Quite a bit happening in the last few days, from Mark Kirk to Dan Seals to Barack vs. Hillary, and everyone here is eager to talk about it. So, let's get to it.
MARK KIRK AGAINST CARTER MEETING WITH HAMAS (UPDATED): Mark Kirk was one of the first people to come out against former President Jimmy Carter's plan to meet with Hamas. On April 10th, Congressman Kirk delivered some stirring remarks on the House floor. Read them here. Kirk stated, in part, “The Washington Post reports that President Carter will visit Syria next week to meet with a Hamas assassin, Khaled Meshal. The State Department lists Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization, and it is responsible for the murder of at least 26 American citizens. *** President Carter, the voices from the grave beseech you – do not meet with the man that ordered the murder of these American citizens. I urge members to sign our letter asking former President Carter not to meet with the killer of American citizens.”
Most of us know that the U.S. labeled Hamas a terrorist organization in 1997, and Mark Kirk has been staunchly opposed to anything that helps Hamas, right down to sources of funding that have U.S. origins.
Heck, even Barack Obama wouldn't meet with Hamas, although Obama doesn't have the guts to criticize Carter... a move sure to cost Obama some Jewish support. Where's Dan Seals on this? Does anyone know/care? Seals has stated in the past that the United States “must isolate Hamas and make it clear to them that they will be international pariahs until they change their stated goals and activities.” Has he shown more guts than Obama and condemned Carter's visit like Mark Kirk? If not, he's clearly not willing to stand up for his convictions, even as set forth in his so-called policy statements.
Monday Update: Carter has begun his Middle East tour, and started off in Israel where he got about as cool a reception in Israel as you can get without someone actually giving you the diplomatic finger. Meanwhile, it's clear that Iran's influence in Iraq is still strong, and people are drawing parallels to the U.S.'s experience in Lebanon, where the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq noted that the ultimate lesson of the Lebanon parallel is that how the U.S. leaves is as important as how it got in. Finally, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer declares that we have already failed to contain Iran's nuclear program, and the only resort is to declare a policy that any attack on Israel will result in the unequivocal annihilation of Iran. Swell. Who was that out there again that wants to solve everything by "talking" to Iran and its nutbag president?
OBAMA: REVEALED (AGAIN) AS AN ELITIST SNOB (UPDATED): Lots of people are upset about this. In case you haven't heard, Obama was quoted at a private fundraiser as stating that "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama reveals, once again, that he (like his wife Michelle) believe that only the liberal elite are qualified to lead this country, and if everyone is smart, they will entrust their lives to Obama and the government, and let them take care of you.
Now Obama is having to do a lot of backpeddling to save his political skin. Hillary's people are jumping on this. Read 12 reasons "bitter" is bad for Barack here. Hmm, maybe it's time for another speech, Barack. Isn't this becoming kind of a habit?
Monday Update: Hillary and Barack just can't play nicely together. They are both turning up the heat, ahead of the next primary in Pennsylvania. Some also are saying that former Veep Al Gore and Carter will team up to try to talk Hillary into dropping out of the race; from what I've seen of Hillary, they may as well save their breath (good for her). Meanwhile, voters are (slowly) starting to think about exactly what an Obama presidency would really mean, once the shiny new paint of Obama's personal charm wears off. Most don't like it. In still other news, Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright just can't stop himself from revealing his true stripes, as he told mourners at a funeral for a Chicago judge the other day that America’s mistreatment of blacks is the result of the founding fathers, who “planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic.”
DAN SEALS ON "AT ISSUE": Dan Seals was interviewed by WBBM's Craig Dellimore this week on the award-winning "At Issue" radio show. You can still catch it at 9:30 p.m. tonight.
Among other comments, Seals is opposed to legislation (which Kirk supported), to build a fence along the Mexican border to stem the flow of illegal immigration. "You build a 20-foot wall, and you'll see sales for 21-foot ladders go up, so people will come right over," Seals said.
Wow, that almost sounded like a good line. Trite, I'd say, but it kinda made a good sound bite. So, where did I hear that before? Turns out, that line has been used for almost as long as the fence debate has been going on. Similar lines have been used since at least 2005, including people like the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano (although she talked about a 51-foot ladder). Not sure if Seals thinks he made it up himself or just doesn't care if he's recycling things other people were saying years ago when Dan Seals was still trying to make it in the private sector and had no aspirations for Congress.
For fun, you can also check out a famous political cartoon done by John Trever of the Albuquerque Journal that shows a 21-foot ladder shop going up on the Mexican side of the border from the 20-foot fence. I'd put up the cartoon itself, but it's copyrighted, so take a look on the Journal's archives on Sunday, September 24, 2006. Who knew Seals was a subscriber???
Dan, have you ever had an original idea? This is the change you're going to provide in Washington? Ho, hum. Is the election over yet so we can get back to our lives, and Mark Kirk can get back to business in D.C. and leave Dan Seals behind him as only a somewhat amusing memory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
TA:
Dan Seals is now telling people that the Mexican government should administer our border, not the American government.
His WBBM interview was hilarious -- Susan Kuzcka tried to get him to talk about local concerns three times. Seals couldn't think of anything.
MAYBE THAT IS BECAUSE SEALS DOESN'T LIVE HERE.
Why is Seals so quiet about Obama's condescending remarks on only "bitter" Americans who believe in religion?
Seals originally claimed to work for Sen. Lieberman -- then edited Lieberman out of his resume.
Will Seals forget Obama too as Obama sinks?
Well, Dan sounds like an old record caught in the groove! This guy is so out of touch and off base that he is clueless about Congressman Kirk's actual statements abour Iraq! I forgot, Dan is still using the old playbook given to him by his mentor, Ms. Gash. His 21ft. fence statement made me laugh. As I said, clueless.
Once again we can applaud Congressman Kirk's LEADERSHIP, not just his votes. I hope many of you heard or read his stirring Floor comments directed at Carter and his ill-advised trip to counsel with Hamas leader, Meshall. As of this morning, Carter was still planning on making the trip. He is more than a disgrace, he's a detriment to our country.
It's hard to understand that with all the time on his hands, why hasn't Dan been able to come up with some solid plans that represent his thinking on those major issues he thinks our Congressman doesn't care about. Too bad he remains clueless about what Congressman Kirk HAS been doing on every important, critical issue facing our district and our country. Can't wait for the debates to come! This time it's going to be very interesting indeed!
I'm glad that Carter is actually trying to be part of the solution and realizes that "I'm not talking to you!" is childish and counter-productive.
Hamas isn't going anywhere until Israel trades land for peace (as it agreed to do in 1967).
Anon 8:08- you know, sometimes no snide comment seems adequate, but I will say that, at the least, it seems like Obama is too far to the right for you since even HE won't negotiate with Hamas. Maybe you ought to run. Or, better yet, advise Dan Seals, and we can get this farce of a race over with more quickly.
Seals likes to compare himself to Obama. Condescending, patronizing (these are Hillary's words). Please Dan, keep comparing yourself to Obama.
TA,
Anon 8:08 represents what Jewish voters in IL-10 fear: Dan Seals' base is anti-Israel at its core.
Bring it on 8:08. Keep talking. I'm sure you are very active in Seals' campaign. Your post just cost Dan a couple hundred more Jewish votes.
BD
Anon 8:08 - who ever told you that Israel agreed to land for peace in 1967? You have no idea what you're talking about. Israel DID agree in 1995 to giving the Palestinians almost 98% of Gaza and was rebuffed by Yasser Arafat. And Israel was rebuffed again when they offered Abu Dis, a part of the greater Jerusalem area, for their Capitol. You don't know the history any more than Dan Seals knows, cares or understands as well. But yes, keep on talking since your kind of rhetoric makes it clear who is advising Dan on pro-Israel issues. He takes his cue from Ms. Shrill and we know where she stands. I don't ever recall any Hamas leader agreeing that Israel has a right to exist. What you DO hear in everything they say and publish calls for the destruction of Israel. And you think you can "talk" to them? You and Jimmy Carter give new meaning to the word hubris. This entire issue has nothing to do with land. It has to do with their intent to wipe Israel off the map. Because Congressman Mark Kirk was able to have Israel attached to the American early warning satellite system way back in 2003, they now have a fighting chance of survival. He is working on another system that will also aid the State of Israel in defending herself against those who feel that Israel is expendable. So Anon, you are wrong about Carter, you are wrong in your statement about 1967. But keep on spewing this kind of nonsense since it does help the good guys win!
Connect Dan with the anti-Israel actblue shmucks funding his campaign from the netroots and the Jeremiah Wright/Samantha Power Hamas apologists and put it in every jewish mailbox in the district and see how quickly he gets sent to the gutter.
Mark is missing a huge opportunity here, our liberal blogger friends have done us a HUGE favor by recording the positions Dan has taken sucking up to them at all their little have a beer and hate America events and we should seize on those stupied comments.
Also great to see Bush AGAIN called the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House today in the.......New York Times op-ed pages.
It’s time to pile on Anon 8:08 with a little history and a question.
In 1947, Britain told the United Nations it was giving up its mandate over Palestine and the U.N. voted to divide the land into two countries, one Jewish and the other Arab (there was no such thing as a Palestinian then). The Jewish community of British Mandatory Palestine accepted the proposal while the Arabs refused.
On May 14, 1948, the Jewish community of Palestine proclaimed the State of Israel and proceeded to defeat six Arab armies that tried to crush it. When the shooting stopped, Jordan grabbed the West Bank while Egypt took Gaza. So, it was the Arabs who stole the Palestinians land.
In 1967, Israel responded to Arab promises of annihilation by capturing Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank while reuniting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for the first time in 2,030 years. There were no Palestinians or Arabs then (63 B.C.) either, when the Romans began a two millennia occupation.
After the 1967 war, Israel offered to return the land it captured in exchange for peace with its neighbors. By the time Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, those countries wanted nothing to do with the West Bank or Gaza and would not take them back. They were part of the price Israel had to pay for peace with Egypt and Jordan.
And, Anon 8:08, as far as Hamas and its conversations with former President Carter are concerned, what would you suggest we do if Mexican terrorists were lobbing rockets into San Diego and the Mexican government refused to stop them?
TA, I find your reference to our failure to halt Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons timely since an op ed in yesterday’s New York Times and comments in the past few days by two mid level Israeli cabinet ministers in leading Israel’s left leaning newspaper, Haaretz, have made it clear Israel will wipe Iran off the face of the earth if there is no other way to prevent it from going nuclear.
Though that would be the worst possible solution, it appears Krauthammer needs to do a little more research. Then, when Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear threat in 1981, even the U.S. was a harsh critic. The World later said thank you.
Seals like to connect himself to Obama, even tries to model his message after Obama but notice Dan Seals hides everytime Obama makes a bad move (Rev. Wright, patronizing Americans who are religious). No comment from Dan.
Post a Comment