Possibly the Dumbest Challenge Yet to Obama

Ever heard of Wayne Allyn Root? You’re not alone. 

Root is the Libertarian candidate for vice president.  He says that Barack Obama is a commie who only got into Harvard Law School because he’s black.  He also says that he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body, although he does admit that some of his best friends are not, in fact, black (see below).

Root and Obama were apparently at Columbia University at the same (“class of ’83”). He says Obama is a big phony because

I didn’t know him. I don’t think anybody knew him. But I know that the guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha (shouldn’t that be macher? – GB ) who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange? It’s very strange.

Never met [Obama] in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.

Bitter much?

[I]Don’t know why. Kept to himself…. The only thing I could even imagine is that he talks in his biographies about being, you know, his identity crisis, his “am I black or am I white?” He chose black. And he hung out with a couple of black kids and never went near anybody and his wife? That’s the only thing I can think of. All my buddies are white, what can I tell you! They don’t know him, nobody’s ever seen him, I don’t know what to tell you.

So now I ask out loud in the press, I challenge my classmate to give his GPA against mine. And let’s see if he really is the bright guy they all say he is. What if we discover he got into Harvard with a C average? Is he then the brilliant man America thinks he is? That would be a very good question, don’t you think?

Root’s theory is of course borne out by the fact that Obama failed miserably at Harvard Law, rising only to the presidency of the law review. As lawyers across America know, presidents of the Harvard Law Review are a dime a dozen and generally can only look forward to a career of ambulance-chasing and prosecution of dubious soft tissue injury cases.

John McCain brags that he graduated fifth from the bottom at the Naval Academy.  All we know about Sarah Palin is that she attended five colleges in the six years it took her to graduate.  Joe Biden’s college years were apparently fairly checkered and his grades weren’t great. 

So I hope that Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden each take up Root’s challenge. 

UPDATE:

I talked to a friend who attended Harvard Law with Obama.  My friend, who still knows Obama and supports his candidacy, raises several of the issues discussed above and some others:

I don’t know what Barack’s grades were at Columbia, but Harvard’s decision to admit him can hardly be criticized. They admitted a guy who went on to, among other things, make law review (a color-blind competition based on grades and/or writing ability), become President of the Law Review, become an influential US Senator at an early age, become a Constitutional Law professor at Univeristy of Chicago, and, of course, the Democratic nominee for President after beating out Hillary Clinton.

While he may or may not have been a straight-A student, no-one has ever criticized his intellect. But I do agree with Root’s implicit thesis that intelligence is very important in whom we select as Present. So let’s look at McCain’s and Palin’s intellectual and academic records please … electing McCain would be trading a President who got through college on a “gentleman’s C” for one who “brags” that he barely graduated. (Palin went to at least 4 colleges, and we don’t yet know what her grades were.) And can there be any doubt that Bush got into Yale because of the color of his skin and the name of his kin? Does anyone think McCain got into the Naval Academy on merit or academic prowess?

Sarah Palin Interview Watch II

Sarah Palin is now the Republican nominee for vice president.  She has never done an interview as a national candidate.

Yesterday, sassy muckraker Matt Drudge reported that Oprah Winfrey, an Obama supporter, has refused to have Palin on her show. He posted this item:

BIG DILEMMA: OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED Fri Sep 05 2008 08:55:46 ET

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America — but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!

Oprah’s staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. “Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on,” an insider explains. “Oprah’s website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama.”

One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!

It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin’s historic convention speech.

Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography.

Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama’s campaign, refused requests for comment.   

Today, the story is updated with a statement from Oprah saying that she’d love to have Palin on after the election.  This is of course entirely academic since Sarah Palin refuses to be interviewed (except for the local journalists to whom she might speak in various non-cosmopolitan battleground towns) .

Meanwhile, the LA Times has a breakdown of who will be appearing on which Sunday talk shows.  Notice who’s missing?

Three of the four now-official candidates on the major-party presidential tickets are scheduled to sit down for questions: Democrat Barack Obama on ABC’s “This Week,” his running mate, Joe Biden, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Republican John McCain on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

So no interviews for Palin in the foreseeable future.  Pathetic. 

If Palin is hot to be on Oprah, though, I’d love to see it done this way: Just as the show opens and Palin walks onto the set, Tom Brokaw, George Stephanopoulos, Bob Schieffer or Wolf Blitzer walks on from the other side and is announced as the day’s special guest host. You go girl!

Twelve Second Summary of the Republican National Convention

Let’s see: John McCain votes with George Bush 90% of the time.  But McCain says that Bush has done a poor job as president. 

Lloyd Christmas, channeling McCain, wraps up the Republican prescription nicely.  Double down on Republicanism…

Electoral Count: Obama 301, McCain, 224

This is all pre-RNC, of course, but it’s nice to see a map this blue:

  Go look at it before it changes.

Sarah Palin: Dishonest

Her account seems almost credible.  In no way whatsoever.

Also, is it as possible for the media to report on a troopergate scandal without thinking of Bill Clinton?

I guess not.

Sarah Palin Interview Watch

The way we learn about candidates and their preparedness to deal with difficult issues is through their records and interviews.  Sarah Palin has no record on foreign and defense policy and, despite her speech to the RNC, her views are virtually unknown to the American people. 

By contrast, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain have been forced to give answers in split seconds to difficult questions — without scripts.  That’s the least we should expect from someone seeking national office.

Sarah Palin is not giving interviews.  The McCain campaign’s defense to the decision to keep her away from difficult questions is as pathetic as anything I’ve ever seen.  Via Swampland:

The American people don’t care to know what their potential president knows about national security, foreign policy, the economy or anything else? Of course not.  We’re only at war in two different countries, facing a resurgent Russia, multiple crises around the world and living with an economy which is deteriorating by the day.

Now we learn that not only will Palin not be available for interviews with the election two months off, she’s leaving the campaign trial and going back to Alaska.

This is a simple cost/benefit analysis by the McCain campaign.  The calculus is this: The campaign loses more if Palin gives an interview in which she looks foolish and unprepared for the vice presidency or presidency than it loses by simply enduring the critisim and suspicison it knows for certain it will face by locking her away. 

The campaign can only have concluded that it is better to face speculation that she’s hiding from interviews solely because she doesn’t know the answers to difficult questions than it is to let her give one and confirm it.  That’s the only reason to take the enormous risk of keeping her stowed away.  

A very good friend’s frequent references to Abraham Lincoln sums it up: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”  And this is the kind of removal of all doubt the McCain campaign is trying to avoid (I can’t find the video, but you get the idea):

Texas Gov. George W. Bush is enduring sharp criticism for being unable to name the leaders of four current world hot spots, but President Bill Clinton says Bush “should, and probably will, pick up” those names. 

The front-runner for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination faltered Thursday in an international affairs pop quiz posed by Andy Hiller, a political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston.

Hiller asked Bush to name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. Bush was only able to give a partial response to the query on the leader of Taiwan, referring to Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui simply as “Lee.” He could not name the others.

Bush gave that interview in November 1999.  The 2000 election didn’t happen until a full year later.  Between the interview and November 2000, he had time to learn the issues.  He hired Condoleezza Rice and studied as hard as could.  Look how well that turned out.  

Sarah Palin has 60 days.

Bill O’Reilly Interviews Megyn Kelly About US Weekly Cover

Yesterday, the internet and I noted that Megyn Kelly went ballistic on an US Weekly rep over its Sarah Palin cover, which Kelly obviously thought was anti-Palin.  Tonight, O’Reilly interviewed Kelly from St. Paul, where she is speaking on behalf of reporting on the Republicans at their convention.

Kelly was still in a tizzy.  She said that the problem was that people who don’t pay attention to politics all the time might not know anything about Palin other than what they see on the cover of US Magazine. Kelly said that she likes the magazine and enjoys seeing it when she’s in line at the grocery store.

O’Reilly joked that the next time she went to the store, he would help her out by carrying her “packages.”  I’m sure he would, especially if she were buying 1 cup dried chickpeas or 16 oz. can of chickpeas or garbanzo beans, 1 large onion, 2 cloves of garlic, 3 tablespoons of fresh parsley, 1 teaspoon coriander, 1 teaspoon cumin, 2 tablespoons flour, salt, pepper and oil for frying.

Mmmm, falafel.

Bill O’Reilly Pwned by….Bill O’Reilly

What a tool.

White Southern Republican Calls Black Democratic Presidential Nominee “Uppity”

Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity,” Westmorland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

That would be Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland talking about the Democratic nominee for president. 

What’s “uppity” mean? Fast forward to 3:19 if you’re pressed for time.

What’s Westmoreland really so afraid of?  What’s he sounding the alarm about? Some video of Westmoreland himself shouting a warning from the rooftops:

My Interview With Rick Noriega

Rick Noriega is the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas.  His opponent is incumbent Republican Bush clone John Cornyn. 

This is a steep, uphill battle for Rick.  Texas hasn’t elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994.  But a lot of Democrats believe that this is our year and Rick is the candidate to do it. 

They may be right.  Noriega’s resume is impressive: Representitive in the Texas House since 1998, Soldier since 1979, and graduate of the Harvard School of Government (where he was an editor of the Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy).   He’s a fourth generation Houstonian, campaigns hard and does not hold back in going after Cornyn’s sad devotion to George Bush. 

Unfortunately, I only had about five minutes with him. If you’re looking for a longer interview, Charles Kuffner talked to him back in February (audio only). 

Sorry the video is shaky.  Now go contribute.

The DNC Has Its Shit Together

McCain = Bush.  That’s all this election is about, and the DNC nails it.

First Meeting of the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Fan Club

During the primaries, I just couldn’t listen to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  I’ve always liked DWS, but her support of Hillary Clinton drove me nuts.  So I tuned her out. 

No more.  Here was her reaction to Sarah Palin’s speech last night:

 I thought she delivered it well. And that’s about all the credit I can give her. You know, I’ve seen candidates for the student council in public schools in my district deliver speeches well also. That doesn’t mean it’s their turn to run the country.

Sweet.

John McCain Served in Vietnam?

John McCain served honorably in Vietnam.  He cites that service whenever he’s questioned about an issue for which he doesn’t have a good answer.  Instead of describing any particular policy or his twenty six year record in Washington, his convention has been a three day description McCain’s military record.  Expect to hear even more about it in his acceptance speech tonight.

Remember that just a couple of weeks ago, McCain was criticized for his inability to remember how many many houses he owns.  At the Democratic convention, Joe Biden said that McCain couldn’t understand kitchen table issues because he would first have to decide over which kitchen table he would discuss them. McCain ultimately formulated this non-sequitur of a response:

I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, I didn’t have a house, I didn’t have a kitchen table, I didn’t have a table, I didn’t have a chair,” said McCain, citing his history as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. “I spent those five and half years not because I wanted to get a house when I got back home.”

Subject changed.  No longer was the issue McCain’s age, forgetfulness, or inability to identify with the difficulties facing average Americans. 

Intimidated, the media let him off the hook: How can you question a war hero and former POW about whether his memory is what it used to be or whether he understands what life is like for other Americans?  So they didn’t.

When John Kerry ran for president in 2004, Republicans savaged his service in Vietnam.  Republican delegates, in a particularly unpatriotic display, wore purple Band-Aids at their convention to mock what they claimed were exaggerated or falsified descriptions of the circumstances under which he was wounded in battle. 

Swift Boat Vets for Truth, a Bush front group, was vicious.  They alleged that accounts of Kerry’s bravery in combat were exaggerated or even fabricated.  In short, they lied about him. 

Democrats, by contrast, have gone out of their way to honor McCain’s service, and rightfully so. 

But in ’04, Kerry didn’t help.  His references to his experience in war — like McCain’s — were overbearing and frequently came off as self-serving.  I recall hearing conservative bloviators suggest that he went to Vietnam simply so that he could use it as a resume-booster thirty five years later in a run for president. 

Throughout the ’04 campaign, James Taranto, who writes for OpinionJournal, referred to Kerry as the “haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.”  It’s a great line and effectively mocked Kerry’s incessant references to his service.  It turned Kerry’s frequent references to his service into a joke. 

Kerry’s service itself became a liability.  He was seen as a limp-wristed pansy who didn’t know how to fight a war.  Meanwhile, Bush, who avoided Vietnam and skipped out on his National Guard unit, became a steely-eyed warrior with the fortitude to defend America. 

It was completely absurd.  So where are the mainstream editorialists mocking John McCain for pulling out his service every time he can’t think of a better answer?

The Point Exactly

Steve Benen makes it:

Seriously, what’s the message of the week in St. Paul? That Republican governing works? No. That Republicans have a legitimate policy agenda? No. That the next four years should be different from the last eight? No. It’s simple: “Your house may be on fire, but don’t trust that man standing outside with a hose, because he doesn’t share your values.”

Seen on the Floor of the RNC

Isn’t that sweet?  Someone made a cross out of a John McCain “Service” placard. (Sorry for the grainy photo.)

McCain Picks Up Doocy’s Talking Points

John McCain agrees with Fox News weatherman/foreign policy expert Steve Doocy. 

Alaska is right next to Russia. She understands that.

So apparently Sarah Palin is qualified to be vice president and president for two reasons:

1. She is aware of Alaska’s geographic location; and
2. As governor of Alaska, she conducted diplomacy with Russia.

UPDATE:

Steve Benen agrees.

Remember, when Doocy first made the argument, it was so laughable on its face that Jon Stewart called him a “moron.” Now, the Republican nominee for president is making the same pitch, hoping people are just stupid enough to believe it.

Palin has never been to Russia. She’s never demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia. She doesn’t have any background in international relations at any level. But for Republicans, the fact that she’s lived in a state near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office.

Who do You Think Megyn Kelly Supports for President?

Megyn Kelly seems to be taking this US Weekly cover story on Sarah Palin awfully personally.

I wonder what would cause a straight reporter (not a pundit) from The Cartoon Network Fox News to get so worked up over a tabloid’s perceived bias against a Republican candidate. One thing’s for sure: Fox is absolutely not biased and it does not pander to its “conservative viewer base.”  Not at all.

Now I’ll go back to searching for videos of Kelly berating her colleague, fellow non-pundit Steve Doocy, for inaccurately reporting the “huge” news that Barack Obama was raised a Muslim.

I’ll give Allah this, though, Kelly pwned that poor sap.

Mike Murphy + Peggy Noonan + Open Mic = Schadenfreude

Turn up your speakers and be entertained as prominent Republicans admit privately that Palin’s selection is “gimmicky”  “political bullshit” and that “it’s over.”  

Tomorrow the Media Will Love Sarah Palin

Yesterday, I said that a pro-Sarah Palin backlash was on its way:  

Sarah Palin is not Dan Quayle.  She can put a sentence together and can get through a speech.  She may sound like the girl making Blizzards at the Anchorage Dairy Queen, but she is not without rhetorical skills.  And now that her family has come under such close scrutiny, expect her to hit back hard in her acceptance speech at the RNC. 

It’s a cliché, but expectations have been set low for Palin.  When she correctly pronounces “Waziristan” and doesn’t look like a wax figure (see, e.g.,  ) the pundits will go wild.  

Tomorrow, the reevaluation of Sarah Palin will begin.   Here’s the standard by which she’ll be judged:

She’ll exceed those expectations if only because she’s capable of reading a teleprompter:

She probably won’t have the bridge-and-tunnel hair tonight, but she’ll look strong and self-assured. 

Mitigating tonight’s “success” may be the fact that she still hasn’t given an interview.  It’s possible that the press will pound on that — at least for a little bit  — while they gush all over Palin’s masterfully delivered address.  

Of course, at the end of the day, this election isn’t about Sarah Palin.  It’s about John McCain’s intention to model his presidency after George Bush’s.   And while it’s fun to see the Republicans suffer for this monumentally poor selection, it will be even more satisfying to watch the Democrats unrelentingly remind voters that John McCain has aspired to be and has become a 90% clone of George Bush.   

UPDATE:

Did I say tomorrow? Make that tonight.

Joe Klein:

Palin established herself as a major-league performer, a very effective messenger for the perennial Republican themes of low taxes and strong defense. And a new theme–government reform–that changes the terrain of the election and will have to be forcefully countered by the Democrats. Obama will have to be every bit as sharp–and down to earth–as he was in his speech last week as this goes forward.

Maybe it won’t help them win. Maybe it will turn out to have been too negative and sarcastic for the current public mood, especially coming after Giuliani. But two things are clear after Sarah Palin made her do-or-die debut before 20-plus million people tonight. She is amazingly self-confident. And she knows how to nail a speech.

Michael Crowley:

Focus Group: Palin Was (Alarmingly) Strong Several moderate-Democrat friends of mine have been emailing–few if any would ever vote for McCain–but all agree that Palin was very strong. The more liberal among them are a little panicked. 

I completely misjudged how negative she would be. Her lines about Obama were brutally cutting and possibly over the top in places. But she’s a far better messenger than an angry white man.

Chuck Todd (on MSNBC):

Conservatives have found their Obama. . . She may be their future.

Jonathan Martin:

Let there be no doubt

Sarah Palin is ready for prime time and has this crowd in an absolute frenzy.

David Gergen:

Palin Delivers

Another Ad Obama Ought to Run

I have to admit that when I first heard Sarah Palin speak, I immediately thought of Linda Novotny from Election.  But this, from Australian Hugh Atkin, is so much better:

Repost of Sarah Palin: Failed Governor of a Small State

I believe in recycling, so I thought this would be a good time to note that a few days ago, I wondered about Sarah Palin’s experience as governor.  She’s going to accept the Republican nomination for vice president tonight, and I’m thinking you’ll be hearing very little about this:  

 In 1992, George H.W. Bush and the Republicans referred to Bill Clinton as “the failed governor of a small state”.  Because of that, they argued, he was not fit to be president. 

The words “small state” weren’t used by accident.  The implication was that executive experience in a place with so few people couldn’t translate into fitness for governing a country with 300 million people, nuclear weapons and nuclear-armed enemies.  

With the selection of Sarah Palin, the Republicans have apparently had a change of heart. 

There’s no disputing that she’s the governor of a small state.  Alaska has around 600,000 people.  In 2000, it was ranked 48th in size.  (In 1990 when the last census before the ’92 election was conducted, Arkansas was 33rd largest with 2.3 million people.)

So is Sarah Palin a “failed governor”?  I don’t know.  A survey conducted by CNBC this year says Alaska is 41st in education.  At least it can look down on Mississippi. 

The same study ranks Alaska’s economy 50th.  I don’t think that’s good, but I didn’t go to an Alaska school.  

Alasksa’s quality of life is 35th.  For that 15th from the bottom liveability, you’ll have to fork over more money than you would in 47 other states. 

Overall, CNBC says that out of 50 states, Alaska is somewhere between 49th and 51st.

On the other hand, when he took office, Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience.  Palin, by contrast, has a lot:

Obama’s Convention Bounce

There’s apparently no new state-by-state polling, but the national polls seem to have moved substantially:

Pollster	Obama	McCain	Leader
ARG	49%	43%	Obama +6%
CBS	48%	40%	Obama +8%
Gallup	50%	43%	Obama +7%
Gallup tracking	50%	42%	Obama +8%
Hotline	48%	39%	Obama +9%
Rasmussen tracking	48%	43%	Obama +5%

Should Someone With Ties to a Radical Anti-American Group be Getting Sensitive Security Briefings?

Yesterday, CNN reported that once officially nominated, Sarah Palin will receive high level security briefings 

from the office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to officials at the campaign and at the DNI’s office.  DNI spokesman Richard Willing said the briefings were on “topics of national security interest.”

Also yesterday,

The founder of the Alaska Independence Party — a group that has been courted over the years by Sarah Palin, and one her husband was a member of for roughly seven years — once professed his “hatred for the American government” and cursed the American flag as a “damn flag. . .

Palin has courted the group over the years. Three years after the controversial interview, in 1994, Palin attended the group’s annual convention, according to witnesses who spoke to ABC News’ Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign is disputing her presence there, but Tapper found two people to attest to it. . .

Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, was a member of the party from 1995-2002 with a brief exception in 2000.

Although the McCain camp denies it, according to the AIP, Palin herself was a member.  

Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.

Should we really be sharing state secrets with someone who has ties to radical groups which advocate the removal of American sovereignty over at least a portion of American soil?  I’ve noticed that many on the right think the answer is no:

If Mr. Obama were to apply for a job with the FBI, CIA, or a company manufacturing a top secret product for the U.S. Government, because of his past associations, activities and friends, he would not be able to get a TOP SECRET security clearance.

When conducting a background investigation for a security clearance, one of the questions investigators ask is whether you have had contact with individuals or groups who advocate overthrowing the government of the United States.

Barack Obama has had extensive contact with Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist who advocated overthrow of the US government by force. Obams conducted fundraisers at Ayers home, and they sat on a board of directors for the Woods Fund of Chicago.

So when the investigator asks Obams, “Have you ever had contact with individuals or groups who advocate overthrowing the government of the United States?” Obama will have to say “yes” and describe the whole thing.

So…when Obama cannot get a security clearance, who will take the daily National Security Brief…Biden?

We are living witnesses to an incredible media double standard, whereby a Republican vice-presidential candidate’s personal life is being torn apart, while the Democratic presidential candidate continues to get a free ride. Obama has a 30-year history of associating with unsavory characters, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis and continuing with Jeremiah Wright and communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, which should disqualify him from getting a security clearance in the government that he wants to run.

UPDATE:

A reader makes this great point:

Can you imagine how crazy the right wing would be if Michele Obama was, in fact, a member of a black separatist party? Imagine if that party believed that some isolated enclave of African Americans should secede from the union.  How how is that any different than Todd Palin?

UPDATE TWO:

Allah is all bent out of shape about this story. 

Which is more nuanced, the Covenant House nonsense or the fact that the NYT reporter who pushed the story about Palin being a member of the Alaska secessionist party is still standing by it even though the Times itself has now retracted it? (On its blog, of course, not in the paper itself.)

Isn’t the exit question exactly what my correspondent asked in the first update?  How would the media and the right wing blogosphere react if Michele Obama had belonged to the Black Panther Party?  Look at how worked up they got over her Princeton thesis.  If she’d belonged to an anti-American party (note to patriotism questioners: the Democrat [sic] party doesn’t count), they’d go ape shit.

Sure there’s been some sloppy reporting in the campaign (video evidence below) and maybe the Times ought to clarify where it stands on the AIP story, but isn’t the right being a bit disingenuous? 

Sarah Palin’s Jeremiah Wright(s) II

Yesterday, I wrote about some of the weirdos who have spoken at Sarah Palin’s church over the years.  I wondered then whether she actually heard any of those sermons, since the right thought it was a legitimate question vis-a-vis Obama/Jeremiah Wright.

Now we know.  Linking to Politico, John Aravosis at AMERICAblog has additional information and it ain’t pretty.  Palin was reportedly there as David Brickner, a Jew for Jesus,

described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who haven’t embraced Christianity.

John notes that McCain was glad to pile on and tie Barack Obama to Jeremiah Wright.  

And as a Jew and a supporter of Israel, I would add this:

Jews for Jesus believe that Jews-not-for-Jesus go to hell.  They use unforgivable attacks against civilians to patronizingly lecture the rest of us about getting “saved.”  I couldn’t care less what they believe, but these cultists see terrorist attacks against Jews as confirmation of their loony views.  So they exploit them. 

And people who exploit the deaths of innocent people — Jews, Arabs, whoever — ought to be condemned, not honored in a place of worship, particularly by a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States.  So why didn’t Sarah Palin get all Mavericky, show some leadership and leave in protest? My guess: because she agrees.

UPDATE:

Andrew Sullivan points out that Jews for Jesus doesn’t just try and “save” poor schmoes like me, as the ADL reports, it “targets” us

for Conversion with Subterfuge and Deception.

Bush at the RNC Via Satellite

Wow.  Bush gave a horrible speech.  First, it was entirely political and given from the White House.  Unseemly.

Second, and more substantively, he said nothing about out of control gas prices.  Nothing about the mortgage crisis.  He promised that McCain would make tax cuts for the rich — the ones McCain opposed — permanent.

And now CNN is interviewing Texas delegates.  They’re all wearing read shirts and cowboy hats.  Yikes. One of them commended George Bush because he has “done so much for the pro-life movement and the pro-family movement.”  Exactly.  Most Americans are pro-choice and don’t despise gays.  So more like this, please.