Posted on 03/16/2008 7:35:22 AM PDT by campg
I wonder if Ben realizes that Cedar Falls is not in Congressman King’s district?
LOL!
but your deliberate misrepresentation of what King said suggests you are.
I merely reported the direct quote. If that's "misrepresentation of what King said...."
The point is that there are useful ways of saying things; and there are ways that obscure the important issues. Mr. King has very obviously placed himself into the latter category.
Source? It sure isn't in the article being discussed, and it did not come from King as his 'main point' as you are struggling to assert.
So where did this 'direct quote' come from?
That is hardly his main point, but it is salient.
Here is a challenge to you:
Make the point that Obama, if he becomes President, will be celebrated in the Middle East in a way that most Americans currently don't understand. The reason they will celebrate (dancing in the streets I think is what King said) is because they will see a muslim connection to Obama.
The Challenge is this: State what King did, and give supporting reasons why your assertion is true. Just don't mention his middle name, even in passing.
I'm not going to go there at all, because it is pure guesswork, and as such it would provide Obama's folks the opportunity to paint me, as they have Mr. King, as a fruitcake. There is no way to prove the assertion. And even if we suppose that the reaction actually takes place -- there is absolutely no way to prove that such a reaction would have any bearing on what Obama would actually do. It's easily painted as something that is just made up to feed the whackadoodle wing.
The proper reason to oppose Obama, is to focus on what he has actually said. His ideas for dealing with Iran, for example, are stunningly naive -- and it is fair to blast him for that. His comments about opposing the war in Iraq, and his subsequent positions on it: fair game again, and he can be blasted for it. It is also fair game to point to the memory of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy disasters -- and the fact that Obama is far less qualified in the area of foreign policy than even Carter was -- that is fair game. Hillary!'s "3:00 am phone call" ad drew arterial blood -- and everybody knows it.
But to make up scare stories that are easily slapped aside ... that's just dumb. You do see the difference?
I doubt it, but he knows King hit the nail on the head. Ben is from California apparently and just sent his letter to a paper in Iowa, maybe a bunch of papers all over. There are some Iowa Caucus voters embarrassed about their choice, but the MSM refused to delve into Barak Hussein Obama until just recently. They are being forced to scrutize him by a regular guy from Kiron, Iowa and a nice Christian minister with love and forgiveness in his heart.
Now I understand your reaction. You have missed the whole point of what King was saying.
His point is NOT what Obama would, or would not, do. It isn't even the effect it will have on anyone living in the United States. It is the effect that his election would have on our war effort, and other reactions by muslims to our efforts in the Middle East to secure our safety by bringing order to the region. It will embolden the muslim world in a way we haven't seeen since before our country became a country.
A lot of people haven't thought about that angle to the election outcome.
Because of PC, many are afraid to go where we need to go in this war of words to protect our interests, and especially our soldiers who are fighting the good fight over there.
That's their prerogative. Fortunately, King isn't afraid.
I understand that. But that's the point that matters.
Fortunately, King isn't afraid.
Well, yes, fools do go where angels fear to tread.... The problem is that King has shifted the focus from where it belongs -- Obama and his positions -- to unverifiable fears; and the PR response to what he has said.
As such, the focus is (ta daaaaaa!!!) not on Obama; nor on the amorphous fears King raises about Muslim reaction; but instead on Mr. King himself, and his seriously idiotic choice of words.
Self-defeat, in other words.
You'd think a politician would be a bit more canny about his words.
I interpreted it to be less about Obama than the attitude of radical Muslims in other countries. He pointed out that the name has meaning to Muslims.
He should be. It’s a heavily R district. There is a rumor that Soros money will be coming into the district to defeat Steve.
He is not running for the Senate. He is running for reelection.
Thus my challange to you to provide more canny words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.