You went to college, huh? I always assumed you sprang from the head of Barry Goldwater, fully formed.Mr. Perfect wrote: Your understanding of polisci and history smells a lot like what I learned in college; flawed, skewed and biased towards you know what.
Again, SAT-level reading comprehension. That sentence indicates half of all contributions to Republican candidates came from the very wealthy, not that half of them gave money to the Republicans. Derrrrrrr!Doc wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read what it actually says at your linkHoosiernorm wrote:http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Rep ... html?r=437
Most money was spent on ballot initiatives but the giving is overwhelmingly to Republicans.
As a group, they gave nearly half ($11.2 million) of all contributions to Republican candidates and committees, with ballot measure committees gaining an impressive 35 percent of the total.
Giving "Nearly Half" inherently means that more than half went elsewhere
So who are these evil Koch brother of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
Hmmm Really Zack?Zack Morris wrote:Again, SAT-level reading comprehension. That sentence indicates half of all contributions to Republican candidates came from the very wealthy, not that half of them gave money to the Republicans. Derrrrrrr!Doc wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read what it actually says at your linkHoosiernorm wrote:http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Rep ... html?r=437
Most money was spent on ballot initiatives but the giving is overwhelmingly to Republicans.
As a group, they gave nearly half ($11.2 million) of all contributions to Republican candidates and committees, with ballot measure committees gaining an impressive 35 percent of the total.
Giving "Nearly Half" inherently means that more than half went elsewhere
So who are these evil Koch brother of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
Perhaps it is your sub sat level(whatever that is supposed to mean) math comprehension then...The top 20 richest Americans (identified in Forbes magazine), and their companies, contributed an impressive $22.6 million
The man who was almost president graced Honolulu with his presence Tuesday and walked us through a “seminar of sustainability.”
By turns a university professor, a wry observer, a recovering politician, a joke teller and a Southern preacher, Al Gore fired up an audience of thousands at the Stan Sheriff Center to believe that global warming can be stopped. But it’s possible only if each of us does our part.
“Ultimately, we are going to win this thing,” he said, one of many statements met with hearty applause.
He also managed to repeatedly gush over fellow Democrats Neil Abercrombie and Brian Schatz, who he singled out multiple times as leading the fight here at home and in Washington to tackle the environmental crisis head on. [...]
But Gore cited two “game changers” in recent years that will help. The first is the growing realization from even climate-change deniers that something seems to be strange with the weather. The second is the exponential growth in photovoltaic solar panels, driven largely by consumer demand for lower prices.
The “barriers” to doing something about climate change are business and political interests that profit off of fossil fuels — “dirty energy that causes dirty weather.” He compared fake science from polluters stating that humans are not to blame for the climate to tobacco companies that used to hire actors to play doctors who denied cigarettes were dangerous.
“That’s immoral, unethical and despicable,” he said of both.
In a press conference Thursday evening, Michael Egan said Singer treated him like 'a piece of meat' and he claims he had 'a gun put in my mouth' by Hollywood power broker Mark Rector-Collins so he'd do as he was told.
'I wouldn't say it was a relationship [with Singer], you were a piece of meat,' Egan said of how he was treated at the parties at Rector Collins' home that he allegedly began attending when he was just 14 or 15.
'Certain situations like at the house where the rules were no swimsuits by the pool areas. I was in the hot tub with Singer and other individuals, they grope you, shove your head under water, orally molest you, then they'd rape you by the side of hot tub. You were a piece of meat.'
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.......Mr. Perfect wrote:So what do you say Democrats, legitimate rape or no.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... inors.html
In a press conference Thursday evening, Michael Egan said Singer treated him like 'a piece of meat' and he claims he had 'a gun put in my mouth' by Hollywood power broker Mark Rector-Collins so he'd do as he was told.
'I wouldn't say it was a relationship [with Singer], you were a piece of meat,' Egan said of how he was treated at the parties at Rector Collins' home that he allegedly began attending when he was just 14 or 15.
'Certain situations like at the house where the rules were no swimsuits by the pool areas. I was in the hot tub with Singer and other individuals, they grope you, shove your head under water, orally molest you, then they'd rape you by the side of hot tub. You were a piece of meat.'
Gerry Eastman Studds (/ˈɡɛri/; May 12, 1937 – October 14, 2006) was an American Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts who served from 1973 until 1997. He was the first openly gay member of Congress. In 1983 he was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page.
.................
Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane** were each separately censured by the House of Representatives for an inappropriate relationship with a congressional page — in Studds' case, a 1983 homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old male. During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]
On July 20, 1983, the House voted to censure Studds, by a vote of 420-3. With his back to the other members, Studds faced the Speaker who was reading the motion.[3] In addition to voting the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine Subcommittee. (Seven years later, in 1990, Studds was appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.) Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.[4]
On July 14, 1983, the House Ethics Committee recommended that Crane and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) be reprimanded for having engaged in sexual relationships with teenagers, specifically a 17-year-old male page for Studds and a 17-year-old female page for Crane. Both men acknowledged the accuracy of the charges. The full House voted to censure the two men.[1] Crane was defeated for re-election in 1984 and returned to dentistry.
Best be careful Mr. P. If you are not careful you are liable to be attacked by the local grand imperial wizard of the Kay Kay GayMr. Perfect wrote:So what do you say Democrats, legitimate rape or no.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... inors.html
In a press conference Thursday evening, Michael Egan said Singer treated him like 'a piece of meat' and he claims he had 'a gun put in my mouth' by Hollywood power broker Mark Rector-Collins so he'd do as he was told.
'I wouldn't say it was a relationship [with Singer], you were a piece of meat,' Egan said of how he was treated at the parties at Rector Collins' home that he allegedly began attending when he was just 14 or 15.
'Certain situations like at the house where the rules were no swimsuits by the pool areas. I was in the hot tub with Singer and other individuals, they grope you, shove your head under water, orally molest you, then they'd rape you by the side of hot tub. You were a piece of meat.'
Doc wrote: grand imperial wizard of the Kay Kay Gay
Stop whining, Mr. President.
And stop whiffing.
Don’t whinge off the record with columnists and definitely don’t do it at a press conference with another world leader. It is disorienting to everybody, here at home and around the world.
I empathize with you about being thin-skinned. When you hate being criticized, it’s hard to take a giant steaming plate of “you stink” every day, coming from all sides. But you convey the sense that any difference on substance is lèse-majesté.
You simply proclaim what you believe as though you know it to be absolutely true, hoping we recognize the truth of it, and, if we don’t, then we’ve disappointed you again.
Continue reading the main story
Featured Comment
Gary Strickland
Houston, TX
What does a 'home run' look like, in the context of the Ukrainian crisis? ... I would prefer cool, drama-free, iceman-like reflection and alternative solutions rather than baseball metaphors.
1076 Comments
Even some of the chatterers who used to be in your corner now make derogatory remarks about your manhood. And that, I know, really gets under your skin because you think they just don’t get your style of coolly keeping your cards to yourself while you play the long game. Besides, how short memories are. You were the Ice Man who ordered up the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.
I also appreciate the fact that it’s harder for you than it was for J.F.K., W. and all those other pols who had their rich daddies and their rich daddies’ rich friends to buy anything they needed and connect them up and smooth the way for them. That gives them a certain nonchalance in the face of opprobrium and difficulty, a luxury that those who propel themselves to the top on their own don’t have.
We understand that it’s frustrating. You’re dealing with some really evil guys and some really nutty pols, and the problems roiling the world now are brutally hard. As the Republican strategist Mike Murphy says, it’s not like the campaign because you have “bigger problems than a will.i.am song can fix.”
But that being said, you are the American president. And the American president should not perpetually use the word “eventually.” And he should not set a tone of resignation with references to this being a relay race and say he’s willing to take “a quarter of a loaf or half a loaf,” and muse that things may not come “to full fruition on your timetable.”
An American president should never say, as you did to the New Yorker editor, David Remnick, about presidents through history: “We’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.”
Mr. President, I am just trying to get my paragraph right. You need to think bigger.
An American president should never say, as you did Monday in Manila when you got frustrated in a press conference with the Philippine president: “You hit singles; you hit doubles. Every once in a while, we may be able to hit a home run.”
Especially now that we have this scary World War III vibe with the Russians, we expect the president, especially one who ran as Babe Ruth, to hit home runs.
In the immortal words of Earl Weaver, the Hall of Famer who managed the Baltimore Orioles: “The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three-run homers.” A singles hitter doesn’t scare anybody.
It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.
How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected?
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
Graeme Simpson
6 hours ago
Currently rewatching The West Wing, series 1. The president's first encounter with realpolitik was how to respond to the shooting down of an...
niucame
6 hours ago
Actually Obama has been hugely successful. By moving a few ships near to Syria we now have destroyed most of Syria's chemical weapons. The...
Molybdenum
6 hours ago
The stature of a president is often measured by the willingness of his friends to be his critics. Thus far, Obama's presidency is one of...
See All Comments
As Leon Wieseltier wrote in the latest New Republic, oppressed and threatened swaths of the world are jittery and despairing “because the United States seems no longer reliable in emergencies, which it prefers to meet with meals ready to eat.”
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
The Times’s Mark Landler, who traveled with the president on his Asia trip, reported that Obama will try to regain the offensive, including a graduation address at West Point putting his foreign policy in context.
Mr. President, don’t you know that we’re speeched out? It’s not what we need right now.
You should take a lesson from Adam Silver, a nerdy technocrat who, in his first big encounter with a crazed tyrant, managed to make the job of N.B.A. commissioner seem much more powerful than that of president of the United States.
Silver took the gutsy move of banning cretinous Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life, after many people speculated that there was little the N.B.A. chief could do except cave. But Silver realized that even if Sterling tries to fight him in court (and wins) he will look good because he stood up for what was right.
Once you liked to have the stage to yourself, Mr. President, to have the aura of the lone man in the arena, not sharing the spotlight with others.
But now when captured alone in a picture, you seem disconnected and adrift.
What happened to crushing it and swinging for the fences? Where have you gone, Babe Ruth?
Former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice is withdrawing from the Rutgers University commencement ceremony.
Her invitation by the school’s board of governors had sparked protests from faculty and students, and now Rice has decided not to speak to avoid creating a distraction.
In a statement to be released this morning, Rice says,
Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.
I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.
Good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them.
Opposition to Rice had focused on her support for the Iraq War and Bush policies in the War on Terror. Rutgers faculty at the New Brunswick campus approved a resolution calling for Rice to be disinvited, citing her role in the Bush administration’s alleged “effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.”
Protesting students had occupied the office of the president the other day, with signs reading “No honors for war criminals” and “War criminals out.”
Rice’s withdrawal comes after protests of her invitation to speak at the University of Minnesota recently and her placement on the board of the file-sharing firm Dropbox. Other figures who run afoul of campus orthodoxy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Charles Murray, have been disinvited from speeches over the last few weeks.
In a statement when the controversy first erupted, Rutgers president Robert Barchi said, “We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity.”
Barchi had adopted a different tone this week: “I frankly wish from my point of view that this whole affair was not here right now because it’s distracting from what great things we’re doing as a university. . . . It does have us, for better or worse, right in the crosshairs right now.”
No longer.
Apparently she was getting to "uppity" for liberalsMr. Perfect wrote:Intolerance practically defines the left now.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/37 ... -nro-staff
Former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice is withdrawing from the Rutgers University commencement ceremony.
Her invitation by the school’s board of governors had sparked protests from faculty and students, and now Rice has decided not to speak to avoid creating a distraction.
In a statement to be released this morning, Rice says,
Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.
I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.
Good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them.
Opposition to Rice had focused on her support for the Iraq War and Bush policies in the War on Terror. Rutgers faculty at the New Brunswick campus approved a resolution calling for Rice to be disinvited, citing her role in the Bush administration’s alleged “effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.”
Protesting students had occupied the office of the president the other day, with signs reading “No honors for war criminals” and “War criminals out.”
Rice’s withdrawal comes after protests of her invitation to speak at the University of Minnesota recently and her placement on the board of the file-sharing firm Dropbox. Other figures who run afoul of campus orthodoxy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Charles Murray, have been disinvited from speeches over the last few weeks.
In a statement when the controversy first erupted, Rutgers president Robert Barchi said, “We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity.”
Barchi had adopted a different tone this week: “I frankly wish from my point of view that this whole affair was not here right now because it’s distracting from what great things we’re doing as a university. . . . It does have us, for better or worse, right in the crosshairs right now.”
No longer.
somehow, I think life is better now that everyone is a racist.....Doc wrote:
Apparently she was getting to "uppity" for liberals
Americans now are being blasted as “racist” for the simple act of waving an American flag.
It happened Monday in California to a small group of protesters who waved U.S. flags in front of a school where officials had banned the practice to avoid violence threatened by Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo.
The controversy developed in 2010, when school officials ordered students not to wear U.S. flag-themed shirts on the Mexican holiday. The ban has been upheld by a federal appeals court.
The controversy brought a small group of protesters out Monday, and the community reacted immediately.
“What’s wrong with these white people holding up American flags in Morgan hill??? Racist a–holes,” wrote Gia Lee in a feed monitored by Twitchy.
The report also noted the school superintendent was confirming that students wearing American flag-themed shirts on Monday “won’t be kicked out.”
“Read that sentence again and then cringe at the fact that had to be said in the United States,” the Twitchy report said.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported a group called Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots stood in front of Live Oak High School for about an hour waving American flags.
The protest followed the decision earlier this year by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that school officials, in a dispute four years ago, were right to suspend the First Amendment rights of students who wanted to wear U.S. flag-themed shirts on Cinco de Mayo.
Mexican students allegedly had threatened violence because of the shirts, and school officials, consequently, suspended the right of other students to wear Old Glory.
Twitchy caught Davey D blasting the patriots: “Shout out to the racist a– adults, so-called patriots who are posted up at Live Oak HS in Morgan Hill protesting Cinco de Mayo #idiots.”
“The Gilroy Morgan Hill Patriots … what a bunch of racist d–k-heads!! I think they may be part owners of the LA Clippers. #racist,” wrote Jorge P. Gonzalez.
“Hey folks in Morgan Hill. You have some racist neighbors. You need to check those tea party a–holes,” said Al_Bondigas.
“F— your American flag. Racist as f—s. I’ll always have pride with my Mexican flag but not the American one,” wrote Ivan Mora.
KPIX-TV in San Francisco reported the high school built a chain-link fence to keep the tea-party group from “disrupting classes.”
“Usually when you put up a fence, it’s a barrier. And, we interpret it as a barrier to keep out the First Amendment,” Georgine Scott-Codiga, president of the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots, told the station.
“I don’t believe there’s any need in America to suppress a national symbol of patriotism and freedom.”
SFGate reported students built a “unity banner” to express that they felt united.
“They want to make it a regular day. The students have expressed that they don’t like the outside attention, and we’re trying to help them with that,” Steve Betando, Morgan Unified District superintendent, told the news site’s reporter. “But they wanted to send a message that what the media and the world has really depicted as a divided school is really not a divided school.”
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect wrote:Intolerance practically defines the left now.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/37 ... -nro-staff
Former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice is withdrawing from the Rutgers University commencement ceremony.
Her invitation by the school’s board of governors had sparked protests from faculty and students, and now Rice has decided not to speak to avoid creating a distraction.
In a statement to be released this morning, Rice says,
Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.
I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.
Good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them.
Opposition to Rice had focused on her support for the Iraq War and Bush policies in the War on Terror. Rutgers faculty at the New Brunswick campus approved a resolution calling for Rice to be disinvited, citing her role in the Bush administration’s alleged “effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.”
Protesting students had occupied the office of the president the other day, with signs reading “No honors for war criminals” and “War criminals out.”
Rice’s withdrawal comes after protests of her invitation to speak at the University of Minnesota recently and her placement on the board of the file-sharing firm Dropbox. Other figures who run afoul of campus orthodoxy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Charles Murray, have been disinvited from speeches over the last few weeks.
In a statement when the controversy first erupted, Rutgers president Robert Barchi said, “We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity.”
Barchi had adopted a different tone this week: “I frankly wish from my point of view that this whole affair was not here right now because it’s distracting from what great things we’re doing as a university. . . . It does have us, for better or worse, right in the crosshairs right now.”
No longer.
'I Decide Who Dies' Worse than Useless LIAR getting an Honorary Degree and being the speaker 
Obama, Guns and ‘The Untouchables’
Posted on January 14, 2011
Q. Did President Obama once say of Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
A: Yes. Obama made those remarks at a fundraiser in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential campaign. He was paraphrasing a quote from the 1987 mob movie "The Untouchables."
FULL QUESTION
Good evening: A WGN talk show was trying to draw a direct comparison between Pres. Obama and Sarah Palin in BOTH having contributed to the hatred across the country:
The host said while Palin had her crosshairs, Pres. Obama has said (meaning Republicans): "If they bring knives, we will use guns."
I follow politics closely and cannot remember seeing or hearing such a statement, and the show did not site a year or source.
Thanks if you can help, as I'm in a debate with the show host.
FULL ANSWER
We have received a lot of questions about Obama's quote since the Jan. 8 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., which left six people dead, injured Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and sparked a national debate about the tone of political discourse.
One reader asked if Obama was misquoted or if the quote was taken out of context, because "it just doesn't sound like Obama." He indeed said it at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, but the quote may not "sound like Obama" because it was first uttered by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" — a 1987 movie about Eliot Ness, a federal agent in Chicago who was credited with bringing down mobster Al Capone. Connery played Jim Malone, an honest, tough, Irish American cop recruited by Ness (played by Kevin Costner) to help deal with Chicago mobsters. Connery's character said this in the movie: "Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"
Obama attended a fundraiser June 13, 2008, at the Sheraton in downtown Philadelphia. Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Chozick provided a "pool report." This is a report of an event provided to all in the media by the one reporter allowed to cover it, when circumstances will not allow for the entire press corps to cover it directly. In her blog, Chozick wrote at the time that the campaign of Republican nominee John McCain criticized Obama for the gun reference. She also said this about the quote's context: "Obama made the comment in the context of warning donors that the general election campaign against McCain could get ugly."
The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa., published the entire pool report, which included the quote now attributed to Obama.
Chozick, June 13, 2008: He [Obama] warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’ ” he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”
“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
So, yes, Obama said it and now you have the context. We'll leave it to you to decide whether Obama's remarks were appropriate or not.
– Eugene Kiely
Sources
Smith, Ben. "Obama brings gun to knife fight." Politico. 14 Jun 2008.
"The Untouchables." The Internet Movie Database. Undated, accessed 14 Jan 2011.
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. "Eliot Ness." Undated, accessed 14 Jan 2011.
Drobnyk, Josh. "Rendell Drinking the Kool-Aid." The Morning Call. 16 Jun 2011.
Chozick, Amy. "Obama: If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun." Wall Street Journal. 14 Jun 2008.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... her-views/Kelly McParland: Justin Trudeau’s new, intolerant, pro-abortion party doesn’t welcome other views
Kelly McParland | May 8, 2014 | Last Updated: May 8 11:47 AM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau: My way or the highway.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau: My way or the highway.
Justin Trudeau’s decision to ban opponents of abortion from Liberal ranks could have far-reaching effects.
It’s a clear warning to those 60% of Canadians who feel there should be some restrictions on abortion – even if only in extreme cases — that they’re not welcome in the Liberal party.
It’s another sign that, for all its claims to “openness” and “inclusion,” Mr. Trudeau’s party only wants a certain type of Canadian, and isn’t interested in hearing from the others.
Justin Trudeau says anti-abortion candidates can’t run as Liberals
Lisa Smith, president of LifeCanada, noted Wednesday that Environics polls commissioned by her anti-abortion group have shown 60% or more of Canadians want some legal restrictions on abortion.
“Trudeau has, at the very least, put all of his cards on the table with respect to this very controversial issue, however undemocratic his position may be,” she said. “If Trudeau is not interested in hearing what the majority of Canadians have to say on this issue, then it is far better for us to know now.”
It’s further evidence that there are two sides to Mr. Trudeau – there’s what he says, and what he does. And the two aren’t always the same.
It may also be one more example of the Liberal leader speaking before he thinks through the implications of what he’s about to say.
In his first year as leader, Mr. Trudeau demonstrated a habit of speaking off the cuff, and getting himself into trouble as a result. One of the best-known examples was his proclaimed admiration for China’s government, because of its ability to get things done by unilaterally imposing its will on the country. Mr. Trudeau didn’t really mean he favours a dictatorship, he just blurted out something silly without pausing to consider the impact.
His statement on abortion doesn’t have the same loose-lipped feel to it. Mr. Trudeau was very clear, and stuck to his position in the face of repeated questioning. “I have made it clear that future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills,” he said. “… For me, it’s a debate that has been settled for the vast majority of Canadians and we don’t need to reopen that issue.” It’s part of the process for vetting candidates; the party has even considered how to treat those MPs who oppose abortion but already hold seats. So he seems to mean it.
He must therefore be willing to risk a backlash. While Canadians generally feel abortion is acceptable in a broad sense, many have qualms about certain aspects. They don’t like the practice of “sex-selection” abortion, in which babies are aborted because they happen to be female. Many similarly are uncomfortable with late-term abortions, in which the abortion takes place after the baby has begun to show clear human characteristics. And many are troubled by the fact Canada has no abortion law at all, meaning any child can be aborted at any time before birth, limited only by doctors’ reluctance to do so.
These people are no longer acceptable to Liberals. Mr. Trudeau’s stipulation does not apply only to to candidates, but to anyone considering joining the party. “Going forward, all new members and new candidates are pro-choice,” he declared. If you support Liberal aims but feel there are still areas of abortion that merit discussion, your views are unwelcome and deemed unacceptable.
The ban also suggests a level of intolerance noteworthy even by the standards of Ottawa’s hyper-partisan atmosphere. Mr. Trudeau states categorically that “the debate has been settled.” To be a Liberal, you are not allowed to object to this view, or to raise it for discussion. You must buy whole-heartedly into the belief that any abortion is acceptable at any time, and you shut up about it. Further research into the effect of abortion on women’s health is presumably verboten, because it might imply some doubt as to the absolute right of women to do as they please with their bodies, dangerous or not. It’s a level of fundamentalism similarly reflected in the party’s view on climate change. The science is ”settled” and therefore no more discussion is needed. If you fully accept that the climate is changing, but feel we don’t know all we could about how and why it’s happening, find another party. Liberals don’t want to know.
Mr. Trudeau has made clear that the Liberal party is now his party, and you’ll toe the line if you want to join in.
As the 2015 election comes closer, Canadians are being exposed to growing signs that Mr. Trudeau’s actions don’t always match his rhetoric. His pledge to champion a new, more open, more welcoming party is running up against barriers that suggest “openness” has its limits. Mr. Trudeau’s proclaimed commitment to open nominations for party candidates has already run aground in two well-known instances: in Toronto Centre, where he made clear that Chrystia Freeland was to be the candidate, and other contestants were not welcome, and in Trinity-Spadina, where the party blocked Christine Innes from seeking the nomination because she is married to a former MP the Trudeau apparatus does not support. The party has also made clear that Ms. Freeland will have a free hand to pick the riding of her choice for the 2015 campaign.
This is not the sort of party Mr. Trudeau has sought to portray. Rather it resembles the party of the Chretien-Martin wars, where you chose a side and you went to battle against dissenters. In this instance, your morals have to be the same as Mr. Trudeau’s morals. Tellingly, Mr. Martin, the former prime minister, wouldn’t be welcome in Mr. Trudeau’s party, because he admitted having personal doubts about abortion. John McKay, a Liberal MP who is against abortion, knows he’s being tolerated only because he already holds a seat, and that professing his beliefs in caucus will be no longer be tolerated. Dan McTeague, a former MP who might have sought a comeback, can’t do so now unless he disavows his beliefs or is willing to represent a party that fundamentally disagrees with his moral conclusions.
Perhaps above all, Mr. Trudeau has made clear that the Liberal party is now his party, and you’ll toe the line if you want to join in. Alternative views are not welcome. Debate is not encouraged. He gained this authority, he noted, when he won “80% of the support of militants, of membership.” It’s the same sort of anti-democratic mentality that has taken hold on many Canadian campuses, where militants like Mr. Trudeau’s try to shout down or chase away speakers who hold views with which they disagree. Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, that Mr. Trudeau won the leadership with great support from young Canadians, and insists Canadian politics needs more such input.
As one observer noted, at least we now know where Mr. Trudeau stands. The leader has spoken. Take it or leave it.
ralfy,ralfy wrote:"Liberal" and "conservative" in the U.S. context are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is essentially dependence on consumer spending and the petro-dollar. That is why the one who really holds the reins of power is not Washington but Wall Street.
manolo wrote:ralfy,ralfy wrote:"Liberal" and "conservative" in the U.S. context are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is essentially dependence on consumer spending and the petro-dollar. That is why the one who really holds the reins of power is not Washington but Wall Street.
Yes, I think you are on the money with this analysis.
Alex.
Why then do you support the liberals?manolo wrote:ralfy,ralfy wrote:"Liberal" and "conservative" in the U.S. context are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is essentially dependence on consumer spending and the petro-dollar. That is why the one who really holds the reins of power is not Washington but Wall Street.
Yes, I think you are on the money with this analysis.
Alex.
After the group Right Wing Watch reported the twins who star in HGTV’s recently greenlit reality series Flip It Forward are anti-gay activists, the network said this morning it had given the hook to the series, which was set to debut in October. Yesterday, HGTV said it was “currently in the process of reviewing all information about the Benhams and we will provide an update as soon as possible.” Then came a tweet today: HGTV has decided not to move forward with the Benham Brothers' series.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo Ethinker..........manolo wrote:ralfy,ralfy wrote:"Liberal" and "conservative" in the U.S. context are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is essentially dependence on consumer spending and the petro-dollar. That is why the one who really holds the reins of power is not Washington but Wall Street.
Yes, I think you are on the money with this analysis.
Alex.
monster,monster_gardener wrote:
Does it really matter whether Labor or the Conservatives win because the financial "City" controls England?...
