Has any presidential candidate ever been asked if he loves the flag?

[BattyDem]

Seriously ... I'd like to know if any candidate has ever had their patriotism questioned by a moderator of a debate. I'm not talking about an opponent questioning their patriotism or pundits using sleazy innuendo to raise the issue. Has it ever been done by a supposedly unbiased moderator of a debate?

I'm listening to Mike Malloy and he's playing clips from the debate. Hearing those questions again ... ARGH! It's infuriating me! I'm not just angry as an Obama supporter, I'm angry as an American. How DARE they question the patriotism of ANY candidate! I don't care if it's Obama or Clinton or McCain - that line of questioning is despicable and it does NOT belong in an AMERICAN presidential debate! :grr:

[Olney Blue]

1. I agree. Anyone running for president should not be asked that question.

[Bongo Prophet]

34. Even worse, the actual question was "Do you BELIEVE in the flag?"

I guess it makes me elitist when people phrase questions that way.
Do I BELIEVE that flags exist?
Do I BELIEVE that the flag represents the exact same unspoken symbolism that YOU believe it does?

Some things are so stupid they can just stop me in my tracks.

"You are a CARD CARRYING member of the ACLU."
"Thank GOD Al GORE wasn't president on 9-11!"
"Who's your favorite philosopher?" "CHRIST!'Cause he changed my life."
"It's up to those who DOUBT there are weapons of mass destruction to prove it."


Just remembering them makes my head hurt.
So I stop now.

[boston bean]

2. has any candidate refused to wear it before? nt

[BattyDem]

6. I never realized it was a requirement.

:eyes:

He hasn't "refused" to wear it. It's not as if someone hands him a pin and he says, "Oh no, I won't wear THAT!" As a matter of fact, a veteran handed him a pin the other day and he DID wear it (which was mentioned during the debate).

He has chosen not to wear it because he feels it has become a substitute for true patriotism. Frankly, I think it shows he has respect for the meaning of our flag. I'm very happy that neither of our candidates wears one.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Why is Ignored even weighing in on this?

I have no idea what the dipwad said but I can only imagine it was some RW boilerplate disguised as "concern".

:puke:

[donheld]

52. Ignored always weigh in

It's called slinging shit.

[merh]

Where is hillary's pin?

And he wore the one that was given to him by the Vet, that was how the moderators broached the topic. Don't you even pay attention.

[kenny blankenship]

12. about 6 inches south of her Harley Davidson tattoo

Don't ask

[scheming daemons]

8. Hillary doesnt wear it

[Cant trust em]

39. Probably no one else had the guts to go against fad patriotism.

Obama was a patriot before 9/11 and he's a patriot after 9/11. He doesn't need a pin to represent his love for America.

This is bullshit.

[RazBerryBeret]

3. I agree...

and did you notice that neither of those Bozos had on flag pins?
are they unpatriotic? do they hate the flag?

Infuriating!!!

[kenny blankenship]

4. I love the flag, but it's strictly a *platonic* thing

There's a limit to the way I love the flag. I don't think I could ejaculate on the flag or get hard on mere sight of the flag. If that makes me "deficient" somehow in my patriotism then well so be it.

I've been told I'm out of step. I don't know if I'd be electable with current mores being what they are. How do candidates cope with the pressure to perform? Do they take a red white and blue Viagra? Is there an herbal supplement?

[Cosmocat]

10. Two things ...

You think exactly like I do, and like most progressives and liberals ... We are reflexively against "joining" ... We love the country the same as anyone else, but instead of following the lead and conforming to what our senses tell us is a faux patriotism by jacking a flag on our lapel, we show our respect by NOT engaging in it ...

The thing is, there are some really ingenious scumbag republicans who got the book on us with things like this, and other things ... And, they have absolutely no problem using this to get elected ...

AND, between their bullying the pusses, the pusses selling out on their own and the corporations having so much sway ... It has over time morphed to the point where the media just has lost any sense of just how out of proportion they are with this stuff at this point ...

[terrell9584]

5. not exactly but Bush Sr.

tripped up Dukakis on something related to the flag

[merh]

7. Hillary proposed legislation to outlaw flag burning

Star Spangled Pandering http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

Of course, she is a progressive and loves the first amendment :sarcasm:

[jobycom]

21. That bill was co-sponsored by Barbara Boxer. It was NOT trying to outlaw flag burning.

This is exactly what happened to Clinton's reputation, right here. Matt Drudge ran a headline saying "CLINTON SUPPORTS BAN ON FLAG BURNING!" and people picked it up and spread it all over the Internet, not bothering to learn the facts, and soon DUers all believed it, and the media reported it as fact.

Here's the truth. The bill was an attempt to end the flag burning amendment in the Senate at the time. That's not a guess, it was worded directly in the bill as such: (2) the Bill of Rights is a guarantee of those freedoms and should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom, a course that is regularly resorted to by authoritarian governments which fear freedom and not by free and democratic nations.

The primary argument the Republicans used in favor of the AMENDMENT (not the bill) was that flags could not be protected in any way without an amendment. One could burn the flag the way the KKK burned crosses--on someone's front lawn to terrorize a group rather than sending a political message--or one could burn a flag belonging to someone else, and according to the Republicans, the Supreme Court decision allowing flag-burning would prevent any law from stopping that.

One Republican opponent of the amendment, Robert Bennett of Utah, sponsored a bill to prove that supporters' chief arguments were bunk. The bill banned two things, both of which were already banned by other legislation in the first place (Read that again, the bill, if it had passed, would not have made one single thing illegal that wasn't illegal already). It banned burning the flag specifically to incite violence, as crosses are sometimes burned, and it banned burning flags that belonged to the government or to individuals. The first of these was already covered by hate crime legislation as well as legislation against inciting violence or terrorizing people, the second and third were covered by laws protecting private and government property.

The entire purpose of that bill was to undercut the arguments the Republicans were making as to why such a ban was necessary. As I mention, that is stated explicitly in the bill itself. Here's the link to the text: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1911:

What people misunderstand is what was happening behind the scenes in the Capitol. Many Democrats and almost all Republicans were afraid to vote against the amendment, which had 73% approval by the general public, according to polls. No one wanted their opponents to put a picture of them superimposed over a burning flag on mailers to voters, no one wanted to face the kind of goofy questions Obama faced last night. Many were just afraid to vote against it.

Clinton was one of the champions in defeating the amendment, and this bill was one of the steps. It gave cowardly opponents an excuse to say "I voted to protect the flag, but the amendment went too far." The bill wasn't intended to pass--think it through, it specifically condemned the flag burning amendment, so people who voted for the amendment--and that was two thirds of the House, and a strong majority in the senate--COULD NOT vote for the bill. It was written to fail, but written to make a point and to give weaklings a way to placate their voters, then vote against the amendment.

The amendment, some may remember, was defeated by one vote. ONE VOTE. Clinton's. Or Obama's, or Boxer's, or even Robert Bennett's. It needed 67 votes in the Senate, and it got 66. It had alread passed the House with the needed two-thirds majority.

Clinton deserves praise for her work on this. This was a personal project of hers, to defeat that amendment, and she played a key roll in doing so. That bill, which is wrongly called a flag burning ban, helped to do it. That's called substance over style. That's the type of politicking it takes to get legislation passed.

[merh]

24. You should take the time to read the link

I suggest you read it because you are mistaken, but that is no surprise. Another article on her flag concern.

Hillary's pathetic ploy
A Times Editorial
Published December 12, 2005

-snip-

The measure she has co-sponsored along with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, is the Flag Protection Act of 2005. One provision would make it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine, to burn an American flag of "any size" if a person knows that it is "likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace."

The crime is not the act of burning the flag (since old and tattered flags are burned regularly by veteran groups) but to burn a flag in criticism of the American government when someone is nearby who cannot control his impulses. This gives remarkable power to those in our society who resort to violence in response to disturbing speech and messages.

The Democratic Party doesn't need another candidate who lacks the backbone to take a clear, principled stand, and it certainly doesn't need a candidate who doesn't believe in the First Amendment.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/12/Opinion/Hillary_s_pathetic_pl.shtml

It wasn't with Boxer and critics on both sides saw it for what it was, pathetic pandering in her efforts to get the white house.

And btw, why doesn't she wear the flag pin?

[jobycom]

30. It WAS with Boxer, as my link PROVES, and you cite an editorial

that also misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents the issue.

[merh]

32. Wrong again

Sen. Robert Bennett
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1370

The editorial is about the 2005 legislation proposed by Bennett and co-sponsored by Clinton. Both refer to her pandering (it was a ploy - triangulation).

Maybe the wiki article is easier for you to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

[jobycom]

33. No idea why you think those links prove your point. They say what I said.

Both say exactly what I summarized the bill as saying. :shrug:

As for editorials, they have told me over the years that Bush was a great president, that Carter was stupid, that Reagan was a nice guy, that Iraq had WMDs, that Gore claimed he invented the Internet (they were as absolutely certain Gore said that as they are that you are right about this bill), that Gore took credit for Love Canal... The media's portrayal of things is not always accurate. Perhaps learning that would be beneficial to some people. The media enjoys a good pile-on. Go to the source, think for yourself. You'll be fooled less often.

Here, maybe this will help you understand it better. I'll just post the whole damn thing, how's that? Straight from Congress's web site.

S.1911
Title: A bill to provide for the protection of the flag of the United States, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Bennett, Robert F. (introduced 10/24/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: S.1370
Latest Major Action: 10/24/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 6/27/2006 Sen Carper, Thomas R. - 6/27/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 10/24/2005 Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 9/28/2006

S 1911 IS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1911
To provide for the protection of the flag of the United States, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 24, 2005
Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide for the protection of the flag of the United States, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Flag Protection Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that--

(1) the flag of the United States is a unique symbol of national unity and represents the values of liberty, justice, and equality that make this Nation an example of freedom unmatched throughout the world;

(2) the Bill of Rights is a guarantee of those freedoms and should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom, a course that is regularly resorted to by authoritarian governments which fear freedom and not by free and democratic nations;

(3) abuse of the flag of the United States causes more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being of individuals at whom the threat is targeted; and

(4) destruction of the flag of the United States can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to provide the maximum protection against the use of the flag of the United States to promote violence while respecting the liberties that it symbolizes.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST USE FOR PROMOTING VIOLENCE.

(a) In General- Section 700 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States

`(a) Definition of Flag of the United States- In this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.

`(b) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) Flag Burning- Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

`(d) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(e) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(f) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to indicate an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The chapter analysis for chapter 33 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 700 and inserting the following:

`700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States.'.

SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, and the application of this Act to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected by such holding.

[merh]

38. Your year for boxer is what keeps screwing you up

It was first introduced by Hillary and Bennett in 2005 and those editorials were correct, she was pandering.

Anyone who respects the constitution doesn't support legislation that would violate it.

[jobycom]

40. Your own link proves otherwise. Clinton didn't co-sponsor the bill you link.

You link S 1370. That, like most of Bennett's flag bills, died in committee. If you are linking to that to prove that Boxer didn't co-sponsor S 1370, cool, but neither did Clinton. Byrd did, Dorgan, Conrad, and Carper did, BUT NOT CLINTON!!!!!! From YOUR LINK!

Sponsor: Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)
(b)Cosponsors (as of 2007-01-08)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

That was in July of 05, here's the link on Thomas: (On edit, removed link because it was a temporary search link and didn't work. I haven't figured out how to post the link yet.)

-------

The bill Clinton co-sponsored was S 1911, in October 2005, when the amendment was a much more immediate threat. It's a later incarnation of that same bill (Bennett introduces it every time the amendment comes up for vote again). That's the one I already linked to and posted in entirety in the previous post, complete with co-sponsors, PROVING THAT BOXER was a cosponsor, along with Clinton.

So let me summarize--Robert Bennett, a Republican from Utah who has voted against and spoken against the amendment to ban flag burning for as long as there has been such an amendment, sponsors this same bill every time the issue comes up. In the second 2005 incarnation of the bill, Clinton co-sponsored Bennett's bill, as did Barbara Boxer. The bill was not an attempt to burn flag burning it was an attempt TO DEFEAT THE FLAG AMENDMENT!

I'm sorry the MSM lied to you, and I'm really sorry that so many DUers are dumb enough to believe it, but that's the truth. And sadly, many in the MSM understand the truth (it's not secret, there are floor speeches arguing what the bill is about) but like the lie better.

[merh]

41. The MSM hasn't lied to me

I can see exactly what she did and why she did it.

You can try to explain it away all you like, it won't change the facts. Hillary sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning.

[jobycom]

42. Now THAT's an interesting statement. The MSM hasn't lied to you?

Did you give up on the Boxer point, or are you still denying that truth, too?

[merh]

44. I'm not denying shit.

You are a childish one, not only do you not have the facts right, you don't know what Hillary's position was in 2005.

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34

More reading for you

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/07/what_is_the_new.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202155.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/5/211436/972

You hillary folks just don't know when to stop, not only do you insist that folks prove your spin wrong, but in doing so you continue to harm hillary's credibility and your own.

[jobycom]

45. Again, proving what I just said (while dodging the Boxer question, so I guess you finally get that.)

Read your own postings. "she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment."

Let's make it short and simple. The First Amendment says government cannot infringe on a person's right of expression (it says "abridging the freedom of speech," but the courts have always taken that to mean all forms of expression). No court has ever said that the right to expression carries over to the right to burn other people's property or to try to harm or terrorize someone.

Cross burning is not illegal, but it is illegal if it is done to someone else's property, or if it is done on the front lawn of someone's house with the express intent of terrorizing them or threatening a group of people. Do you feel that law is wrong? Do you believe the KKK should be allowed to burn a cross on someone's lawn?

If not, you agree with Clinton (and me, and most legal scholars). The only flag desecration banned by the bill Clinton co-sponsored was exactly that--burning a flag with the specific intent of threatening someone, or burning someone else's flag.

Both of those would already be illegal, anyway.

Clinton is quite specific even in the passage you seem to think supports you. She is against banning acts of expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

So what part of that do you disagree with? Do you feel I should have the right to burn a flag you bought and paid for without your permission? Do you feel I should have the right to walk into a federal building and burn a flag I see hanging on the wall and belonging to the federal government? Or do you believe I should have the right to burn a flag on the front lawn of, say, an immigrant, to threaten them and their families and give the message that they should go home? Which of those do you disagree with banning?

Because that's all the bill that Clinton and Boxer co-sponsored did.

In addition to that, it specifically condemned the attempted amendment to ban flag desecration as a means of political expression. I take it you agree with the bill on that, that the amendment to limit First Amendment rights is wrong?

You keep repeating your point over and over as though you think I missed it. I know what the editorials say. I was here when the initial Drudge story broke, and I saw how the lie spread throughout DU. A lot of people got it, but a lot just went along with Drudge. Soon after, the editorials followed, with conservatives who hated Clinton or liberals who didn't bother to do the research or others who just felt like enough people were saying it so it must be true. Like with Gore in 2000, or Bill Clinton his whole damn administration.

They were wrong about Gore, as we now know. They were wrong about the first Clinton. They are wrong about this.

[merh]

46. What Boxer question?

Boxer was not involved in the co-sponsorship of this legislation in 2005.

We are talking about 2005 and how Hillary SUPPORTED a law that would criminalize the burning of the flag. You have her words before you and yet you continue to distort the facts. Her reasoning does not comport to your twisted efforts to make her co-sponsorship noble. Dems were appalled, many saw it for what it was pandering and posturing for her run now.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/12/06/clinton/index.html


"They" have done nothing to Hillary, she has done the damage to herself, she has lied, she has gone negative, she has used the damaging tactics you condemn, she has run a poor campaign, aligned herself with the very people that have tried to destroy the party.

[jobycom]

47. Jesus Fucking Christ, what part of "HERE'S THE DIRECT EVIDENCE" are you arguing with?

Here is is again, straight from the bill itself. This is the law Clinton backed. How are you denying Boxer's name on that bill?

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 6/27/2006 Sen Carper, Thomas R. - 6/27/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 10/24/2005 Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 9/28/2006

Dems were appalled because they were fooled. Dems were appalled when Gore claimed he invented the Internet, too. I was still trying to convince them in 2003 that he had never said that. He never said it. And Clinton was not trying to ban anything that wasn't already banned.

[merh]

49. AGAIN LOOK AT THE YEAR

the legislation I am referring to and that hillary supported because burning a flag is like burning the cross, was in 2005

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 6/27/2006 Sen Carper, Thomas R. - 6/27/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 10/24/2005 Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 9/28/2006

And she was trying to pass legislation to make it a criminal act to burn the flag (comparing it to an act of terrorism like flag burning).

God help us, don't you even understand what it is you are citing?

[boppers]

48. Whoa. The text is enough to see that she is DEAD WRONG on the issue.

Here's how real life would play out:

Some guy, named, oh, Tom, as an act of honest war protest, exercises his right to burn the flag.

Some freeper asshole, named, oh, Dick, decides to beat Tom within an inch of Tom's life, and does so.

The text not only makes Dick's actions more justified, but it also punishes Tom.... for Dick's behavior.


Then again, this is nothing new from her. She also wants to censor video games, web sites, and any other thing that offends her fundie-loving, bible thumping, heart.

[jobycom]

53. That's not true.

The only way Tom would be in trouble is if his specific intention were to threaten Dick. Dick's reaction has no bearing on that. If Tom's intention was political statement, or any other statement other than "Watch out Dick, we know who you are and are coming to get you!" then his speech is protected.

Do you oppose the ban on cross burning? The language in cross burning bans is exactly the same. You can burn a cross for political protest, but you cannot burn a cross on someone's front yard with the specific intent of threatening or intimidating them. Do you disagree with that law? How about the laws against drawing a swastika on a person's house for the same purpose? You can wave a swastika or tattoo one on your forhead, but you can't use it to specifically intentionally intimidate someone.

Believe what you want. Condemn Barbara Boxer and Robert Byrd and every other Democrat who has co-sponsored this bill through the years. But you are wrong on your interpretation--at least understand that. If you can't, find a lawyer to explain it to you.

[Stephanie]

25. She did it so she could triangulate the issue.

If you are FOR First Amendment rights, she can tell you she voted against amending the Constitution to ban flag burning. If you are AGAINST freedom of speech, she can tell you that she introduced legislation to ban flag burning. And at the end of the day, she is off the hook, since the LEGISLATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[merh]

27. She was pandering

Any good lawyer would know that the proposed legislation was unconstitutional.

[jobycom]

31. Wrong. Just wait--Obama will get the same treatment, then maybe you'll get it.

Clinton, like Boxer and Bennett, did it to defeat the amendment. That's explicitly stated in the bill, so to argue otherwise is to argue against the facts and the evidence.

[scheming daemons]

9. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question......

..

The mere asking of the question is a smear.

[cliffordu]

11. No - and none of them have had to go before a bunch of

religionists and swear their Christianity, either.


We deserve everything we get.

[BattyDem]

15. Sad, isn't it?

:-(

[cliffordu]

16. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are weeping.

[KSinTX]

13. Um, sorta but not really

The Bush Sr. campaign in 1988 used the flag as a patriotic icon during its run against Dukakis, who'd vetoed a bill mandating the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. His campaign didn't realize the symbolic nature of it all and GHWB made it a point during his campaign to stop at huge flag manufacturing shops in Ohio and New Jersey. The Republicans made this a central issue of its campaign (in conjunction with Willie Horton).

Now, that was in the general election. Can't say it ever happened in a primary. The thing that truly bothered me, was that here were these two white guys and a white candidate whose patriotism is unquestioned and not adorned with lapel pins or flag shirts asking him to explain his patriotism for not doing the very same thing they were doing. It was as though he, by virtue of race, was somehow beholden to prove his patriotism and theirs was all intact.

I don't want to hear that it's because he was asked about it in a previous interview and said he'd opted to not wear it, because the interviewer asking the question wasn't wearing one at the time either. It's curious that he alone has to defend his love of country. Repeatedly.

[earthlover]

14. Hillary does not wear the flag lapel pin. Hillary is white. therefore it doesn't matter

same thing for the two moderators of the debate, who were white

[KSinTX]

18. Spot on! Even more shameful was questioning Wright's patiotism

This a man who gave up his student deferment, served two years as a Marine infantryman then became a Navy hospital corpsman (cardiopulmonary technician) and recieved three letters of appreciation for his assignment to LBJ's personal medical team. It is vile!

[Condem]

17. Folks, I haven't been on for a couple of days

But I distinctly remember the fat POS who asked the flagpin question was in the New York Times about ten days ago . She was sitting in a diner in Latrobe
saying she could never vote for Obama because he never wore a flagpin. ALL ABC's questions came from other sources. Shoddy journalism! I don't know if this point has beeen brought up.

[BattyDem]

19. I found the article ... YOU'RE RIGHT!

Her name is Nash McCabe.

Caption from the NY Times photo:
"How can I vote for a president who won’t wear a flag pin?" NASH McCABE, unemployed clerk-typist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04penn.html



ABC transcript:
"And, Senator Obama, I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=2


There's no way that's a coincidence. ABC went looking for her. They WANTED that question! :grr:

[redstate_democrat]

20. WTF?

You mean to tell me this FAT ASS UNEMPLOYED SLOB is worried about whether Obama is wearing a fucking piece of plastic om his lapel?



BITCH, BURN IN HELL!

[SeattleGirl]

22. WTF? This woman is unemployed? And she cares more about

whether a candidate WEARS A FLAG PIN????

Holy Mother of God, help me now!

[BattyDem]

23. I just don't understand people. I really don't.

She's unemployed, which means she probably doesn't have health insurance. She's only 52, so she's too young for SS or Medicare. Her financial situation can't be all that great at the moment. And she's choosing her candidate based on a freakin' flag pin!

[Stephanie]

26. New thread, please!

Please repost this on its own, very important.

[BattyDem]

28. Done.

:hi:

[DearAbby]

29. Only African American Canidates are asked...

it should be obvious :sarcasm: I noted no one else on that stage was wearing Flag pins...

[2rth2pwr]

36. Has there ever been a Presidential candidate that said he wouldn't wear one?

The standard political reply to that question might well have been, "My patriotism speaks for itself."

But Obama didn't say that.

Instead the Illinois senator answered the question at length, explaining that he no longer wears such a pin, at least in part, because of the Iraq War. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3690000

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. Only the next President of the United States

Glad we got that shit out of the way!

[bhikkhu]

43. Do you love the flag more than your pastor?

That's in a presidential debate that had international coverage...a complete embarrassment. I couldn't answer it - who could, anyway? Absolute stupidity.

[CreekDog]

50. Has any been asked if their pastor loves America more than they do?

:eyes:

[Norrin Radd]

51. "Have you ever made love to the flag?"