Well Sam the Plumber is only saying what many believe.
How, when, and by whom exactly Christian Zionism was invented is for me somewhat shrouded in mystery, but it is a Republican hallmark. The stew of conventional moral values, religious adherence, apocalyptic thinking, married to blind support for aggressive US foreign policy, thereby requiring reverence for any stooge or ally in or near the ME, has been generously offered up as a hallowed dish for a certain brand of sheeples to partake in with dogmatic and pseudo-terrified delight.
Everyone agrees that is is Librulls or Leftists who might or do support Palestinians (who cheered and danced on 9/11!) or make excuses for Terrorists or even hint at or state “America deserved it.”
Obama, in fact, gave a very weak and rather disgusting speech a few days after 9/11. (I can’t seem to turn it up..it seems to be gone…I’ll keep on looking.)
Now I don’t recall it exactly, gee I wish I had it under my eyes, but I say disgusting because he waffled around with the ‘terrorism is due to poverty and despair’ line – it is in some measure comprehensible, in a better world it wouldn’t exist, etc. In short craven BS dressed up in empty words. He couldn’t deny the official story, and couldn’t go with the REVENGE at all costs stance, so had nothing to say and should have shut up.
This well known article briefly describes Obama’s shift away from a pro-Palestinian position:
electronic intifada
If Fox is defending Obama on this issue it is because Obama’s adherence to pro-plucky-Israel is considered solid enough (or because McCain is seen as a hopeless loser.)
So Sam/Joe is just a bit out of date, and/or doesn’t grasp that the gulf he sees between the 2 parties does not in fact exist.
(i didn’t watch the vids. and the friday lunch club link was a huge blank.)

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 29 2008 22:50 utc | 3

I thought the whole purpose of armageddon was to put an end to Israel so that true believers could ascend to heaven in the rapture. So is Joe the Plumber now saying that true believers don’t want a rapture?

Posted by: JohnH | Oct 29 2008 23:26 utc | 5

So Fox wants to make this election about whether Americans want socialism. We’ll just have to accept their democratic wishes.

Posted by: biklett | Oct 30 2008 1:21 utc | 7

I hadn’t realized I was channeling alabama in my previous post. An inimitable influence of his style? Mere subliminal parody? A stain upon the ongoing formation of superego?
I know not.
Perhaps a banning is in order!

Posted by: slothrop | Oct 30 2008 2:47 utc | 9

i’m w/ralphie. palin/joe for ’12. america needs a president someday who looks lie a skin head. from the comments @ raw story
What a strange grouping McCain’s campaign is creating: Neo-Nazis and decedents of Holocaust survivors.
what weird times we are living thru.

Posted by: annie | Oct 30 2008 3:44 utc | 11

Whether Obama wins or McCain wins, the right-to-life fundamentalists are moving their cases through State Supreme Courts systems, with some sobering and as yet unanticipated potential side effects.
If a fetus is granted “person” status, then by the “chicken and egg” argument, that extends a “personhood” back to the first neoblast, and then by rule of “reasonable doubt”, every woman of working (childbearing) age, that is, every commuting woman, will have the innate right to use the HOV lanes, since two or more “persons” are presumed to be in the car. Would the police have to prove they’re *not* pregnant?
What about female ironworkers, or emergency rescue workers? Would any female worker have the “right” to endanger a potentially neoblast “person” hovering in her womb?
Would *all* women in blue collar jobs be required to take weekly pregnancy tests?
Would their employers be likely to pay them for 8-1/2 months away from hard work?
Could any women of childbearing age become president, given the statistical risk?
That’s humorous, but not so funny is the effect RTL_4NB’s will have on healthcare, as every woman of working age will become a walking crisis-care patient, her hidden “person” ever in threat of this or that environmental side-effect, every medical exam doubled and redoubled, balancing this potentially harmful machine scan against the likelihood some disease might be missed without it, an army of lawyers drooling in the wings to cut their slice of the public healthcare pie for malpractice.
Which “Taliban” would we be talking about then?

Posted by: Tom Terrific | Oct 30 2008 4:22 utc | 13

Fuck Joe the plumber, and fuck Murdoch, arguably the most dangerous man in America. I don’t give a fuck for the opinion of either miscreant. I thought I might have seen an opinion of President-elect Obama’s ad, though. What’s the matter b, still looking for those photos?

Posted by: waldo | Oct 30 2008 8:49 utc | 15

“Waldo, do you actually believe that Obama will radically change the face of American politics?”
Tantulus, that is my greatest hope. If ever there were a propitious opportunity, this it. It will, however, depend on the willingness of the American people to trust, support and assist the president. This will involve citizen action to counter the influence of not only the skulking neocons, dishonest politicians and the corporations and their PR minions, but also organisations like the NRA and its affiliations. Possibly a bigger task is the congregations of religious people reining in the shysters, liars and political operatives masquerading as religious figures who mobilise opinion that benefits ‘conservative’ forces with strategies based on fear, lies and superstition.
The web (already boasting more than a little success) is poised to be a powerful tool in the fight against those organisations, the misguided or dishonest who support them and against the MSM which is the main source for the propaganda of those bodies. It (the web) is the prime vehicle for the message and strategy of reformation of the political environment of the U.S.
The authenticity, honesty and integrity that is obvious and integral in the character of Barack Obama is the inspiration for this effort. The greatest effort required (and I know this no small ask) is that the cynicism and mistrust generated by the perverse politics and criminal activities of Gingrich, Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Gonzales, Woo, Cheney and the Bush family, their numerous partners in crime and their media whores (especially the ‘Dirty Digger’, Murdoch), be put aside, so that the hope and faith of humanity can be given a chance to once again flourish, so that we may once again believe in the honesty and goodness of our elected representatives and fellow citizens and so that we can do our part in assisting the president in realising his vision for a united, peaceful, prosperous and generous America.
Evil does not always triumph. Greed does not always win. One man can change the world but it is up to us to help him do it.

Posted by: waldo | Oct 30 2008 15:19 utc | 17

Well, an abrupt and total ban on lobbying would be a start, but I haven’t heard that from Obama. Think he’ll do it?
If ever there were a propitious opportunity, this it. It will, however, depend on the willingness of the American people to trust, support and assist the president.
It’s the ‘trust’ component of this statement that bothers me. He’s hoping to be president. You shouldn’t be required to trust a president (who’s a public servant) until he’s earned it – otherwise he’s little more than a Roman-style dictator. I think that if Obama announced a programme of sweeping change – eg eliminating corporate and national lobbying – there would be plenty of people to support and assist in that. Would I trust him after that? Yes. To co-opt your catchphrase:
First earn our trust: then the rest.

Posted by: Tantalus | Oct 30 2008 16:02 utc | 19

Tantalus, I guess my expectations are unrealistic in comparison to your’s. I would like to see a complete abolition of the legal status of corporations, let alone allowing them to lobby and finance candidates.
Speaking of financing candidates, Obama is on pace to double what Dubya raised in 2004. Through Oct. 15th, he has raised $640 Million. Wrap your head around that. McCain is about half that much, with $95 Million coming from public financing. McCain has a legitimate gripe about Obama and public financing. Why did Obama opt out….and in so doing, why is Obama now the leading recipient of Wall Street donations? Goldman Sachs…..yes, Hank Paulson’s alma mater, has donated nearly $1 Million to Obama’s campaign. And Waldo has the nerve to tell us to trust him? It’s laughable. How can he be serious? Take a gander at the following link in regards to campaign finance.
Open Secrets

Posted by: Obamageddon | Oct 30 2008 17:08 utc | 21

people need to get off their butts & push for progress. Someone ca’nt or wo’nt do it with Obama in the WH may just be incapable of doing it.
Its kind of like dating. One girl wants proof your not a psycho, no STD, no other girl-friends, no wild partying, you have a job … and the next girl loves the stupid stuff you do like she’s been waiting for you all her life

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 30 2008 17:32 utc | 23