Either you build the non-Mosque on the site two blocks away from where the Twin Towers stood, or you don't. There is no way to compromise. To sit and watch Howard Dean talk on Countdown for almost 20 minutes about how "reasonable people" can sit down and "compromise" is ridiculous. There is no in-between on this, either they get that site, or they don't. If they build it somewhere else, they aren't "compromising" they are "losing". Not every issue has a "middle".
I'm so tired of hearing "well we need to be considerate of the people who suffered during 9-11." I'm willing to bet most of them wouldn't even have KNOWN about it had people on the Right not started raising a stink about it. Legally they have every right to build there. Morally we should let them build there.
So apparently the AP and NYT decided they couldn't share the picture of the President and Sasha in the water in the Gulf because THEY didn't take the pictures. They claim that they can't even trust that the picture is REALLY of President Obama in the Gulf. They "claim" it's about "transparency".
As I see the site gearing up for yet another pie fight about something that none of us can really change, we should be focusing on November. It's kind of hard to motivate a group that decides to focus so much on differences as far as political strategy instead of all of the other things that bind us together.
We need to stop fighting with each other about Obama and his administration and do a better job of remembering that we ALL still have a common "enemy" (for lack of a better word), and that's the Republicans. While we sit on this site and fight about what Gibbs said, what he meant, what he didn't say, and a whole bunch of other stuff that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, Republicans are running around acting like they have the November elections on lock.
I mean seriously, she went on a vacation with her daughter. So what that it was in Spain? She paid for the trip herself, she HAS to take security because people are crazy out there. I'm sure she would have rather gone without a huge entourage, but that's just not possible in today's world.
Umm, the last time I checked Michelle Obama was a grown ass woman and Barack Obama was a grown ass man. If he REALLY needed her to be there for all of those events, do you think she would have gone? Hell, I bet the President would have gone WITH her to all of those places if he could without the Right and the Media whining about it.
Apparently there is some "controversy" about President Obama going on "The View" on Thursday (it will be taped tomorrow). DEMOCRATS are saying it demeans the office. What exactly is demeaning about talking straight to the American people? That's how we won in 2008. President Obama has always done better talking directly to the American people. Every time he does, his poll numbers go up, and we all get excited again.
When he takes the time to explain what he did and why he did it, it tends to calm down whatever storm is brewing or raging.
Also, whether "legitimate" journalists like it or not, he's more likely to get actual RELEVANT questions (as long as Elisabeth is limited to one) on "The View" than he is in other places.
So I tuned into Morning Joe this morning (why, I still don't know) and Joe was on there ranting and raving and slamming the WH and the Dept. of Agriculture for firing Mrs. Sherrod based on Breibart's video. He was concerned about the WH firing Mrs. Sherrod based on an Internet video on a blog. He also went on to try to claim that FOX "News" was an innocent party because they didn't start playing the video on a loop live on air until AFTER she was fired.
Now, let's stop and think about that for a minute. The WH allegedly used a video posted on a RWing blog that frequently supplies such videos to FAUX which are then played on a loop over and over again until eventually someone "resigns." As Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, that happens regularly.
Ed Schultz can be pretty fiery on any issue, and on this one I think he NAILED it. He said exactly what I was thinking about the situation. For Republicans, and Sen. Nelson, to refuse to extend jobless benefits and block this bill in the face of what failure to pass this bill will bring is unconscionable.
The thing that seems to be getting the most play right now is the fact that President Obama is not "emotional enough" about the Oil Spill. Well, President Obama is not an overly emotional person. We had 8 years of that. If we wanted a President who just gets angry with no idea what he's supposed to be angry about then McCain would be President.
WE can get mad. WE can yell and cuss and rant all we want, but at the end of the day what the hell is that going to do? Would I love to see him cuss out BP's CEO? Hell yeah, but that's not how he rolls. I think President Obama IS mad, and I think he's showing his anger the way he does. Jonathan Alter was on the Colbert Report last night and he pointed out that President Obama doesn't get "hot" angry he gets "cool" angry. As in freeze you with a look or a tone angry. We've seen him angry before, we know how he is when he's angry by now, and he IS angry.
. . . and if you missed it you should definitely check it out. I'd heard people saying how bad it will be for the oil to hit the wetlands, but no one really told WHY before. I mean outside of the obvious fact that it would be terribly difficult (damn near impossible) to clean. Last night Rachel explained what the wetlands were, what they do, and how the oil spill will harm the wetlands and ultimately the city of New Orleans and the rest of the country. I'm going to post the video below the jump.
BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!
Really Glenn? She's fucking 11!! And I'm willing to bet that at a mere 11 years of age, she's far surpassed your level of maturity AND intelligence.
That is what people don't seem to be understanding. This isn't going to be a long diary.
Just because President Obama says he "supports" you doesn't mean you'll win if you're not a good candidate-- even if he DOES go to your state/district to campaign. Just because you use him in an ad, doesn't mean Democrats will vote for you in a primary if they don't think you're the best candidate. It takes more than President Obama's endorsement to win an election, no matter WHERE you are. I think that's something we should have figured out from Massachusetts. If the candidates cannot sell themselves, how the hell do they expect President Obama to do it?
But I suppose it just helps the political pundits, and others, to feel important by harping on what President Obama did or didn't do in an election where the candidate he "supported" won or lost.
So, I didn't realize Pres. Obama was speaking at the University Of Michigan's commencement (I don't know how this is gonna play with Ohio State fans LOL), but when I tuned in he was talking about what makes democracy tick. We've had many a debate on this site about how to best practice democracy, and what is and isn't fair to say. I think President Obama set out the best course for us to follow in his speech. Now, I'm not sure it's enough to make me watch FAUX News (I actually do think you get a pretty good mix of both factions on MSNBC/CNN, at least before prime time), but I think it's pretty good advice on how to be more civil in our political discourse, even on this blog where the "left" and "center" and "center-left" seem to clash on every issue.
Basically the crux of this segment of his speech was "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Listen to the other arguments, you may not agree with everything they say, but you may agree with something they say and you can go from there.
According to their Twitter accounts, officers just arrested two journalists in Ferguson Missouri.
Wesley Lowery, from the Washington Post, and Ryan Reilly, from HuffPo, were inside a McDonalds when ...