Charles Krauthammer Equates Obama's Berlin Speech To Hitler's Nazi Rallies

[Zguy28]

That's a pretty tall order...

Start with Jefferson v. Adams in 1800 (the first party-based election), in which one of Jefferson's surrogates said about Adams that he possed a "...hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman".

Quote found on page 537 of this book

Some of Adams' Federalist buddies shot back with: "Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames… female chastity violated… children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION.”

Quote can be found on page 5 of this book

They're going to have to work pretty hard to top those. :laugh:

Yep. I was thinking of Jackson vs. Adams in 1824 and 1828. Newspapers running articles that John Quincy Adams, a religious man, had frequently broke all Ten Commandments, or referring to Andrew Jackson as "Jackass" (btw, that's where the donkey symbol for the Democrats came from).

[Predicto]

This just in:

Discredited and cranky neo-con doesn't like Obama. Details at 8.

[Zguy28]

This just in:

Discredited and cranky neo-con doesn't like Obama. Details at 8.

Yeah, but he's got a cool name though. Krauthammer. :cool:

Too bad its wasted on such cranky old buzzard. :laugh:

[BigMike619]

when are people going to realize that as soon as you say "like hitler" no matter what else comes out of your mouth you are screwed. you could say he was "like hitler" as in a good public speaker but they arent going to hear that because you just compared them to the most evil person to ever live.

[skinfan133]

If we had to be honest for a moment, I'd say ol Charles Krauthammer's politics are closer to Hitler's than Obama's are. Obama's closer to stalin, so if you'e going to make a 'giant speach in front of brainwashed people' jab, it should at least make sense

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

Yeah, but he's got a cool name though. Krauthammer. :cool

Krauthammer? Ironically, it sounds like a Nazi torture device.

"We have ways of making you talk . . ."

[Predicto]

You see, this quote wasn't aimed at you. Chucky Krauthammer was playing the Nazi card for the benifit of the Jewish community which

(1) typically votes in block Democrate.

(2) Is very very concerned with Nazi's, and is hypersensitive to all things pertaining to Nazi's.

(3) Already has sereous doubts about voting for a guy with a muslim sounding name.

That's the community which was supposed to Hear Chucky's analogy. And the importance of that community to the Democrats is why Republicans will be feeding us a steady diet of these off handed comparisons against Obama and Nazi's for the next three months.

This likely would only affect the result in one state, but it's a major swing state indeed. Florida.

[Corcaigh]

Point to you and I agree with you...there is only one slight difference...in 1987 there weren't nearly as many 24 hour news channels or the internet to keep hammering the point home....baseless or not :2cents:

The comparison of Reagan speaking with Hitler was a dumb one. But Ronnie did go to Bitburg cemetery where many SS officers are buried. His staff let him down on that one as I presume (and hope) he wasn't aware of the association.

But it gave the Ramones the excuse for their song Bonzo Goes to Bitburg:

[Thiebear]

Simple the Neo-Cons and many talking heads at FOX News, (IMO)

If you use the term Neo-con you should have to point out exactly who and why.

[dockeryfan]

You see, this quote wasn't aimed at you. Chucky Krauthammer was playing the Nazi card for the benifit of the Jewish community which

(1) typically votes in block Democrate.

(2) Is very very concerned with Nazi's, and is hypersensitive to all things pertaining to Nazi's.

(3) Already has sereous doubts about voting for a guy with a muslim sounding name.

That's the community which was supposed to Hear Chucky's analogy. And the importance of that community to the Democrats is why Republicans will be feeding us a steady diet of these off handed comparisons against Obama and Nazi's for the next three months.

You are right. I usually am keyed in on the subtext, but I was missing the whole "discredit Obama in the eyes of the Jewish voters" angle.

You are 100% correct.

[JMS]

Research election history from the early 1800's.

Now that was an era of some serious mudslinging and yellow journalism.:2cents:

You are probable right... I don't know any specifits but the founding fathers definitely played hard ball.

[JMS]

That's a pretty tall order...

Start with Jefferson v. Adams in 1800 (the first party-based election), in which one of Jefferson's surrogates said about Adams that he possed a "...hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman".

Quote found on page 537 of this book

Some of Adams' Federalist buddies shot back with: "Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames… female chastity violated… children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION.”

Quote can be found on page 5 of this book

They're going to have to work pretty hard to top those. :laugh:

Not as bad as

I think we all need to try to keep some perspective, and fight against the natural tendency to blow things out of proportion, especially in the era of 24 hour news cycles.

My point was that surogates usually do the bashing. John McCain's words are about the harshest words I've heard attributed to a candidate. Jefferson definitely said some harsh stuff, but he did most of his stuff under a different name or announomously....

[JMS]

This likely would only affect the result in one state, but it's a major swing state indeed. Florida.

Well if you checked the results for the last four Presidential Elections, if you could stuff 4-5% of the people who typically vote in high percentages and typically overwhelmingly Democrat, you would have ensured a republican victory in all of those elections.

Take 1992 for example. Bill Clinton defeated George Bush 43% to 37.4% respectively, but since only like 40% of the people voted in that election a 5% block of voters who voted in high percentages would have meant a 10-12% swing. 17 states were won by less than 5% margin in that election. 7 states by less than 2.5% margine... Including Florida.

You come up with an effective jewish dampener, then you start suppressing the black vote; and you can definitely steal a close race.

[JMS]

The comparison of Reagan speaking with Hitler was a dumb one. But Ronnie did go to Bitburg cemetery where many SS officers are buried. His staff let him down on that one as I presume (and hope) he wasn't aware of the association.

But it gave the Ramones the excuse for their song Bonzo Goes to Bitburg:

Ronnie definitely knew of the SS officers. Ronnie anounced his plans weeks before hand, and started the national debate then. Ronnie's reasons for going to Bitburg were very contriversal.

Ronnie laid a wreath at a monument for German war dead during WWII, and the fact that there were a few SS dead in the cemitary was beside the point.

Ronnie wasn't endorsing Nazi's at all. But he was making a gesture. The war had been over for almost 40 years, and Germany was continued to be villified and felt vilified from her modern allies over the war. Ronnie's gesture was aimed at healing some of that villification against what was then one of America's most important and reliable allies in Europe.

Ronnie was trying to deploy a new family of nukes to the continent, and was involved in many provokative acts against the Soviet Union. I think the Bitburg visit was seen as something which would be meaningful to the Germans, and would be a slap on the back for their leadership which had backed Ronnie on some of his controversial moves in escalating the cold war.

Ronnie definitely knew what he was doing. Ronnie was very very popular at home and had the approval rating to burn too. His critics debated his act before he left, and they gave him a series of lesser acts which they said would serve his purpose and still be meaningful to the germans. In the end Ronnie told his critics to stuff themselves and he did what he pleased. Popularity with the people affords more leeway on things like this.

[DGreenistheBest]

Last February, National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg said, “You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he’s basically saying, ‘I’m a silver bullet. I’m going to solve all your problems just by electing me.’ FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, ‘All your problems can be solved.’”

So...wait, is he saying that FDR was evil or Hitler was good? I'm pretty sure they were on opposite sides. I mean, if he's trying to draw some sort of conclusion here...he failed.

[ccsl2]

I think this election has serious potential to be the biggest mud fight in history. The Republicans have excelled at character assasignation in recent elections; and I think with the latest cannon fire Obama has been hit with.. It shows they're going to be very tough on him in coming weeks.....

John McCain recently said, " Obama would loose a war to win an election". About the harshest thing a candidate has said in the modern era.

Now we have Right wing pundants putting forward talking points equating Obama with Hitler.

Kerry might have gotten off easy when he got swift boated compared to what's in store for Obama.

It is desperation and hateration. That is all this is. I mean for Christ's sake the McCain campaign made a damn commercial out of Obama's speech because he had 200K people there. Calling him a rock star? Ok and what???

Pathetic.

[Predicto]

Well if you checked the results for the last four Presidential Elections, if you could stuff 4-5% of the people who typically vote in high percentages and typically overwhelmingly Democrat, you would have ensured a republican victory in all of those elections.

Take 1992 for example. Bill Clinton defeated George Bush 43% to 37.4% respectively, but since only like 40% of the people voted in that election a 5% block of voters who voted in high percentages would have meant a 10-12% swing. 17 states were won by less than 5% margin in that election. 7 states by less than 2.5% margine... Including Florida.

You come up with an effective jewish dampener, then you start suppressing the black vote; and you can definitely steal a close race.

I think that is taking the scenario too far.

The Jewish vote is not evenly divided around the country. It is only a little more than 2 percent of the population, and is concentrated in just a few states, notably New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, California. Only one of them is going be a swing state - Florida. All the rest are going to go for Obama easily.

[JMS]

I think that is taking the scenario too far.

The Jewish vote is not evenly divided around the country. It is only a little more than 2 percent of the population, and is concentrated in just a few states, notably New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, California. Only one of them is going be a swing state - Florida. All the rest are going to go for Obama easily.

You're assuming their strategy ends at suppressing the Jewish vote. The two cornerstones of the modern democratic party are the Jewish vote and African American vote. Both of these groups vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Republicans in the last two Presidential elections have been very sucessful in targeting and suppressing the African American vote...

The reason why they use dirty tricks is because they work. The Democrats also have a rich history of voter fraud. That's how Kennedy defeated Nixon after all.

Only in modern elections it seems like the Republicans have become better at it.

[Kilmer17]

The only reason Florida was close in 2000 was because Lieberman was on the ticket.

If he campaigns in Florida FOR McCain, then expect a swing towards McCain.

McCain wont win FL because he suppresses the Jewish vote. He'll win Florida because he'll GET the Jewish vote.

[Predicto]

The only reason Florida was close in 2000 was because Lieberman was on the ticket.

If he campaigns in Florida FOR McCain, then expect a swing towards McCain.

McCain wont win FL because he suppresses the Jewish vote. He'll win Florida because he'll GET the Jewish vote.

Agreed.

And I don't think that there is much, if anything, the GOP can do to supress the black vote with Obama on the ticket. It's up to Obama to energize them to get out and vote, but they are not going to be buying into GOP attack ads, no matter what the subject.

[JMS]

The only reason Florida was close in 2000 was because Lieberman was on the ticket.

I think Bush coming out in favor of keeping that cuban boat kid also helped him out in Florida. Gore supported the Clinton policy of letting his father take him back to Cuba, which hurt him with hispanics.

If he campaigns in Florida FOR McCain, then expect a swing towards McCain.

McCain wont win FL because he suppresses the Jewish vote. He'll win Florida because he'll GET the Jewish vote.

Good Point.

I don't think any Republican ever has taken the majority of the Jewish vote. I think If McCain accomplishes that feat he will owe more than Lieberman for it. McCain will likely also have convinced these florida voters one or all of the following..

(1) A secret Muslim.

(2) Anti Israeli.

(3) A Nazi

When you add a lieberman endorsement that would be a powerful argument. An argument which most democratic candidates are not as suseptable too as Barack Obama.

You pull some slick moves in Florida with Blacks and Jews, and then make some other moves in Ohio; and you can definitely take some close elections. Just ask George.

[JMS]

Agreed.

And I don't think that there is much, if anything, the GOP can do to supress the black vote with Obama on the ticket. It's up to Obama to energize them to get out and vote, but they are not going to be buying into GOP attack ads, no matter what the subject.

Sure there is. In 2000 the state of Florida denied the vote to thousands of African Americans on the gounds that their last name was the same as convicted felons and thus were not eligible to vote. So basically if your name was Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln or Jackson you could have been denied the vote. Florida attributed it to a software glitch but it took a court order to ensure the glitch didn't occur again in 2004.

In 2000, and 2004 a black voting in a predominantly black district had to wait hours longer to exersize his franchise than a white voter.

In 2004 the republicans sent out a mass mailing to all blacks in the state of Ohio. They sued in court to deny the vote to all those voters who's letter was returned to the GOP and thus were not living at their current address. Which amounted to close to 20,000 voters. A judge disallowed their case.

The reason people use dirty tricks is, because they work.

[Koolblue13]

It's funny right?

Grandpa Bush worked with the Nazis/ Hitler.

And now a vote against a Bush is for a guy who is drawing Hitler references.

What a world.

[Kilmer17]

Sure there is. In 2000 the state of Florida denied the vote to thousands of African Americans on the gounds that their last name was the same as convicted felons and thus were not eligible to vote. So basically if your name was Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln or Jackson you could have been denied the vote. Florida attributed it to a software glitch but it took a court order to ensure the glitch didn't occur again in 2004.

In 2000, and 2004 a black voting in a predominantly black district had to wait hours longer to exersize his franchise than a white voter.

In 2004 the republicans sent out a mass mailing to all blacks in the state of Ohio. They sued in court to deny the vote to all those voters who's letter was returned to the GOP and thus were not living at their current address. Which amounted to close to 20,000 voters. A judge disallowed their case.

The reason people use dirty tricks is, because they work.

That's such tired bull****.

Show me ONE ACTUAL PERSON who was denied voting. That myth was created by Jesse Jackson et al and played in the media to great hysteria. Too bad it's not accurate.

Now Virginia Gov race in 89. That's a good example of dirty tricks. Over 100 percent turnout in heavily democratic districts.

[Larry]

That's such tired bull****.

Show me ONE ACTUAL PERSON who was denied voting.

Your statement is such tired bull****.

No one can show ONE ACTUAL PERSON, because NO RECORDS WERE KEPT.

When the GOP attempted to purge the voter rolls in 2000, two counties chose to publish the lists that the state told them to disenfranchise. The two lists that were published were 30% in error.

But those lists weren't followed. The counties chose to ignore them, because under state law, the counties are in charge of voter registration, not the state.

However, at least four other counties did obey the purge lists they received. They removed people from the rolls. Then they got rid of the list of who they removed. There's no record of who they removed. No record of who attempted to vote, but couldn't.

However, "no documented proof" does not equal "never happened".

And what was the state's reaction, after getting caught attempting to delete the voter registrations of thousands of people who weren't felons?

They changed the laws.

They made it mandatory for the counties to delete the voter registrations, even if the lists were riddled with errors. And they made it illegal to reveal the names of the persons who were targeted for deletion. (They also made race a factor in the matchups between the felon database and the voter registrations. It was merely a coincidence that the result of adding race to the criteria resulted in a system where, if a voter was white or black, then he would be removed from the rolls if his name was similar to the name of a felon. But if the voter was Hispanic, then his name would not be removed, even if it was an exact match with a convicted felon. (Hispanics in Florida vote 70% Republican.))

When people sued, claiming that the list was again riddled with errors, and was racially biased, to boot, Governor Jeb fought all the way to the US Supreme Court to keep the list of people being targeted a secret. (Citing his belief in the privacy rights of convicted felons.) He lost. The lists were made public.

And whadda ya know? Around 2,000 of the names to be deleted from the voter rolls were in error. Again. (This may be somewhat due to the fact that the state chose to hire the same GOP think tank to produce the lists as produced the error-filled lists in 2000.)

-----

Now, since no records were kept, it's tough to say with certainty that people were disenfranchised in 2000. It's a documented fact that several of the voter purge lists produced by Katherine Harris were riddled with errors. OTOH, the lists can be divided into three categories:

1. Those that were not implemented, and were published.
   
2. Those that were not implemented, and were tossed.
   
3. Those that were implemented, and tossed
   

Now, for the lists in category 1, around 30% of the names on the list were errors. And those are the only lists that have been checked for errors.

Now it's theoretically possible that the lists in category 3 contained zero errors. But that seems really unlikely to me. I seem to remember from High School statistics, that if you sample a few marbles from a large bag, and 30% of the marbles sampled are red, then the most likely conclusion is that 30% of the marbles in the entire bag are red.

And it's a documented fact that the state of Florida attempted to do the same thing, four years later, while adding race to the equation, and that the only reason they didn't do so was because their efforts to hide the evidence failed.