Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:04 PM Jul 2012

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 [her]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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If GOP Attacks on Huma Abedin Were "Dangerous," "Sinister," What About GOP Attacks on Barack Obama? (Original Post) ProSense Jul 2012 OP
To me those attacks were just as dangerous NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #1
Good point cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #2
Hypocrisy is a Republican core value. Scuba Jul 2012 #3
I don't know anything about Franks and Rooney, tanyev Jul 2012 #4
Oh gosh, no. We don"t hate HIM, it's just his policies. russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #5
Short answer: The attacks on Obama are treason. joanbarnes Jul 2012 #6
Wrong-headed and ignorant, yes SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #7

tanyev

(42,540 posts)
4. I don't know anything about Franks and Rooney,
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:29 PM
Jul 2012

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.

russspeakeasy

(6,539 posts)
5. Oh gosh, no. We don"t hate HIM, it's just his policies.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:31 PM
Jul 2012

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If GOP Attacks on Huma Ab...