Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 23, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Scott Whitlock's blog
  • NBC Sets GOP Debate Agenda: Santorum to be 'Peppered' With Religion Questions
  • In Story On Proposed Ultrasound Mandate, WashPost's Kumar Fails to Note Va. Abortionists Already Use Them
  • Networks Hype Gas Prices 4 Times More for Bush, Than Obama
  • Bozell Column: The Bill Press Hate Machine
  • Andrea Mitchell: Hillary Was Right--There Really Was A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
  • Rick Santorum Says 'Phony Theology' Controversy Is 'Media Trying to Destroy Conservatives'
  • Chris Matthews Sneers: 'If You're Really Anti-Gay, You Become Catholic Now'
  • Douglas Brinkley: Bill Clinton Is a 'Folk Figure in America' Like 'Babe Ruth or Buffalo Bill'

ABC Alone Features Obama Exhorting Latinos to 'Punish Our Enemies,' Stephanopoulos Downplays

By Scott Whitlock | October 27, 2010 | 16:41

Change font size:  A |  A
Scott Whitlock's picture

Good Morning America on Wednesday was the only network morning show to highlight Barack Obama's exhortations that Latinos should help him "punish our enemies." Host George Stephanopoulos played the clip while discussing the issue with conservative Laura Ingraham.

At the same time, he attempted to downplay the President's comments, given during an interview to Univision.  After the radio host lambasted Obama, Stephanopoulos defended, "You don't really mean to suggest that it's okay for one side to be hard line and not the other?"

Ingraham shot back: "I don't think it's presidential. And I know everybody's rough-and-tumble in this campaign. But he's still the President."

In the interview, Obama asserted, "If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. If they don't see that upsurge in voting in this election, then, I think it going to be harder."

Anticipating the Republicans taking over the House, Stephanopoulos lobbied for GOP accommodation: "...What are the prospects that Republicans and Democrats can get together on the day after election day? And how would you counsel senator McConnell and, perhaps, Speaker Boehner, if the Republicans win?"

NBC's Today show and CBS's Early Show have yet to feature the "punish our enemies" clip.

A transcript of the October 27 segment, which aired at 7:11am EDT, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on this, let's bring in best-selling author and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Good to see you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Great to have you in the studio this morning. And you have something in common with Carly Fiorina. You're not a candidate for anything. But you are a breast cancer survivor. You call it thriver. So, you have some sense of what she may be going through. What's your sense of the political impact here?

LAURA INGRAHAM: Well, it's hard to judge. First of all, we should know she's cancer-free. She's had a great recovery. And as many as 20 percent of women who get the reconstructive surgery, which I did not have, they get some type of infection. And it's usually treated with antibiotics. I was in touch with her chief of staff last night, welcoming and grateful for all of the prayers. And very confident she will be out on the campaign trail very soon. Obviously very soon is important because the election's next Tuesday.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And she's still in contention. You know, probably three to five points.

INGRAHAM: I mean, your reporter said it was- described it as kind of a big lead. I'm not sure that's accurate. Some polls show it two points. A couple show- polls show she was gaining ground against Boxer. So, I think it's pretty close, considering it's a pretty blue state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's the thing. Considering it's California, as well, which President Obama won by 24 points last time around. But Jerry Brown now appears to be pulling pretty well ahead of Meg Whitman.

INGRAHAM: It's 1973 again in California. Because that worked out well for California.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What happened there? What's happening in California?

INGRAHAM: Well, look. Back to Boxer, just quickly. Michelle Obama was there yesterday. She's out there for the woman's conference. She said that Barbara Boxer works day and night to bring good jobs, good paying jobs to California. Well, the San Francisco Chronicle couldn't bring itself to endorse Boxer because, basically, it said she didn't done anything for the state. The San Francisco Chronicle not endorsing one of the most liberal senators in the U.S. Senate today, I found that to be odd. And Meg Whitman's campaign, you can Monday morning quarterback it. We'll see what happens. But California is now struggling, George, under the weight of these public employee mention packages, health care packages, that Jerry Brown helped engineer as governor back in the 1970s. And they're going back to that. The state's broke. And they're going back to these policies. Good luck, California.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may all be true, but despite sending $140 million, Meg Whitman, eight to ten points behind.

INGRAHAM: Well, she has to be her own candidate. And she has to bring herself across the finish line.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's pick up on something that jake brought up in his piece. These dueling interviews in The National Journal between the President and Mitch McConnell. Where Mitch McConnell is saying, "The single-most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." You also pointed out, I wanted to play a little bit of this, in an interview President Obama gave to Univision earlier this week.

INGRAHAM: Yeah.

BARACK OBAMA: If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. If they don't see that upsurge in voting in this election, then, I think it going to be harder.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you key in on the word enemies. My question is, you're seeing both sides maneuver, as we head in-

INGRAHAM: But, he's the President, George. He's the President of all the people. For the President of the United States to say, punish our enemies, and that was kind of entreaty to the Latino vote. If you sit on the sidelines and don't punish your enemies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't really mean to suggest that it's okay for one side to be hard line and not the other?

INGRAHAM: No, no, no. I don't think it's presidential. And I know everybody's rough-and-tumble in this campaign. But he's still the President. And the fact of the matter is, there's a national revolt going on against many of the policies he and Nancy Pelosi pushed through against the will of the people. Number one, health care reform. That's not an enemy of the country. That's the people of the country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Given all this, what are the prospects that Republicans and Democrats can get together on the day after election day? And how would you counsel senator McConnell and, perhaps, Speaker Boehner, if the Republicans win?

INGRAHAM: I think be true to the people of the country. I think what's happened with President Obama is he's forgotten the people. He's been happy with the power. And they've done a lot of cool parties at the White House. They've had a lot of fun. And Michelle is beautiful and all that. But the people want something different. When they thought change, they thought jobs. That's what they have to focus on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, that could mean accommodations from both sides?

INGRAHAM: I think you're going to see the Republicans try to move forward, humbly, but also understanding where they went wrong on the past. I don't think this is a mandate for more government spending. I think it's a mandate for change away from what's happened the last 21 months or so. That's what I think you should look forward to. 
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter
Share this

About the Author

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Scott Whitlock on Twitter.
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • 2010 Congressional
  • George Stephanopoulos
  • John Kasich. Laura Ingraham
  • ABC
  • Good Morning America
  • Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Comments

Punish our enemies is a lot different from defeat our enemies

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 4:57pm.

Punish is awful Talibanistic, no?

  • Login or register to post comments

Looks like  Obama is engaging

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:24pm.

Looks like  Obama is engaging in that "tribalism"  that Chris Matthews likes to talk about.

What happened to the "new kind of politics" that you campaigned on, Mr. President?

I guess Her Speakerness was right when she said of you 'There are a number of things he was for....on the campaign trail."

  • Login or register to post comments

Punish enemies huh?.....

Submitted by BEGRUNT on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:05pm.

How "Nixoneon" of you.  Must be a large list. 

"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"

Cicero

  • Login or register to post comments

  Obama is assumming that

Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:47pm.

  Obama is assumming that Latino's are a monolithic bloc like the Blacks.  But the Latino's (Hispanics?) (whatever) are as a group hard workers and not given to sentiments for being victims.  Most of them want to work, own businesses and protect their families (which makes them social conservatives).

  The problem democrats will have with the (whatever you want to call them) is that they are always just one generation from becoming Republicans (if the Republicans stay true to their conservative values).  So it will be interesting to see how the democrats come up with government programs to destroy the Latino community as they did the Black community in order to keep them on the bottom of society and therefore dependant on government.

  • Login or register to post comments

MA, I was reading your

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:33pm.

MA, I was reading your comment and I got to here:

Most of them want to work, own businesses and protect their families (which makes them social conservatives).

and my thought was, well, they're going to have to find a way to make them dependent on government handouts, like they did with blacks, then. And then I saw that was exactly where you were going.   It will be interesting to see how they will go about that.  After amnesty and unfettered immigration, they have nothing else to offer.
  • Login or register to post comments

Right .  The democrats

Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 8:30pm.

Right

.  The democrats favorite ploy is to create a voting bloc by promising something they know will be opposed by a lot of people so that the issue just stays in limbo. 

   The dems love to leave bad legislation bad.  Social Security has been a gift basket for the dems for decades.  Every time the Republicans want to fix the system the dems have used that as a way to scare granny by telling her that the mean old rich Republicans want take away her Social Security.  The dems have no interest in fixing Social Security or Medicare, food stamps, you name it.  Bad legislation is just votes in the pocket for the democrats.  That is another reason the nightmare obamacare legislation is of no concern to democrats.   They don't care about either the people they hurt or the wastefulness of the programs.   They will reap millions of votes 'protecting' the little people from those mean Republicans who want to fix a broken system.

   So where do democrats really stand on the immigration issue?  in limbo land.  They want the controversy to go on forever.  It keeps the Latino's in their corner.

  • Login or register to post comments

Obama, what is best in life?

Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:47pm.

Crush your enemies, seem them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the conservatives!

"Liberalism is hideous.  It is the antithesis of being pro-human.  It looks at life as a burden in and of itself to be managed, rather than as a blessing to be explored and lived to the fullest." --Rush Limbaugh
  • Login or register to post comments

Punish our enemies?

Submitted by samhermanmd on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:58pm.

To what enemy is he referring? 

This is inflammatory rhetoric, and certainly not a word that should be used by a president in the political context.

  • Login or register to post comments

enemies of the state are all around you

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:51pm.

Right here tells you the enemy from the horses mouth - no insult meant.  Napolitano made it very clear (from ARRA ala Jeff Foxworthy "you might be" jokes):

  • If you're a veteran who recently risked his or her life defending this great country, you might be a “right-wing extremist.”
  • If you're pro-life, whether you're a part of National Right to Life or the Catholic Church, you might be a “right-wing extremist.”
  • If you believe that illegal aliens should be deported to their countries of origin, perhaps if you joined the Minutemen, a non-violent border-monitoring group, you might be a “right-wing extremist.”
  • If you're a gun owner who believes in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you might be a “right-wing extremist.”
  • If you believe the Tenth Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution for that matter, should be followed in accordance with the principles of limited government and the rule of law, and perhaps if you're a member of Americans for Limited Government or the Constitution Party, you might be a “right-wing extremist.”
  • The great uniter strikes again - uniting the true enemies of America with the people who used to be our allies.

    • Login or register to post comments

    Laura, Steffi sees you as the enemy that needs to be punished

    Submitted by JakeMo on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 6:34pm.

    No offense to Ms. Ingraham, but our side needs to stop being so deferential to the likes of Steffi and Harry Smith and Matt Lauer, etc..

    When you sit down with these jokers, you are sitting down with the DNC. Treat them as such. There's no need to allude to some third party that isn't at the interview. Both sides are represented. Now duke it out.

    Steffi sees you as the enemy that needs to be punished. When you speak to him as if he's an objective observer, you look like a chump.

     

    • Login or register to post comments

    Yep

    Submitted by Paul G on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:25pm.

    100% right

    • Login or register to post comments

    Laura knows exactly what she's doing

    Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:21am.

    Don't worry about her, she can and does take on the LSM all the time.  She continually wins in debates that are stacked 3-1 and 4-1.

     

    "Lib free or die"

    Be on the lookout for random acts of journalism from the MSM~h/t Rush

    We Are The 53%

    • Login or register to post comments

    Steffi didn't show up to referee, he showed up to fight

    Submitted by JakeMo on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:30pm.

    I agree. She wins the debates. I'm with you. The problem is that the casual viewer walks away not realizing it was a debate. They think it was a one-sided interview where Steffi failed to interview "the other side."

    She (and many others) fail to instill in the minds of the casual viewer: This guy you are relying on for your morning news is not objective. He IS the Democrat party. It's not just about winning the moment, it's about planting the seed that will discredit him forever.

    Most people don't pay attention like we do. They're busy eating breakfast, packing lunch, wrangling the kids. They only glance at the TV and they see an interview of a conservative rather than a debate of left vs. right. They don't understand that Steffi showed up with a sheet of talking points from the DNC. They think he's "objective."

    From the time we come into the ring, we need to make it clear to the audience that this other guy in the ring is not the referee, he's my frickin opponent.
     

    • Login or register to post comments

    Latinos should help him "punish our enemies."

    Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:38pm.

    Latinos should help him "punish our enemies."

    Well, I think the entire context is being missed here.

    Obama is talking about the "enemies" of the illegal immigration issue - his view of the subject.

    Obama is talking about the 70% of the American population who do not want his version of "immigration reform - with amnesty being the focal point." Obama is speaking of the 70% who support the details in the Az Immigration law:

    The left leaning Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found in a national survey that a strong majority gave their overall approval to the law, which opponents [Obama] charge is unconstitutional and a mandate for racial profiling. The findings:

    Seventy-three percent said they backed a measure requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them, while,

    67% approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify that they are in the country legally.

    That's the way it is Mr. President. Want to change the heart-felt view of 70% of the voters? Then, why not try to do it in an open and civil manner - intelectually, rather than by being a "thug president" - you know, in a presidential manner?

    Obama is asking Latino's to "punish" the strong majority of the American people. That is a call of division. That is a call to incite violence.

    This shall not stand.

    (;~/ gary

    • Login or register to post comments

    I just heard BOR open his

    Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:39pm.

    I just heard BOR open his show with that subject, and I thought well, that's certainly a way to bring people together

    \sarc off

    What are the prospects that Republicans and Democrats can get together on the day after election day? And how would you counsel senator McConnell and, perhaps, Speaker Boehner, if the Republicans win?"

    Hey, Georgie....how about asking this:   How would you counsel Rep.Pelosi and the Democrats to "get together" with the Republicans after they are no longer in power?
    • Login or register to post comments

    mb my answer to Georgie's

    Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 8:12am.

    mb my answer to Georgie's question about cooperation on the Republican side would be, "well, elections have consequences, and if they win, well, they (the Republicans) won.

    Reap what you sow Obama.

    • Login or register to post comments

    Don't forget this one....

    Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:46pm.

    "President "Dude" Obama, the campaign's over, we won". 

    Let John McCain deliver this message.

    • Login or register to post comments

    I think Speaker Bonier and

    Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:54pm.

    I think Speaker Bonier and Majority Leader McConnell should let Obammy cool his heels for maybe 18 months or so, then call and invite him for a meeting to discuss plans for working together on important problems. Of course, with regard to any of Obammy's suggestions, they should respectfully remind him that 'we won'.

    Did you know Doug has Mesothelioma? We'll deal with the government. You have enough to worry about.
    • Login or register to post comments

    Liberals just don't get it

    Submitted by pbthinker on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 8:53pm.

    Here's Stefanopolis, who was in the White House, and he doesn't understand how wrong it was for the President to use the word enemy here.  What's up with that?  It's got to be a liberal think where they have no clue what "respect for the office" is. 

    I have my doubts if the Community Organizer will ever figure it out before he gets voted out, in 2 years.

    Vote Republican - Then you'll only be called a racist one more time.
    • Login or register to post comments

    I doubt the Rev Wright has any problems...

    Submitted by krendler on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 9:15pm.

    ...with the rhetoric used by Obama in this case.

    BTW, Imagine if Bush or Reagan got up in front of a bunch of small business owners and said something along the lines of "Help me punish our enemy: Liberals"

    Obama: The Great Uniter. "Hey, Hispanics: Conservatives shouldn't be viewed as fellow Americans. They are your enemies."

    • Login or register to post comments

    Well, we all know that the

    Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 10:45pm.

    Well, we all know that the 'enemies' are US!!! I'm NOT surprised by Boy Blunders vitriol and anger and hate, even though he manages to keep it on the down-low most of the time...........he is filled with it, and we've known it for as long as he's been out in the public eye. He's mean, vindictive, smolderingly angry, and when he slips up and lets it come out, it's really obvious!!

    I was TOTALLY astonished at his whole DUMB AND DUMBER incoherent, grasp for the next semi-thought, car (or bus) in the ditch gum-flapping that he did over the weekend in New Hampshire!!! EVERY word that came out of his mouth was dripping with snide, smarmy, arrogant, angry disdain for ANYONE who isn't toeing the line....and that includes a vast majority of the country, as far as I can tell. The 'Republicans can ride in the back' comment was just the icing on the cake..........the whole thing was absurd and embarrassing!! The Dems have GOT to be freaking out daily at the incompetence and abject stupidity of this poser!!!!! But I don't feel bad for them at all..........they bought into the whole lie, hook, line, and sinker................and the rest of us are paying dearly for it!!!

    • Login or register to post comments

    So, it's official. We're the enemy.

    Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:01am.

    So, it's Official.  Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are the enemy and Obama want's, not to work with them, but PUNISH them!  Thanks for making that perfectly clear, Obama. I'll remember that in 2012 and I'll be sure everyone else remembers it too.

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

    Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

    Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

    • Login or register to post comments

    Obama's choice of words was

    Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:13am.

    Obama's choice of words was unfortunate.  But the GOP had already made it "official" what their post mid-term strategy would be--to make sure he fails, while concentrating all their efforts on securing his defeat in 2012.  Basically, the same as their pre mid-term strategy.

    Jer

    • Login or register to post comments

    Yep Jer.............you're

    Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:47am.

    Yep Jer.............you're 100 % correct.........and, imagine this.......I AGREE with you totally!!!!!

    • Login or register to post comments

    M-mm-mmm---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 1:23am.

    Barack Hussein Obama.

    It is absolutely unbelievable how graceful that man appears to move despite so many liberal lips planted firmly on his worthless ass.

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login or register to post comments

    Arf arf

    Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:27pm.

    Arf arf arf.......................

    • Login or register to post comments

    Hey, Jer,

    Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 10:33am.

    kindly link to anything where an R described Obama as the "enemy".   Or where an R said that Obama should ride "in the back of the bus".  His choice of words was not "unfortunate", it was deliberately inflammatory.

    American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
    • Login or register to post comments

    Will we still be allowed....

    Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:53pm.

    ...to use the drinking fountains and restrooms?

    • Login or register to post comments

    Why, UpNorth?...

    Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 5:32pm.

    since I haven't made any such claim.

    But, now that you mention it, I would suggest Newt Gingrich's characterization of Obama's words and policies being as "dangerous as Nazi Germany" to be just as unfortunate--inflammatory even--as the phrase drawing the present criticism.  I'm assuming, of course, that you consider Newt a prominent "Republican" and Nazi Germany an "enemy".

    Now, you can spin my description of Obama's use of the phrase "punish your enemies" however you wish.  I clearly wasn't defending it, and I'm still not.

    Jer

    • Login or register to post comments

    You are smart enough not to defend---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 12:24am.

    the indefensible, Jer, but everytime you cut in with a post, you always manage to word the examples you put forth as a comparison in such a way as to paint the conservative or the Republican as much more egregious in either their statements or actions.

    That is what is known as fading the heat, spin, bias, favoritism, or partisanship.

    When done by the liberal media, it has come to be called  lying, whether by commission, omission, or merely by "shading" the truth.

    It is also deflection via the "they do it to" charge.

    Very famous tactic, that one.

    Or so I hear.

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login or register to post comments

    Negative, Matthew...

    Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:00am.

    Not with respect to my being smart enough, etc., but that my comment was deflective.

    I was critical of Obama's choice of words.  That was directly on point.  I also commented on the poster's claim that it marked the "official" strategy of the administration for the next couple of years by noting that the GOP had already established its "official" strategy of continued non co-operation. That comment reflected my opinion and was enitirely fair and appropriate, although many may disagree with it and are free to challenge it.

    Instead, UpNorth redirected the dialogue with a demand that I link examples of Republicans behaving in the same manner as Obama had with his "punish the enemy" rhetoric--as if I had actually made such claim.  Even though he had introduced the red herring [and was engaging in deflection] I indulged him.

    Jer .

    • Login or register to post comments

    Honest. I iz confused.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:03am.

    The Obama administration yesterday jettisoned the Bush-era term "enemy combatant" but maintained a broad right to detain those who provide "substantial" assistance to al-Qaeda and its associates around the globe.

    • Login or register to post comments

    Demand?

    Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:12am.

    When did "kindly link" become a demand, Jer?  The only redirection is you trying to redirect the meaning of "kindly link".

    And, telling his audience that the Republicans can ride in the "back of the bus" is what?  Reaching across the aisle?  Extending the hand of bipartisanship?  Or, a crass, low attempt to dredge up yet another racial slap at those Owebowma disagrees with? 

    Along with Rush, and millions of others, I, too, hope he fails.

    American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
    • Login or register to post comments

    UpNorth---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:21am.

    Kindly link, I mean, kindly disregard my post to Jer.

    Your reply was much better.

    MD 

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login or register to post comments

    UpNorth...

    Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:41am.

    When it has absolutely nothing to do with my post.  There is no other construction to be reasonably placed upon it.

    It was a direction to perform a specific function.  Otherwise you should have stated, "Jer, I understand that you disagree with Obama's rhetoric, but, even though you did not suggest like conduct on the part of Republicans, do you know of any examples where a Republican has behaved similarly?  If so, would you please link one.  Thanks, your pal, UpNorth."

    Jer

    • Login or register to post comments

    Thanks for

    Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:48am.

    the form, or outline response required for anything you post, Jer.  In the future, I'll certainly use it to respond to anything you put up, that i think I might want to repsond to. 

    American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
    • Login or register to post comments

    You are a prince, UpNorth....

    Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:52am.

    Your pal,

    Jer

    • Login or register to post comments

    In the course

    Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 2:01am.

    of my life, and career, I've been called worse.  But usually, face to face, not from behind a keyboard.  I didn't agree with them, but at least I respected them for doing it in the open, face to face. 

    I'd love to continue this, but sleep beckons, it's about a half hour past 0 dark hundred here.  Good night Jer, enjoy. 

    P.S. Sorry I forgot to use your form response, already. 

    American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
    • Login or register to post comments

    No worries.  Sleep beckons

    Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 2:03am.

    No worries.  Sleep beckons here also.  You have a good night, too.

    Jer

    • Login or register to post comments

    Yeah, Jer---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:19am.

    "kindly link" , as requested by UpNorth,  is a very ham-fisted demand, all right.

    I can see why your hackles get raised.

    (Really helps with the deflection, doesn't it.)

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login or register to post comments

    Wrong again, Matthew...

    Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:31am.

    UpNorth obviously intended "kindly" in the same sense that "kindly" is used when someone says "kindly kiss my ass".  I trust that clarifies it for you.

    Jer

    • Login or register to post comments

    Really, Jer,

    Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:43am.

    now you're reading minds and assigning motives to people, just by devining what they say in a post, without seeing the expression on their face?  I stand in awe, sir, you are an eagle in the midst of a flock of crows.  Why, I can't imagine why Owebowma hasn't tapped you to take Hillary's place.  With your gift, the U.S. would achieve what Owebowma's followers wanted, that we would be loved by all and feared by none, as you would be able to tell the Pres what everyone was thinking, before they even thought it. 

    Kindly take this as a compliment, sir, as that's how it's intended.  But you already know that, don't you? 

    American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
    • Login or register to post comments

    I iz confused again.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:00am.

      We still have a front and a half open in the GWOT. What do we call the guys that are actually trying to kill us?

    NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

    • Login or register to post comments

    Neither Napolitano or Obama know it,---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:31am.

    B ut
    U sing
    L eftist
    L anguage
    S upports &
    H ides
    I  nsidious
    T errorism

     

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login or register to post comments

    Confused I iz honest.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:07am.

    In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

    • Login or register to post comments

    Thanks for the ammo Obama!

    Submitted by z7e1r3o on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 3:44pm.

    That ought to be a useful sound bite/video clip once 2012 rolls around.

    ------

    "The point of war isn't to die for your country....it's to make the enemy die for his."

    • Login or register to post comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Donate to NewsBusters Today!

    This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

    User Shortcuts

    Log in

    • My account
    • My buddylist
    • Log in to check messages
    • RSS feed
    • About NB
    • Contact us
    • Jobs
    • Advertise on NB

     

     

    Join our campaign to get the media to Tell the Truth!

     

    • Obama's economy poll numbers improving (Hot Air)
    • Debt is the biggest reason Obama's liberalism is disaster (Power Line)
    • Catholic candidate debates and ashes (Daily Caller)
    • The (liberal media) debate mistake (NRO)
    • Obama's dividend tax increase will hurt more than just 'the rich' (WSJ)
    • Bush outpolls Obama in survey of presidents (Surber)

    RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

    Recent comments

    • Stay focused on the real issues folks!
      6 min 42 sec ago
    • David Friggin' Gergen??? Who
      15 min 54 sec ago
    • Good for Mitt!
      26 min 30 sec ago
    • Got bigot?
      30 min 45 sec ago
    • I"d take that price, no ka
      34 min 6 sec ago
    More >

    Over the Edge
    more cartoons
    • Gingrich: Obama 'Is The Most Dangerous President on National Security Grounds in American History'
    • Sarah Palin: 'Lamestream Media' Are 'All Wee-Weed Up' About Santorum's Satan Remark
    • UPDATED |WashPost Runs Cartoon Depicting Drunken Bishop, Refused to Run Strip by Same Artist Mocking Muhammad
    • Chris Matthews Concedes: 'Liberals Don't Want to Pay More Taxes'; 'It's All a Game'
    • Al-Jazeera English Wins Prizes, Leftists Want More Access to American TV
    More >
    NewsBusters

    Executive Editor
    Matthew Sheffield

    Editor at Large
    Brent Baker

    Senior Editors
    Tim Graham
    Rich Noyes

    Managing Editor
    Ken Shepherd

    Associate Editor
    Noel Sheppard

    Contributing Editors
    Tom Blumer
    Geoffrey Dickens
    Dan Gainor
    David Limbaugh
    Lachlan Markay
    Mithridate Ombud
    Clay Waters
    Scott Whitlock

    Senior Contributor
    Mark Finkelstein

    Editorial Associate
    Aubrey Vaughan

    Contributing Writers
    Matthew Balan
    Michael M. Bates
    Erin R. Brown
    Jack Coleman
    Kyle Drennen
    Douglas Ernst
    P. J. Gladnick
    Stephen Gutowski
    Matt Hadro
    D. S. Hube
    Kathleen McKinley
    Dave Pierre
    Amy Ridenour
    Julia A. Seymour
    Terry Trippany
    Rusty Weiss
    Brad Wilmouth

    Publisher
    Brent Bozell

    Site Design
    Dialog New Media

     

    • Home
    • Blogs
    • About
    • Forum
    • Contact
    • Donate
    • Search
    • Account
    • rss
    • CNSNews
    • MRC TV
    • Biz & Media
    • Culture & Media
    • Take Action!
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • Amazon Kindle
    • Advertise
    • Jobs

    Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.