Is Arianna Huffington still a Republican?

[JamesA1102]

I ask this because she did start out as a conservative Republican and remained on for many years. In 2000 she supported Bush and repeatedly attack Al Gore in her Washington Times column. Her transition came when she opposed the invasion of Iraq, but there are a lot of Republicans who opposed the invasion and differed with Bush on spending policy.
Recently her columns blame everything on President Obama. There is no mention of the unprecedented obstruction by the GOP. When she does criticize the Republicans it is usually in the context of the Dems are just as bad as they are.
Maybe she decided to use the credibility she built up with the left from her opposition to Bush by pretending that she was no longer a Republican and use it to bring down the left from within. It would explain the almost Nazi-like censorship on her site, why she protects Joe Scarborough and the MJ crew, etc.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Being a Republican is a lot like being an alcoholic...

You're always going to be one. You just might be in recovery.

[bvar22]

29. I'll bet Obama's Sec. of State would disagree with you.

!

[depakid]

37. Ouch

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_hillary_clinton_work_for_goldwater.html

Goes to show that even Goldwater Girls can (if they possess critical thinking skills, a conscience and enough psychological courage) indeed adapt and change their world view to suit the objective facts and the context of the times.

[hendo]

180. If I remember correctly

Goldwater got run out of the Republican party when he refused to play by thier rules. Theres a big difference between being a Goldwater-type conservative and being a republican.
edit: at least by today's definition of republican.

[PassingFair]

232. As long as the money is rolling in. n/t

[Matariki]

74. Stephanie Miller too. n/t

[madokie]

58. Bad analogy

I quite drinking 3 - 4 years ago and no longer am I a recovering alcoholic. I'm around it but I have no urges or desires to go back to the sauce. That whole canard about once an alky always an alky is bullshit. I would think that with a moniker such as yours you'd know that or at least understand that.
otherwise have a great day Irishman :hi:

[davidinalameda]

2. Nazi like censorship

hyperbole much?

[JamesA1102]

6. No

That site has the strictest moderation of most sites on the web. Post that don't violate their guidelines but simply disagree with Ms. Huffington and other bloggers there are routinely deleted.

[davidinalameda]

47. maybe you should start your own website

[hendo]

181. and we wouldnt be at all familiar with a place

where thoughts that go against the main intent are reported and deleted?
edit: heck, isnt it still a reportable offense to hint at voting for a non-democratic candidate?

[Dr.Phool]

116. Lame character assasination attempt.

Very lame.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. There is more money to be made attacking those in power than attacking those out of power

[SidDithers]

54. +1...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[monmouth]

4. She annoys me to no end and I rarely go to HuffPo anymore. Very

negative reporting, she has Joey the Scar as a columnist and that Mark Blumenthal (I think that's his name)...I mean, c'mon...Ugh..

[butterfly77]

5. Yes...

[leftstreet]

7. Many Republicans voted for Obama n/t

[strawberryfield]

148. Those Republicans have forgotten why they did that

I work with a lot of right wing nut bags. A surprisingly number of them voted for Obama, but they all now seem more than willing to give the power right back to the crazies that caused all the problems. It is like they all have forgotten about how bad things were two years ago, and they think that every bad thing going on now was caused by Obama.

[JuniperLea]

230. My dad was a lifelong Pubbie... he switched parties and voted Obama...

He's not turning back. Nor is his electrician neighbor who did the same swap. The RW NutBags I work with didn't vote for Obama, and will never vote for a Democrat... not even to save their lives.

[Cleita]

8. She ran as an independent when she ran for

Governor of California if that sheds any light on her politics.

[FBaggins]

9. What day of the week is it? n/t

[lillypaddle]

10. I've grown to really dislike

HuffPost. Overall, it sucks, and yes, I think she has become more right-wing in her content.

[robdogbucky]

11. Does this mean the trashing of all other lefty blogosphere sites

is in full-swing at DU?

M-kay.

Here is a sampling from that "Republican's" website today. They, like some others, have some real journalists participating in their site. Here is the list of entries there now:


-Arianna Huffington: Obama Insists He Made "The Right Decisions" on the Economy -- The Struggling Middle Class Begs to Differ
(Yes, this is critical of Obama, but so have all the other columnists done so to some degree in the last almost 2 years. Name one that hasn't? Isn't that what journalists do?)


-politics Repealing DADT -- It's Your Turn, President Obama
Lt. Dan Choi, 09.10.2010 Iraq War veteran


-politics Republican Nightmare: Putting Elizabeth Warren to Work Now
Simon Johnson, 09.09.2010
MIT Professor and co-author of 13 Bankers


-green No on California Prop 23: Reversing Course on Climate Policy Is the Real Job Killer
Van Jones, 09.10.2010
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, American Progess Action Fund

-politics DADT Win Can't Save Log Cabin Republicans
Emma Ruby-Sachs, 09.10.2010
Attorney

-world Why Peaceniks Should Care About the Afghanistan Study Group Report
Robert Naiman, 09.10.2010
Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy

-politics President Obama and Sarah Palin Agree: Muslims Can Be Dangerous
Adam Hanft, 09.10.2010
Political Columnist, CEO of Hanft Unlimited

-world The Real IRA Lesson for U.S. in Middle East Peace
Niall O'Dowd, 09.10.2010
Founder, IrishCentral.com

-politics Keep the Democrats in Charge of Congress
Lorelei Kelly, 09.09.2010
Director, New Strategic Security Initiative

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/



Etc., Etc., Etc.


There are many more, but I defy you to point me to the Republican there. I know she used to be one, that she was the wife of a former candidate for senate here as a carpetbagger, and was eventually disclosed as a closeted homosexual with a sham marriage to her. I also know that around the time she made her switch (got rid of hubby as well) she ran as an independent I believe, against the Gropenator when the national pubs put their juice into recalling poor beleaguered Gray Davis as governor. Then she started the HuffPo. I don't like much of the tabloid puffery they have, but if one can manage to read the left side columns, it is very informative and they frequently have some other type of person, like athlete, celebrity, actual participant in an event, etc., penning op eds there. I am certain that HuffPo has more daily readers than DU, just to lay that out there. I am no one's troll, paid operative, or anything other than a curious voter that distrusts most if not all "Professional Politicians." Oddly enough I have never feared or loathed or mistrusted any professional leftists or journalists therein that I have met.

What I see is this is the second woman that runs a lefty website that has now come under attack here at good ol' DU.


Dude, where's my DU?




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[gkhouston]

12. shh, don't buck the pogrom. n/t

[JamesA1102]

13. Read Arianna's column

She blames the President for everything and never once mentions GOP obstruction.

[robdogbucky]

14. I did, can you read this?

Obama on the American Dream:



In the last chapter of Third World America, Arianna quotes Barack Obama and David Brooks in order to show how personal relationships and support are key to preserving the American Dream:

"We have to lean on one another and look out for one another and love one another and pray for one another, " Barack Obama said when he delivered the eulogy for the fallen West Virginia miners in April 2010. This is a call that transcends left and right political divisions.

David Brooks has written about the need to replace our "atomized, segmented society" with a society "oriented around relationships and associations"... Those who are working to address the devastation in their own communities are willing to experiment, try many things, fail, and try again, the way you do when you really care. And there is extraordinary creativity in local philanthropy.

In describing "The Empathy Index" Arianna goes on to explain how thousands of Americans are taking local approaches with national impact in order to make a difference. Using web-based tools from social media to online giving, these citizens can share their efforts with others who might live hundreds of miles away. But the power of reaching out to others in your community is sometimes as simple as going offline and simply walking out your front door.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/third-world-america-step-7_n_702052.html


I don't always agree with Obama, Huffington, nor especially Brooks, but they are mostly and she is also, doing their best to get the right things done, for all of us. You are doing what?



Just my additional centavos


robdogbucky

[JamesA1102]

15. That doesn't disprove what I said

And Huffington writing a book that she is making money from is doing the right thing for her.

I'm just asking the question, why are you so threatened by that?

[hendo]

183. How dare she write a book to make money!

How dare she!

[JamesA1102]

198. So are you going to cyber-stalk me

in several sub-threads too?

[sendero]

16. GOP obstruction..

... has nothing to do with Obama's failures. His attempt to appease them most certainly does though.

[JamesA1102]

25. Thanks for the talking point.

But I prefer to deal with reality.

[bvar22]

30. Reality:

In 2008, The American People gave the Democratic Party:

*The White House

*A large Majority in the House

*A filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate

*Most importantly a HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE".


...but somehow, its ALL the Republican's Fault! :cry:

Pretty pathetic excuse when you think about it.

[JamesA1102]

33. Facts is facts

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

[depakid]

39. Excuses are excuses

which is why you're staring down another 1994.

[JamesA1102]

42. Sounds like you're rooting for the GOP nt

[depakid]

49. Just laying out what most people see

-and that includes a lot of traditional Democratic constituencies (who up and until about 4 weeks ago, the administration wasn't finished with insulting).

Do you seriously expect that people who are shown contempt and backhanded will get out and work for free?

Because Republicans are worse?

[JamesA1102]

50. Sorry but not letting you hijack this thread. Buh-bye! nt

[defendandprotect]

172. Agree --

and looks like he forgot his "talking point" -- !!

[hendo]

185. Yeah

our slogan for this election season sucks, "Don't give them the keys back," seriously? We have since changed it to "Change that matters" which isnt all that better.

[Kweli4Real]

235. If you've sensed comtempt or being backhanded ...

I would suggest that you are far to sensitive and/or myopic.

But to answer you question, YES ... the majority of the left WILL vote democrat BECAUSE republicans are worst.

[bvar22]

40. Its Allllllllllllll Joe Lieberman'sssss fault!

:cry:

Waaaaaa!

Joe Lieberman is a SUPERMAN!
We're all Heeeelllllpppppllllleeeesssss!
:cry:




The Republicans NEVER had 60 votes,
and they pushed their right wing agenda through without problems.
...because they wanted to!


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[JamesA1102]

41. No because the Dems didn't abuse the system

the way the GOP is.

[bvar22]

57. How would FDR or LBJ have dealt with Lieberman, Baucus, or Nelson?

You know it IS possible to make these people an "Offer They Can't Refuse",
especially when a President holds a HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE".
You just don't sit down and start crying when a wimp like Lieberman says "NO". :cry:


Can you imagine what would have happened if Lieberman had told LBJ "NO"?
LOL
They would still be finding little pieces of Lieberman's ass all over the Capitol.

[JamesA1102]

62. But FDR and LBJ had much larger majorities

and didn't have a GOP minority the was unified in obstruction.

[bvar22]

64. But....but....but....

:cry:

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

[JamesA1102]

72. Nice quote

But it is not reality.

[olegramps]

233. Then what is your "reality."

Health Care Reform without a strong public option to provide real competition to greedy health insurance companies is the best that the Democrats could do with a majority in the House and Senate. I don't believe that is a reality that most Americans were hoping for and a reality they envision when they elected Obama to LEAD the nation. As some of my ancestors would have observed: Heap big smoke, no fire and Hilary observed that he made pretty speeches.

[JamesA1102]

237. So you think Hillary would have done better?

And I see that you've mastered the talking point but the public option was not all what Healthcare reform was about.

[hendo]

186. Pushing through an agenda when you have the majority

IS NOT abusing the system, its called taking advantage of having a majority. When will we learn?

[defendandprotect]

173. Exactly .... !!

[hendo]

184. Indeed

We left the 2008 elections with a mandate and control of both houses. However we didnt take advantage of it and let the republicans set the agenda. How nice of us :puke: and then we complain that they obstructed true change. We somehow took the mandate for change and tripped out of the starting gate.

[Raineyb]

66. Translation: I don't like the answer you gave me so I'm going to pretend that it has nothing to do

with reality so I can continue whining about people daring to have a differing opinion.

[JamesA1102]

73. Translation: I refuse to even acknowledge simple facts

that don't conform to my bias so it is easier to just attack the messanger.

[Raineyb]

128. You don't have any facts. You have an opinion you're looking for someone to bolster And you're

whining because you haven't gotten it yet.

[JamesA1102]

134. I have plenty of facts.

Here is a list of them:

1. She was a Republican for many years. She doesn't dispute that.
2. She lied about Al Gore in 2000 in her Washington Times column.
3. She disputed Bush on the war and spending policy but so did other conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
4. She sent an undercover reporter into a private fundraiser to record statements by Obama that he then released online to discredit him.
5. She supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and now goes on shows where George Hill or Joe Scarborough spout GOP talking points about them and she doesn't dispute them or try to correct the record in any way.
6. She blames the economy on the President and the Dems but gives the GOP a pass on its obstruction.

Those are facts. You're welcome to dispute them or bring up any other facts to rebut.

[LostinVA]

216. Whoa Raineyb -- when did you get zapped? I will miss you

Even if we didn't always agree. You were a good egg.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

194. Shh...You'll give people that idea that Ariana might be using the left to further her own agenda.

[RainDog]

43. thank you. I am SO FUCKING SICK of people who trash liberal web sites

when someone says something that is not full of adoration for the Obama administration.

This sort of tactic backfires because adults can read various web sites and decide for themselves whether they agree with particular articles - or whether they think sites have some insight on issues - and people have every opportunity to dispute a particular issue right here.

Those who continually attack other liberal web sites make me doubt that they have anything of worth to say on this one. I'm more inclined to think anything they say isn't worth reading because they are like cult members or something. The same goes for those who cheerlead them.

[defendandprotect]

174. Notice also how many prominent Democrats are now on DLC/DU "enemies list" because they've criticized

Obama ... !!!

Icy chill for people like Michael Moore, Tom Hayden, Wm. Greider -

Jane Hamsher ... on and on -- Naomi Klein --

One has to ask, is Obama so fragile he can't take criticism --

or is it that his followers are so fragile they can't stand to hear it?

[hendo]

187. A few of his followers, yes.

Seriously guys, it is alright to criticize the president. Heck, it is our duty as Americans to criticize our government regardless of who is in power. Having a D next to his name on a ballot does not make him golden.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

195. Jane Hamsher is a PUMA and should be vilified for that reason alone.

She's in her own special class of enemies. Here's a blast from the past from a PUMA discussion thread that pretty well illustrates the PUMA way...

http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=14333

Had read a hint about this, but no details - seems that Obama's radical left wing roots run deep.
From the article:

During Obama’s campaign for the 2008 presidential election, he portrayed his mother as a conservative girl from Kansas; however in reality she was a radical leftist and cultural Marxist. She lived in the Seattle area; spending her teenage years in Seattle coffee shops with other young radical leftist. Obama claims his mother’s family were conservative Methodists or Baptists from Kansas. However his mother’s parents were members of a left-wing Unitarian church near Seattle. The church located in Bellevue, Washington was nicknamed ‘the little red church,’ because of its communist leanings.

The school Ann attended, Mercer Island High School, was a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers. John Stenhouse, board member, told the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party USA and this school has a number of Marxists on its staff. Two teachers at this school, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both Frankfurt School style Marxists, taught a critical theory curriculum to students which included; rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx. The hallway between Foubert’s and Wichterman classrooms was some times called ‘anarchy ally.’

Dunham has been described by her friends as ‘a fellow traveler’ meaning ‘a communist sympathizer.’

You do get points for camoflauging her with Moore, Hayden and Greider. It's also interesting how many shit stirrer posts come from this site. Coinkidink?

[defendandprotect]

203. You want Jane Hamsher "villified" for supporting Hillary Clinton ... ???

Thanks for confirming the "enemies list" of those Democrats who have criticized Obama --

and for the laugh -- !

Obama supporters here were so outraged at the support for Hillary at DU that they're still

talking about it!!

And what the schizophrenic article you present has to do with any reality escapes me --


You do get points for camoflauging her with Moore, Hayden and Greider. It's also interesting how many shit stirrer posts come from this site. Coinkidink?

Again -- try debating the issues for a change -- and stop the attempted attacks and attempted

smears.

[earth mom]

169. Totally agree with you. Between the attacks on Huffington Post & Firedoglake-DU is unrecognizable!

:wow:

[defendandprotect]

175. But never do I see a discussion of the ISSUE ... always the "pony" or the attack on messenger ---

[earth mom]

231. Thanks for posting the facts!!!

:thumbsup:

[Confusious]

17. No, I think she changed

But went off the deep end with people like Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra posting on her site.

[Mimosa]

18. No. n/t

[glinda]

19. Sometime she acts like it.

[Johonny]

20. No the part of the Republican party she was in doesn't exist anymore

I think there are a lot of conservatives that simple don't have a party anymore. There are a lot of Republican voters that basically have been left without representation in that party. It's worst than the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Basically most of those people claim to be independents or have become blue dog Dems. Most Republican icons of the past simply would have no home in the modern Republican party.

[Mimosa]

94. And some of them are now calling themselves Dems, and dragging the party rightward!

Why try to bash Huffpo? It's giving out info which counters the distorted B.S. on Druge.

And it's a goodlooking well-designed site!

[JamesA1102]

106. Not bashing

Just asking a question. The censorship over there really is out of sync with liberal/progressive principles.

[Dappleganger]

122. In agreement with you...

the censorship definitely is out of whack.

BTW, asking questions and questioning motives using specific examples without name-calling is not "bashing." I hate that any kind of disagreement or question of where one's views come from is automatically called "bashing". That is very un-democratic.

[JamesA1102]

130. Thanks :-) nt

[Dappleganger]

120. +10000

[girl gone mad]

21. She's an enemy of the people.

[xchrom]

22. Do you still beat your spouse? Nt

[SargeUNN]

23. She helps make sure we keep our divisions

She is quick to critize but slow to give credit.

[JamesA1102]

26. Exactly! nt

[trof]

24. Damn, guys? It's when she found out her husband was bi.

Nobody remembers THAT brouhaha?

Michael Huffington:

On April 12, 1986 Huffington married Arianna Stassinopoulos, a Greek-born writer and lecturer.<3>

In 1998 Huffington disclosed that he was bisexual.<4>

In 1998 Huffington provided the initial grant that launched SOIN (Sexual Orientation Issues in the News)<5> at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communication.

In 2005 Huffington helped to establish a summer fellowship program for LGBT students at Stanford University.<6>

In 2006, Huffington co-chaired the Log Cabin Republicans "The Courage To Lead: An Evening With The Governor" dinner that honored California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 29, 2006. Huffington also personally contributed $1 for every $2 contributed to the Log Cabin Republicans (a 501(c)(4) tax designated organization) for that dinner.

In 2006, Huffington became a Director of 'It's My Party Too'<7>. The group was founded by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman. A moderate Republican organization, it advocated fiscal conservatism, social progressivism, environmental protection and limited government interference in personal matters. In 2007, It's My Party Too evolved into the Republican Leadership Council<8>.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huffington

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

27. The two themes of the new, improved HuffPo

Obama sucks and somebody vaguely famous has their boobies out.

[MineralMan]

28. Arianna Huffington is whatever she needs to be to make a living.

It is that simple. Right now, she is a Democrat. Tomorrow...who knows? She blows with the freaking wind.

I remember her from my California days. I don't care to listen to her any more. I had enough back then.

[depakid]

38. LOL- the woman is wealthy enough that she has no need to "make a living"

Nice try FAIL.

[hendo]

188. It costs a lot to maintain that lifestyle ;) NT

[bvar22]

31. Lets ask Hillary. She would know.

Hillary was the president of The Young Republicans at her university, and may have been a Republican when she met Bill.

[defendandprotect]

176. Hillary is also part of DLC leadership ....why would we vote for more pro-corporate decision making?

[mitchum]

32. She's a Gabor

[Jakes Progress]

34. Let's see. Your argument is

"I don't like what someone says, so they must be a republican."

Sure all republicans write columns about the need to end the wars, about how we need a single payer system, about how the Democratic leadership is too conservative. Yeah that must make her republican.

How very stupid. Now if you don't like what she says, at least learn the difference between right and left and between conservative and liberal. You could always join the DLC bandwagon and brand her a - gasp - progressive.

But instead you confuse policy with personality. Way to invoke Godwin there. Sure, Arianna's editing is just as heinous as gassing a million Jews.

What a crock.

[JamesA1102]

35. No the argument is that

she is undermining a political movement from within. Something that has been done many, many times before. So maybe you're the one being stupid and should pull your head out of the sand.

And conflating what I said with gassing people is really an intellectually dishonest tactic, unworthy of a real progressive.

[avaistheone1]

48. How can Huffington undermine a political movement

when she hasn't written or said anything about Obama that has been false?

However, if you think she has undermined Obama or the Democratic Party please give examples and links.

[JamesA1102]

51. The fact that she doesn't account for GOP obstuction

makes what she writes false. Just read her latest column.

[defendandprotect]

177. What GOP obstruction? When GOP is in minority, they control Congress....

when GOP is in majority, they control Congress --

Just the opposite for the Dems -- when they're in majority, they turn the

Congress over to the GOP!

When they're in the minority -- same thing!

[hendo]

189. Its odd how we do that.

We need to grow a pair and push through our agenda when we control the majority! Damnit, we cannot have the other side dictating our policies when we control the game.

[JamesA1102]

191. OK I guess you're just ignoring the record number of cloture votes

that have been involked by the GOP over the last two years.

[defendandprotect]

201. How many actual "filibusters" by the GOP have you seen . . . ??? Only cave-in's by Dems ....

[JamesA1102]

205. Wow you are really ignorant as to how the system works.

Plus I said cloture not filibuster. Either way the GOP has used cloture a record number of times and it takes 60 votes to proceed. The Dems only had the 60 votes for a brief period between July '09 when the Minnesote recount ended and February of this year when Scott Brown took office after the special election in Mass.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

[defendandprotect]

213. CLOTURE is used to break a filibuster .....

Cloture. The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate ...
www.senate.gov/.../reference_index_​subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm - Cached




Name calling isn't debate -- and I'm sure if I were calling you "ignorant" ....

you'd respect me more ... right?


As we say ... when the GOP is in the minority, they run Congress -- and when the

Democrats are in the majority, the GOP still runs Congress!!


Now, let's get back to the original question . . .

How many ACTUAL GOP filibusters have you seen?

[JamesA1102]

215. 118 times so far

According to that definition and this list: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

[defendandprotect]

219. There have been NO actual GOP filibusters .... only threats ...

[JamesA1102]

223. By the definition you presented

that is a filibuster. Like I said you are really ignorant as to how the system works.

[defendandprotect]

225. A filibuster is by ONE person standing on the floor ... speaking... until he can no longer

stand -- that has not happened --

Again -- we need to have the GOP run an actual filibuster and let the public

hear the reasons they stand against these issues -- all the reasons.

Dems need to force the GOP to actually filibuster--

And, again, personal insults are NOT debate --

Wake up!

[JamesA1102]

226. That's not the definition you presented

nor is it how the system currently works.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

77. I have and you are misrepresenting what I said

I said Nazi-like censorship on her site. That is not a saying someone is a Nazi. And I'm not the first person who has complained about censorship on that site.

And again your original question was BS. I never said that she was writing conservative columns but she does write columns that blame everything on the President which doesn't take into account the whole picture which includes a historic level of obstruction by the GOP.

As far as the personal insults you've thrown at me, I'm refrain from returning any. When you have the facts on your side, you don't need to resort to insults.

[Jakes Progress]

81. You are misrepresenting your own post.

"Nazi-like censorship on her site". If i were to say that your posts were right wing, republican troll writings, I would be deleted because I would have just called you a troll. You can dodge your words or you can fess up. If you want to say Arianna is Nazi-like, then man up and admit it. If you screwed up and got a little over the top, then man up and admit it. But weaseling around and trying to get out of what you said is just tiny.

The BS is not in my original question. It is in your own writing. Here again you try to avoid your own words. You try to say that you never accused Arianna of being conservative. You post "Is Arianna Huffington still a Republican?" And close with the statement that she is "pretending that she was no longer a Republican" . Again I ask if you know the difference between republicans and Democrats and how that relates to conservativism and liberalism? Either you are weaseling again or you just don't know that republicans are the conservative ones. You would know that her complaints about Obama is that he is too conservative and has policies too near those of the republicans.

So do you really not understand, or did you just get all caught up in your real beef with her: "her columns blame everything on President Obama"? Then since this is a Democratic site you had to call her a bad name and republican came to mind.

You can fairly call her someone who complains about Obama's actions. You could call her one of rahm's favorite bad words - a progressive. But you didn't. You went over the top and got called on it. You want to be a big old "My Obama right or wrong" guy, that is cool. We can use you down at the Democratic Headquarters to do some real work. But don't spout off and then squirm out of what you said. Either try to defend it or admit you were out of line. Then get on down to your local Democratic headquarters and sign up. We need bodies more than words.

[JamesA1102]

85. Please stop engaging in semantical minutia and logical fallicies

All you're trying to do is twist my original statements which is frankly tiresome as well as intellectually dishonest. And of course you resort to name calling again which shows you have no real facts that you can argue but instead are trying to create a bunch of silly strawman agruments instead.

[Jakes Progress]

93. Nice try. But shows limited imagination.

First you deny what you said. Then you say it doesn't mean what you said. Then when cornered, you accuse others of doing exactly what you do.

Pathetic.

[JamesA1102]

102. I never denied anything.

You just created a bunch strawman agruments to divert from the OP. You still can't make against a factual argument against the OP so you continue to try to divert.

[Jakes Progress]

108. First, learn what a strawman is.

Then you keep up the bogus argument. You refuse to fess up to making a silly OP. What factual argument can you use to refute a non-factual, totally off-the-wall, opinion-driven OP? Where are your facts? What facts do you present to prove that Arianna is a republican? That was you claim. You know, the claim you then denied making.

Notice that even the usual crowd is avoiding this. They know you are embarrassing their side with this silly Nazi, republican stuff. Best bet would be to back up, think before you post, and try again. Go ahead and trash anyone who questions Obama. You have a dedicated few here that will join you. But you can't go around demanding factual argument to a crapoid OP that has no facts and that you keep trying to dodge.

[JamesA1102]

112. As usual you resort to cheap namecalling.

I presented my case based on her current as well as past behavior. You have yet to make any factual rebuttal and merely attack me instead.

[Jakes Progress]

119. You call telling you that you have no facts name calling.

Oh. And learn what name calling is. What name did I call you? A name is a noun. I used a few adjectives to describe your pathetic attempts to weasel out of your post and your silly reasoning skills. But those are just accurate descriptions of your actions.

[JamesA1102]

129. I have plenty of facts.

Here is a list of them:

1. She was a Republican for many years. She doesn't dispute that.
2. She lied about Al Gore in 2000 in her Washington Times column.
3. She disputed Bush on the war and spending policy but so did other conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
4. She sent an undercover reporter into a private fundraiser to record statements by Obama that he then released online to discredit him.
5. She supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and now goes on shows where George Hill or Joe Scarborough spout GOP talking points about them and she doesn't dispute them or try to correct the record in any way.
6. She blames the economy on the President and the Dems but gives the GOP a pass on its obstruction.

Those are facts. You're welcome to dispute them or bring up any other facts to rebut.

[Jakes Progress]

139. Another word you have problems with.

You have facts like, "The sky is blue" or "Dogs have been known to bite". Your "facts" do not support your position that Arianna is a republican spy/plant or that she behaves like Nazis.

Your number six is your view of how things happen. If I go and find something she has written that says bush was also responsible for the economy and that the gop obstructs, will you apologize to her here on DU for calling her names and smearing her reputation?

Please stop using such silly arguments as "She was a republican who supported republicans at one time so she must be a republican spy". gingrich and graham also supported Democratic candidates when they were Democrats. Does that make them Democrats.

You don't seem to understand that your facts should support your argument. You whine that Arianna blames the lack of recovery on Obama. Her complaints are that he was too timid and too conservative and pandered to the republicans too much to bring a full recovery. She is not saying that we should use the republican ideas to battle the economy, but she is saying that Obama is using republican ideas. She might be wrong on that, but her arguments do not make her a republican.

Why don't you just admit that you were smearing another Democrat with names like republican and nazi, because that Democrat disagreed with the Democrat you agree with. Honesty would help.

(Oh, and I'll be waiting for your promise of a full apology to Arianna before I go into the HP archives. It is messy and wordy in there, and I wouldn't want to spend the time on HuffPo if you were just going to dodge it.)

[JamesA1102]

143. Again you can't refute any of my facts so

you resort to attacking me personally.

[hendo]

190. But your facts

Dont support your case. ANd your facts present a logical falacy.

[JamesA1102]

192. Prove it. nt

[hendo]

196. prove your logical falacy?

I believe that previous posters have already done that.

[JamesA1102]

197. I already have

And presented several facts, none of which you seem able to refute.

[G_j]

46. she doesn't advocate Republican policies

but strongly advocates liberal ones, so no, of course not.

[JamesA1102]

52. But my point is

she is trying to undermine things from within.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Your point is crap.

That doesn't make her a republican which was the "big idea" of the OP.

[JamesA1102]

78. How eloquent of you.

But as Randi Rhodes said, 'If you spend most of your time trashing Democrats, you're probably a Republican".

[Jakes Progress]

79. But as I said, if you go around accusing people

on DU of being republicans, you're probably a republican.

[JamesA1102]

84. How lame

Is that really the best you could come up with?

[Jakes Progress]

91. No. It just matches yours.

[JamesA1102]

103. Epic Fail!!! nt

[Mimosa]

95. It's called False Flag, Jake

And I've seen some flying here.

[Jakes Progress]

97. Come, come.

Mimosa. I've read your posts. Even when we disagree, you are better than this.

Are you saying that Arianna is a secret republican who has started the site and goes around acting like a Democrat as a means of destroying the Democratic party? Don't you find that a little tin-hattish?

Furthermore, the post is not so slyly saying that if I am attacking him as the wonderful Democrat he is, that I am a secret republican. Is that the position you are defending here.

Look. People can be 100%ers and that is fine. You can hate anyone who has a beef with Obama. That is fine. But this OP is just a crock and those who wish to defend Obama to the end, would do well to disassociate themselves from a post that accuses someone the administration calls a "professional progressive" of being a republican with Nazi behavior.

You know it would be just as plausible to act like a 100%er for Obama and be a troll. Just call out every progressive by pissing them off with holier-than-thou preaching. It would serve to divide just as much.

[Mimosa]

98. I'm a ditz...

Jake, I am a dizzy ditz at times. Brain fog.

I didn't mean Arianna was flying a false flag. *eek*

[Jakes Progress]

100. Whew.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Had me a little worried.

[defendandprotect]

178. ... actually, I'm accused of being a "T-bagger" --- !!

[girl gone mad]

80. You're sure spending a lot of time trashing Democrat Ariana Huffington.

I guess that means you're probably a Republican, by your own logic.

[JamesA1102]

83. Can you prove she's a Democrat?

Do you have a voter registration card that says she's a Democrat? Or any other proof that she was ever a Democrat? We know that she was a Republican because she has stated that she was but has she ever staed that she became a Democrat? If so please provide a link to any article, interview or video where she has said so?

[girl gone mad]

86. I take her at her word.

Do you consider yourself a Democrat now or an independent?

I consider myself a Democrat, because although I would love to see third parties thrive in America, I recognize that's not going to happen in 2008.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1820145,00.html#ixzz0zIZFcCJh

[JamesA1102]

90. So she is a Democrat who attacks other Democrats

and lets the GOP off the hook for their obstruction, who lets Joe Scarborough and Maria Bartiromo spew every GOP talking point on the Bush tax cuts but doesn't say a word to challenge them. I think the point is, can we take her word for anything she says.

[Jakes Progress]

92. Give it up.

You just wanted to bash someone who finds fault with Obama's policies.So you called her a republican. Now that is lame.

[JamesA1102]

104. No I'm asking a question

about someone who has been shown to lie in the past to discredit a Dem, namely Al Gore in 2000. She trashed him regularly with lies in her Washington Times column back then. She supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and now doesn't speak up about letting them expire. Yet again today on This Week she sat there and said nothing while George Will spew GOP talking points about extending tax cuts for the rich. I'm just saying that her behavior is odd for someone who claims to be a progressive.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

114. More namecalling.

And I'm getting to the point of reporting you for cyberstalking.

[Jakes Progress]

124. You really need to know the meanings of the words you use.

What name did I call you in that post. I know you don't like having your actions so accurately described, but they are your actions.

And it isn't stalking if I am just replying to your reply. It might be tiresome, but there is a solution.

[JamesA1102]

135. No when you start replying to response I make to others

in other subthreads, that's stalking and harrassment.

[Jakes Progress]

138. Dupe

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

144. Please you arguing with me over 3 sub-thread

Two of which were started by other people where you decided to jump in when I was responding to those other people. You can try to rationalize it all you like by that borders on cyber-stalking and harassment.

[Jakes Progress]

150. Please. Learn how forums work.

[JamesA1102]

153. So now you're blaming the software

for your behavior.

[Jakes Progress]

156. So now you're blaming DU for your paranoia?

Who said anything about software? I said that you should learn how a forum works. When you post something and someone replies to it, that is not stalking. I you don't want to have someone reply to you, you can stop replying to them and put them on ignore. If you keep replying, then don't get so bent when someone replies to you. If you post, you don't get to say who can and can't reply. It has nothing to do with the software; it has to do with how a forum works.

[JamesA1102]

160. It still doesn't explain your cyber-stalking

You're just rationalizing your behavior.

[Jakes Progress]

164. It does explain that you don't know what cyber-stalking means.

You're just exempting your behavior from the norms of society and the internet.

[JamesA1102]

166. You're the one who doesn't know what it means

Which is probably why some of your more abusive posts have been deleted.

[Jakes Progress]

167. Ah. I'm flattered.

Spending time stalking my posts?

Show me one of my posts where I "stalked" you. I wouldn't want you to get all scared or anything.

By the way. You ready to talk about the issue of your OP - you know, the one where you claimed that AH was a republican hiding in her Nazi like site to infiltrate the Democratic party?

[JamesA1102]

171. Actually it's the DU moderators that deleted your abusive posts

Of course if you keep hassasing me across multiple sub-threads more than just posts might be deleted.

[Jakes Progress]

204. If you keep ducking . . .

[LostinVA]

217. That isn't what threadstalking was

Unless I was lied to by a mod.

[JamesA1102]

218. Depends on the mod

They all seem to have a different interpetation.

[Jakes Progress]

96. Since Arianna is a registered Dem, does that make you

a republican?

[JamesA1102]

105. Do you have proof that she's a registered Dem? NT

[Jakes Progress]

110. Do you have proof that she isn't?

Do you have proof that Skinner is a Democrat? Do you have proof that you are a Democrat? What a silly, silly thing to say. Please pause before you snap back replies. You are getting sillier and sillier.

Your only argument is that she disagrees with Democrats. Many of us disagree with Democrats. During the primary, did you support every candidate? Were you an Obama man? Were you a Hillary supporter? Golly, if you complained about Hillary running against Obama, that must make you a republican. See how silly this is? newt gingrich disagreed with george bush. Does that make him a Democrat?

Look. I know you thought it was clever to post questioning whether she was a high-level, double secret republican spy. You went overboard with the Nazi stuff but you still could have pulled it off if you just admitted that you don't like people to disagree with Obama and were trying to be cute. But to keep on defending the ludicrous OP is just stupid.

[JamesA1102]

113. My argument is that she was a Republican for years

to which she admits too. She actively attacked Al Gore in 2000 with lies in her Washington Times column. And let's not forget that the Washington Times is a well known conservative newspaper. She supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and still does not speak out against them. She even lets people like Joe Scarborough and George will spew GOP talking points about those tax cuts without disputing them as she did on This Week earlier today.

And there is an almost Nazi-like level of censorship on her site that many people here and elsewhere have complained about whether you care to admit it or not.

But yet again instead of trying to engage in an adult debate based on facts, you resort to childish namecalling.

[Dappleganger]

125. Your statement is reasonable.

Some people's memories here are quite limited, unfortunately.

[JamesA1102]

131. Very true. nt

[Jakes Progress]

126. Boy. Where to start.

Every time you make a post of more than a sentence, there are a number of problems to discuss.

She used to be a republican. newt gingrich used to be a Democrat. phil graham used to be Democrat. You keep talking about 2001. I can point to posts on DU just two years ago where dozens and dozens of DUers attacked Democratic candidates. People here called Hillary and Barack and John and Al and Dennis all kinds of names and ascribed terrible things to them. Please stop using the fact that she "used to be" something as an excuse for your name calling.

Then you complain that she wasn't effective in combatting conservatives on a conservative-run talk show. Golly. I guess Al must be a republican too because he let republicans say republican talking points repeatedly during his campaign.

Then you really have to stop breaking Godwin's law. Tell me how the editing of posts on HP is like Nazi's. Tell me how those editing procedures is like gassing a race, how here editors choosing what to print and what to delete is like genocide. Do you have any Jewish or gay friends? Ask them to tell you how offensive your statements are.

So. We see no facts from your post. Just suppositions, feelings, and excuses for name calling a person whose views you don't like. Hmmm. Sounds like just what you are saying I am doing.

Oh. And guy. A name is a noun. By definition a name is a noun. You have been disagreed with. You actions have been described as foolish. You have not been called any names.

[JamesA1102]

133. Again you indulge in strawman arguements

Argue the facts that have been presented instead of playing games. My guess is you can't dispute the facts which is why you're resorting to attacking me instead.

[Jakes Progress]

141. Learn what strawman means.

I can't keep up with the dodging path of your "facts". You say something and then deny it, then complain that someone disagrees with you.

Let's cut some of the whirlwind ducking and weaving.

Are you saying that Arianna is a republican who is working to destroy the Democratic party by pretending to be a Democrat?

Are you saying that Arianna behaves like a Nazi when her editors decide what to print and what not to print?

Let me see facts that support those ideas and we can discuss facts. Where is your proof that Arianna is a republican? How is her editing Nazi-like?

The fact that she used to be a republican is not germane unless you can show proof that she still supports republican ideas and republican candidates. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that you were smearing a fellow Democrat that you disagreed with. An apology would be nice, but just admitting error would suffice.

[JamesA1102]

145. I know what it means

and it is what you have been doing from the beginning. You can't refute any of the facts I've stated about Huffington so you try to make me the issue instead.

[Jakes Progress]

151. Not according to the way you are using it.

Refute what? What facts? What "facts" do you give to support your position? I have discussed the lack of correlation between your claims of Arianna's republican spy status and here Nazi ways and your "facts".

I asked you if you were claiming that Arianna is a spy and that here acts like people who commit genocide. Those are things you said in your OP. I was just asking if you still wanted to keep up that nonsense.

But of course, you don't address questions. You whine and you duck and you fuss.

Here are your "facts". Arianna used to be a republican. When she was a republican she supported republican positions. She fusses about Obama now. Those are the "facts" you muster to "prove" that she is a republican plant in the Democratic party. Do you really think that kind of "logic" can go without being attacked. Please comment on the facts that newt gingrich and phil graham used to be Democrats and supported Democratic positions when they were. By your "reasoning" that would make them spied in the Republican party.

More recently than 2001, half of DU and many of the candidates for nominee complained about Obama. According to what passes for reasoning to you that would make Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton republicans along with half of DU.

Again. you have to promise to apologize to Arianna here publicly if I find columns where she praised Obama and where she blames bushco for the economic mess we have. If you do that, I will find the columns for you. I know that I can find them. Along with dozens and dozens of columns where she advocates progressive, Democratic issues against republican issues.

Now you refute my facts that show she isn't a republican, because the crap "facts" you toss out don't prove anything. That is unless you believe that once a republican, always a republican and once a Democrat always a Democrat. You can't have it both ways.

[JamesA1102]

154. So you admit that can't refute any of the facts I presented

Now just admit the rest has just be obsfucation by you and we'll be good.

[Jakes Progress]

157. So you admit that your facts are just your opinion

and some things that don't deal with the issues.

Gee, but it is really getting elementary time here. First you don't know the meaning of words you use, words like fact and straw man and stalking and Nazi. Then you dodge around trying to avoid admitting you said what you said. Then you whine because you don't know how a forum works.

But I can keep educating you. See, you say tHat Arianna is a secret republican spy. That is not a fact. That is your opinion. I disagree with your conclusion that because she used to be a republican that she is still a republican. You don't understand the difference between facts and opinions. Do you even remember what you wrote in your OP?

Your argument is about as sane as saying that Dennis Kucinich is a blue-dog Democrat because he is in the Senate and there are blue-dog Democrats in the Senate. It is a fact that he is in the Senate. It is not a fact that he is a blue-dog - it would be considered an opinion. It is a fact that Arianna was a republican. It is not a fact that she is still a republican - it is your stupid conclusion. Since what I disagree with is not a fact but an opinion, it is not necessary to refute your "facts". The premise of you OP was not a fact.

Get a good dictionary and look up the words. See if that helps.

Now. Let's get back to the apology that you would be willing to make to Arianna for smearing her here on DU if I can show that she has blamed republicans for their part in the financial disaster we are experiencing and show that she has complained about their obstruction. You said she never did that and that was why she was a republican spy. And you really just should apologize to millions of people anyway for tossing around the Nazi term as if you having a post edited out on HP is the equivalent of genocide.

Or you could just admit that your post was a silly cock-up because you didn't like her writings about Obama. Oh. But then that would be using the truth instead of your inane dissembling. You wouldn't want that getting our.

[JamesA1102]

161. No My facts are facts that you can't refute

and I'll add one today:

- Her site pushing polls that put the GOP ahead while ignoring those more favorable to Dems
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/poll-republicans-pulling-further-ahead-of-dems_n_718861.html

So you can either accept the facts or you can ignore them and keep up the strawman arguments & personal attacks on me. I think you'll choose the latter.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dappleganger]

123. It's a valid question

as she used to be a republican.

[Odin2005]

36. She's a sleazy opportunist.

And based on the disgusting amount of unscientific woo and snake oil (Deepak Chopra? :puke: ) peddled there she obviously still believes republican crap about "left-wing dirty hippies".

[RainDog]

44. I agree that Huffington Post is waaay too gossip mag sleazy for my tastes

but that doesn't make her a republican.

some people like the site - more power to them. it's not for me, tho.

[stuntcat]

227. for real, there's a lot of important stuff they could cover

The kind of stuff the selfish "masses" aren't smart or good enough to care about. They're after numbers, like everyone else, because growth is great :eyes:

[Canuckistanian]

45. No, of course not

Despite the rumors about her, since she's started HuffPo, she's hosted a great deal of Obama supporters.

I do question her use of conservative commentators at times, since their views ALREADY get enough media coverage.

But on balance, I think she's a fine progressive.

[JamesA1102]

55. Or maybe she's fooled you into thinking she's a fine progressive.

Randi Rhodes use to say if you spend most of your time attacking Democrats than you're a Republican. Now contrast how much time Huffington spends attacking the President versus calling out the GOP for their obstruction.

Huffington was still a supporter of Bush in 2001 and supported the Bush tax cuts. Has anyone heard her advocating letting them expire for the rich? I haven't and that says a lot to me.

[Raineyb]

67. Why did you bother to ask the question if all you're going to to is complain

about the answers you get (that you don't like)

People who run media outlets are supposed to go after those in power. In case you haven't figured that out that has to include Obama and the rest of the Democrats. You know the ones with the majorities? The ones who are SUPPOSED to be in charge? That they seem to have allowed the Republicans to set the agenda well, that would be a problem that someone with a voice, would point out. Cheerleading by media outlets does not become acceptable because the Democrats are in charge.

[JamesA1102]

75. Because this is a discussion board.

But I disagree about people who run media outlets. Their job is to report the facts, all the facts, not just the ones that feed into the narrative that they decide to construct.

[Raineyb]

127. And yet with all the right winged media out there you make this lame ass post about

Ariana Huffington being a Republican? If your problem is really with media outlets there are bigger, more influential outlets to go after. You chose to go after her. Why? Because you have a bone to pick with her. You're not interested in discussion, and you didn't ask a question your OP was a piss poorly, not really veiled accusation posed in the form of a question. This isn't Jeopardy if you have something to say an actual statement would be more honest than this foolishness you posted.

Furthermore, as you've complained about the answers you've gotten it's painfully obvious that you already have an answer in mind that you're looking for and are simply complaining while waiting for that answer to come up so you can point at it, jump up and down, and say "see I was right!" That does not a discussion make.

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary so you can get your definitions straight before you post so you don't come off sounding so silly.

[JamesA1102]

136. So you resort to attacking me

rather than argue the facts. And you are right there is a lot of right wing media out there, but everyone who they are. It is the rest of the media that we need to be more watchful of because they can be far more effective in spreading propaganda.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

162. I have plenty of facts.

Here is a list of them:

1. She was a Republican for many years. She doesn't dispute that.
2. She lied about Al Gore in 2000 in her Washington Times column.
3. She disputed Bush on the war and spending policy but so did other conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
4. She sent an undercover reporter into a private fundraiser to record statements by Obama that he then released online to discredit him.
5. She supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and now goes on shows where George Hill or Joe Scarborough spout GOP talking points about them and she doesn't dispute them or try to correct the record in any way.
6. She blames the economy on the President and the Dems but gives the GOP a pass on its obstruction.

Those are facts. You're welcome to dispute them or bring up any other facts to rebut.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrSteveB]

53. Please be specific and tell us what Arianna lied about

Or what she was misleading about.

[JamesA1102]

61. I never said she lied

just that she omits GOP obstruction and blames Obama for everything. Her most recent column is an example of this.

[janx]

56. $$$$$$$ n/t

[firedupdem]

59. It's all about the mighty dollar. $$$$$$$$$$ n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. You do realize that without GOP crossover votes, Obama wouldn't have won?

But go ahead and trash one of those who is definitely on our side now.

[JamesA1102]

63. Not trashing but questioning if she is really

on our side. I'm not convinced that she is. The other morning Joe Scarborough and Maria Bartiromo spent over 30 minutes spouting every GOP talking point about how it is bad to let the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire. Huffington came on in the next segment and didn't say a word to dispute anything they had said. Behavior like that makes me question her true motives.

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. She is more on our side than on the right's side.

If she had agreed with Joe and crew you would have a point. But not saying anything is not the same as agreeing.

[JamesA1102]

76. Sorry but they spent at least 30 minutes spewing misinformation

Coming out in the very next segment and saying not one word to refute them is an endorsement of silence. Remember the saying, all that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing.

She supported those tax cuts in 2001 and hasn't said a word supporting their expiration.

[MilesColtrane]

65. Despite her Cambridge degree she's lacking in certain intellectual aspects.

She was opposed to the U.S. intervening in the war in Yugoslavia, and was real concerned that the media was overblowing Serbian war crimes (of course, in retrospect, it was not at all)

That's just one of many statements, stances, and decisions of hers that make me scratch my head in wonder.

Throw into the mix the fact that she has been unable to shed her accent despite living in an English speaking society for over forty years, and I have to conclude that she's just not that bright.

[SoCalDem]

89. For some reason, the Greek accent is a hard one to "lose"

Throughout my life I have met many Greeks, and most have never "lost" that accent completely. In once case, the "English first" children of Greek parents even retained some of that Greek-i-ness:)..Grandma never learned English and she would just hug us & lead us to the kitchen, where she would say "nice..you eat".. and we did:)

[Cleita]

101. My mom couldn't shed her accent (Spanish) either

although she lived more years in the USA speaking only English than she did in her own country. Accents are hard to lose if you start speaking a different language after you enter your twenties, which is when my mom did and I believe probably Arianna did. I, on the other hand, have no accent other than regional in either language because I was raised bi-lingual from childhood.

[MilesColtrane]

117. I believe Ms. Huffington moved to the UK when she was 16 or so.

I'm sure that age has something to do with it, but I think there is something more subjective at work.

Just as some people have a "tin ear" for music - the inability to identify, or sing back different notes - I think some folks can't hear and reproduce the sounds of their adopted language no matter how much they try.

But, I think most people can lose their accents if they really want to, and really work at it.

Michael Dukasis' mother successfully lost her Greek accent because she wanted to be a school teacher.

on edit: I didn't mean to imply that all non-native speakers with accents are not intelligent. I offer you my sincere apology.

[Greybnk48]

69. She's definitely not a Democrat.

[Norrin Radd]

87. The Huffington Post originally present itself as somewhat neutral,

and had conservative bloggers (though admittedly they had more left-leaning or liberal ones). If you look at this archive of their homepage from 2005, at the top you'll see a graphic of a blue star and a red star dueling:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050630084428/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[SoCalDem]

88. Ariana is a publicitican.

She needs publicity to keep the money flowing in

[saltpoint]

99. I sure like her better than her ex-husband, but

she is a well-connected provocateur.

Her site has been a success. She's smart and often funny.

[HCE1947]

107. She is a "CC"

Closet Conservative.

You cannot morph automatically overnight from one philosophy into another. I moved from a Republican into a Democrat when I was in college, but that was simply because I was exposed to ideas and philosophies that I had never previously considered.

She is also a flake, albeit a well-educated one.

My theory is that since she has big bucks courtesy of her multi-million or billion dollar ex-husband, she saw the opportunity to become a liberal watchdog and make some bucks in the process. Hence, the Huffington Post. I do not believe that she is a progressive Democrat, or a progressive independent. Why these programs have her and Mary Cheney on is beyond me.

[depakid]

111. LOL- what a ridiculous thing to say

It's pretty obvious that you've not read much if any of her material over the past 6 years or so- and so have made up your own little conspiracy theory.

[JamesA1102]

115. Well said nt

[JNelson6563]

118. You better believe it!

:toast:

[JoePhilly]

121. Saw her on ABC's "This Week" Sunday ... nothing but right wing talking points.

[yella_dawg]

132. She "changed parties" soon after her divorce.

I've heard suggestions that the change of heart might be a dig at her republican operative ex.

[JamesA1102]

137. She was divorced in 1997 but

in 2000 she was still a Republican conservative, writing a column in the Washington Times and supporting Bush in the 2000 election.

[robdogbucky]

142. Damn all those "Professional Leftists," eh James?

Not gonna be enough room under the clown car you have for all those journalists that have been critical of President Obama. Oops, only one of these is a woman. I'm sorry:


When Peggy Left Barry
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 11, 2010

“…The country is more polarized than ever on race and religion, with a Florida faker holding a complicit media hostage in the Koran-burning pastor disaster. Mosque-baiting Republicans have shown again that they’re willing to tear at the fabric of the country on the issues of 9/11 and national security in order to trample the Democrats.

Obama has been bleeding independents, who flocked to him in 2008 and were the deciding factor in several swing states. The White House is more focused on stimulating the base right now, figuring that the independents won’t be voting that heavily in the midterms.

Among independent voters in 2012, Obama strategists think they have a better chance with women than men because of the president’s abortion-rights support and health care legislation — hence the appearance by the commander in chief on “The View.” And they reckon that he can devote more time to courting the indie ladies after November. ..

…Peggy thinks the president has done fine managing W.’s messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And she lights up at the mention of his vice president, Joe Biden. But she thinks Obama has to get “a backbone” if he wants to lure her back to the fold. “He promised us everything, saying he would turn the country around, and he did nothing the first year,” Peggy says. “He piddled around when he had 60 votes. He could have pushed through the health care bill but spent months haggling on it because he wanted to bring some Republicans on board. He was trying too hard to compromise when he didn’t need the Republicans and they were never going to like him. Any idiot could see that…”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd


Time for This Big Dog to Bite Back
By FRANK RICH
Published: September 11, 2010

“NO, he can’t. President Obama can’t reverse the unemployment numbers by Election Day. He can’t get even a modest new stimulus bill past the Party of No, and even if he could, there would be few jobs to show for it until (maybe) 2011. Nor can he rewrite the history of his administration. Its signal accomplishments to date are an initial stimulus package that was overrun by the calamity at hand and a marathon health care battle as yet better known for its unseemly orgy of backroom wrangling than its concrete results. While that brawl raged, the White House seemed indifferent to the mounting number of Americans being tossed onto the Great Recession scrapheap.

And so the odds that Obama’s party will survive the midterms seem less than Indiana Jones’s in the Temple of Doom — as we are reminded hourly by the Beltway herd flogging the latest polls. The Democrats are facing a “historic” rout, an earthquake, a tidal wave — well, you know the drill. End of story.

Unless it’s not. On Labor Day, the fighting Obama abruptly re-emerged, a far cry from the man whose Oval Office address on Iraq days earlier was about as persuasive as a hostage video. Speaking to workers in Milwaukee, the president finally started giving voice to the anger of America’s battered middle class. And he even let loose with a little anger of his own. The unspecified “powerful interests” aligned against him, he said, “talk about me like a dog…”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12rich.html?ref=frankrich


Curbing Your Enthusiasm
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 29, 2010

Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred?

These questions were inspired by the ongoing suspense over whether President Obama will do the obviously right thing and nominate Elizabeth Warren to lead the new consumer financial protection agency. But the Warren affair is only the latest chapter in an ongoing saga.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a vast wave of progressive enthusiasm. This enthusiasm was bound to be followed by disappointment, and not just because the president was always more centrist and conventional than his fervent supporters imagined. Given the facts of politics, and above all the difficulty of getting anything done in the face of lock step Republican opposition, he wasn’t going to be the transformational figure some envisioned.

And Mr. Obama has delivered in important ways. Above all, he managed (with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi) to enact a health reform that, imperfect as it is, will greatly improve Americans’ lives — unless a Republican Congress manages to sabotage its implementation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman


I'll bet they fried your nuts, eh? You remind me of a one-party, crush any dissent, tin-horn dictator. No one else's opinion ever matters and anyone voicing dissent must be smeared and destroyed.


Crap, DU used to be so good with intelligent people actually debating stuff. Now it resembles a pale impersonation of some cheap tawdry talk show. Kind of like the stuff that happened when our Democrats didn't pass HCR with teeth in it but instead opened the topic to "debate," in town hall meetings all last August. Give the Teabaggers a foothold is what they did. Seems that has spread to here.

Alert on my ass if you want, I don't care anymore.



Just my dos centavos



robdogbucky

[JamesA1102]

146. Interesting that you changed the subject from Huffington.

Guess you can't refute any of the facts I presented about her.

And both Dowd and Rich are really bad examples since they both spent most of 2000 lying about Al Gore to help Bush get elected.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&domains=dailyhowler.com&q=dowd+gore&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&domains=dailyhowler.com&q=rich+gore&btnG=Search&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com

The credibility of both has been suspect ever since.

[robdogbucky]

152. Somebody had to

RE: "Interesting that you changed the subject from Huffington."

After 5 days on this thread of your broken record drivel it, as you know, was to defang your alleged point of AH being only one way, critical of Obama, friend of GOP, etc. Pure rubbish and you have not presented a single fact, other than items you conclude as factual. Only hyperbole and innuendo.

Someone else here may have said these same things to you, this fucking thing is so long and life is so short.



Bye

[JamesA1102]

155. So now you're reverting to personal attacks

since you can't refute any of the facts that I presented.

[defendandprotect]

147. This wouldn't have anything to do with "criticism" of Dems/Obama by any chance????

Interesting attempt at a smear -- but Huffington was once married to a Repug -- who, btw,

turned out to be gay!

That's a very long time ago -- and Arianna Huffington has been a Democrat for almost two

decades I'd guess --

So was Schultz once a Democrat!

Mainly I think there is a strong desire by a few here to shut down criticism of Democrats --

and you're really thinking about this wrong --

Republicans use Republican criticism of issues to move their party and politics to the Right --

Democrats should be doing the same thing -- using our criticism of issues to move Democratic

Party to the LEFT -- !!

That's pretty much how it works!!

[JamesA1102]

149. Two decades??? I don't think so

She was still a republican in 2000 and supported George Bush while lying about Al Gore in her Washington Times column. She was still a republican in 2001 and supported the Bush tax cuts, which she is very silent about today.

[defendandprotect]

159. Divorced in '97 from Michael Huffington. . . and around then "shifted BACK to the left" .....

In discussing simply Huffington's history ....

Here's Arianna attacking both Bush and Gore -- re impoverished children ...

http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/printer_friendly.php?id=266


Huffington's politics began to shift back toward the left in the late 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington

She was involved for nine years -- 1971 to 1980 -- with Bernard Levin who held "passionate

liberal views."

My impression is that she was a former liberal who married a conservative -- when freed

from that marriage, she "shifted BACK to the left." She was, btw, also involved with

Jerry Brown for a time.


Arianna is, of course, simply the messenger --

Schultz was also a Republican -- and one of our strongest Democratic/liberal hosts --

also someone highly critical of Obama/Dems --


This is now someone else added to the long list of Democrats as "enemies of DU/DLC" because

they criticize Obama/Rahma direction and pro-corporate decisions. Judge the issues --

not the messengers.

[JamesA1102]

163. So the fact that in 2000 she was writing for the Washington Times

which was and still is a well known conservative rag doesn't count. And the credibility of the messengers is important.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=huffington+gore&sa=go&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com

[defendandprotect]

182. What you have are empty accusations... based on a need to attack Arianna because

you can't abide someone criticizing Obama --

You're not only trying to smear her with the suggestion that she's a Republican ...

you're trying to suggest that she's actually working -- and succeeding -- at undermining

the entire Democratic Party!!

When you have some evidence that this is all something more than an overactive imagination

-- let us know!



Ironically, I think you're creating an interest here in people defending Arianna --

I don't follow the website -- there are things occasionally interesting to me -- most of

it not.

[JamesA1102]

193. No I have facts which you can't seem to refute

so you've decided to launch personal attacks instead and cyber-stalk thoughout numerous sub-threads.

[defendandprotect]

200. You also have an active imagination re people personally attacking you ...

and those DU'ers here -- including me -- you imagine are "T-Baggers" -- !!

From what I can see of this thread most of us are telling you ... "you have no facts."

[JamesA1102]

207. Yet no one including you

has been able to refute the facts I've presented. And If you take a count most of the people that have responded are agreeing with me. It's only you and one or two other trolls that refuse to give this up. But thank you, since you guys have been so obsessive about this you've help the OP to get almost 3800 views. LMAO!!!

[defendandprotect]

212. When you present facts, we'll refute them ...

And now you're calling me a "troll" --

I'd put you on ignore except I think it would be wiser to see what else

you get involved with here at DU --



Additionally, of approximately 230 posts on this thread -- roughly 75 of them are yours!

That's close to one-third of the thread!

[JamesA1102]

214. OK here's a list of them.

1. She was a Republican for many years. She doesn't dispute that.
2. She lied about Al Gore in 2000 in her Washington Times column.
3. She disputed Bush on the war and spending policy but so did other conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
4. She sent an undercover reporter into a private fundraiser to record statements by Obama that he then released online to discredit him.
5. She supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and now goes on shows where George Hill or Joe Scarborough spout GOP talking points about them and she doesn't dispute them or try to correct the record in any way.
6. She blames the economy on the President and the Dems but gives the GOP a pass on its obstruction.

Those are facts. You're welcome to dispute them or bring up any other facts to rebut.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

222. That's specious logic.

Ed Schultz and Ted Olson are not Arianna Huffington. As far as I'm aware neither lied about Al Gore in a GOP rag like the Washington Times. It is all a matter of credibility.

The core of my message is to question the credibility of someone who is a known liar about Dems to benefit the GOP. Someone who sits silently by while George Will and Joe Scarborough spew GOP talking points. Someone who used underhanded means to embarass Obama during the campaign. And if you're not familiar with the incident then you are either just lying or are ignorant since it was one of the biggest stories in 2008.

Finally, from you're rant it is obvious that you're only defending her because you hate President Obama. That is your sole motivation. But at the end of the day you're defending a millionaire who lied about Al Gore to help George W. Bush become President.

[brentspeak]

168. The new Godwin Law: Not sucking-up to corporate DLC policies = "Nazi-like"

Heil, Mr. OP, heil.

[JamesA1102]

170. So I guess you can't factually refute me

so you resort to personal attacks. How weak!

[hendo]

179. Since with is Arianna a republican? NT

[RandomThoughts]

199. I will say this about huffington post.

the choice of pictures used in articles on that site during 2008 election, and the comments did not match. The choice of pictures were not positive to all candidates on the Democratic side.

[McCamy Taylor]

202. She is a very bad writer. Bad writers find it easier to snark than to form new ideas.

She embraced Obama the candidate, because he was a ready made "new idea".

[Radical Activist]

208. Is Cenk?

He comes from the same perspective. It's sad that the only "left" voices that get funding and promotion are handed to us from the other side. The hegemony continues.

[JamesA1102]

209. Is Cenk what?

If you think he might be a republican, well you're entitled to your opinion. But unlike Huffington I don't beleive that he was ever a republican nor does did he lie about Gore in 2000 so he doesn't have Huffington's credibility problem. Also, while he criticizes Dems he never does what Huffington did last night on the Tonight Show and claim that Dems are as bad as & as much to blames as the GOP.

[Radical Activist]

210. Cenk calls himself a centrist former Republican.

I read it in one of his blogs on Huffpost. And he's constantly saying Obama is nearly as bad as Republicans. Why is so much of his "criticism" of vague hand-wringing about Obama's style instead of specific policy discussion?

[JamesA1102]

211. I don't know that.

I really don't know much about the guy. Just seen him on TV a few times. However, I can't say that he has the credibility problems that Huffington has.

[defendandprotect]

221. Given the way our politics were moved to the extreme right ... that would have made

Cenk a moderate Dem in the past -- !!!

[Ken Burch]

224. I think she's been a registered independent since the rise of Ah-nold.

n/t.

[JuniperLea]

228. She hasn't donated to any candidates...

Unless she's doing it under another name.

[LaPera]

229. NO She's Absolutely NOT!

[creon]

234. she might be

She may be republican. Or, she may be an opportunist, out for what she can get. At the end of the day, I do not need to know which.

I very much prefer Barbara Ehrenreich.

[apocalypsehow]

236. If there was still time to Rec this I would, just for all the entertaining sub-threads...

:thumbsup:

[McCamy Taylor]

238. She rides whatever political wave she can catch. Like a fashion addict

she spends her life trying to be the first person to conform. I think she secretly knows that she has no talent for writing or for original ideas, and it galls her. So, she attempts to make up for her lack of creativity with a lot of snark. Maureen Dowd of the NYT does it better.

[NorthCarolina]

239. I would venture to guess that she is far more progressive than those

continually questioning her motives here on DU. The same can be said of FDL's Jane Hamsher. There is an undercurrent here on DU that continually seeks to disparage anyone and anything deemed Liberal or Progressive.