So much for #10, an end to racial identity politics.
The point here is that the symbolic claim of victimhood and suppression on the being black is hard to claim convincingly when there's a president who's, er, black.
It pretty much proves colour is no bar to the highest office in the land, and hence by implication any other.
Then why is he for reparations, the epitome of racial identity politics?
#9 - His spending programs are so massive cutting govt debt would not happen either.
From the original, "the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice."
i.e. Less debt than under McCain. Not necessarily lower debt overall. I'd say the recession and economic crisis mean no one can honestly promise that, not right now.
The CBO's judgement is likely based on static analysis of Obama's proposed tax cuts ... ie as if they won't have an economic dampening effect.
#8 - His foreign policy ideas would represent a appeasement and fantasy. The idea he could simply sit down one and one with rogue leaders and they'd make nice with him is incredibliy naive. Much more likely they'd see him as weak-kneed as Kruschev did Kennedy - that led us to the brink of nuclear war.
He'd be the president of the US and CinC of the strongest military on the planet, bar none. I think anyone rational would be willing to sit down and talk rather than face annihilation.
All the power in the world is worthless if you don't have the balls to use it. Can you imagine Obama giving an order to "annhilate" a country? I could imagine him doing something like that AFTER a nuclear attack on the US. And maybe not even then. We need to protect ourselves so that something like that DOESN'T happen.
And he's smart and skilled at negotiation
What has he successfully negotiated?
, and objective enough to do it well as he can see the issue from both sides
Which means he'd take that attitude with enemies. And they'd see it as weakness or an admission of the rightness of their opinion.
(did you see the profile I posted from his HLR days?).
Yeah, he was dealing with American conservatives, who despite liberal fantasies aren't monsters.
Talking's historically reliable as a way to settle and avoid wars.
NO! Thats what Neville Chamberlain thought. Worked great, didn't it?
Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Adolf Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. He is showing the piece of paper to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938. He said:
"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...".
Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."
en.wikipedia.org
#7 - yes, we know he view our military leaders as the people to be gotten tough with as opposed to our enemies. More idiocy.
There I think you're just incorrect. e.g. He had an excellent meeting with Petraeus recently, details here if you want,
Message 25115872
According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility... — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command.
I think it's absolutely right that the CinC command the military, rather than follow their lead. That's what makes a democracy rather than a military dictatorship.
Just exactly what has qualifies Obama to be CinC? He has no military experience, little historical knowledge (see his misunderstanding of the JFK-Kruschev talks). He has said the surge succeeded "beyond our wildest dreams" but insists he wouldn't have pursued that strategy if he'd been President. He is indifferent at best to victory or defeat.
#6 - Yes, he has a cool demeanor. He has cultivated that. The whole point of it is to convince people he's not really Marxist, which of course he is.
You assert he's Marxist. OK, I don't see that, I don't think many people in the Democratic party, the US or indeed the world see that. I would describe that as an unwarrantable slur.
If you believe it to be the case do point to something credible (i.e. not just RW blogs) where he espouses or supports uniquely Marxist ideas?
He has written in his first autobiography that he spent his college years seeking out Marxists to associate with. He never really changed that pattern, as seen by his being chosen by Bill Ayers, a self-acknowledged Marxist, to chair his big education grant. He was a member of the New Party during the 1990's - a fringe socialist party operating on the leftish fringe of the Democratic party. Founded by the Democratic Socialists of America and ACORN. Note this Democratic Socialist of America site talking about the New Party:
New Party Update
by Bruce Bentley
The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.
First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.
Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.
chicagodsa.org
Association with Marxists in college and later as an adult, association with a fringe socialist party, talk about redistribution of wealth - a Marxist concept. Yes, he's a Marxist.
He's calm. He's reflective. He thinks before he acts.
He thought about it before buying a house with help from a slumlord's wife? He thought about it when he decided to run for President as a member of TUCC?
#5 "bridge between new atheism and new Christianism" What the heck is that? Why not just say his religion is wishy washy liberalism and that wishy-washy liberals like that?
Actually I wasn't sure about this point, especially in a top ten. I suspect what is meant is that his religion affects his life without defining or programming it, and he is informed without it being his over-riding criterion.
IOW he formally belongs to a religious group but it doesn't affect his life or his thinking. Precisely.
Atheists - like me - will accept religious people as leaders, we'll abide by their decisions, so long as we feel that those decisions are not made solely on the grounds of faith or believe which we do not share. And someone who's both rational and a believer is IMO someone to admire in that respect because they've reconciled what we can't...
Atheists can accept a believer who doesn't take his religion very seriously, doesn't let it affect his decisions. Well, we agree Obama is the guy for ya there.
As for his pastor, I switch off in sermons and I really couldn't say what motivates anyone to do otherwise. I don't see many politicians disowning their pastors when they say something repugnant, though, whether it be liberation theology or homophobic hatred.
Maybe Obama was day dreaming during all of Wrights sermons so just didn't know anything weird was being said. Now we've seen the tapes of Wright speaking and he is, whatever else you say about him, a lively speaker impossible to ignore. No boring, putting people to sleep there. No, it wouldn't be possible to ignore and be unaware of Wright's ideas and message.
#4 - culture war - he's an extremist - not just for abortion, he wants any baby that survives an abortion to be denied care so that it dies. He's more extreme than NARAL. Has promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act - which prevent any regulations of abortion at all.
Official rebuttal.
fightthesmears.com
The rest of the culture war issues are just so irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less whether gays do or don't marry - so as it's important to them and doesn't touch anyone else WTF is the problem, is my attitude. More stable couples is a good thing and I don't see that their genitalia are my concern.
And so on.
The point is, he's younger than that. He accepts what most people under ~45 accept. These pointless divisions are no more his concern than mine.
His being an extremist on cultural war issues isn't a problem to someone who's also an extremist on those issues. I understand. Same sex marraige is a radical change in the institution and is a wedge issue intended to destroy the power of Christianity in society.
#3 - President Palin - would bring a record of successful governance that neither Obama nor Biden have. Great!
More indeed than McCain. Indeed, the mayor of Pissant, Cal (population 17) has more executive experience than all three put together... that's because the Senate isn't an executive branch.
As for whether her career can truly be defined as successful, or what you'd want in a potential president... You plainly think she's a good leader and a success. Well, I disagree so strongly.
Since the campaign thus far, and all the eminent GOP people coming out even before the election to say the opposite have not convinced you, I'll bookmark this and come back in a few years, shall I?
From Hugh Hewitt's blog:
If you only know three things that Sarah Palin has accomplished as Governor of Alaska, it should be these three:
Gov. Palin is a proven fiscal conservative who used her line-item veto to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from the state budget. In considering this accomplishment, keep in mind that the Alaska Legislature is controlled by the GOP, meaning that the funding she cut had already been approved by legislators of her own party. Nevertheless, she made her vetoes stick. Consider, too, that because of the current high price of crude oil, Alaska is enjoying record budget surpluses. It's harder to practice restraint in times of plenty. And look at her entire record over time (more than as revealed by her position on a single bridge): Although Alaska has traditionally been more dependent than other states on federal funding (since the federal government owns such a large portion of the state's property and resources), even the often-critical Anchorage Daily News admits that Gov. Palin has "increasingly distanced herself from earmarking" since 2000, and that her having done so over the past year has been "the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation." Actually exercising fiscal discipline in a time of plenty, at both state and federal levels and against the will of the members of her own party, is a better predictor for how she would actually govern on a national level than ten thousand campaign promises.
Gov. Palin kept her campaign promise to revamp the state's pre-existing severance tax on oil & gas production, replacing a structure negotiated behind closed doors by ethically challenged predecessors and the big energy companies with one negotiated in full public view — and then rebated part of the resulting surplus directly to tax-payers. Severance taxes are a kind of property tax charged on a one-time basis, at the time of production, on subsurface assets (like oil, gas & minerals) which can't be quantified and taxed through regular property taxes. There was widespread resentment and distrust over the version negotiated by Gov. Palin's predecessor with the three big energy companies who've traditionally ruled the roost in Alaska (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and BP). The new version negotiated and passed with Gov. Palin's support was thoroughly disinfected by the sunshine of public scrutiny. Although it's not a "windfall profits tax" — indeed, the base rate only went from 22.5% to 25% — it did permit the Alaskan people to share in a larger portion of the current high prices for oil by raising the additional, progressive portion of the tax from 0.25% to 0.40% on revenues between $32.50 and $90/bbl. Above that, however, the new law actually cut taxes by dropping the rate on revenues above $90/bbl to 0.1%. With the resulting budget surplus, after contributing to the state's fund for that future day when its oil & gas wealth is exhausted, she pressed for and got legislation to rebate a healthy chunk directly to tax-payers on a per capita basis, trusting them to spend the proceeds from this sale of the state's commonly-owned resources rather than trusting government to spend it for them.
Gov. Palin broke a multi-year stalemate over the financing and construction of a $40 billion cross-state gas pipeline that will deliver cleaner, cheaper natural gas to Alaska's own population centers (Alaskans themselves pay some of the nation's highest energy prices), while also delivering gas to the energy-hungry Lower 48. To do this, she had to break the monopoly power of the big energy companies by opening the project to competitive international bidding. Not only has a development contract with a Canadian company now been signed on better terms than had previously been discussed, but the former monopolists — finally spurred by competition — are cranking up their own plan that would not require any taxpayer investment. How precisely this will shake out remains to be seen, but Gov. Palin's vigorous action — calling special sessions of the state legislature and injecting herself directly and vigorously into the process — has ended the deadlock in ways that seem certain to benefit consumers. By this accomplishment, Gov. Palin has done more to advance the cause of American energy independence than any other politician — of any party, and at any level of state or federal government — in this century. But the national media have generally ignored this accomplishment.
.....
hughhewitt.townhall.com
#2 - "conservative reform" via a socialist Pelosi-Reid-Obama led America. More idiocy and like several of the others this claim can't h/b made in good faith.
The quote was "Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. IOW he says a period out of office is needed. After all, if the Democrat government you so fear turns out to be so bad, wouldn't this work hugely to GOP benefit in 2-4 years?
Obama-Pelosi-Reid will have the power to make irreversible changes. Putting lots of young extremly liberal judges on the federal courts. They'll find the constitution doesn't protect gun ownership, does mandate gay marriage (with all that entails for schools, adoptions, churches, rights of free association), restriction free abortion, and much more.
I certainly don't see how you can dispute any of the adjectives he ascribes to the current government.
big-spending
privacy-busting
debt-ridden
crony-laden
I wouldn't dispute that - of course its even more true of the Democratic party, where the criminals don't even resign in disgrace but become respected statesmen - see Kennedy, Frank, Studds, Jefferson, Hastings, and now Rangel and Mahoney.
fundamentalist
intolerant
incompetent
arrogant
The standard liberal diatribes. Liberals are more arrogant and intolerant about their own fundamentalisms.
#1 - there h/b no new terror attacks on America, something no one would have anticipated shortly after 911.
Well, that's due to enhanced security but no need for war on terror there.
AQ has become unpopular in most of the Muslim world. Precisely because we've forced them to fight on their home ground where they kill Muslims.
Source? It's lost ground in Iraq compared with ~2004/5 - but it wasn't even there before the war.
Actually there were jiihadi elements in Iraq before - the leader abu Musab al Zarqawi, for instance. He and his group fled to Iraq from Afghanistan. He planned and launched the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman Jordan from Iraq in October 2002. Iraq also provided a haven for a participant in the first attempt to take down the WTC in 1993.
But the larger point is Iraq acted as an attractant for jihadi elements all over the Arab world. People who would have been fighting us elsewhere if not for Iraq.
Meanwhile radical jihadists are way more common in (e.g.) Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan...
Actually radical jihadis were very common in those countries before the war. The months following 911 were AQ's highwater mark - they enjoyed massive support throughout the Muslim world. In general, they have consideraly less support now. Though it depends on the place.
Anyone successfully found guilty of anything worthwhile in Guantanamo yet, BTW?
Sure. NOt many convictions yet, but the manner of trying them has been up in the air for a long time. Besides, interrogation is more important than the judicial matters.
Locking people up without trial is, you know, so according to the Constitution?
We've always locked up enemy combatants w/o trials. Liberals are on the verge of forcing our soldiers to read Miranda warnings to foreign enemies taken captive. The Constitution was never meant to give rights to foreign enemies. |
