or rather kinds, of Islam it will follow. There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present. added by: EthicalVegan

Obama goes off script and tells it like is!

I hope you caught the speech! added by: kennymotown

Unbuttoned Obama Strikes at GOP with Folksy Sayings In Labor Day Speech [Videuoh]

Man, Obama was fired up today during his speech to a union festival in Milwuakee. Sure, he announced a big $50 billion infrastructure initiative , which is important. But he also went after his political opponents with uncharacteristic glee. More

David Letterman Again Bashes Obama’s Vacations

David Letterman for at least the second time in eight days mocked Barack Obama for spending so much time on R&R During his “Late Show” opening monologue, the host quipped, “The President’s been busy, he redecorated the Oval Office and then he took another two week vacation.”  Moments later, Letterman talked about Obama’s address to the nation the previous day before presenting a video of the speech.  As you’ll see from this doctored clip, the President wasn’t wearing attire at all suitable for the occasion (video follows with commentary): Readers are reminded that Letterman joked about Obama’s vacations just last Tuesday. Remember shortly after his inauguration Hollywood comedians and writers felt Obama was off-limits. Not anymore!

Visit link:
David Letterman Again Bashes Obama’s Vacations