HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If GOP Attacks on Huma Ab...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:04 PM

If GOP Attacks on Huma Abedin Were "Dangerous," "Sinister," What About GOP Attacks on Barack Obama?

If GOP Attacks on Huma Abedin Were "Dangerous," "Sinister," What About GOP Attacks on Barack Obama?

by lowkell

So, this morning I was reading Chris Cillizza's Worst Week in Washington, and I certainly agreed with him that far-right-wing, conspiracy nutjob and teahadist (but I repeat myself - lol) Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann got the award this week for "turning self into a modern-day McCarthy."

It wasn't just Bachmann, though; as Cillizza points out, the attacks on Secretary of State Clinton's long-time personal aide Huma Abedin, supposedly that she's some sort of Muslim fundamentalist mole within the bowels of the U.S. government, actually came from Bachmann "and four other House Republicans" - Trent Franks, Thomas Rooney, Louie Gohmert, and Lynn Westmoreland. In response to this appalling, despicable, insane letter, 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain took to the floor of the Senate to call the attacks "sinister," while even John Boehner felt compelled to condemn the attacks as "dangerous."

Good for them, although shouldn't it be automatic for Republican leaders to condemn insane, destructive, vicious comments from leading members (Bachmann was a presidential candidate this year, leading in the primary polls for a while) of their party? Sadly, the answer is no; the responses of McCain and Boehner were definitely the exception, NOT the rule. Think about it: when was the last time any GOP leader condemned Steve King, Alan West, or any of the other (many) crazies in their party? As Dana Milbank points out, not only do Republican "leaders" like Willard "Mitt" Romney refuse to condemn the most vile, frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracy theories floating around out there, they actually flirt with them or even full-on embrace them.

<...>

So, as we all know, Barack Obama's been attacked relentlessly from the early days of his campaign for president as some sort of "Islamic radical," (note: the Teahadists seem to believe that all Muslims are radicals), just as the loyal American Huma Abedin was recently attacked by Bachmann and Company. Yet I haven't heard - maybe I missed it? - strong condemnation by Republican Party leaders (hello, Eric Can'tor?!?) of THOSE attacks as "dangerous" and "sinister." Yet, aren't the attacks on Barack Obama essentially identical to what Bachmann et al. said about Huma Abedin? If not, how are they different, or any less dangerous?

In fact, I'd argue that the attacks on Obama are potentially even more dangerous, as there are many unstable people out there who might be overly excited by outlandish attacks against a U.S. President and try something violent (god, or better yet Secret Service, forbid). Yet still, we get...absolute dead silence from Republican "leaders" on this. Crickets. Or even worse, we watch the Republican presidential nominee and his surrogates embrace some of the worst conspiracy theorists (Donald Trump) and hate mongers (John Sununu). Why is that any less "dangerous" or "sinister" than what just happened to Huma Abedin? Got me. Any ideas? I've got nothing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112575/-If-GOP-Attacks-on-Huma-Abedin-Were-Dangerous-Sinister-What-About-GOP-Attacks-on-Barack-Obama

The condemnations were probably a "look over there" attempt to shift focus from Mitt's predicament.

7 replies, 1651 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply If GOP Attacks on Huma Abedin Were "Dangerous," "Sinister," What About GOP Attacks on Barack Obama? (Original post)
ProSense Jul 2012 OP
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #1
cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #2
Scuba Jul 2012 #3
tanyev Jul 2012 #4
russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #5
joanbarnes Jul 2012 #6
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #7

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:11 PM

1. To me those attacks were just as dangerous

Without doubt.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:14 PM

2. Good point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:16 PM

3. Hypocrisy is a Republican core value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:29 PM

4. I don't know anything about Franks and Rooney,

but Gohmert and Westmoreland barely have one functioning brain cell between the two of them.

Remember the Colbert interview of Westmoreland? He was trying to push displaying the 10 Commandments in public buildings and couldn't even name one commandment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:31 PM

5. Oh gosh, no. We don"t hate HIM, it's just his policies.

What policies do you hate ?
Well, the bad ones.
El croco shitto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:46 PM

6. Short answer: The attacks on Obama are treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joanbarnes (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:48 PM

7. Wrong-headed and ignorant, yes

Treasonous, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread