Friday, January 22, 2010

Heroic Rescue On the Red Line

Maybe you saw this in yesterday's Post. Somebody linked to it in a comment yesterday, and I think it is a really cool story. I take the Metro every day, and you see people going near the edge of the platform, you see kids goofing around, but I have never seen anyone fall onto the tracks. I wondered what you would do, should you just jump down there and lift them up? If you do that, how do you get back up? Would the people on the platform help you? I could imagine the commuters standing there thinking, I'm not going give him my hand, I might get pulled down there, too.

Here's what you do -- I'm just pasting the whole article into this post...
"Help!" the disabled woman cried, her motorized wheelchair overturned a few feet away as she lay sprawled on the Metro tracks at Union Station just before midnight one day last week.

Michelle Kleisath, a 29-year-old anthropology doctoral student from Seattle, was among a crowd gathered on the platform, watching aghast. She pulled her phone from her pocket to call 911 but realized there was not enough time.

"She's going to die," Kleisath, who was in the District attending a conference on race relations, recalled thinking. "Someone has to get her off."

But thanks mainly to Kleisath and her partner, Chilan T. Ta, 26, a transportation engineering student from Seattle, disaster was averted. The couple, with help from other bystanders, rescued the woman.

The incident Jan. 13 had all the makings of another Metro tragedy.

Two weeks earlier, a blind Rockville man who tumbled from the platform of the Gallery Place-Chinatown Station was hit and killed by a Red Line train. According to Metro, at least three other riders have fallen onto tracks in the past year in what appeared to be accidents.

A man in a wheelchair rolled off a platform onto the track bed last summer at the Southern Avenue Station, injuring his head; a 22-year-old man was struck by a train and killed at the East Falls Church Station in March; and a woman was rescued from the Gallery Place tracks, escaping with minor injuries, during the presidential inauguration in January 2009.

A Metro spokeswoman confirmed that a woman fell onto the tracks last week, but the transit agency would not identify her. "We don't give out the names of customers," Lisa Farbstein said.

In a telephone interview Wednesday from their home in Seattle, Kleisath and Ta described the incident.

Ta ran up the stairs to the mezzanine to alert the station manager. "My thought was, if the train driver knows they should not arrive at the station, it would give the people more time," she said.

Meanwhile, swallowing her fear, Kleisath climbed down onto the tracks and started moving toward the woman, who was near the tunnel exit on the side headed for Shady Grove. As soon as she did, another wave of panic broke out among the onlookers.

"The electric rail!" a man yelled at her.

"They are both on the tracks! There are two on the tracks!" a woman screamed.

"That's not helpful," Kleisath recalled thinking. "I was already really terrified."

Kleisath, a bicyclist, said that when she reached the woman, she realized she would be unable to lift her alone. She looked up to the platform, spotted a tall man in a dark jacket, and realized he was the panhandler she had just given a dollar to after he had complained about rising Metro fares.

"Please, come down and help me," she called. The man immediately jumped down. Another man followed, and a third. Together, they lifted the injured woman onto the platform.

Kleisath was trying to comfort the woman, who was bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth and was unable to use her arms and legs, when suddenly the woman said: "Get my chair!"

"I thought if we didn't get the chair, the people on the Metro might die, so me and the man I gave the dollar to went back and got the chair," Kleisath said.

By then, the station manager was on the emergency phone talking with the operations center, and Metro police officers had arrived. Paramedics were on the way to take the woman to a hospital.

"Apparently, she told personnel that her wheelchair malfunctioned," said Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel, who confirmed the incident Wednesday. The station manager alerted the Metro operations center to cut power to the third rail, and the center stopped the driver of a train bound for Shady Grove.

Kleisath stayed with the woman, keeping her hand on her shoulder. A pool of blood was forming under the woman's face, so Kleisath helped her blow her nose. She pulled down the woman's sweater to cover her exposed stomach, put her loose wallet in her purse and placed a shoe that had fallen off into her shopping bag.

The last train of the night pulled into the station. The operator looked out from his cab at the scene.

Kleisath and Ta got on the train and rode away. D.C. visitors help rescue woman from Union Station Metro tracks

Maybe you saw the video of the lady who fell on the tracks in Boston recently -- HERE. She looks like she had had a few drinks, whatever, she falls off the platform onto the tracks and apparently passes out. That train misses her by an inch.

This Washington Post story has so many cool angles to it. The heroine had just given a guy a dollar, and he came to the rescue, too. Out of towners, didn't know what to do, risked their lives, caught the next train and moved on. More like this, please.


Blogger David S. Fishback said...

It is interesting to note that this wonderful lesbian couple is deprived of the right to marry in all but a few states in America.

The fact that they are lesbian is not germane to the rescue. But it is germane to the larger question of whether it is morally right to refuse to allow such couples the right to marry.

January 22, 2010 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still trying to figure out why Robert thinks these are "his people."

Is he saying that they are nuts?

It is interesting to note that this wonderful lesbian couple and the panhandler are deprived of the right to marry in a threesome union in every state in America.

January 22, 2010 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The station manager alerted the Metro operations center to cut power to the third rail"

You know, they used to always say social security was the "third rail" of politics.

Any politician who suggested any change to it would get fried.

The new "third rail" appears to be health care reform.

Bill Clinton got the Gingrich revolution when he tried it and Obama is getting the Tea Party treatment.

We need to start working on that Contract with America.

Barry needs his new job description.

January 22, 2010 1:38 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I'm still trying to figure out why Robert thinks these are "his people."

Vigilance readers realize figuring things out is not your forte but only an ignorant and intolerant member of the heterosexual majority could come up with this one.

this wonderful lesbian couple and the panhandler are deprived of the right to marry in a threesome union

In the past 20 years, how many states have voted on the issue of plural marriage? Nice attempted straw man, though!

January 22, 2010 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Vigilance readers realize figuring things out is not your forte but only an ignorant and intolerant member of the heterosexual majority could come up with this one."

Yeah, I'm real, like, ignorant but could you explain how a coupla lesbians an' a panhandler are like Robert?

There's a lot of ignorant people out there.

Like the majority of Americans who are going to make Barry a one-termer.

Oh, and when will there be justice for homosexuals and polygamists who want to force everyone to pretend they're married?

January 22, 2010 2:18 PM  
Anonymous watching the drain with delight said...

this guy never learns:

"A strong statement from President Obama on today's Supreme Court ruling that frees corporations to spend unlimited sums on political campaigns:

'With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue.'"

yeah, you do that, Barry

we have people out of work all over America and you concentrate on trying to get around the Constitution on the issue of free speech

that'll go over well in November

make sure you get the Congressional leadership in on it too

oh wait, here we go:

"We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

by bipartisan, I assume you mean lunatic Dems and blue dog Dems

"The public interest requires nothing less." know, Barry, I think the public would appreciate some focus on the unemployment situation

It's worth noting, of course, that as a candidate Obama broke a pledge to stay within the matching funds program for presidential candidates.

But the great thing about Dems is that they don't feel obligated to show any consistency.

I think that glub-glub we heard is starting to become a whoosh-whoosh.

January 22, 2010 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I think that glub-glub we heard is starting to become a whoosh-whoosh

As usual, your thinking is wrong, Anone. That sound *you* hear is all the water from snow and ice melt due to global warming.

2009 Was 2nd Warmest Year on Record, NASA Says

(Jan. 22) -- After calculating Earth's average temperature for 2009, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies say that it ranks as the globe's second warmest year on record -- unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere, in which case you just experienced the hottest 12 months since record-keeping for worldwide temperature statistics began in 1880.

Reversing a one-year trend that saw global temperatures fall in 2008 because of a La Nina weather pattern, 2009 took its place in a virtual tie with other several others just behind 2005. Those years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007. As a result, NASA said that the decade spanning from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, and it updated a chart showing the change in global temperatures since 1880 (see below).

NASA says that cluster of warm years makes it clear that global warming is real.

"The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger that some of the differences between the years," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said in NASA's news release.

The agency's scientists stress that year-to-year variability will always be a factor when measuring long-term climate trends, but that the bigger picture can be seen simply by taking a few steps back and surveying the data.

"When we average temperature over five to 10 years to minimize that variability," said GISS Director James Hansen, "we find global warming continuing unabated."

January 22, 2010 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Hooray for my people!


January 22, 2010 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

'Ex-gay' mother given 30 days by Vermont court to appear with abducted daughter

Lisa Miller continues to be missing in Miller-Jenkins custody case. Her lawyer says she doesn't know where she is, but continues to represent her in the case before th Vermont Supreme Court.

That poor kid. Lisa Miller and Liberty Counsel appear to be doing this in the name of God. Yeah right.

January 22, 2010 6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so I have been hearing on the radio that we are potentially going to have another terrorist attack.. they are worried about it anyway.

so here we have this guy in custody that we know trained in an AlQaeda camp, and we didn't even ask the military about questioning him... Holder just immediately put him in the civilian court system and assigned him a lawyer. at which point he shut up. the new "detainee interrogation unit" wasn't consulted, Janet N wasn't consulted, none of them even knew.

we don't know how much the underwear bomber really knew about other planned attacks, and we probably will now never know.

so I have a question for you TTF loons.

If there is an attack, and someone you love is hurt, will you still feel that we should treat with kid gloves terrorists we have in custody ?

see because I put your kids and your family at a higher value than some jerk who was in the process of trying to kill hundreds of people - via a flaming death -hundreds of innocent people. Especially when that jerk doesn't even live here and attacked us.

I don't accept that it is morally superior to sacrifice hundreds of innocents to avoid interrogating harshly a moral deviant. Or don't you think that the underwear bomber is a moral deviant ? Or we should not treat him as such, because he was confused, regardless of how many people get hurt in the process ... ?

I put your kids lives at a far higher value than the underwear bombers comfort. I even put your life Jim, at a far higher value than the underwear bomber. As a matter of fact, pick a life right now, Jim's or the underwear bomber, I'd pick Jims.

So if it will save Jim and Jim's family to torture the underwear bomber to figure out where in the heck they might be hitting next... I say do it.

there is no question this guy is guilty. he was caught in the act !!!

by conspiring to kill hundreds of folks, innocent folks, he sacrificed any rights he might possibly have to a lawyer. And even prisoners of war (which he is NOT) don't get lawyers....

So what happens if there is a terrorist attack and it is successful...

does obama get impeached ?

I think he does. we had someone in custody that we could have potentially gotten information from. and we didn't do it.

January 22, 2010 11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

therefore, Obama was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is treasonous, and therfore impeachable.

January 22, 2010 11:31 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anonymous, we are a country with laws that guarantee our freedoms. Our government will follow those laws, whether you want that or not.


January 22, 2010 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not relevant.
OUR LAWS and our protections apply to OUR CITIZENS.

the underwear bomber is not a citizen correct ?

he came here to harm us.

he is not entitled to the protection due to our citizens.

January 23, 2010 12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

finally it is not even obvious if the geneva conventions apply to terrorists...
I was just reviewing a 33 page piece by a lawyer trying to figure out if terrorists were entitled to geneva conventions or not.

1) the guy is definitely NOT a citizen.
2) only citizens are entitled to miranda rights, not hostile enemy combatants.

3) it's not clear if terrorists are entitled to geneva conventions for prisoners of war....

so passer by, you made a passing by assumption, with ZERO analysis.

you clearly have no children.

January 23, 2010 1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are courting disaster....

January 23, 2010 1:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hooray for my people!


hip-hip-hooray for Robert

he's a pinhead

January 23, 2010 4:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newt Gingrich, who counseled Bill Clinton after Bill's disastrous first two years, offers advice for Barry O:

"(Jan. 21) -- President Barack Obama has recently experienced two very rough one-year anniversaries.

Last November, at the one-year anniversary of his election, Obama saw decisive Republican gubernatorial victories in two states he had carried.

On Tuesday, the anniversary of his inauguration, he saw a Republican election victory in Massachusetts effectively derail his health care plans, the initiative on which the president has spent the most time, energy and political capital.

As Obama looks out to the two-year anniversary of his election in 2010, the landscape looks bleak.

President Obama now has a chance to reset his presidency around the principles he espoused during his campaign.

Analysts are warning that 2010 will be a catastrophic year for Democrats. A recent National Journal article made the stunning point that since World War II there have been only 12 months in election years in which unemployment was above 8 percent. All 12 were in 1982. I was in Congress then, and we lost 26 seats. This year, America will certainly have 9 percent-plus unemployment for the entire year. That alone bodes badly for the Democrats.

Next week, Obama will give his first State of the Union address. LOL. Between now and then, he needs to stop, rethink, recalibrate, and learn some painful lessons.

He needs to accept that the country was not voting for a left-wing agenda in 2008. Instead, it was voting out a Republican leadership it deemed unable to govern effectively.

The person the American people thought they were voting for in 2008 was a moderate who wanted to bring transparency to government and work with leaders of both parties on common-sense reform.

However, upon taking office, the president turned over massive power to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who wrote legislation in such a stunningly partisan way that they received almost no Republican votes on any major piece of legislation.

Furthermore, the bills were often written in secret, passed without giving the American people or even Congress a chance to read them, and included special deals for big-business interests, political supporters and key senators as a way to get their support.

This clearly was not change America could believe in.

It is a mystery why Obama thought he could govern as a different person from the one he campaigned as, but he now has a chance to reset his presidency around the principles he espoused during the campaign.

No more secret deals.

No more Pelosi-Reid machine votes.

No more left-wing, Democrats-only strategies.

Republicans would be very smart to approach Obama with a series of reform proposals in health care, national security, deficit reduction and economic growth. Obama would be even smarter to figure out which of these he and the moderates in the Democratic caucus can get behind, and score an easy series of legislative victories that would help both his political fortunes and the country.

They should be small, narrowly focused bills and written in a transparent way. A good starting point would be aggressive steps to fight fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, which Jim Frogue at the Center for Health Transformation estimates costs taxpayers as much as $120 billion a year.

The left-wing leadership in the House and Senate would hate and fight such a change in course. However, moderate Democrats (and most Americans) would breathe a sigh of relief.

A year of President Obama that was more like candidate Obama could make the two-year anniversary of his election much more pleasant than his first."

January 23, 2010 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

so I have been hearing on the radio that we are potentially going to have another terrorist attack.. they are worried about it anyway.

Looks like Theresa worked herself up into another frenzy of self-induced fear last night. Theresa, you could change the dial to some nice music, whatever you like.

Tell us Theresa, how does the Nigerian underwear bomber differ from the British shoe bomber in your estimation, now that you've hopefully had a good night's sleep and haven't turned on your favorite fear-mongering radio station yet.

Holder just immediately put him in the civilian court system and assigned him a lawyer. at which point he shut up.

Maybe that's what your fear-mongering radio hosts are saying, but according to the intelligence community:

"He [Abdulmutallab]'s providing some leads and we're not dealing with an unknown quantity here. We've been watching and listening to what goes on in Yemen and we may have pieces of the puzzle already and just need to fit it together.

"If and when we identify them then we plan how to deal with them. Who they are is one thing, where they are is another. If they're still in Yemen and we can get a lock on them then it won't be too difficult to know what to do. But they know who they are and won't be standing out.

"After that we can move with the president's authorisation. I don't think there's much doubt that authorisation will be forthcoming, but no one should think all of this is going to happen overnight.

And FYI Theresa et al:

al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which claimed responsibility for Abdulmutallab's attack, was formed by a merger between the Saudi and Yemeni cells in January.

Its Saudi deputy leader, Said al-Shehri, is a former Guantánamo Bay inmate released [by the Bush Administration] two years ago. His brother, also a Guantánamo returnee, was killed in a raid two months ago.

So what happens if there is a terrorist attack and it is successful...

does obama get impeached ?

Should we have impeached Bush after the successful terrorist attack 9/11 a month after he received and failed to act on the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"? Should we prosecute him now for releasing Said al-Shehri, who went on to become the Saudi deputy of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that trained and sent Abdulmutallab to kill American holiday travelers?

January 23, 2010 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Golly thanks Anone, the obsessive editorial poster!

I'm sure Obama is pleased to get free and unsolicited advice from a three-times married family values advocate, Newt Gingrich. Of course the first African American to attain the historic milestone of winning the Presidency of the United States of America should listen to somebody who's not in office, is a paid political hack, and was only ever elected by a single Congressional District in Georgia, right Anone?

< eye roll >

January 23, 2010 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you can keep rolling your eyes like Linda Blair in a Georgetown rowhouse but the truth is Newt Gingrich engineered a Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and directed policy in our country from 1994-2000

most if the things you claim to like most about the Clinton administration, you can thank Newt

I see you spouting on about global warming last night, AB

you might want to save your breath

the public now knows that climatology is a science that is not advanced enough to make accurate predictions and that there are a number of scientists that have been maniluating data to support alarmists claims

the Earth has been hotter before, if global warming predictions pan out, humanity will adjust

there's no conclusive proof, or even much evidence, to indicate that human activty has affected global temperatures

let's hope the Congress spends their time dwelling on it as soon as they're finished healthcare

that will just increase the size of the turnover next fall

the Washington Post realizes how negligent Obama was on Christmas, even if you don't:

"UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.

It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call. We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model.

In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether.

The fight against an unconventional enemy such as al-Qaeda cannot be waged exclusively or effectively through any single approach. Just as it would be a mistake to view all terrorist acts as law enforcement challenges, so would it be unwise to deal with all such incidents as acts of war. All paths must be seriously considered before a determination is made.

The truth is, the administration squandered a valuable opportunity."

January 23, 2010 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Holy crap Anone! Just rewrite the dang thing to say whatever you want it to say! We realize truth and integrity are meaningless concepts to you.

Vigilance readers should click this link to read the whole WaPo editorial as written, not as amended by the compulsive liar.

Here's the actual final paragraph of the Post's editorial:

The administration claims Mr. Abdulmutallab provided valuable information -- and probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations -- before he clammed up. This was immediately after he was read his Miranda rights and provided with a court-appointed lawyer. The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity.

But by all means, Anone, don't let the facts get in your way!

IMHO, the biggest mistake in the fight against al-Qaeda was made in 2003 when Bush took resources from the war in Afghanistan to launch his preemptive nation destruction and rebuilding in Iraq.

January 23, 2010 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I see Anone was continuing the lying work of the WSJ this morning.

The AP reported:

[National Intelligence Director Dennis] Blair suggested the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, also known as HIG, should have questioned the Nigerian airline bomb incident suspect before any decisions were made on whether to place him in the civilian court system.

"That unit was created exactly for this purpose," Blair told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have."

But the elite interrogation unit cited by Blair was designed by the Obama administration last year to deal with suspects captured abroad. And it is not operational yet, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday.

The HIG unit, which brings together experienced interrogators from across the intelligence agencies, is also led by the FBI, the same agency that questioned suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the hours after he was taken into custody on a landed Detroit-bound airliner.

Several hours after Blair spoke, his office posted a brief note on its Web site saying his remarks had been misconstrued.

"The FBI interrogated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab when they took him into custody," the statement said. "They received important intelligence at that time, drawing on the FBI's expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational."

However, as Media Matters pointed out yesterday, the WSJ, like Anone, was dishonest in its reporting.

"WSJ falsely claimed Blair testified that "the government all but slammed the door on its ability to interrogate him thoroughly." In a January 22 editorial headlined " 'Duh': Another intelligence blunder," the Journal claimed that the "Director of National Intelligence told the Senate that by immediately handing Abdulmutallab to the civilian justice system, the government all but slammed the door on its ability to interrogate him thoroughly. Specifically, the feds failed to avail themselves of a unit called the High-Value Interrogation Group, or HIG, which Mr. Blair says was created 'to make a decision on whether a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means.' "

January 23, 2010 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

In fact, Blair never claimed Abdulmutallab was not interrogated thoroughly. At no point in his January 20 unclassified testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs did Blair state that Abdulmutallab was not interrogated thoroughly or that he should have been transferred from civilian to military custody. When asked directly by Sen. John McCain if Abdulmutallab should be "tried in civilian court or should it be under military tribunal," Blair stated: "I'm not ready to offer an opinion on that in open session. We can talk about it in closed session, Senator McCain."

Blair subsequently acknowledged FBI received "important intelligence." **While the Journal acknowledged that Blair subsequently stated that his testimony had been "misconstrued," it did not mention that Blair also stated that the FBI had received "important intelligence."** From Blair's January 20 statement: "The FBI interrogated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab when they took him into custody. They received important intelligence at that time, drawing on the FBI's expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational."

January 23, 2010 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon-B, you freak

as has been noted, I often will edit the post to fit the limitations of post size

if you're denying the Obama administration blew it on Christmas, you're in denial

even his staff is admitting it

but don't let the facts get in your way

(and, yes, I didn't paste your entire phrase there)

January 23, 2010 8:46 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Some Sunday morning reading for our Anones:

Roe v. Wade Supporter Scott Brown, Improbable Pro-Life Hero


"...Scott Brown (who is Protestant) is also a firm supporter of Roe, which Brown has said is "the law of the land, and I don't plan on overturning it." Indeed, his language on the issue sounds much like that of Barack Obama. Brown's Web site highlights the "need to reduce the number of abortions in America" and his belief that "there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion."

But such nuanced positions did not stop hardline anti-abortion groups from pulling out the stops to get Brown elected. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state, hailed Brown as a "pro-life vote in the Senate" and put its muscle behind Brown's candidacy. The influential conservative group recorded a phone message on Brown's behalf to target independent voters, and Brown received supportive coverage in anti-abortion media and from prominent pro-life leaders...

...The political flexibility of religious conservatives in backing the pro-choice Brown certainly worked, and indeed may have put Brown over the top. But it also revealed two other realities of modern American politics.

The first is that there are Christian conservatives and there are Christian conservatives. The largely evangelical and conservative Catholic support for Brown and against health care reform contrasts sharply with the position of progressive evangelicals and the influential Catholic bishops of the United States, who have declared universal health care a "pro-life issue" and who were ready to throw their support behind Obamacare if, as was possible, it included sufficient bars on abortion funding. That is a gap wide enough to drive a health care bill through, though Democrats have never figured out how to exploit it.

The second is that the same powerful forces that carried Brown to victory -- and that many religious conservatives embraced in their zeal to block Obama -- often pay little heed to moral issues like abortion and gay marriage and stem cell research. Tea Party conservatism is at its core about unemployment and economic anxiety and anger and throwing out the rascals, whoever they are, or even if they are on the side of the angels. That could come back to haunt social conservatives.

As the saints have always counseled, be careful what you pray for -- you just might get it.

January 24, 2010 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With your usual rudeness and ignorance you said: "anon-B, you freak". Once again, you have proved that you are nothing more than a disgusting pig! And a pseudo-Christian, as well.

You also said: "as has been noted, I often will edit the post to fit the limitations of post size" (sic)
How about editing yourself completely out of this blog site?

You have completely proved your irrelevancy and "trollness" get lost!

January 24, 2010 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the 1:03pm comment was put up by a freak

anon-B, you have a point about Brown

I wondered why it didn't come up before and have a little more to say but am pressed for time so maybe later today


"CAIRO (Jan. 24) - Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the failed attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas in a new audio message released Sunday threatening more attacks on the United States.

The Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab told federal agents shortly afterward that he had been trained and given the explosives by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, an al-Qaida-inspired offshoot in bin Laden's ancestral homeland of Yemen.

In the minute-long recording released to al-Jazeera Arabic news channel, bin Laden addressed President Barack Obama saying the recent attempt was meant to send a message similar to that of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes of the Sept. 11," he said. "America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine," he added.

"God willing, our raids on you will continue as long as your support for the Israelis continues."

U.S.-based IntelCenter, which monitors militant messages, said bin Laden used specific language he has used before in advance of attacks, a possible indicator of an upcoming action within the next 12 months."

January 24, 2010 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is the kind of thing that never works:

"President Obama is bringing back some of the team that helped him win the 2008 election to try and head off the kind of setbacks in this year's midterm election that the Democrats suffered this week in the Massachusetts senate race and last year's gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia.

The new team will work out of the Democratic National Committee where it will monitor and strategize the races this year for House, Senate and governors' seats, according to the New York Times.

Thirty-seven states have governors' races this year with Democrats defending 19 seats and Republicans 18 seats. There are 36 states with elections for Senate (including New York's special election) with Republicans and Democrats each defending 18. All 435 House seats are up for election."

January 24, 2010 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

this is the kind of thing that never works

Right! LOLOL

Maybe you'd prefer Obama's campaigner advisor should be employed by White House and paid by our tax dollars like Bush's was.

From Wikipedia:

White House Years
Karl Rove accompanied his candidate George Walker Bush to Washington in 2001. Rove became Bush's number one advisor, being given a newly created position Special Advisor to the President. During Bush's first term, Rove was credited with influencing and shaping White House policy to best support the President's reelection bid. At the time, he managed "the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Public Liaison and the Office of Strategic Initiatives at the White House."

Although he was never directly implicated, fingers in Washington pointed on several occasions at Rove as the source of underhanded stunts to discredit and undermine critics of Bush. In particular, the American Prospect's Murray Waas ties Rove to the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband Joseph Wilson's exposure of White House exaggerations concerning the nuclear threat posed by Iraq.

In February 2005, Rove was appointed deputy White House chief of staff. In his new role, Rove's responsibilities include coordinating policy between the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council.

Capitol Hill Blue attributes a White House aid as asserting that “Karl (Rove) operates under the rule that if you fuck with us, we’ll fuck you over.”

January 24, 2010 3:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home