Video: Kerry on Lieberman, Lieberman on Kerry
posted at 8:27 pm on August 20, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Times takes hold of the seven-sided die and gives it a roll. Consensus verdict: the GOP really, truly does want Liebs to win. Here’s hoping.
Joementum rolled onto the set of Face the Nation this a.m. at about the same time Kerry was chatting via satellite with George Stephanopoulos on This Week. Each man was asked about the other.
WaPo retrieves an interesting tidbit from the latest survey:
The Quinnipiac poll also showed that Lieberman has become the de facto Republican nominee. Seventy-five percent of Republicans backed the incumbent, compared with 13 percent for Lamont and 10 percent for Schlesinger. Asked whether Lieberman deserves reelection, 80 percent of Republicans said yes, compared with 57 percent of independents and 32 percent of Democrats.
Question: is he going too far to woo Republican voters? James Joyner notes that Liebs just hired Neil Newhouse, a pollster who, literally, has never had a Democrat for a client. Connecticut’s a blue state last I checked; as such, he might do well to worry a little more about alienating left-wing fencesitters than right-wingers who would sooner burn their ballot than vote for the McGovernite candidate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
You raise a good point, but it seems that Republican voters wooed him first. I think Republican voters saw Lamont, and the puppet masters empowering him, and realized that Lieberman is a far less offensive choice. Knowing that their GOP candidate cannot win the seat they are choosing to back Lieberman. I would guess that Joe is only returning the favor now.
Bellicose Muse on August 20, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Ned Lament almost looks lifelike in that shot.
JammieWearingFool on August 20, 2006 at 9:45 PM
Is that fellow fumbling for Lamont’s “ON” switch?
the wolf on August 20, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Lamont utilizes an optical switch. Just wave a dollar in front of him and watch his lips move.
.
GT on August 20, 2006 at 10:41 PM
Depends on the fence, and/or what they might land in, should they fall.
I’d imagine any rational left-winger can (as Muse mentioned) see behind the green curtain and understand (hopefully) that Lamont is nothing more than a mouthpiece of an angry, child-like and wholly irresponsible party.
I tend to get rolled eyes when I roll-call the (D) party leaders with my rational left-wing friends. I’d hope, and tend to imagine, that the folks in CT are more willing to cast their lot with functional politicians and not with the braying blue bi-peds, so ashamedly prevalent and audible in the teeth of the anti-war cow-catcher.
The key term in this equation, of course, is “rational.”
Though, I do think Lieberman needn’t even worry about trying to woo Republicans. Republicans (again to Muse) understand their party candidate is deep in the weeds and to vote for .. whatever his name is, is as good as a vote for Lamont.
While those right-wingers may not agree with Liebs on all matters, or even most matters, and they may be shivered by the thought of casting their line into the AlGore pond, they do agree on one very important matter – the war v. islamofacism is very real, and very dangerous and the responsibility for such cannot be tossed into the petuli soaked cloud lingering on the port side of the good shipe Americana for proper implementation strictly due to partisen bias (a concept which apparently escapes voters of the left).
As long as Liebs panders not to the right, I think he’s as good as gold. Which would be nice. I’d prefer nothing more than to have the Freshmaker realize that the big turd which was laid during the primary was actually in his pants.
Finally, why is it that whenever Kerry speaks, I get the sense that civility takes a lumbering step sideways.
(wolf, that was hilarious)
yo on August 20, 2006 at 10:47 PM
I half expected Kerry to bring up his service in Vietnam at some point during the clip.
CP on August 20, 2006 at 11:06 PM
All of you, above, were funy and/or right.
JammieWearingFool ‘almost’ is your key word :)
Wolf, he was but then he turned it on and nothing happened :)
Allah, you deserve kudos for posting that Kerry picture (hold on to it – it’s another good one in the series). I think I saw it on Drudge and thought “I wish Allah would get this ’stupid’ face up today” – and voila!
The Republicans simply realize that this is a good man. The Left has shown how much loyalty they ‘possess’. Imagine having to go to war with them in charge. I better not!
I feel so bad for decent Mr. Lieberman having to come across defensive on these Sunday-shows, for no reason whatsoever.
John Kerry, I almost called him Mr. but he doesn’t deserve that. Does he ever listen to or watch himself talk? If I’d be Mrs. Kerry, I’d give him an ultimatum to keep quiet or I’d lock him up. What an embarrassment. He acts and talks as if a long feather is stuck up his ars. He has no idea why he lost.
Entelechy on August 20, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Given that Lieberman (once again) just today called for Rumsfeld to resign as SecDef, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Lieberman “is going too far in wooing Republican voters”.
I always kind of liked Joe even if he was a liberal…. At least he is occasionally nearer to being sane than most liberals… But he lost any potential support from me with that today; even more than when he sold his soul to be AlGore’s VP candidate. Rummy is one of my two favorite people in the current Administration, and I’d back him for President in a heartbeat if he wanted the job.
LegendHasIt on August 20, 2006 at 11:33 PM
I more than half expected Kerry to bring up his service in Vietnam during the clip.
A little more than half. Call it 63%
daveintexas on August 20, 2006 at 11:42 PM
LegendHasIt, I agree with you entirely. Mr. Lieberman is a decent man and liberal.
That Rumsfeld idea was an act of desperation and I think he even regrets it. He was put on the spot and he was already defensive ahead of the question…no matter, it was wrong.
We owe Mr. Rumsfeld so much gratitude and instead he receives nothing but harping. I said before that he could easily have stayed retired on his ranch in New Mexico. Instead he worries and plans day and night for us for now, and for the next 20-30 years. His intellect is incredible!
Entelechy on August 20, 2006 at 11:47 PM
Before accepting Lieberman into the In-Depends ranks think about this scenario:
In November, Democrats are one vote shy of regaining power so, hat in hand, they beg Lieberman to return to the Democratic Party. And he does, because he never really left-it left him. All is forgiven, hugs all around,impeachment proceedings proceed. And the Dems would no longer be the ‘Party Out Of Power’-(POOP).
Doug on August 21, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Don’t both Kerry and Lamont have “on” switches? Gawker reported that Ned also has a “Freshmaker switch”. Kerry voted for “on” switches before he voted against them. Too bad they don’t have “shut up and leave” switches. Ted Kennedy has an “on” switch and a “drink” switch…but no “stop drinking” switch, nor a “keep your pants pulled up” switch. Lieberman has a “monotone” switch. Kos also has multiple switches. He never shuts off so there is no “on” switch, but he does have a “Socialist-Communist screed” switch, a “payola” switch and a “screw them” switch (which has been recently disabled).
Bellicose Muse on August 21, 2006 at 1:48 AM
Doug, whether Mr. Lamont wins or Mr. Lieberman, wouldn’t they still have the same number of POOPs?
Especially since Mr. Schlesinger hasn’t the slightest chance of winning…
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 1:48 AM
Damn…If I’d a known Kerry was in Vietnam I would’ve voted for him! I only thought he was in Cambodia for that one Christmas.
chicagoray on August 21, 2006 at 2:01 AM
Kerry: an Irish word meaning “loser”
BigOrangeAxe on August 21, 2006 at 9:58 AM
I love this logic: I don’t agree with a man’s politics therefore it’s impossible he served his country honorably. Uses way less synapses I suppose.
Lieberman’s in the uneasy position of having his fate balanced on something outside his control–the war in Iraq (You all remember that don’t you? Damnest thing, as a subject it has all but disappeared from right wing blogs and Fox News–Fair, Balanced and in Denial).
honora on August 21, 2006 at 10:09 AM
honora, Mr. Lieberman’s fate will not be ‘balanced’ by Iraq, it will be decided by Republicans. This, my commentary friend, is interesting ‘balance’.
The rats who abandoned him in droves are having convulsions over how to untangle the ‘mess’ they created in the name of hurting Mr. Bush, never mind the country.
Here is what would convince me to give your side a bit more credibility: rejoycing in the capture of Saddam, the votes in Iraq at the risk of death, the killing of his sons and Zarqawi, the uncovering of the British plot before thousands of innocents would have perished, etc. But no, I’ve seen nothing but sadness from your side, simply because this might be good for the other party, never mind those people, our country and the world. This is the crux of your party.
Hint – one can be an opposition party, but one must offer more than harping; you’re all blinded by BDS and have lost all reasoning powers. In these times that is not a positive program for leadership.
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 11:51 AM
I think its called “standing by your vote” when it comes to this country’s security – something most Dems don’t know how to do. I recall there was a show on Comedy Central that perfectly describes the Dems views on most things – Short Attention Span Theater (with Jon Stewart).
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Entelechy: why is it that you can’t accept that people think that Iraq has been one huge snafu, without resorting to the kneejerk of “they are just trying to hurt Bush”? Do you really think that the 60% of the country who now agree Iraq was a terrible mistake, are really just trying to hurt Bush? If so, explain the fact that at the beginning of the war, 60%+ supported the war? You’re saying their view on the war didn’t evolve, just their feelings about Bush?
I don’t harp, I just say that the Emperor has no clothes. Thankfully, I am no longer in the minority.
And you want to talk credibility? Close your eyes and get a picture of Bush swaggering onto that carrier with “Mission Accomplished” swaying in the breeze.
Watching this weekend’s news program was interesting. This is the tipping point. Check out George Will’s and Tom Friedman’s latest columns. Thoughtful conservatives like Will and moderates who initially supported Iraq are seeing the light. Over one hundred people a day being killed in Iraq (in Iraq on Iraq violence); this in a country of 25MM people. When Zarqawi was killed, certainly I was happy; I simply didn’t delude myself that it would make a difference. Tell me I was wrong.
Watch out for this Muqtada, think he is going to look at the Hezbollah model.
Totally new sbj: did you see the 60 Minutes piece last night about the Islamic woman in Holland who wrote a documentary about the shameful treatment of Islamic women? Very interesting. And frightening.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Entelechy, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Golly, I am such an idiot. I keep forgetting: everything done by Democrats is evil; everything done by Republicans is noble. (Joe is of course a Democrat…oh fiddle faddle, why worry my pretty head!!!) You know adopting this measured and reasonable point of view is going to free up a lot of brain space. Maybe I’ll start on that great American novel….
honora on August 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Honora,
Please explain to the rest of us dolts what the Dems plans are (without making references to Bush and “failed policies” – in other words, don’t just say “we can do it better”). All I’ve seen is criticism without a plan (sorry, almost forgot about “cut and run” and “redeployment” – oh yeah, hard line diplomacy…oh, and “we need to stop violating civil liberties”).
Explain how the hell the Dems plan to protect the American people!! I find it hard to believe that Howard Dean, Ned (Flanders) Lamont, Nancy Pelosi, Johnny Kerry, Jack Murtha, Chuckie Schumer… are going to do what it takes to protect us, when all they do is undermine the whole process.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Rick: Did I callyou a dolt? Kneejerk, friend, kneejerk. I am not privy to the plans of the DNC. I have lined out what I would do in another thread. In a nutshell: face the music in Iraq, the idea of a democratic oasis ain’t gonna happen. Either cut your losses–call it cut n run, call it Matilda, it matters not to me–or commit more troops and establish a hard deadline with the Iraqi “gov’t”. No more than 24-36 months. What is not acceptable is this half measure crap.
Reinstate the draft. You want me to have respect for Bush? Fine. He needs to stop making pious statements about freedom and the American people, blah, blah, blah, and make people understand that we are in danger and that means it’s gonna cost everyone something.
Blockade Iran. And in the name of God, institute a Manhatten like project for fossil fuel independence. What the fuck are we waiting for????
Re-build alliances. Yeah, yeah, yeah I know all the problems with our fair weather allies. But we need them, like it or not.
Re-discover diplomacy and propaganda. (Interesting piece in the Sunday paper written by a second generation Pakistani–talked about the genesis of these nutcase jihadists. Point being that these schools–forget what they’re called–that proslytize jihad–thrive in vacuums, e.g. when we hauled ass out of Afghanistan after the Russians left. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but an interesting lesson.) Remember the famous J Q Adams advice: He who tells the best story, wins. We have the best story, we’re not telling it.
Sorry if this is rambling. And I don’t claim my ideas are right or even original. Just think they are worth discussing and beat the hell out of “staying the course”.
Later.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Re-build alliances
Re-discover diplomacy and propaganda
Point being that these schools–forget what they’re called–that proslytize jihad–thrive in vacuums, e.g. when we hauled ass out of Afghanistan after the Russians left.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 1:19 PM
Sorry, screwed up my quotes.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 1:22 PM
As I said above, I am not privy to the policy plans of the DNC. I don’t know if they have any plans!!
So I gave you my thoughts.
In reply to some of your points: when I talk about propaganda, I mean external communication. (With the communications of today I realize it’s not longer a clear cut difference, but still think it’s valid that we have effectively abandoned efforts to counter the jihadist press. I travel a lot overseas and believe me, our story is not getting out.)
Leaving Iraq will not create a vacuum a la Afghanistan–this country was nearly obliterated and started as a true 3rd world country before Russia. The point being that the young Islamic boys were faced with nothing but abject poverty and al Q et al saw an opening–guess I didn’t make that point. Iraq is far more developed and is sitting on a pot of oil.
Also, if the choice is between an open ended commitment and cut n run, I go with cut n run.
We don’t rely on Iranian oil, but we rely on mid-eastern oil. (And the supply/demand situation is all the same in a macro sense, regardless of from whom we buy.) I am not one of those folks who think this whole thing was a result of protecting oil interests, but you know as well as I do that if there was no oil there, this would be a different ball game.
Protecting ourselves: well how about taking that $$ we are spending in Iraq and spend it on port and chem plant security? How about taking our troops out of Iraq so they are sitting ducks for when/if we bomb Iran? How about stopping this goofy and pointless fight about warrantless wiretapping–the feds can get them retroactively, FISA has turned down a grand total of 4 out of over 2000 requests, so what’s the problem? Instead of spinning our wheels over that, root out the leakers from the CIA and the Pentagon. Slash and burn.
I know we don’t agree on a lot, but appreciate your frankness and willingness to engage thoughtfully. I would ask you to do something: ask yourself honestly–I am not respecting a reply–if the Bush policy supporters don’t seem to have a lot of excuses and scapegoats–it’s the liberals, it’s the MSM, it’s our erstwhile allies, it’s the courts. At some point in time, a mirroe is a good investment!!!
Cheers.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 1:41 PM
Lamont pic Fauxtoshopped: A Koz campaign technician desperately attempts to set the Lamontbot-2006 to “Moderate” during a “Face The Nation” station break.
xardoz on August 21, 2006 at 1:48 PM
xardoz, and I thought that only Mr. Bush wares such equipment :)
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Bush may wear equipment, but Lamont is equipment.
Or, if you prefer, Bush uses tools, Lamont is a tool.
xardoz on August 21, 2006 at 2:52 PM
Honora,
Propaganda point: despite your comment about us blaming everybody else for our mistakes, the fact is, it’s hard to get the “story” out when those that we use to get our story out add their own twist to it. With that being said, the Bush administration has been horrible when it comes to dealing with this issue. Instead of getting their story out right away, they wait and react. They are losing that battle.
Iraq/Afghanistan:what do you think will happen when we cut and run? You think the death toll is bad now, wait until we bolt. Whoever takes over that country will have a lot more leverage in that part of the world. Iran is just waiting for us to leave so they can jump across the border. At this point, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we cut and run, the press will just feed on it and there will be story after story about how we jumped in there, failed, and then left all those innocent people to be slaughtered. Also, do we jump right back in if Iran goes into Iraq?? Boy, we will really be loved over there with that move. Don’t you think these poor people deserve a chance? Do you think the majority of people in Iraq want us to just “cut and run”?
Despite what you may think, we have had a lot of success in Iraq. It just happens to be that the press covers the bad only (and the insurgents, militias, etc. know that). These people aren’t stupid, they know how to play the game. It goes back to propaganda.
I almost get the feeling that out of sight, out of mind works better for liberals. Hussein tortured and killed innocent people on a daily basis, but none of that was ever covered by the press because they weren’t allowed to do so. The left, of course, didn’t have a problem with that. I don’t recall any protests against what was going on in Iraq then (correct me if I’m wrong).
Iran: I don’t really understand what your suggestion on this is. Are you proposing a general blockade of that whole region? First, you mention a blockade of Iran, then you discuss that we need to look at it in a “macro” sense (to include the Middle East). What does that mean? I understand that you are referring to our dependence on oil, but I still don’t get what you’re saying. We can’t just flick a switch and stop U.S. dependence on oil overnight – it’s just not going to happen. As for a broad blockade, that will only alienate whatever allies we do have in that region.
Protecting Ourselves: Here we go, thank you for (sort of) answering my question. I always get a kick out of hearing Dems/liberals talk about cutting spending. How can you say something like that when your solution is always to throw money at problems? Regardless, your overall strategy is that of playing defense, rather than offense. You would rather us try to beef up law enforcement at ports and chem plants. Talk about sitting ducks. You are basically telling Al-Qaeda that we know you are coming, but you have to get past our security first; and if you do, we will send the feds to get you (like we did in Yemen – what a joke that was – especially when they were threatened and had to pull out themselves).
As for the FISA courts, yes, you are correct in stating that the feds can get warrants retroactively, but that does not help the NSA program. In order to get any warrant, you must be specific in what it is you are looking for. The NSA program requires searching through countless amounts of information for buzz words and phrases – nothing specific that can be identified in a warrant.
I don’t really even see what the big problem is with this program anyway – especially since it’s designed to protect lives. I don’t know about you, but I love my country and have no intention of doing it any harm. Why the hell do you want to protect people that do want to harm it and kill innocents in the process?? Civil liberties? Life before Liberty, my friend – go look at the Declaration of Independence. It’s pretty clear.
You asked me to go purchase a mirror, but I think it’s you that should. Liberals/Dems have this introspective approach to solving the world’s problems – in other words, if something’s wrong, it’s gotta be our fault.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 3:01 PM
honora: It might interest you to know that a majority of the American people in a poll in the last few days still think handing over control of Congress to the Democrats would weaken our national security and the war on terrorism.
I get really angry when people harp on things like: “Close your eyes and get a picture of Bush swaggering onto that carrier with “Mission Accomplished” swaying in the breeze.” That is a total mischaracterization of what happened on that day. It was “Mission Accomplished” for that Battle Group in their work suporting air and ground troops to dispose Saddam. It never meant our mission in Iraq was over, he said before, then and since this would be a long and difficlt effort.
Further, Rick is right, attacking Bush is NOT a policy, it is raw, vile politics that work against the best interests of this country.
Rick, your post @ 3:01 PM was very good!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 3:13 PM
Rick, so your suggestion is “stay the course” in Iraq?
In answer to some of your questions: the latest polls show that the Iraqis want us out–I know this is hard to believe, but I will find the links.
I agree there is a tendency for liberals to blame the US first; on the other hand, there is a counter tendency among the right to never acknowledge mistakes or wrongdoing. Both are stupid IMO.
What is your strategy to protect us from terror? (Please don’t tell me it to fight them in Iraq–the majority of the violence there now is Shiite on Sunni, we are largely bystanders).
I know this is rather random. Doing this between interviewing job candidates.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 3:42 PM
Honora is right! Let’s get out of Iraq today and we’ll be safer here in America, after all the terrorist will love us for that and we will win the hearts and minds of IslamoFascists when they see we are a weak-sister, cut-an-run, appeasement minded people unable and unwilling to stay the course and win on the battlefield.
After all that is why we won WW-II isn’t it? We just left and they all loved us and we had peace and safety. The Cold War was a lie! There is no IslamoFacsist terrorism! Islam is a religion of peace! And remember, it is all Bush’ fault!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 4:10 PM
Honora, I really appreciate that you’re patient with this board, actively involved in intelligent discussions, informed, polite and that you even bring ideas to the debate. You are the exception in your party and that’s the crux of it.
If I wouldn’t think that these are extremely dire times for our survival, I’d be for granting your party the responsibility of running things for a while, just to find out how really, really hard it is to lead in these times. But, alas, we don’t have the luxury of such experimentation and your ‘leaders’ have been nothing if not puerile in the last 6 years.
First, I don’t care what the percentage is about any group which thinks about anything. “There are lies, damned lies and statistics” – I never remember who said that.
All parties spin polls on anything in their favor. Masses are generally wrong on important issues and it then takes time and effort to make things right.
There is so much more to the war in Iraq: reasons for going, communication, successes, failures, next steps, WMDs or not, oil/energy, Europeans, Russia, China, etc. Some day it all will look very different, even to you.
I agree with the war and don’t believe it has or should have anything to do with WMDs (though you’ll learn more about this in time) or oil. I support it because I detest all tyrants. Not all can be removed at once, but any effort in that direction is noble. I lived under one for half my life. You could never argue with me why they are good. I know you never would do that, but many of your friends have attempted to. I love to ‘eat’ those as hors d’oeuvres.
I cried when the people voted proudly in Iraq, at the risk of losing their lives. In Romania, where I’m from, we all had to vote. But there was only one item on the ballot, Ceausescu. Soldiers were stationed at the door of the voting room but then one could enter a booth. I crossed of the name, folded the ballot and solemnly dropped it into the big box, thanking the soldier on the way out for his services.
But back to the war – idealism alone was not the only reason for being in Iraq. Fighting there instead of here is not bad. More details to clarify as time goes on. Look at this as a tiny part of the WOT. The Iraqis have to sort out what they will do with their country. We’ll have to worry about Iran and Syria.
The troops will not come home, not even should your party take the reign for a while, because it’s tactically grand to have so many troops at two borders with Iran. I believe the next war will be fought with Syria and it’s great to have the troops in that proximity.
There were many mistakes made but you can’t name me one example of a flawless war. Wars are the pits, but often necessary. They must be won on many fronts and this Admin. is doing a poor job on communication/propaganda.
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 4:50 PM
I almost knew I’d mess the quotes up…and sure thing, I did.
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Entelechy: As usual, you did a great job!
I cannot imagine what it must have been like to live in Romania! I’m glad I don’t have first hand experience with that kind of oppressive life. How is Romania doing today? Are they outside the Russian sphere? I haven’t kept up on what is hapening there!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 4:59 PM
I agree with Umnumzana, great post Entelechy.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Umnumzana, thanks for asking – in the name of board-decency and common sense I’ll refrain from writing a novel about the ‘past’ Romania :)
To be sure, I don’t harp on my background for self-significance, but rather to stress the point that those who claim to understand a communist/socialist system, without having lived in one, are out of their league. No single newsreport from the West has ever accurately conveyed what it was/is like to live in such a regime. In time I’ll share more tidbits.
You might find this article worth perusing; it’s a good indication that finally things are looking up for my former compatriots.
I enjoy your comments tremendously. And thanks again for your and your family’s service.
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 5:13 PM
Thank you honora, Rick, Umnumzana et all, for keeping such an important and interesting dialogue going.
Thank you HotAir for the opportunity.
We’re in it together and we must win it!
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM
Entelechy: I cannot sit in judgment of those who informed, there are too many facts not known and who knows how I might have fared in such an environment. But, I can commend and praise those that endured torture, prison and other suffering and refused to inform on others.
I am glad you are out of there and I hope the world will pay more attention to what happened there.
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 7:34 PM
Umnumzana, I’m completely befuddled by your pen name :) Please don’t share if it needs to remain unexplained.
Here is what I received today from a Polish friend of mine”
So, I understand your comment on the ‘informers’. I assure you that I never informed on anyone. Some day, though, I’d like to see the dossier on myself. I left during communism, after a long wait and numerous interrogations to stay, and threats that I’d be raped, homeless, jobless and abandoned in America (haven’t been either); they probably traced my letters and phone calls from here. My parents never joined the party and we suffered professional, monetary and other consequences. None of us were, however, in prison.
Best regards,
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 10:04 PM
Entelechy: Umnumzana is an old Zulu word, and its meaning is something like ‘mister,’ a term I liked because it was always said with quiet and sincere respect for another man; it is like ‘Umfundisi,’ which was a term of respect for Christian ministers/teachers of God’s Word. I learned this from one of several Email pen pals I have in South Africa. I should mention I am caucasian, I just like these respectful ways of addressing other people.
I have read many stories of Christians that were imprisoned, tortured, many killed and their families suffered greatly because of the Soviet Communist system. It was also common when the Nazi’s were in power in much of Europe. I have a great deal of compassion (sympathy for the suffering of others) for people that would not join the Communist Party for religious or political reasons (Solzhenitsyn) and were willing to suffer greatly because they believed in something passionately enough to pay the price.
As money becomes available, I am working with some friends in the Hollywood community on producing a movie about a young man martyred for his faith in Christ, in Molodavia, several decades ago. While his reasons for resistance may have been different than your own, as I said, I respect and admire people willing to stand up to injustice and for their beliefs, and not complain when they have to suffer for those beliefs. I think these people, Christian or not, are exceptional human beings.
Anyway, thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading it very much!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Comment pages: