TPM LiveWire
DNC: GOP 'Has Thrown In Its Lots With Terrorists'
Rachel Slajda | October 9, 2009, 11:58AM
RNC Chair Michael Steele
Share
Send to a friend!
In a statement sent to Greg Sargent, a Democratic National Committee spokesman comparing the Republican Party with the Taliban and Hamas.
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.
The Taliban called the Peace Prize "unjust" and said President Obama has done nothing to create peace in Afghanistan. RNC chairman Michael Steele asked, "What has President Obama actually accomplished?"
The DNC statement continues:
Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Perino: No Terrorists Attacked America On Bush's Watch
- Bird's Eye View
- Lou Dobbs: Friend Of Illegal Immigrants Everywhere?
- Bad Picks Have Consequences
- Fox Host: Public Option Would Be Tax-Payer Funded Government Health Care Program
- 'Disappointed' Siegelman: Obama Justice Dept. Virtually The Same As Bush DOJ
- White House 'Message Meeting' For Pundits On List
- Broder: Reid Is Parochial, Uninspiring Leader
- White House Visitors Logs: Who Came To See President Obama?
- Limbaugh, On Obama's Visit To West Point: 'Will They Detain Him? Hopefully'
- Perino: No Terrorists Attacked America On Bush's Watch
- 'Disappointed' Siegelman: Obama Justice Dept. Virtually The Same As Bush DOJ
- Broder: Reid Is Parochial, Uninspiring Leader
- Single Payer Advocates Say Bernie Sanders 'Not A Fighter'
- Hidden Constraints on Presidential Power
- Maureen Dowd on Obama, Loyalty, and Greg Craig
- White House Releases More Names From Visitor Logs -- Help Us Search
- Needy NJ Families Giving Thanks That Corzine Is Still Governor?
- Lou Dobbs: Friend Of Illegal Immigrants Everywhere?
- SNATCH: An Existential Take.
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
October 9, 2009 12:14 PM
Wow--stinging, but true. They've really shown their true colors in the past week, first with their glee over the Olympics, and now today with their sneering disdain over the Nobel. Do they realize how badly this plays with independents?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Reluctant Conspiracy Theorist
October 9, 2009 6:29 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
I'm an independent. Could someone please enlighten me as to the great deeds Obama has done to be in the ranks of Lech Walesa and the Dalai Lama? To me it appears his only claim to fame is getting elected. Does that compare?
Compare this with what they do in youth sports. Instead of just the winners getting trophies, everyone gets a trophy so their self-esteem isn't damaged. All that does is cheapen the accomplishments of the winners. Obama getting the Nobel Prize at this stage in his career, not to mention getting nominated 11 days into his presidency, only cheapens the meaning of receiving the Nobel Prize.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
October 9, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to The Reluctant Conspiracy Theorist
The Peace Prize is awarded (according to Alfred Nobel's will) "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
That says nothing about having "achieved" any of that. The prize is a recognition of someone who is working toward those goals in the face of great opposition--I'd say that that certainly applies here. This is also where the controversy over the prize has stemmed from in the past. Unlike the other Nobels, Peace is A) virtually impossible to quantify and B) often awarded to someone in anticipation of their body of work rather then after the work is done.
No one can say that Obama doesn't work his ass off. His life story is testament to his tenacity and pursuit of his idea of the greater good. You don't have to agree with it, but it doesn't abase the value of the effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sexysadie
October 10, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to The Reluctant Conspiracy Theorist
SURE, you're an "independent," who just happens to be parroting the right-wing talking points of the day VERBATIM.
TPM did a nice short piece outlining how the prize is awarded here:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/how-they-pick-nobel-laureates.php?ref=fpblg
Quote: "The committee usually makes its decision by mid-September, but has been known to take until the final meeting in early October."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
11A7E
October 9, 2009 11:18 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Bingo!!!! Why do the Wingnuts hate America???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
October 9, 2009 12:28 PM
The right tact for the GOP to take would have been the one Pawlenty took: admit surprise, but offer congratulations.
I voted for Obama and I don't think he deserved this either. But don't use his winning the award as yet another reason to demonize him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 9, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to jdb316
"Tack," not "tact."
"Tack" is a nautical verb, referring to the zig-zagging course a sailing ship uses to "sail against the wind" (yet another nautical term from the age of sail that's passed into common metaphor). To get to your destination you would have to "change tack" at periodic intervals.
"Tact," on the other hand, is, in the immortal words of Cordelia Chase "just not saying true stuff."
Sorry, pet peeve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
October 9, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I just love it when you get all pedantic. :-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
veritebuzz
October 11, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to commie atheist
What is pedantic about correct use of English?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeBobb
October 9, 2009 1:10 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You should get a pet peave that makes sense. Tact is the correct word to use. According to Merriam-webster dictionary:
Tact:
A keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense
From the latin: tactus (to touch)
My pet peave is people correcting others when it is themselves who are wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
October 9, 2009 1:44 PM in reply to JoeBobb
You have tact or you display it. You don't take it. NCSteve is correct, if peavish
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
F
October 9, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to JoeBobb
Pedantic, I'll show you pedantic.
Sorry JoeBobb, "The right tact for ..." doesn't make sense. Don't think "right" can sensibly modify tact in this usage. "The right tack ..." makes sense and I recognize the usage. Perhaps we can all agree on "The right tactic for the GOP would have been ..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
October 9, 2009 2:14 PM in reply to JoeBobb
Probably part of your problem is that you have peaves, whatever they are, rather than peeves.
Tact is something you either have or don't; one doesn't take "the right tact" or "the wrong tact". Tack is correct in the phrase.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 9, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to JoeBobb
Obviously, I prefer Cordie's defintion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
October 9, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to JoeBobb
"My pet peave is people correcting others when it is themselves who are wrong."
well then you ought to be very peeved at yourself. steve is correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
October 9, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to JoeBobb
"My pet peave is people correcting others when it is themselves who are wrong."
well then you ought to be very peeved at yourself. steve is correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
October 9, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to JoeBobb
"Tact is just not saying true stuff"
Willow - Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Don Loeb
October 9, 2009 4:36 PM in reply to kenga
My peeve is quibbling about words when there are important issues at hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 9, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to kenga
It was Cordelia, not Willow.
(Dammit, I just can't stop myself.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sexysadie
October 10, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to JoeBobb
WRONG! That is the definition of the adjective "tact." He was using it as a noun, and he meant tack.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KingElvis
October 9, 2009 12:31 PM
OUCH! The truth hurts though.
This statement only adds to my bounty of glee this morning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Don Loeb
October 9, 2009 2:06 PM
One reason I am proud to be a Democrat is that we are usually better than the Republicans when it comes to honesty and fairness in political speech. Saying, "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas," is an unfair distortion. The Taliban believes that the sky is blue, and so do I. That doesn't mean that I have thrown in my lot with them.
Republican politicians and their spokespeople and surrogates have done plenty of awful things for us to criticize--including expressing glee that we lost the Olympics and woe that Obama was awarded this honor. We don't need to stoop to their level and suggest that they are "palling around with terrorists," even intellectually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
October 9, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to Don Loeb
Agreed. We should drop the tactfulness -- such as that they "pal around with terrorists" -- and say it simply and directly:
Republicans are terrorists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
veritebuzz
October 11, 2009 9:17 AM in reply to JNagarya
Yes. Big Dick was at the controls..... doing "exercises" about planes flying into buildings.. and these were remote controlled.. not by stoge Saudis who were supposed to be devout jihad material.. but out drinking and partying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
October 9, 2009 3:22 PM
President of the USA, Barack Obama asked "who is Micheal Steel"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
October 9, 2009 3:29 PM
Don, they ARE palling around with terrorists, at least in deed. Let's
take a look:
Terrorist: someone who uses terror (violence, intimidation) for politcal
ends.
Republicans call for violence, claim the President is illegitimate,
and generally bully to get their way. Lately they have begun carrying
weapons to Presidential events, calling for armed revolution, and
out-shouting and out-bullying everyone else to get their way.
Now, every time our President, and America, suffers a setback, the Republicans
cheer. Every time our President, and America wins a prize, they try to
demean it. They want to thwart our President at every turn.
So, armed? check. angry? check. using intimidation for politcal gain? check
rooting against our President and America in general? check Advocating
violent overthrow of the government? check
If it quacks like a duck ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Don Loeb
October 9, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to billpaustin
They are awful. But we demean ourselves when we lower ourselves to their level. A few have brought weapons. It's not true that "they" have done so, any more than that "we" think 9-11 was a CIA plot. More than a few have defended the weapon toting and suggested that a violent overthrow of our government might be "necessary" (because they couldn't steal another election). That's despicable.
But they are not in league with the Taliban or Hamas. They haven't "thrown in" with these groups. If we can't make a distinction between awful and even more awful, we lack the ability to make reasonable moral assessments. I am not talking about you personally, Bill. I am saying that there is a moral difference between these pathetic displays by prominent members of the right (in particular cheering our failure to win the chance to host the Olympics again, and scorning Obama's amazing honor) and shooting missiles at civilians or cutting off the heads of supposed infidels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
October 9, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to Don Loeb
Agreed. Too often these days, polarized and absolute terms are thrown around where we need shades of gray. The comparison by the DNC had a grain of truth in it but the RNC is certainly not in the same league as the Taliban, not by a long shot. In short, it's propaganda - if they've "thrown in their lot" with them we're implicitly invited to infer that they have other similarities.
I also agree that we should cease committing the fallacy of composition by painting all conservatives with the "gun-toting, racist freeper" label. I've been friendly with several reasonable conservatives who aren't off the deep end and gave me some good debates.
Let's be the party of reason and logic, guys, not just wingnuts of the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
October 9, 2009 5:47 PM in reply to Don Loeb
No, tjhey haven't thrown in with Taliban and Hamas -- they hate Muslimes, remember?
But they needn't: they've thrown in with such terrorist organizations as KKK and NRA.
And with -- well -- themselves and other Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
October 9, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to Don Loeb
Well, how fine a difference is there between the guy who shoots somebody,
and the guy who eggs him on, and congratulates him when it is done?
How is it not terrorism when a person listens to the right-wing say that
Obama is Hitler and needs to be taken out, and then those people show up
at an Obama event with a gun?
Not everyone in Hamas is a gun-totin' fanatic; not all the Taliban are
suicide bombers. Not everyone in the Republican Party claim that Obama
is Hitler, and needs to be taken out. But they are all guilty by association.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Don Loeb
October 10, 2009 7:53 PM in reply to billpaustin
"Guilt by association" is a phrase used to describe a fallacious inference from the facts that one person (entity, etc.) is guilty and that another is somehow associated with him (often tenuously) to the claim that the associated is guilty as well. So when Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," she was implying guilt by association. It was a scummy thing for her to say and for others to defend.
Such cheap tricks are dishonest and beneath us. Not every right winger approves of the gun toting, and none of them support the Taliban or Hamas.
The right has done and said many awful things, which we can justly criticize (including the things some have said about Obama's Nobel Prize!) Fallacious reasoning and overblown rhetoric weaken our credibility in doing so.
We shouldn't stoop so low, just because many on the other side are willing to.
Go ahead and have last word if you like. I have made my point, and Worthy9 has eloquently supplemented it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
veritebuzz
October 11, 2009 9:25 AM in reply to Don Loeb
Bushes and Bin Ladens are great family friends. Al Queda is named by the CIA file.. ("the database") allies in the fight against the USSR in Afghanistan.. A lot was certainly thrown in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefabfan
October 9, 2009 3:37 PM
Bolton says Obama should refuse it. Didn't Bush give his back?
He didn't get one?? Really? Hardly seems fair, for all the peace Bush and Bolton achived fighting "tearists".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
red cabbage
October 9, 2009 4:56 PM
I can honestly say I find this DNC response to be 100% appropriate.
Spot on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
October 9, 2009 5:49 PM in reply to red cabbage
I don't have any problem with it, unless the rumors are true that President Obama is considering working with the Taliban in order to establish some stability so we can get the hell out of Afghanistan. If they are true, this comment could come back to haunt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
October 9, 2009 8:13 PM
Where was this talk when the health care debate started up and Republicans were screaming DEATH PANELS!! every day, with silence in Response from Dem leadership?
I'm not unhappy to see it, but let's see them keep it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BruceBanner
October 10, 2009 2:36 PM
The DNC's point has already been made...by the GOP itself. 8 months ago:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mblye
October 12, 2009 10:17 AM
Arguing the merits of the award is one thing. But didn't we all hate the whole guilt-by-association/you-agree-with-terrorists thing for the last 8 years? I know the DNC is supposed to be very partisan, and taking the high road is difficult to do... but still.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?