The Khalidi Interview

[texaspackerbacker]

The LA Times has a tape of Obama which it is stone-walling that shows Obama praising a Palestinian named Khalidi who supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Khalidi and others supposedly spewed some really vile anti-Semitic and anti-American remarks while Obama just sat there and smiled.

I doubt we will ever actually see the tape, as the LA Times is about as far left as it gets, but just the reporting of this should cost Obama some votes--especially among Jews--normally a mostly Democrat voting bloc in places like Florida.

I'm still thinking pretty negative about this thing, but it does seem that McCain still has a slim chance--thus, America still has a slim chance to prevent the horrors of an Obama presidency.

[hoosier]

The LA Times has a tape of Obama which it is stone-walling that shows Obama praising a Palestinian named Khalidi who supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Khalidi and others supposedly spewed some really vile anti-Semitic and anti-American remarks while Obama just sat there and smiled.

I doubt we will ever actually see the tape, as the LA Times is about as far left as it gets, but just the reporting of this should cost Obama some votes--especially among Jews--normally a mostly Democrat voting bloc in places like Florida.

I'm still thinking pretty negative about this thing, but it does seem that McCain still has a slim chance--thus, America still has a slim chance to prevent the horrors of an Obama presidency.

Oddly enough when McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute, the IRI gave almost half a million bucks to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. Does that mean that McCain has been funding terrorists, or does it mean that Khalidi has just been retroactively mainstreamed? :P :P

[swede]

A couple of my friends in high school used to do a comedy shtick in which one of them would go all Frankenstein with arms outstretched (a little like John McCain actually) and slowly pretend to crush the life out of the other guy who would, in desperation, begin to sing Brahm's lullaby, putting the monster into dreamy repose. As the weeks went by they only needed about 5-10 seconds to assume the characters and run the gag so it stayed kind of fresh even as it was getting old.

Every nugget of real Obama truthiness seems to momentarily wake up the electorate...("G****mn America?") and then Barrack does his best Barry White (Hey, baby...you know I could no sooner disown him than i could a crazy uncle...gimme some sugar now...) and the startled electorate goes back to sleep.

William Ayers! (Hrrnngh!) I was eight years old. (ZZZZZ)

Spread the wealth! (Hrnnngh!) Let's cut a check to 95% of you. (ZZZZZ)

It's a great comic bit.

I know why the enraged bird sings.

[mraynrand]

The LA Times has a tape of Obama which it is stone-walling that shows Obama praising a Palestinian named Khalidi who supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Khalidi and others supposedly spewed some really vile anti-Semitic and anti-American remarks while Obama just sat there and smiled.

I doubt we will ever actually see the tape, as the LA Times is about as far left as it gets, but just the reporting of this should cost Obama some votes--especially among Jews--normally a mostly Democrat voting bloc in places like Florida.

I'm still thinking pretty negative about this thing, but it does seem that McCain still has a slim chance--thus, America still has a slim chance to prevent the horrors of an Obama presidency.

Oddly enough when McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute, the IRI gave almost half a million bucks to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. Does that mean that McCain has been funding terrorists, or does it mean that Khalidi has just been retroactively mainstreamed? :P :P

The U.S. throws money around like candy, to th UN and even to enemies. That's a world of difference from sitting in a room listening to anti-semitic jokes and insults and not walking out (assuming that's what's on the tape). World of difference, even to a guy like Ty Bigguns.

[hoosier]

The LA Times has a tape of Obama which it is stone-walling that shows Obama praising a Palestinian named Khalidi who supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Khalidi and others supposedly spewed some really vile anti-Semitic and anti-American remarks while Obama just sat there and smiled.

I doubt we will ever actually see the tape, as the LA Times is about as far left as it gets, but just the reporting of this should cost Obama some votes--especially among Jews--normally a mostly Democrat voting bloc in places like Florida.

I'm still thinking pretty negative about this thing, but it does seem that McCain still has a slim chance--thus, America still has a slim chance to prevent the horrors of an Obama presidency.

Oddly enough when McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute, the IRI gave almost half a million bucks to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. Does that mean that McCain has been funding terrorists, or does it mean that Khalidi has just been retroactively mainstreamed? :P :P

The U.S. throws money around like candy, to th UN and even to enemies. That's a world of difference from sitting in a room listening to anti-semitic jokes and insults and not walking out (assuming that's what's on the tape). World of difference, even to a guy like Ty Bigguns.

Why would you assume that the tape reveals Obama sitting for anti-semitic jokes?

[wist43]

The LA Times has a tape of Obama which it is stone-walling that shows Obama praising a Palestinian named Khalidi who supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Khalidi and others supposedly spewed some really vile anti-Semitic and anti-American remarks while Obama just sat there and smiled.

I doubt we will ever actually see the tape, as the LA Times is about as far left as it gets, but just the reporting of this should cost Obama some votes--especially among Jews--normally a mostly Democrat voting bloc in places like Florida.

I'm still thinking pretty negative about this thing, but it does seem that McCain still has a slim chance--thus, America still has a slim chance to prevent the horrors of an Obama presidency.

Oddly enough when McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute, the IRI gave almost half a million bucks to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. Does that mean that McCain has been funding terrorists, or does it mean that Khalidi has just been retroactively mainstreamed? :P :P

The U.S. throws money around like candy, to th UN and even to enemies. That's a world of difference from sitting in a room listening to anti-semitic jokes and insults and not walking out (assuming that's what's on the tape). World of difference, even to a guy like Ty Bigguns.

I consider the U.N. an enemy.

[sheepshead]

I hope somebody coughs this thing up and Hannity shows it during the BHO infomercial!

[LL2]

I hope somebody coughs this thing up and Hannity shows it during the BHO infomercial!

That would be awesome!

[sheepshead]

from a blog:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can’t release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

[LL2]

from a blog:

“Obama said genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

Well, I guess he wouldn't want people hear that!

[Freak Out]

from a blog:

“Obama said genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

Well, I guess he wouldn't want people hear that!

Genocide is pushing it......

[packinpatland]

from a blog:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can’t release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

How is it that you've (or the blogger) have seen a clip from the tape and no one else has?

[sheepshead]

Several at the LA Times have. It's not from me. They just laid off a number of people and there's a climbing reward for a copy.

[arcilite]

I think if anything like this existed it would have come out already. The Clinton smear machine would of found it during the primaries.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The LA Times has a tape of Obama which it is stone-walling that shows Obama praising a Palestinian named Khalidi who supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Khalidi and others supposedly spewed some really vile anti-Semitic and anti-American remarks while Obama just sat there and smiled.

I doubt we will ever actually see the tape, as the LA Times is about as far left as it gets, but just the reporting of this should cost Obama some votes--especially among Jews--normally a mostly Democrat voting bloc in places like Florida.

I'm still thinking pretty negative about this thing, but it does seem that McCain still has a slim chance--thus, America still has a slim chance to prevent the horrors of an Obama presidency.

Oddly enough when McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute, the IRI gave almost half a million bucks to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. Does that mean that McCain has been funding terrorists, or does it mean that Khalidi has just been retroactively mainstreamed? :P :P

The U.S. throws money around like candy, to th UN and even to enemies. That's a world of difference from sitting in a room listening to anti-semitic jokes and insults and not walking out (assuming that's what's on the tape). World of difference, even to a guy like Ty Bigguns.

Why would you assume that the tape reveals Obama sitting for anti-semitic jokes?

Sittng? Doubtfull.

I'm sure he was rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off at some good jew jokes.

[texaspackerbacker]

Nobody tells good Jew jokes like a good Jew.

Unfortunately, I doubt many good Jews were there for that tribute to Khalidi--just BHO and a few close friends--a lot of Muslims and other terrorists (William Ayres and Bernadette Dorn were there too).

[packinpatland]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/is-columbia-professor-khalidi-a-political-ally-of-barack-obama/

The Statement: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking on Oct. 29 in Bowling Green, Ohio, said Barack Obama "spent a lot of time with" Rashid Khalidi. "Rashid Khalidi, he, in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization," she said.

Get the facts!


The Facts: Rashid Khalidi is a scholar at Columbia University in New York, where he is director of the Middle East Institute.

His university profile says he specializes in the "history of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt; the growth of nation-state; nationalism in the Arab World; problems of modern Middle East historiography and and an expert on Palestinian issues."

He has authored scholarly works on Palestinian issues, has been an activist for Palestinian causes, and has been a critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.

In a 2004 Washington Times story, he denied ever being a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Sen. Obama, on his Web site, described Khalidi as "a former neighbor and university colleague." But their relationship has sparked questions about Obama's stance on Israel and what Obama calls "ugly insinuations." Obama has said he has been a "clear and consistent" supporter of Israel and doesn't share Khalidi's views.

ABC News on May 22 aired comments Obama made at a Boca Raton, Florida, synagogue, where Obama faced questions from Jewish voters and addressed the issue. He said he knew Khalidi and had conversations with him in Chicago, where both men taught at the University of Chicago. And, he said, their children went to the same school.

"He is not one of my advisers; he's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," Obama said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

An April 10 Los Angeles Times story that explored the Khalidi-Obama relationship said Khalidi and his wife lived near the Obamas in Chicago and "the families became friends and dinner companions."

"In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi (Khalidi's wife), received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian-American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat," the Times reported.

When asked about these details, the Obama campaign pointed to the May 22 comments aired by ABC News. Khalidi, asked by CNN to respond to Palin's assertions, declined to comment.

In a New York Daily News story published March 6, 2007, Khalidi said he hosted the fund-raiser because he had been friends with Obama in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi is quoted as saying.

The Los Angeles Times report said, "though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter."

The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.

[MJZiggy]

Nope, Tex, no negative campaigning here...Hell, it isn't even true and the McCain campaign is pushing it. I can so see why he bought some TV time.

[HowardRoark]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/is-columbia-professor-khalidi-a-political-ally-of-barack-obama/

The Statement: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking on Oct. 29 in Bowling Green, Ohio, said Barack Obama "spent a lot of time with" Rashid Khalidi. "Rashid Khalidi, he, in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization," she said.

Get the facts!


The Facts: Rashid Khalidi is a scholar at Columbia University in New York, where he is director of the Middle East Institute.

His university profile says he specializes in the "history of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt; the growth of nation-state; nationalism in the Arab World; problems of modern Middle East historiography and and an expert on Palestinian issues."

He has authored scholarly works on Palestinian issues, has been an activist for Palestinian causes, and has been a critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.

In a 2004 Washington Times story, he denied ever being a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Sen. Obama, on his Web site, described Khalidi as "a former neighbor and university colleague." But their relationship has sparked questions about Obama's stance on Israel and what Obama calls "ugly insinuations." Obama has said he has been a "clear and consistent" supporter of Israel and doesn't share Khalidi's views.

ABC News on May 22 aired comments Obama made at a Boca Raton, Florida, synagogue, where Obama faced questions from Jewish voters and addressed the issue. He said he knew Khalidi and had conversations with him in Chicago, where both men taught at the University of Chicago. And, he said, their children went to the same school.

"He is not one of my advisers; he's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," Obama said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

An April 10 Los Angeles Times story that explored the Khalidi-Obama relationship said Khalidi and his wife lived near the Obamas in Chicago and "the families became friends and dinner companions."

"In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi (Khalidi's wife), received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian-American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat," the Times reported.

When asked about these details, the Obama campaign pointed to the May 22 comments aired by ABC News. Khalidi, asked by CNN to respond to Palin's assertions, declined to comment.

In a New York Daily News story published March 6, 2007, Khalidi said he hosted the fund-raiser because he had been friends with Obama in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi is quoted as saying.

The Los Angeles Times report said, "though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter."

The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.

Excellent!! Then let's see the tape.

[Bossman641]

Nope, Tex, no negative campaigning here...Hell, it isn't even true and the McCain campaign is pushing it. I can so see why he bought some TV time.

It's not true because they say so??

[MJZiggy]

Ok, I'll play. Show me any actual evidence of a lasting political relationship or any quote from Obama that indicates his agreement with the man's position. For all I know they made up any kind of association at all and just named him because they happened to work at the same university.

[HowardRoark]

Ok, I'll play. Show me any actual evidence of a lasting political relationship or any quote from Obama that indicates his agreement with the man's position. For all I know they made up any kind of association at all and just named him because they happened to work at the same university.

Excellent!! Then let's see the tape.

[MJZiggy]

There is no tape.

[texaspackerbacker]

Nope, Tex, no negative campaigning here...Hell, it isn't even true and the McCain campaign is pushing it. I can so see why he bought some TV time.

Are you implying that Obama put on his half hour extravaganza to counter the discussion of this tape and his involvement with Khalidi? That would be kind of incredible, considering that the Khalidi thing only surfaced a day or two ago, and they were promoting the Obama thing at least a week ago.

What is it you're saying isn't true? The idea of Obama being likeminded with terrorists, anti-Semites, and America-haters? Or merely the fact that he has a long history of associating with scum like that?

I would concede that the mere association and comfort level he has with that kind of trash is not directly relevant to his performance as president. However, Obama's RECORD of votes and of public statements is extremely relevant. And that RECORD says he is a very high risk to ruin America as we know it in any number of ways--terrorist hits at the top of the list, but also trying to tear down our free enterprise capitalist economy, and appointing activist judges who will try to further destroy the basic culture and Judeo-Christian values and heritage of America.

Thus, ANYTHING, including exposing Obama's left wing extremist past, that contributes to defeating the bastard becomes very relevant--for the survival of our way of life.

[HowardRoark]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

[HowardRoark]

There is no tape.

SSshhhhh......

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/06/stasi.jpg

[packinpatland]

"and appointing activist judges who will try to further destroy the basic culture and Judeo-Christian values and heritage of America. "

I didn't know that having Judeo-Christian values was a requirment to citizenship.

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!""

[MJZiggy]

Nope, Tex, no negative campaigning here...Hell, it isn't even true and the McCain campaign is pushing it. I can so see why he bought some TV time.

Are you implying that Obama put on his half hour extravaganza to counter the discussion of this tape and his involvement with Khalidi? That would be kind of incredible, considering that the Khalidi thing only surfaced a day or two ago, and they were promoting the Obama thing at least a week ago.

What is it you're saying isn't true? The idea of Obama being likeminded with terrorists, anti-Semites, and America-haters? Or merely the fact that he has a long history of associating with scum like that?

I would concede that the mere association and comfort level he has with that kind of trash is not directly relevant to his performance as president. However, Obama's RECORD of votes and of public statement is extremely relevant. And that RECORD says he is a very high risk to ruin America as we know it in any number of ways--terrorist hits at the top of the list, but trying to tear down our free enterprise capitalist economy, and appointing activist judges who will try to further destroy the basic culture and Judeo-Christian values and heritage of America.

Thus, ANYTHING, including exposing Obama's left wing extremist past, that contributes to defeating the bastard becomes very relevant--for the survival of our way of life.

Obama's votes are relevant, but why have McCain ads referred to him (like half this forum does) as Hussein? Do we even know McCain's middle name? Wait, right. It can't be used in an attempt to bias the public and make the untrue insinuation that he's Muslim.

I know that you fear a terrorist strike above all, but have you ever thought that the people you fear might be (especially after this campaign) to identify and listen to Obama than some old fart white guy? Obama's said over and over that his main focus overseas is to secure nuclear materials. I haven't heard any such suggestion out of McCain. Instead of telling me what his focus is, he says Obama would talk to Iran without preconditions. So? Talking is better than demanding and not talking--see Cuba and see how far we got with them.

Find me a McCain ad that doesn't attack. Much of it attacking with insinuation and half truths. If I were him and had the money, I'd buy a chance to clear the record too.

By the way, congratulations to Sarah on having the Anchorage newspaper endorse Obama. Way to win over your own state. Yes, I know. I've already told you I don't like that woman.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Conservatives...please address this point from a Ben Smith blog (the same blog that Drudge linked yesterday to "break" the Khalidi story):

"I emailed Rahid Khalidi earlier about McCain's suggestion that going to his going-away party was like attending a neo-Nazi event, and he emailed back just now that while he's not talking to the press himself, Harpers writer Scott Horton had today rebutted "a few of the stupider and more outrageous things said about me."

He referred me to Horton's defense
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779.

Horton goes after Khalidi's National Review critics, whom McCain is following, on several specific points -- that he was a PLO spokesman, founder of a Chicago social service group, or Obama child babysitter -- and concludes:


Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy’s ignorant and malicious rants.


Of course, Khalidi has been involved in Palestinian causes. McCarthy ought to ask John McCain about that, because McCain and Khalidi appear to have some joint interests, and that fact speaks very well of both of them. Indeed, the McCain–Khalidi connections are more substantial than the phony Obama–Khalidi connections McCarthy gussies up for his article. The Republican party’s congressionally funded international-networking organization, the International Republican Institute–long and ably chaired by John McCain and headed by McCain’s close friend, the capable Lorne Craner–has taken an interest in West Bank matters. IRI funded an ambitious project, called the Palestine Center, that Khalidi helped to support. Khalidi served on the Center’s board of directors. The goal of that project, shared by Khalidi and McCain, was the promotion of civic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank. Of course, McCarthy is not interested in looking too closely into the facts, because they would not serve his shrill partisan objectives.

I have a suggestion for Andy McCarthy and his Hyde Park project. If he really digs down deep enough, he will come up with a Hyde Park figure who stood in constant close contact with Barack Obama and who, unlike Ayers and Khalidi, really did influence Obama’s thinking about law, government, and policy. He is to my way of thinking a genuine radical. His name is Richard Posner, and he appears to be the most frequently and positively cited judge and legal academic in… National Review.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

A person of intelligence should understand what present means.

[HowardRoark]

Conservatives...please address this point from a Ben Smith blog (the same blog that Drudge linked yesterday to "break" the Khalidi story):

"I emailed Rahid Khalidi earlier about McCain's suggestion that going to his going-away party was like attending a neo-Nazi event, and he emailed back just now that while he's not talking to the press himself, Harpers writer Scott Horton had today rebutted "a few of the stupider and more outrageous things said about me."

He referred me to Horton's defense
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779.

Horton goes after Khalidi's National Review critics, whom McCain is following, on several specific points -- that he was a PLO spokesman, founder of a Chicago social service group, or Obama child babysitter -- and concludes:


Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy’s ignorant and malicious rants.


Of course, Khalidi has been involved in Palestinian causes. McCarthy ought to ask John McCain about that, because McCain and Khalidi appear to have some joint interests, and that fact speaks very well of both of them. Indeed, the McCain–Khalidi connections are more substantial than the phony Obama–Khalidi connections McCarthy gussies up for his article. The Republican party’s congressionally funded international-networking organization, the International Republican Institute–long and ably chaired by John McCain and headed by McCain’s close friend, the capable Lorne Craner–has taken an interest in West Bank matters. IRI funded an ambitious project, called the Palestine Center, that Khalidi helped to support. Khalidi served on the Center’s board of directors. The goal of that project, shared by Khalidi and McCain, was the promotion of civic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank. Of course, McCarthy is not interested in looking too closely into the facts, because they would not serve his shrill partisan objectives.

I have a suggestion for Andy McCarthy and his Hyde Park project. If he really digs down deep enough, he will come up with a Hyde Park figure who stood in constant close contact with Barack Obama and who, unlike Ayers and Khalidi, really did influence Obama’s thinking about law, government, and policy. He is to my way of thinking a genuine radical. His name is Richard Posner, and he appears to be the most frequently and positively cited judge and legal academic in… National Review.

Excellent!! Then let's see the tape.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Why? The LA Times described this tape in detail in an article a while ago so it's not like they buried it. They just agreed not to release the tape itself. That was a stipulation of receiving it.

Or, has your ODS flared to the point that all media are part of a great coverup?

[packinpatland]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/19/mccains_judeo_christian_values_reference_puzzles/

"The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?' " he told Beliefnet last year.

On Saturday, in arguing for a strong defense of Georgia in its struggles with Russia, McCain twice noted that Georgia is a Christian nation - perhaps to distinguish it from other crumbling pieces of the former Soviet Union that are Muslim, such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan.

Such comments may pass unnoticed by most American voters and may be reassuring to some religious Christians and Jews. They may even go over well with some secular Americans who are pleased that he is using more inclusive language than some members of the religious right.

But his repeated invocation of "Judeo-Christian values" is sure to stick in the ears of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other non-Christian, non-Jewish faiths. And they're sure to be asking themselves: Just what is McCain trying to tell us?"

[MJZiggy]

Conservatives...please address this point from a Ben Smith blog (the same blog that Drudge linked yesterday to "break" the Khalidi story):

"I emailed Rahid Khalidi earlier about McCain's suggestion that going to his going-away party was like attending a neo-Nazi event, and he emailed back just now that while he's not talking to the press himself, Harpers writer Scott Horton had today rebutted "a few of the stupider and more outrageous things said about me."

He referred me to Horton's defense
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779.

Horton goes after Khalidi's National Review critics, whom McCain is following, on several specific points -- that he was a PLO spokesman, founder of a Chicago social service group, or Obama child babysitter -- and concludes:


Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy’s ignorant and malicious rants.


Of course, Khalidi has been involved in Palestinian causes. McCarthy ought to ask John McCain about that, because McCain and Khalidi appear to have some joint interests, and that fact speaks very well of both of them. Indeed, the McCain–Khalidi connections are more substantial than the phony Obama–Khalidi connections McCarthy gussies up for his article. The Republican party’s congressionally funded international-networking organization, the International Republican Institute–long and ably chaired by John McCain and headed by McCain’s close friend, the capable Lorne Craner–has taken an interest in West Bank matters. IRI funded an ambitious project, called the Palestine Center, that Khalidi helped to support. Khalidi served on the Center’s board of directors. The goal of that project, shared by Khalidi and McCain, was the promotion of civic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank. Of course, McCarthy is not interested in looking too closely into the facts, because they would not serve his shrill partisan objectives.

I have a suggestion for Andy McCarthy and his Hyde Park project. If he really digs down deep enough, he will come up with a Hyde Park figure who stood in constant close contact with Barack Obama and who, unlike Ayers and Khalidi, really did influence Obama’s thinking about law, government, and policy. He is to my way of thinking a genuine radical. His name is Richard Posner, and he appears to be the most frequently and positively cited judge and legal academic in… National Review.

Excellent!! Then let's see the tape.

You mean the one about McCain and his Palestinian Center ties?

There is no tape.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

[mraynrand]

But his repeated invocation of "Judeo-Christian values" is sure to stick in the ears of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other non-Christian, non-Jewish faiths. And they're sure to be asking themselves: Just what is McCain trying to tell us?"

McCain is teling you what you already know - that the United States, because of it's Judeo Christian heritage and values, is the safest place to practice your religion, since freedom of religion and religious tolerance in the United States is a founding principle that is absolutely supported.

[HowardRoark]

As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

Ziggy says the tape disappeared. I think, for the safety of us all, we just drop it.

[mraynrand]

Conservatives...please address this point from a Ben Smith blog (the same blog that Drudge linked yesterday to "break" the Khalidi story):

"I emailed Rahid Khalidi earlier about McCain's suggestion that going to his going-away party was like attending a neo-Nazi event, and he emailed back just now that while he's not talking to the press himself, Harpers writer Scott Horton had today rebutted "a few of the stupider and more outrageous things said about me."

He referred me to Horton's defense
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779.

Horton goes after Khalidi's National Review critics, whom McCain is following, on several specific points -- that he was a PLO spokesman, founder of a Chicago social service group, or Obama child babysitter -- and concludes:


Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy’s ignorant and malicious rants.


Of course, Khalidi has been involved in Palestinian causes. McCarthy ought to ask John McCain about that, because McCain and Khalidi appear to have some joint interests, and that fact speaks very well of both of them. Indeed, the McCain–Khalidi connections are more substantial than the phony Obama–Khalidi connections McCarthy gussies up for his article. The Republican party’s congressionally funded international-networking organization, the International Republican Institute–long and ably chaired by John McCain and headed by McCain’s close friend, the capable Lorne Craner–has taken an interest in West Bank matters. IRI funded an ambitious project, called the Palestine Center, that Khalidi helped to support. Khalidi served on the Center’s board of directors. The goal of that project, shared by Khalidi and McCain, was the promotion of civic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank. Of course, McCarthy is not interested in looking too closely into the facts, because they would not serve his shrill partisan objectives.

I have a suggestion for Andy McCarthy and his Hyde Park project. If he really digs down deep enough, he will come up with a Hyde Park figure who stood in constant close contact with Barack Obama and who, unlike Ayers and Khalidi, really did influence Obama’s thinking about law, government, and policy. He is to my way of thinking a genuine radical. His name is Richard Posner, and he appears to be the most frequently and positively cited judge and legal academic in… National Review.

Excellent!! Then let's see the tape.

You mean the one about McCain and his Palestinian Center ties?

There is no tape.

Did McCain go to a party at the center and hang around while people accused Israel of genocide?

Did Annenberg hang around in Chicago while Ayers and Obama used his cash to radicalize students?

[packinpatland]

But his repeated invocation of "Judeo-Christian values" is sure to stick in the ears of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other non-Christian, non-Jewish faiths. And they're sure to be asking themselves: Just what is McCain trying to tell us?"

McCain is teling you what you already know - that the United States, because of it's Judeo Christian heritage and values, is the safest place to practice your religion, since freedom of religion and religious tolerance in the United States is a founding principle that is absolutely supported.

But not if you're Muslim........right?

[Zool]

But his repeated invocation of "Judeo-Christian values" is sure to stick in the ears of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other non-Christian, non-Jewish faiths. And they're sure to be asking themselves: Just what is McCain trying to tell us?"

McCain is teling you what you already know - that the United States, because of it's Judeo Christian heritage and values, is the safest place to practice your religion, since freedom of religion and religious tolerance in the United States is a founding principle that is absolutely supported.

But not if you're Muslim........right?

Huh? There's 6-7 mosques in the relatively small town that I live in and they arent exactly a target of hate crimes.

[sheepshead]

Ok, I'll play. Show me any actual evidence of a lasting political relationship or any quote from Obama that indicates his agreement with the man's position. For all I know they made up any kind of association at all and just named him because they happened to work at the same university.

Ziggy, come on. It isnt one guy. Its a pattern. A scary and dangerous one. Starting with his mother, then his step father and continuing, for 40 years. You cannot find people like this in anyones past on the ticket, including Bidens.

[mraynrand]

The fact that Obama was at a going away party with Ayers pretty much confirms that he was palling around with him.

[packinpatland]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

[LL2]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

I hardly think that your example is a valid comparison. Obama has a history of being associated with questionable people...Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, Rezco, etc. Who else is in Obama's closeted past?

When someone has a history of being associated with questionable people you don't even begin to question it PIP? I'm curious, because millions give this guy a pass on so many things and buy into spiel.

[packinpatland]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

I hardly think that your example is a valid comparison. Obama has a history of being associated with questionable people...Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, Rezco, etc. Who else is in Obama's closeted past?

When someone has a history of being associated with questionable people you don't even begin to question it PIP? I'm curious, because millions give this guy a pass on so many things and buy into spiel.

I question the use of the term 'association'..........or 'paling around'.

[mraynrand]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

If you knew he was a sex offender and the folks around you were yukking it up about molestation, I would hope you'd leave.

[Zool]

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/6947/ohnoeszf3.png

[SkinBasket]

I question the use of the term 'association'..........or 'paling around'.

Of course you do because any news outlets with any information about it are on self-imposed lock downs and all references to the matters are being deleted from archives. When it's easier to find pictures of big foot than information about the relationship and history of Obama and his less savory "associates," it's not a hard thing to do.

[Zool]

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h303/usa732/its-a-trap.jpg

[packinpatland]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

If you knew he was a sex offender and the folks around you were yukking it up about molestation, I would hope you'd leave.

We knew he was an offender and no one was 'yukking' it up.
Which is pretty much what I would imagine happened with Obama........I doubt whether anyone yukked it up about the Weatherman group.

[mraynrand]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

If you knew he was a sex offender and the folks around you were yukking it up about molestation, I would hope you'd leave.

We knew he was an offender and no one was 'yukking' it up.
Which is pretty much what I would imagine happened with Obama........I doubt whether anyone yukked it up about the Weatherman group.

No, but if the reporting is correct (release the tape?) they were making anti-semitic remarks and talking about genocide of the Palestinians (by whom, I wonder). Would you stick around for that with your pal, Bill Ayers then?

Try really hard to adjust your flawed analogy to the story at hand. Plus, if I knew the guy was a registered sex offender, and it was a reasonably bad offense (since you can get the tag for all sorts of things), I don't think I would have gone to the party. Why did you?

[LL2]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

If you knew he was a sex offender and the folks around you were yukking it up about molestation, I would hope you'd leave.

We knew he was an offender and no one was 'yukking' it up.
Which is pretty much what I would imagine happened with Obama........I doubt whether anyone yukked it up about the Weatherman group.

Obama did "yuk" it up with Rashid Khalidi as he attended a party that was in honor of Rashid Khalidi, and had kinds words to say about him...what Obama said we will not know because the LA Times would rather conceal the story.

[texaspackerbacker]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

Of course you don't ...... You just condone socializing with people that do it.

I suppose Obama doesn't condone planting bombs in government buildings and killing cops either.

Thank you for the EXCELLENT analogy.

[HowardRoark]

Anybody here a member of the "New Party?"

[retailguy]

Anybody here a member of the "New Party?"

I haven't been "saved" yet. I'm hopeful it won't be too painful when it happens.

[Freak Out]

This just another non story dug up by a bunch of fear mongering republicans.

[packinpatland]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

Of course you don't ...... You just condone socializing with people that do it.

I suppose Obama doesn't condone planting bombs in government buildings and killing cops either.

Thank you for the EXCELLENT analogy.

I compare the two for the sole reason of pointing out.......we were in the room at the same time. Stop twisting the words.

[mraynrand]

This just another non story dug up by a bunch of fear mongering republicans.

Like AGW?

[retailguy]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

Of course you don't ...... You just condone socializing with people that do it.

I suppose Obama doesn't condone planting bombs in government buildings and killing cops either.

Thank you for the EXCELLENT analogy.

I compare the two for the sole reason of pointing out.......we were in the room at the same time. Stop twisting the words.

Did he really twist your words that much? I don't think so.

To a point, I agree with him. You did not find this particular gentleman so revolting that you refused to spend a few hours in the same environment as he was in.

The chosen one did not find Mr. Ayres actions or point of view so revolting that he refused to maintain a friendship with him. He also found several others with "questionable" beliefs and values worthy of his time/support/friendship. Pointing out someones questionable choices should not be "dirty pool" or "off limits".

I fail to see where Tex "twisted your words". He even acknowledged that like you Obama didn't believe in the actions. But, you didn't find it "revolting" enough to leave. The chosen one didn't find Mr Ayres actions "revolting" enough cease friendship/association with Mr. Ayres.

The difference? We don't have enough information to establish a "pattern" with your behavior. The chosen one? Not so much..... :idea:

[retailguy]

Look, I just re-read what I wrote and need to add to it.

I get why you don't like the comparison. In fact, I agree with that part of it. I don't think your words were twisted, but I understand you didn't like it.

But, really. You aren't running for public office. You don't have a pattern of behavior in this regard. But, the chosen one does. And, he IS running for office.

The comparisons are fair. The associations should lead to questions. But, they haven't.

Oh, by the way, if you were offended enough by being in the same room with this guy, maybe you should have left? I might have.

[HowardRoark]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

Of course you don't ...... You just condone socializing with people that do it.

I suppose Obama doesn't condone planting bombs in government buildings and killing cops either.

Thank you for the EXCELLENT analogy.

I compare the two for the sole reason of pointing out.......we were in the room at the same time. Stop twisting the words.

This is nothing but a bunch of bellyfeeling!!! Of course it is ungood what Ayers did/does. He wants to fundamentally change our country. When he was younger, he tried to do it with violence. Now, he is using other methods. Obama is in on the deal with him. Period.

The fact that we even have to have this discussion is absurd. Ayers and Obama were MORE than just guys "down the street" from each other. This comparison to your cocktail party is nonsense.

[packinpatland]

Look, I just re-read what I wrote and need to add to it.

I get why you don't like the comparison. In fact, I agree with that part of it. I don't think your words were twisted, but I understand you didn't like it.

But, really. You aren't running for public office. You don't have a pattern of behavior in this regard. But, the chosen one does. And, he IS running for office.

The comparisons are fair. The associations should lead to questions. But, they haven't.

Oh, by the way, if you were offended enough by being in the same room with this guy, maybe you should have left? I might have.


I understand your point, and the others.......I just don't agree.
My original point was that by being at the event, not leaving, shouldn't have led anyone to the conclusion that you have the same mindset as any one person in the room.

[LL2]

[quote=retailguy]Look, I just re-read what I wrote and need to add to it.

I get why you don't like the comparison. In fact, I agree with that part of it. I don't think your words were twisted, but I understand you didn't like it.

But, really. You aren't running for public office. You don't have a pattern of behavior in this regard. But, the chosen one does. And, he IS running for office.

The comparisons are fair. The associations should lead to questions. But, they haven't.

Oh, by the way, if you were offended enough by being in the same room with this guy, maybe you should have left? I might have.


I understand your point, and the others.......I just don't agree.
My original point was that by being at the event, not leaving, shouldn't have led anyone to the conclusion that you have the same mindset as any one person in the room.[/quoted]

PIP, it's good that you see Retail's point. Your point and example is classic liberal down playing the attendance of an event or association with an individual. In your example you didn't "know" the guy and were merely in the same toom with him. Personally I would've kicked him in the nuts. Obama was not just in the same room with Ayers, Wright, Khadlil, Rezco, etc. There is a big difference between your point and Obama knowing these shady folks. I can't believe you can't even notice the trend in Obama's associations with these folks.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

If you knew he was a sex offender and the folks around you were yukking it up about molestation, I would hope you'd leave.

We knew he was an offender and no one was 'yukking' it up.
Which is pretty much what I would imagine happened with Obama........I doubt whether anyone yukked it up about the Weatherman group.

Obama did "yuk" it up with Rashid Khalidi as he attended a party that was in honor of Rashid Khalidi, and had kinds words to say about him...what Obama said we will not know because the LA Times would rather conceal the story.

Ridiculous. They wrote the story...so then they could be accused of covering it up? :oops:

[Bossman641]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

Or when you just don't want to take a stand on something because you know you will get backlash on it later on.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So you're saying that if you have 48 yes votes, 45 no votes, and 5 present votes, the measure does not pass? I don't think so.

A present vote reflects a politician's inclination to vote one way, but his knowledge that such a vote would cost him politically--as it should if he knowingly votes contrary to the views of his constituents. A present vote also reflects a politician's desire to not be recorded as absent--even though he either can't make up his mind or more likely, doesn't want to pay the political price for an unpopular vote.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

[LL2]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

I guess i have to repeat this, again.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So, let us put this into practice at a different level. Instead of Obama and Mac bickering about no votes for military funding...they both woulda voted No..because while they both want funding to be there..they both didn't like certain parts...troop withdrawl, education benefits, etc.

[LL2]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

I guess i have to repeat this, again.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So, let us put this into practice at a different level. Instead of Obama and Mac bickering about no votes for military funding...they both woulda voted No..because while they both want funding to be there..they both didn't like certain parts...troop withdrawl, education benefits, etc.

You know it's a matter of opinion that a "present" vote is a vote that is taking a stand. A "present" vote to most is taking a safe path.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

I guess i have to repeat this, again.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So, let us put this into practice at a different level. Instead of Obama and Mac bickering about no votes for military funding...they both woulda voted No..because while they both want funding to be there..they both didn't like certain parts...troop withdrawl, education benefits, etc.

You know it's a matter of opinion that a "present" vote is a vote that is taking a stand. A "present" vote to most is taking a safe path.

Wrong. Everyone in the area of gov't understands what it means. If someone wanted to take a safe path..they wouldn't be there for the vote.

Try thinking for yourself.