In a blog post yesterday, the person Scott Brown used in his fundraising appeal, confirms that he was quoted accurately by Huffington Post when he was quoted saying that Obama was Muslim.
I was quoted at the far-left Huffington Post on Saturday. While I despise the America-hating, radically anti-liberty publication, I must admit in all fairness, I was quoted accurately, and the reporter portrayed my comments correctly.
Just as a reminder on what Dondero confirmed was an accurate depiction of his comments:
The third accolade comes from Libertarian Republican, which has suggested or stated that Obama is a Muslim on several occasions, although the president has repeatedly described himself as a Christian. As recently as Saturday, Libertarian Republican editor Eric Dondero wrote a blog post about the start of Ramadan under the headline “America’s Muslim President celebrates Islamic holiday.”
Dondero told The Huffington Post on Friday that he was pleased to hear the Brown campaign was promoting his endorsement of the blockbuster ad.
“I think Sen. Brown has always had an appeal to the libertarian wing of the GOP,” Dondero said. “He’s a fiscally conservative, socially tolerant Republican, kind of like a William Weld-type from the 1990s, and we love him.”
Dondero added that it is a “fact” that Obama is Muslim
At this point in time Scott Brown has refused to address the use of Dondero by his campaign.
danfromwaltham says
Let me think, Bill Maher has called Palin the “C” word, “B” word, her kid the “S” word. Why the outrage when your side are the masters of it.
Personally, why is it offensive to be called a Muslim? Someone called me that, I would care less.
mike_cote says
Bill Maher is fantastic, and I personally hope that he goes on pointing out what an ignorant idiot Palin is. Because as long as Maher has the right to speak truth to power, you can continue to pollute this site with your ignorant demands for transcripts and GPAs and other Birther garbage. Nate Silver still has Obama winning the electoral college at 293.4 to 244.6 for your dufus. Troll!
David says
Dan, this is a really weak attempt to change the subject. Please address whether you approve of Brown’s actions in this case. Further discussions about Bill Maher or other distractions will be deleted as off-topic.
mike_cote says
To quote the cybermen, “Delete!, Delete!, Delete!”
HR's Kevin says
Changing the subject is pretty much the only club in his bag.
HR's Kevin says
Furthermore, I am sure you are perfectly well aware that Obama does not have the ability to return Maher’s contribution because the super PAC is not under his control and his campaign may not coordinate with the PAC. So clearly this is just another lame attempt at misdirection.
Of course there is not necessarily anything offensive about being referred to as a Muslim if you are one. But it is deeply offensive to lie about someone’s religion with the intention of building on anti-Islamic bigotry.
So just for the record, you don’t care if we falsely characterize your beliefs?
danfromwaltham says
Personally, both can be very funny. The hypocrisy to be outraged by Rush for what he says, but Maher is considered “fantastic” according to mikecote, is ridiculous.
If some one called me something I am not, I wouldnt act like its a bad thing. I would certainly react in a much more positive way, explaining there is nothing wrong being a Muslim (in this example), but I am actually xyz.
HR's Kevin says
I am not Maher fan myself and loath Limbaugh but neither are in any way relevant to the Brown/Warren race. Bringing up either is just a weak attempt to change the subject.
So to repeat: you don’t have any problem with people deliberately trying to lie about your beliefs? Really? And are you really that stupid that you don’t understand why people are trying to paint Obama as a Muslim? Are you really that dense?
Christopher says
…but it happens not to be true and this is a huge dogwhistle to the Muslim=terrorist crowd.
Bill Maher doesn’t speak for the President and I am not aware of the President touting Maher’s words in his own ads or fundraising letters the way Brown has in this example.
danfromwaltham says
Who think that Muslims are terrorists? Let’s assume Republicans do, but they won’t vote for Obama, regardless. But Obama needs to make it perfectly clear to Dems and Ind’s that he is not Muslim b/c he fears losing their vote? I guess there are lots of dumb people in your Dem Party and my Ind Party.
So it’s okay to use Maher’s money, correct?
johnk says
but Scott Brown is using this nut job in his campaign, he needs to address why he thought it was a good idea to introduce us to this guy and why he values his opinion. No matter how you try to deflect (and you are doing a bad job), that’s the question.
methuenprogressive says
That you’re not a republican??????
HR's Kevin says
There is no “independent party”. The fact that you are thinking in terms of parties is a clear confirmation that you are really just a Republican pretending to be unaffiliated in an unsuccessful attempt to boost your credibility.
whosmindingdemint says
..
theloquaciousliberal says
The point, Dan, is that insisting Obama is a Muslim has all sorts of implications about his character and qualifications for being President. To a significant portion of the American public, “Muslim” is equivalent to:
– Different
– Not Christian
– Black / Not “Anglo-Saxon” / (Chose your own racist expletive)
– Foreign / Not Native Born / Un-American
– A Terrosist / Terrosist sympathizer
– An Apologist for America / Traitor
– Unqualified
You may not care if someone calls you a “Muslim” but supporters of the President are rightly appalled by the rather clear implications as detailed above.
This whole debate reminds me of the cop who called Crawford a “Monday” recently and was fired. What’s the big deal in calling someone a day of the week? It’s what the term means to the speaker that matters.
michaelbate says
(to quote Dondero) I would say it is Scott Brown and the Republicans, who consistently show their contempt for American democratic values. Brown during his first campaign called for torture and military tribunals to deal with terrorists. How can you be more un-American than that? It is a fundamental American ideal that anyone accused of crime (any crime) has a right to a fair trial with a vigorous defense. This is one of the ideals that this country was founded on, and, to the extent that we stray from that, the terrorists have won.
danfromwaltham says
Pulling fingernails or something?
SomervilleTom says
Then-candidate Scott Brown endorsed “enhanced interrogation techniques” on January 4, 2010. He claimed, in that same interview, that waterboarding is not torture.
SomervilleTom says
The silence is deafening
danfromwaltham says
Michaelbate was referring to. If you are asking my opinion if water boarding is torture, I would publicly say yes, but have it in the tool box if we capture a POS who has information.
For example. Do you know Congressman Allen West of Florida? While serving in Iraq, he started interrogating a suspect on the battle field. I believe an IED went off and he wanted to know where the other bombs were. So when the suspect wouldn’t talk, he pulled his gun and shot it near his head and asked him again. Even though he received important intel, it was against the Army operating manual, so he was reprimanded. That stuff doesn’t bother me, just needs to be kept quit, know what I am saying?
For those who don’t know Allen West, his commercial brings a tear to my eyes, take look.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wMkYSXOgI4Q
SomervilleTom says
I made my point when I showed that Scott Brown advocated torture and
show trialsmilitary tribunals. Torture is wrong. There isn’t any “public” or “private” about it. The formal policy of torture and abuse ordered by the prior administration from the Oval Office was immoral — and Scott Brown supports it.That “stuff” does bother me.
whosmindingdemint says
Who called the entire democratic congressional progressive caucus a bunch of communists, is someone we are supposed to take seriously? I think not.
For those of you who don’t know Allen West, his op/ed says it all:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/223473-critical-time-for-ideological-debate
danfromwaltham says
did not leak his social security number, or Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz claiming West belong to a biker gang, or Maxine Watters calling Allen West “Uncle Tom”. So can you really blame him, Demintfan?
whosmindingdemint says
From Allen West:
Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!
I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!
Steadfast and Loyal
Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)
And all because Wasserman Schultz blabbed this in congress:
“The gentleman from Florida. who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a Member from South Florida,” Wasserman Schultz said, saying the legislation “slashes Medicaid and critical investments essential to winning the future in favor of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil, millionaires, and companies who ship American jobs overseas.”
Poor Allen is wound way too tight.
Don’tcha just love these civil war re-enactments!
whosmindingdemint says
Allen West: tattle-tale.
dont-get-cute says
His blog is called “LibertarianRepublican”:
They also believe in gay marriage, even though they also usually profess to be pro-life because even embryos have gun rights.
Want to see something funny? There’s an advertisement on the LibertarianRepublican front page for a blog called – i’m not making this up – IntercourseAndConception! I love the call for religious freedom that includes “Objectionists”
And then a post about LGBT freedom:
whosmindingdemint says
…
dont-get-cute says
The BMG posts on this subject have left out the name of the guys blog and the reasons for his anti-Muslim attack on Obama. They want to just make him seem crazy and intolerant and embarrassing, but they agree with his reasons for being anti-sharia law, it’s about reproductive rights and individual freedom and gay marriage. By leaving that out, they avoid having to admit that they pretty much agree with the guy about everything.
dont-get-cute says
There are Socialist Libertarians and Libertarian Democrats who go along with Democrats about things like carbon taxes and gun laws and regulations and higher taxes and protecting the borders, but they justify those things by knowing they’re taking the Democratic party and the county in a more libertarian direction in other ways.
danfromwaltham says
Both Dems and Rep’s love war, so long as it is theirs. People on BMG still defend sending soldiers to die in Afghanistan b/c Obama sent the instead of Bush. Now both Mitt and Barack appear to be with fine with Israel bombing Iran. How crazy is that? We need to get out of these entanglements, out of South Korea, let Japan rebuild and pay for their own military, and stop wasting our money and soldiers.
We really need a third party.
dont-get-cute says
when there are two parties to blame for wars and you can still reap the benefits of the wars anyhow. But libertarians are really the cause of the wars and the terrorism, libertarianism itself and libertarians in person. You are right though that we need to end these wars, absolutely, at the same time we end libertarianism.
dont-get-cute says
In the comments to this post, he seems to be rallying the country to go to war to stop child marriage in Bangladesh:
I guess this is why he fell out of love with Ron Paul, because he thought he was too non-interventionist.
dont-get-cute says
I guess it was after reading the comments that I got the impression no one was mentioning the Libertarian thing. But the posts themselves certainly included the blog name, I was wrong. Though they certainly didn’t mention his views on gay marriage and reproductive rights. Well, they aren’t for federal benefits of marriage, but in terms of what people are allowed to do, no one should interfere:
danfromwaltham says
I agree with their belief system listed above. Thank you DGC. You helped me find my inner-self.
whosmindingdemint says
Its right next to your out box.
mike_cote says
Is the Blue generally associated with Democrats and Liberals and Progressives, this would make your inner-self a TROLL..
Continuing to predict using Probability and Statistics, I predict your next at least 8 of your next 10 comments will be off-topic insipid Trolls.
danfromwaltham says
None?
mike_cote says
I believe actions speak louder than words and watching the Rethuglicans wage their stupid war on women and against marriage equality, I would no sooner be a Rethuglican than Anne Frank would be a Nazi. The only republicans I can honestly say I have ever agreed with are Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. The rest can pound sand for all I care.
danfromwaltham says
You are not the first, either.
mike_cote says
Which question did I not answer.
1) I don’t agree with any of their beliefs?
or
2) None?
When I wrote the following:
I believe this answers both questions, in that if you create a Venn Diagram showing the beliefs of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and the diagram them with the beliefs of the Libertarian Republicans, assuming that anywhere in this diagram there is an intersection, then within that intersection (assuming one exists, which I see NO Evidence of ANY), then by the associative property, I would agree with only those items where the beliefs of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln intersect with Libertarian Republicans. Since I doubt that any such intersection exists, then I further answered your question.
Now please answer this question, why are you such a Troll? What possible gratification do you get from highjacking nearly every post on this site for you insipid rantings. It isn’t my job to provide you with:
a) Transcripts
b) GPAs
c) Carbon Tax positions.
d) or whatever shiny object you want to distract everyone with while we wait for your guy to release his tax returns.
Again – Yawn.
danfromwaltham says
Hey All,
Asking what Prof. Warren’s position on carbon tax is now on the scale of asking for Obama’s transcripts. Can you believe mike cote???????
I only bring up grades when people call Romney stupid or moron. I think I am owed a thanks now that more people are careful what they write, I have actually cleaned up the language here.
Anyway, if you do know her position on carbon taxes, please let me know or when she is appearing on a local radio because I will be the first caller, if she takes any from the horde made up of people like me.
David says
overseas, where he said a lot of stupid things.
😉
whosmindingdemint says
Now, about Mitt’s tax returns. Where are they Dan?
danfromwaltham says
By her refusing to release any returns, should that disqualify her from being Speaker of the House? Answer the question, please.
johnk says
Why did Brown think it was a good idea to introduce us to this nut and why he values his opinion so much?
mike_cote says
For a Troll you have unbelievably thin skin. All I did was list all the tools in your tool box, or in other words, I read your beads, and boo hoo hoo. I further note that you have been warned about comments that are off topic and are nothing more than shiny objects. If you want to discuss Elizabeth Warren’s position on Carbon Tax or explain your pathetic need to see a transcript for your dog whistling, then write your own damn posts instead of trying to subvert everyone else’s post with this garbage. As I said before: Yawn.
mike_cote says
Also, Williard Romney is a thick as a brick.
dont-get-cute says
Do you agree with the LibertarianRepublicans that 100 lashes for sex outside of marriage is “Muslim repression of individual liberties?”
dont-get-cute says
this is what he was talking about. Dan and LibertarianTranshumanists pride themselves on how progressive and pro-gay and pro-sex libertarianRepublicans are. Aren’t you going to give him props, bro?
mike_cote says
Unlike Scott Brown and Willard Romney, I am not an ignorant simpleton.
mike_cote says
Yesterday, August 1st was described by Rethuglicans as being a day that will live in infamy, like 12/7/41 and 9/11/2001. Libertarian Republicans are simply Republicans who know there brand is being damaged by the Idiotic Tea Party so they have to give themselves a new name. But they are still primarily republicans, which means they hate women, they hate gays and lesbians, and they hate poor people. IMHO, the need for Rethuglicans to utterly dominate women via birth control is in no way different than the “State” attempting to utterly dominate women elsewhere in the world. How often do I need to hear “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” but all you pathetic republicans do is restrict both birth control and a women’s right to control her own body.
dont-get-cute says
The LibertarianRepublicans have separated themselves away from the social conservative Republicans. You’re still seeing the GOP and Republicans as one big party where everyone pretty much agrees with each other, but there has been a huge split. If you believe same-sex couples should have equal rights and people shouldn’t be lashed for having sex outside of marriage, then you agree with the LibertarianRepublicans. You can answer Dan that yes, you agree with some of their beliefs. I also agree with them that people should not be lashed or stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, but I don’t think any Christians would agree with Muslims that we should still stone adulterers, Christ is on record about that one, but Muslims think he was kind of a pussy I guess.
mike_cote says
Because you are Blanche, you ARE! This alleged distinction reminds me of Saruman trying to convert Gandalf to work with Sauron but in their own way and thereby control the evil from behind the scenes. If you seriously believe that this racist dog whistle by some IDIOT calling the President a Muslim when he has already self-identified as Christian is the way to “Win Friends and Influence People”, then a Pox on your pathetic distinction and a Pox on all Rethuglicans.
dont-get-cute says
I still say the “Obama-is-a-Muslim” thing is a simple Libertarian dog whistle designed to be anti-Muslim and pro-Libertarian, to the benefit of Libertarians in both parties, here at BMG as well as at RMG. I’d be psyched to vote for someone I thought was a Muslim, it’s the Mormons and superficial Christians I am afraid of.
mike_cote says
You can put any qualifier onto the front of Republican that you want and they are still vial scum IMHO. I have not engaged in a Vulcan Mind Meld with you so I don’t know, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, I don’t care what distinction you think exists. I call a Pox on every subgroup of Rethuglicans, and until they can actually demonstrate by action, rather than words, what they believe, to Hell with them all.
couves says
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2011/12/ron-paul-hes-not-racist-but/
You guys didn’t seem to think he was a “nut” when he was making a point you agreed with.
whosmindingdemint says
If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters…
–Eric Dondero, former Ron Paul aide
I, for one, would not call Paul’s remarks in his newsletter “silly,” yahoo.
David says
that someone who flat-out thinks that Obama is a Muslim is not a “nut.” I don’t care what his other views are – anyone who buys into that kind of nonsense is seriously detached from reality.
couves says
I just thought it was noteworthy that Dondero was quoted at length in a front page Bluemass article. You seemed to like what he had to say because he was dishing dirt on his former boss, Republican Ron Paul. The fact that he’s not a big fan of Muslims, which might explain his anti-Paul/pro-war views, didn’t seem to trouble anyone back in December when his agenda coincided with yours.
Basically, I’m saying that your use of Dondero is not so different than Brown’s — you’re both willing to cite his opinion as authoritative when you agree with it and it suits your purpose.
johnk says
it seems obvious and Bob noted it in his FP note that there was a good discussion in the comments. Nor do I think that the post in general was about Dendero. It quoted someone in the campaign at that time or a witness to what was going on at that time. To somehow link that to pushing campaign literature with Dondero’s approval being highlighted is something very different.
I think to can tell the difference between the two.
couves says
…was Dondero. He’s only named at the top of the Bluemass article, but the entire second half is quoting from him. He’s the major source for the article.
Yes, there was a good discussion about Ron Paul, but there was no mention (except by myself) of Dondero’s more controversial views.
Christopher says
The post he refers to in no way endorces what Dondero said. If anything it appears he was quoted to set up a mockery of his pretty lame defense of Ron Paul. I think it’s safe to say (to the extent you can generalize about BMG at all) that we do not approve of his views.
couves says
But I disagree with your assessment of Dondero’s motives — if he were defending Ron Paul, he wouldn’t accuse him of being a truther or claim that he refuses to shake the hands of gay people. He’s not stupid, his article was used just as he intended, to trash Paul.
Dondero has had a long and messy feud with Paul and Paul supporters (the falling-out stems from Paul’s anti-war views after 9/11 — Dondero is a “pro-defense libertarian”). He hasn’t supported Paul in either of his recent Presidential campaigns and even considered running “a balls-to-the-wall campaign” against Paul for his Congressional seat in 2008.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/16/blowback-texas-style
ms says
This is standard-issue mud-slinging “booga-booga” from the GOP election machine.
The only person who should care if Barack Obama is Christian, Muslim, or Non-Religious is Michelle Obama. (Saying this is very conservative- in a non-political sense.)
I couldn’t care less because it doesn’t matter. All that matters is how the man will govern.
Also, being a dentist is about the patient’s teeth.